10 1061@ascehz 2153-5515 0000557

State-of-the-Art Review
State of the Art Review of Emerging and Biogeotechnical

Methods for Liquefaction Mitigation in Sands
Meghna Sharma1; Neelima Satyam2; and Krishna R. Reddy3
Abstract: Earthquake-induced liquefaction causes soil to exhibit fluidlike behavior due to a sudden increase in pore water pressure and a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CORNELL UNIV LIBRARIES on 08/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concurrent decrease in effective stress. The liquefaction can destroy or damage existing substructures and superstructures that results in
considerable economic and human losses. Hence, there is a need for ground improvement in liquefiable soils for liquefaction hazard mit-
igation. Various conventional methods, such as soil replacement, densification, and grouting have been used for liquefaction mitigation
historically. However, these methods are carbon-intensive, uneconomic, and environmentally unfriendly. Recently, some researchers
have demonstrated new techniques that can significantly mitigate liquefaction and achieve cost-effectiveness, are ecologically friendly,
and have less associated disturbances. The objective of this review is to provide an overview and the associated challenges of emerging
techniques that increase the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Initially, the advantages and disadvantages of conventional methods
are discussed to justify the requirement for advanced methods. The rapid evolution of novel materials and techniques, as well as multidisciplin-
ary collaborations, has led to new and innovative advanced methods for effective mitigation of liquefaction. Among these methods, the biogeo-
technological methods that have received great attention recently are discussed in detail. Many studies have reported the effects of biotreatment
on soil properties and liquefaction resistance, factors affecting the biocementation process, and various challenges associated with the biocemen-
tation methods. Finally, additional research directions needed for biogeotechnical methods to be effective, sustainable, and resilient for lique-
faction mitigation in actual field applications are presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000557. © 2020 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Biocementation; Ground improvement; Liquefaction phenomenon; Microbially induced calcite precipitation.
Introduction vibrational energy from underground layers to surface structures.

However, liquefaction leads to serious hazards when permanent
The term soil liquefaction can be elucidated as the transformation of ground movement occurs during earthquakes due to quicksand
saturated cohesionless soil from the solid phase to the liquid phase conditions, landslides with finite displacement, and flow landslide
due to the consequences of excess pore water pressure increases dur- failures (Seed 1968). The history of highly intense earthquakes in-
ing an earthquake. Seed and Idriss (1971) demonstrated that satu- cludes major soil liquefaction events and associated damages,
rated cohesionless soils, such as uniformly (or poorly) graded such selected cases are summarized in the Appendix.
sands, are highly vulnerable to liquefaction. Earthquake-induced liq- The calamity of liquefaction can be reduced by adopting a suit-
uefaction in this type of saturated sand creates sand boils, mud vol- able ground improvement technique to increase the liquefaction re-
cano eruptions, and extensive flooding of discharged water onto the sistance of the potentially liquefiable soils. The conventional
ground. The settlement of buildings and structures can be generated techniques, including cement and chemical grouting, deep compac-
due to the underlying foundation soil liquefaction. In addition, the tion, relief wells construction, and soil reinforcement, have been
damage is associated with underground structures, such as water used for many decades. However, the grouting methods are either
mains, storage, septic tanks, manholes and sewage conduits, and carbon-intensive or environmentally unfriendly, because the chem-
deep foundations (piles) that have drifted up to the ground surface icals can create soil and groundwater pollution (Benhelal et al.
after the earthquake (Ambraseys and Sarma 1969). According to 2013). Densification by compaction is challenging at greater
Seed (1968) and Ambraseys (1973), liquefaction itself does not depths, and it will affect the stability of nearby structures and build-
pose any particular hazard. The liquefied strata at depth act as an iso- ings (Wang et al. 2017). The addition of supplementary cementi-
lator during an earthquake, which hinders the transport of seismic tious material, such as fly ash, rice husk ash, ground granulated
blast furnace slag, and silica fume, is not practically possible for
1
Doctoral Student, Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of field application at greater depths.
Technology Indore 453552, Madhya Pradesh, India. ORCID: https://orcid Various advanced methods have been developed recently to
.org/0000-0002-0351-1637. Email: phd1801204002@iiti.ac.in deal with the challenges of conventional ground improvement
2
Associate Professor, Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute techniques. These advanced methods include the use of novel ma-
of Technology Indore 453552, Madhya Pradesh, India (corresponding au- terials, such as nanomaterials, synthetic fibers, recycled materials,
thor). Email: neelima.satyam@iiti.ac.in biopolymers, and biomaterials (bacteria and enzymes). Recently,
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at bioremediation has gathered attention as a novel, ecologically
Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6577
sound, economic, and sustainable approach. The active bacterial
-1151. Email: kreddy@uic.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 21, 2020; approved on phase of soil is considered as a nucleation site for calcium carbon-
June 10, 2020; published online on August 28, 2020. Discussion period ate precipitation between granular soil particles that improves the
open until January 28, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in- strength and reduces the hydraulic conductivity of the soil leading
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and to effective liquefaction mitigation (DeJong et al. 2006, 2010,
Radioactive Waste, © ASCE, ISSN 2153-5493. 2011; Ferris et al. 1996; Fritzges et al. 2006).
© ASCE 03120001-1 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste
J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

This review focuses on the liquefaction mitigation methods for and several advanced techniques are available or under develop-
cohesionless soils, because these soils are susceptible to liquefac- ment for the mitigation of liquefaction. Table 1 provides a detailed
tion compared with other soils (e.g., silty and clayey sands), that list of the conventional methods of liquefaction mitigation
leads to significant adverse consequences. An overview of various (Hausmann 1990; Huang and Wen 2015; Mitchell and Wentz
conventional and advanced methods and their advantages and dis- 1991; Seed et al. 2001). These methods are, in general, used
advantages is provided. Then, emerging, promising, biogeotechnical alone or in combination to optimize treatment effectiveness.
methods and their basis for liquefaction mitigation are reviewed. The conventional methods are limited in their application due to
Further, the most important factors affecting biocementation pro- site conditions and structural sensitivity to vibration at already de-
cesses in soils are presented. Finally, the challenges and opportu- veloped sites (Gallagher and Mitchell 2000). The soil replacement
nities to advance and apply biogeotechnologies for actual field and in situ densification methods are not suitable for large sites and
applications are discussed. the transportation and replacement of the liquefiable soil are costly.
In addition, the vibrodensification method is not suitable for clayey
soils with >5% fines. Dynamic compaction and blasting are less
effective than vibrodensification. However, conventional grouting

Bibliographic Survey
requires cement and chemical grouts that are environmentally un-
friendly. The permeation of grout at a required location might be a
The published research articles on the conventional and advanced
difficult task. According to the case study reported by Karol
methods for liquefaction mitigation, including biogeotechnical
(2003), the leachate of acrylamide grout showed a poisoning effect
methods and their detailed mechanisms, applications, factors af-
and contaminated the soil and groundwater. The applicability of
fecting, and challenges, have been collected and reviewed.
chemical grouts was questioned after this, and the use of chemical
Initially, Google Scholar was used with keywords including lique-
grout was banned in many countries, including Japan. Grouting
faction, ground improvement, microbially induced calcite precipita-
with deep mixing is advantageous to form columns of soil–
tion (MICP), and biocementation. Subsequently, the peer-reviewed
cement. However, it is difficult to conduct deep mixing in nonho-
articles were searched on Web of Science and SCOPUS with the
mogeneous soils, and the method is expensive to treat the full
title, author, and keywords. The search was carried out by combin-
volume of liquefiable strata. The dewatering, air injection, and drain-
ing the terms as follows: liquefaction and ground improvement, or
age methods are only used to reduce the degree of saturation. These
biocementation, or MICP. Through this bibliographic survey, the
methods do not improve the strength of soil, and lead to the settle-
evolution of scientific research in this area was compiled in
ment of structures during an earthquake. In general, the dewatering
terms of the number of publications and the percent cumulative
and air injection techniques cannot be a permanent solution for the
frequency per year from 1975 to 2020, as shown in Fig. 1. Further,
liquefaction hazard. The soil can become resaturated by groundwater
some important conference proceedings, case studies, books, pat-
recharge if seepage cutoffs do not work properly. In addition, the
ents, and doctoral theses were reviewed. It can be seen that major
piping effect can diminish the effects of dewatering. However, the
research on biocementation and MICP for liquefaction mitigation
precompression method for hydraulic modification is a time-
started in 2006 by DeJong et al. (2006).
consuming process and is not applicable for cohesionless soils.
The structural methods were found to be suitable, but the correct iso-
lation techniques should be applied to resist earthquake loading to
Conventional Liquefaction Mitigation Methods secure the substructure and superstructure against earthquake load-
ing. However, the deep foundations might suffer from differential
When the adequate performance of engineered facilities and struc- settlements during the earthquake, and the shallow foundations
tures cannot be assured under liquefaction prone soil conditions, might result in high total settlements if the zone of liquefaction
the requirement of the engineered reduction for undesirable lique- lies below the foundation level (at greater depths).
faction hazards is generated. There are many conventional methods, The conventional methods consume high energy and are costly,
and therefore, not suitable for application over large sites
(Khodadadi and Bilsel 2012). There are three major concerns re-
lated to liquefaction mitigation measures: (1) how to carry out non-
disruptive liquefaction mitigation at developed sites that are prone
to liquefaction, (2) how liquefaction mitigation has been achieved
cost-effectively at large sites, and (3) how to apply mitigation meth-
ods to achieve low carbon economy that has no adverse environmen-
tal impacts (Huang and Wen 2015). There are >40,000 ground
improvement projects currently being used across the world at a
total expense of more than USD 6 billion/year. Therefore, it is nec-
essary to explore new methods for ground improvement that are du-
rable, consume less energy, are economical, and environmentally
friendly (DeJong et al. 2010).
Advanced Liquefaction Mitigation Methods
Recently, advanced methods have been developed to overcome the

drawbacks of conventional techniques. These advanced methods are
Fig. 1. Evolution of scientific research on liquefaction mitigation using
summarized in Table 2. Some researchers have focused on the use
keywords: liquefaction and ground improvement, or biocementation,
of recyclable materials to achieve low carbon emission methods
MICP.
(Baharuddin et al. 2013). The research into the development of

Table 1. Comparison of conventional methods for liquefaction mitigation
Classification Method Principle/application/advantages Problem associated
Soil replacement Adjustment of the Excavation and removal of liquefaction susceptible Not suitable for large construction sites.
grain size distribution soils. The availability of soil as a replacement of liquefiable
Replacement and compaction for new fills are land is a significant concern.
required. The transportation cost might become higher.
Vibratory compaction of replaced soils is required.
In situ Compaction using a Viobrofloatation and terraprobes are used for Densification leads to the disruption of micro bonds and
densification of vibratory probe densification. cementation bonds between soil grains (aging effect).
soil CPT conducted for densification verification. No significant increase in penetration resistance due to
The method is applicable down to 70 m depths. disruption of cementitious bonds.
It is difficult to penetrate the probe through coarse,
dense, overconsolidated soils and clays (>5% fines).

Sand compaction piles Densification by driving process. Rarely used method due to high cost.
Increment in lateral stresses. Only applied in unusual conditions when other methods
It provides structural reinforcing components. cannot be implemented accurately.
Dynamic compaction It involves heavy tamping by raising a heavy mass to Comparatively less expensive than vibrodensification
a significant height and dropping it to produce high but not effective at greater depths.
impact and vibrational energy. Disruption of micro bonds similar to vibrodensification.
Effective down to 7–10 m depths.
Blasting It can be used to target deeper densification. Nonuniformity in densification compared with
vibrodensification.
Several issues are associated with blasting, that are related
to environmental concerns, the effect of vibrations to
neighboring areas, noise generation, and safety.
Compaction grouting It includes the injection of very stiff cement grout at Increased lateral stresses are released with time.
very high pressure into the ground. Difficult to verify the densification by penetration
This forms grout bulbs via displacing the surrounding testing.
soil particles.
Compaction grouting densifies the soil and increases
the effective lateral stresses.
Solidification and Permeation grouting Grouting agents should be injected in between the Difficult to permeate the grout into the void spaces of
grain bonding soil grains. soils that include 6%–10% fines.
These agents should be in fluid form for easy Silty and sandy soils with different fines percent are
percolation through soil voids. problematic to treat.
Chemical grouts can be provided for finer soils. It is challenging to locate the grout position in treated soil.
Chemical grouts are not environmentally suitable and
might contaminate the groundwater.
Unable to verify the strength gain.
Expensive boring is required to check following application.
Very expensive.
Jet grouting Grout injection is provided using a rotatory probe at Jet permeation depends on soil density, which leads to
very high pressure. the variability of treated column diameter.
Grout jetting creates a cylindrical column of soil– Jet can fully deflect due to the presence of coarse
cement. particles.
Posttreatment verification is difficult and uneconomic.
It is uneconomical to grout large volumes of liquefiable
soils.
It is an uncertain process and should be applied in
combination with deep soil mixing.
Deep mixing It includes the grouting of cement followed by deep Uneconomical to treat the full volume of liquefiable soil.
mixing of it with soil to create the columns of soil–cement.
This is a brute force technique that is advantageous over
permeation and jet grouting.
Degree of Dewatering The degree of saturation can be reduced by lowering The method is difficult and expensive.
saturation the groundwater table. Seepage cutoffs upstream and downstream are needed,
reduction It prevents the generation of excess pore water and pumping must be maintained continuously.
pressure, which leads to liquefaction. Does not mitigate seismically induced settlements.
Air injection It is a potential method for liquefaction mitigation. Generally, this method is not used due to application
The soil pores are partially filled with air that do not difficulties.
allow the increase in pore water pressure during
earthquake shaking.
Surcharge loading or The field is preloaded with a surcharge for The method only applies to cohesive soils.
precompression consolidation. Consolidation of clay is a time-consuming process
Becasue the applicability of precompression depends unless the drainage paths are shortened using drains.
on hydraulic parameters of soils, this is considered as
a technique for hydraulic modification.

Table 1. (Continued.)
Classification Method Principle/application/advantages Problem associated
Drainage Drains Gravel, sand, and wick drains can be provided to It does not eliminate the settlements due to cyclic
relieve the excess pore water pressure. loading.
Successfully promotes significant quick dissipation In situ permeability of soil should be known to provide
of pore water pressures. drains.
It is difficult to determine the in situ permeability of the
soil that significantly affects the required spacing of
drains.
Plugging of drains causes a reduction in the drain’s
ability to dissipate pore pressure.
Drains should be employed with the densification
method.
Relief wells Relief wells or stone columns can be provided to The effectiveness should be verified using field pumping
reduce drainage paths, which allow drainage and pore tests.
pressure dissipation.
Structural methods Deep foundations Piles or piers can be provided down to the depths Differential settlements might occur due to differential
below the liquefaction susceptibility zone. lateral displacement of the structure. Connecting piles
The pile can provide sufficient vertical support, with the foundation can avoid the differential
which reduces the risk of liquefaction produced settlements.
settlements.
Reinforced shallow Grade beams, reinforced mats, well reinforced or
foundations post-tensioned mats, and rigid rafts can be provided.
It can resist the differential lateral and vertical
settlements.
The performance of this system was found to be
acceptable.
new methods is evolving rapidly toward economic and nondisrup- The thermogelation biopolymers dissolve in water at boiling tem-
tive mitigation methods (Towhata 2008). Recently, methods that perature (90°C) and form a hydrocolloid phase. The initial hydro-
involve multidisciplinary approaches and new technologies to in- colloid phase of a biopolymer with lower viscosity is easier to
vent new materials have been developed that are useful for lique- penetrate at the required depth. Slowly, as the temperature of the
faction mitigation. Several nanomaterials [e.g., colloidal silica biopolymer and water solution reduce to <40°C, the hydrocolloid
(CS), laponite, and bentonite suspension], and biomaterials (e.g., phase transforms into the hydrogel phase. The firm hydrogel
bacteria, algae, biopolymers, and bacterial polysaccharides) have forms matrices with soil grains and improves the strength of the
been developed and applied to soil improvement and help to soil strata. Other biopolymers (e.g., xanthan gum and beta-glucan)
achieve liquefaction resistance (Bao et al. 2019). Moreover, new can simply be added to the soil and cured for a few days to deter-
biobased methods have been developed, such as bioencapsulation mine the variation in the engineering properties of sand. This appli-
(soft clay), biodesaturation, bioplugging, biocementation, and bio- cation procedure can be easily adopted in laboratory studies, but for
grouting (Torgal et al. 2015). field applications, it is difficult to provide the thermogelation bio-
In addition, the advanced methods pose various challenges, in- polymer solution at >90°C and maintain this temperature until
cluding field applicability and cost. The supplementary cementitious the process has been completed.
materials, such as fly ash, silica fume, and ground granulated blast Chang et al. (2016) explored that the maximum unconfined com-
furnace slag, can be used to replace the cement fraction for soil sta- pressive strength of 5% gellan gum-treated sand reached 44 MPa,
bilization. The replacement or reduction of the amount of cement is which highlights the application possibilities of gellan gum to ad-
advantageous to help reduce the environmental impact (e.g., green- dress various geotechnical challenges. Simultaneously, the effect
house gas emissions). The recycled materials, such as construction of water on biopolymer (beta-glucan and gellan gum)-treated
waste (crushed concrete), tire chips, and crushed glass, can be used sands was explored in a number of studies (Chang et al. 2016;
in combination to increase strength and permeability in soil. How- Chang and Cho 2014). The negative impact of resubmergence or re-
ever, the uniform mixing of these materials in large field applica- contact of water is due to the hydrophilicity of bonded and dried
tions can be challenging. gels between sand grains. The use of a biopolymer introduces the
Recently, the use of biopolymers has been encouraged to find an plasticity into the sand. Therefore, the cohesion and angle of internal
environmentally friendly alternative to strengthen sand. Initially, friction increases, but when it comes into contact with water, grad-
the use of biopolymers was limited to contamination immobiliza- ual swelling occurs. The explanation for this is the condensation of
tion due to their bioclogging potential. Further, their applicability the biopolymers due to dehydration, which reduces the strength and
as a soil stabilizing agent has been explored. In general, all the bio- stiffness of biopolymer-treated soils. In addition, the biopolymers
polymers, such as chitosan, curdlan, cellulose, starch, beta-glucan, are biodegradable over time; hence, they cannot be used for long-
and xanthan gum, act as thickening and stabilizing agents in soil term hazard mitigation and strength improvement purposes. How-
due to their gelation properties. The thermogelation properties of ever, Chang and Cho (2012) demonstrated that the biodegradation
agar gum and gellan gum biopolymers have shown significant im- of beta-1,3/1,6-glucan polymers resulted in the formation of fibers
provement in the strength and reduction of hydraulic conductivity. that act as reinforcements to strengthen the soil.

Table 2. Comparison of advanced methods for liquefaction mitigation
Classification Method Principle/application Advantages Problem associated Reference
Recycled and Glass An abundantly available A significant increase in The use of cement is Ateş (2016) and
supplementary renewable resource that has a strength can be achieved by required in Dehghan and Hamidi
cementitious minimal hazardous impact on adding 3% glass fiber with combination with (2016)
materials the environment. cement to the sand. glass fiber.
Glass fiber can be used in The void spaces between Field application is
combination with cement. sand grain filled with cement difficult.
and glass fiber interlock all
the surface area.
Tensile or pull out strength
can be increased.
Ductility and flexibility can
be increased to resist axial or

shear deformation.
Construction waste The construction waste, The use of construction Construction waste Otsubo et al. (2016)
including crushed concrete, waste fulfills the ecological should be mixed with
can be combined and used and economical cement to mix it with
with tire chips and crushed requirements. soil.
glass. The use of tire chips
incorporates good
permeability, compaction
ease, and minimum
deformation.
Fly ash Fly ash mainly composed of The addition of fly ash can Fly ash mixing with Das et al. (2009) and
silica and alumina. effectively increase the sand is difficult in Keramatikerman et al.
The particle size range of fly liquefaction resistance. large field sites. (2017)
ash is 0.5–300 µm. Increase in curing time
It can be used as a filler enhances strength.
material in the sand to
mitigate liquefaction.
Shredded tires Discarded tires can be cut The liquefaction resistance Application to large Bahadori and
into small shreds or chips. ability can be significantly areas is difficult. Farzalizadeh (2018),
increased by increasing the Bahadori and Manafi
number of tire chips (2015), Hazarika et al.
A significant decrease in (2010) and Kaneko et al.
relative density can be (2013)
achieved.
Excess pore water
dissipation and reduced
settlement during cyclic
loading.
Decrease in damping ratio
leads to the gradual decay of
seismic waves.
Tire chips can be used in
backfills to mitigate
liquefaction.
Other materials Slag can be used with The use of bentonite with Applicability should Mola-Abasi and
bentonite. slag is economical, nontoxic, be explored. Shooshpasha (2016),
Natural zeolite that contains and environment-friendly. Naseri et al. (2016) and
silica and alumina can solve Significant strength Sabbar et al. (2017)
the purpose of liquefaction improvement and
mitigation liquefaction resistance can
Graphene oxide nanosheets be achieved with sand, slag,
can be used that have a high and bentonite mix.
specific surface area. Zeolite can replace the
cement and increase the
strength of the soil.
The addition of graphene
sheets to silty soil led to
increased cohesion value and
friction angle.
Biopolymers Chitosan It is a degraded stage of chitin It can create plugging It needs to be explored Khachatoorian et al.
and found in cell walls of between the soil particles for further geotechnical (2003) and Wan et al.
fungi. that reduces the permeability applications. (2004)
of cohesionless soils. The use of it is limited
to treat groundwater for

contamination
removal.
Curdlan It is generally produced from The elastic properties of the The studies are limited Harada et al. (1968) and
pathogenic bacteria, for curdlan can be used as for its geotechnical Ivanov and Chu (2008)
example, Alcaligenes bioclogging potential of soil applications.
faecalis and Agrobacterium particles.
biobar.
When the curdlan is heated in
an aqueous solution, it
produces an elastic gel.
Cellulose Abundantly available in The use of natural cellulose The application for Adibkia et al. (2007),
nature. fibers considerably increases liquefaction Annabi et al. (2007),
It is a major component of the flexural and tensile mitigation need to be Maher and Ho (1994)
cell walls of plants. strength of soils. explored. and Sivakumar Babu
It can be used in geotechnical The higher cellulose content and Vasudevan (2008)
applications as a thickener of organic compost leads to
and stabilizer because of its an increase in soil aggregate
gelation properties. stability and reducing
permeability.
Starch It is a polysaccharide. It is a thermoplastic material A limited investigation Carvalho (2011) and
It is naturally available in that can provide uniformly has been conducted for Zobel (1988)
plants (rice, cassava, maize, tunable generated materials. applications to address
wheat, and potatoes). It is an economical and the geotechnical
abundant raw material. challenges.
Gellan gum It is a polysaccharide with The inclusion of it in soil The use of it needs to Ferruzzi et al. (2000)
high molecular weight leads to a high strengthening be investigated for and Khatami and
produced from Spingomonas effect. addressing the O’Kelly (2013)
elodea microbes. Recent research shows that geotechnical
It can be used as a substitute gellan gum (3% of soil mass) challenges.
for agar gum due to similar mixed with clayey soil
properties. exhibited 12.6 MPa
unconfined compressive
strength (UCS).
Beta-Glucan It consists of glycosidic A smaller percent (0.25% of The use of it for field Chang and Cho
linked D-glucose monomers. soil) of β-glucan provides the application is (2012, 2014) and
Naturally found in bran, UCS value of 2,650 kPa, and underexplored. Yun et al. (2006)
cellulose, and in the cells of 0.50% of it yields 4,310 kPa
bacteria, yeast, and fungi. soil strength.
The small addition of it to
soil effectively increases the
Atterberg limits and shear
stiffness (G).
Agar gum It is a polysaccharide that It can be used for the strength Geotechnical Chang et al. (2015),
consists of bonded galactose enhancement of soil, 3% of applications need to Ivanov and Chu (2008)
molecules and extracted from agar gum to the soil mass be further explored. and Khatami and
Rhodophyceae sp. provides UCS up to 10 MPa. O’Kelly (2013)
It can be used as a stabilizer, It significantly increases the
emulsifier, and thickener due sand strength (specifically
to its rheological properties. cohesion) without creating
The thermogelation property any environmental hazard.
allows the generation of
strong gel bonds when cooled
back to room temperature.
Xanthan gum It is a polysaccharide It reduces the hydraulic The applicability of it Bouazza et al. (2009),
produced by Xanthomonas conductivity of silty soil by in for geotechnical Khachatoorian et al.
campestris. filling the voids application remains (2003), Latifi et al.
The undrained shear strength limited. (2016) and Nugent et al.
of soil can be increased. (2009)
Biochar Synthesized biochar The biochar was added at It was observed that the gas The reduction in gas Garg et al. (2020b)
prepared from water 0%, 5%, and 10% in different permeability was reduced in permeability can
hyacinth (coastal degrees of compacted soils biochar added soils as mitigate the
invasive species) (65%, 80%, and 95%). compared with untreated liquefaction, but the
The gas permeability of soil soils. strength needs to be to
was analyzed. enhanced for long-term
mitigation of
liquefaction. The

strength properties
should also be explored.
Lingo-cellulosic The biochar was added 0%, The results of cyclic simple The drained shear Pardo et al. (2019)
biomass (pine bark) 3%, and 5% by sand weight. shear test showed increase in resistance negligibly
derived biochar A simple shear test and cyclic liquefaction resistance of varied after biochar
simple shear test was carried soil. addition. Strength is
out to determine the effect of an important factor in
biochar addition on strength mitigating
and liquefaction resistance. liquefaction for the
The mechanism of long-term.
interaction of water and

biochar was studied through
microcharacterization.
Nanomaterials Colloidal Silica Aqueous suspension of CS Initial viscosity is low. It is challenging to Conlee et al. (2012),
(CS) (particle size 2–100 nm) was Control on gel times. inhibit the sinking of Gallagher et al.
generated from silica acid The higher long-term CS before it comes to (2007a, b), Gallagher
saturated solutions. mechanical stability can be the required location. and Lin (2005, 2009),
CS creates siloxane bonds achieved. This is because of the Hamderi and Gallagher
between soil particles and Less disturbance to high density of CS (2015), Iler (1979),
pore fluid fixing. infrastructure because of the compared with water. Patricia and James
The transport of CS through small size of CS particles. The rate of CS (2002), Persoff et al.
liquefiable soil depends on Low concentrations of CS injection should be (1999) and Spencer et al.
viscosity, CS stabilizer, particles can effectively slow to carry out the (2008)
hydraulic conductivity of mitigate the liquefaction in infiltration down to
soil, and hydraulic gradient. cohesionless soils. the required depth.
The gel formation time Effectively enhance the The damping ratio
depends on CS percent in strength and reduce the variation was not
solution, size of CS particle, permeability. considerable enough
pH, temperature, and ionic CS-treated soils show with the increase in
strength of the solution. reduced ground the content of CS.
deformations due to
settlement and lateral
spreading with the increased
content of CS.
Lower cyclic shear strains
and higher cyclic resistance
ratio found in CS-treated
soils.
The shear modulus increases
with increasing percent of
CS.
Bentonite It is an aluminum The rheological and soil-like Bentonite dispersion Mohtar et al.
phyllosilicate. properties allow bentonite shows high viscosity, (2008, 2013 2014),
It is clay that consists of gel to restrict the sand grain high initial yield Rugg et al. (2011),
montmorillonite mineral. motion during earthquakes. stresses, and reduced Santagata et al. (2014)
The rheological properties of Bentonite with SPP (>5%) gelation time, which and Xu et al. (2016)
bentonite majorly depend on shows an increment in leads to the
clay fraction, pH, ionic cohesion and friction angle nonuniform
strength of water, type of value of bare sand, which transmission and
anion, and cation. further enhances the reduced performance
These factors totally change liquefaction resistance of the in large field
the state of bentonite, for soil. applications.
example, sol The addition of bentonite
(inhomogeneous clusters), increases the number of
sediment, attractive, and cycles up to 10 times for the
repulsive gel. occurrence of liquefaction
Bentonite gel fills the pore compared with bare sand at a
spaces between the sand similar density index and
grain. CSR.
SPP can be added to improve Bentonite increases the
rheological properties. elastic behavior of soil,
Bentonite, with > 5% SPP which delays the excess pore
content, shows effective pressure generation during
penetration in sands. cyclic loading.
Laponite It is a synthetic nanoclay, It introduces high plasticity Field application El Howayek et al.
similar to natural hectorite. to the soil. challenges. (2014), Huang and

Laponite particles are 1 nm It is nontoxic. Wang (2016b),
thick and 25 nm in diameter The sol stage of laponite Mongondry et al. (2004)
that is almost one-tenth of suspension converts into and Ochoa-Cornejo et al.
bentonite’s size. solid-like form with time and (2016)
The small particle size can be bonds the soil grains
compared with natural clay. together.
The application of laponite The increased concentration
with polyethylene oxide and of laponite leads to an
pyrophosphate creates increase in number of cycles
Newtonian behavior in the for the occurrence of
solution, which allows the liquefaction and CSR under

uniform distribution and cyclic loads.
delayed gelation process. The solid-like gel between
soil particles enhances the
shear strength and shear
modulus of soil.
Overall, the use of
nanomaterials in soil
enhances the strength,
compressibility, and
swelling index and decreases
the liquefaction risk,
volumetric strains,
permeability, and
settlements.
Nanomaterials do not affect
the surrounding sites and
structures of developed
areas.
Nanomaterials can be used to
mitigate liquefaction
effectively without causing
harm to the environment.
The usage of nanomaterial is
economical than traditional
techniques.
A small volume of
nanomaterial is sufficient for
a significant strengthening of
soil.
Fibers Short synthetic Recently developed method Peak and residual shear The interaction Haeri et al. (2000),
fibers including the random strength are significantly between the soil and Hejazi et al. (2012),
distribution of synthetic increased by increasing the fiber interface and Ibraim et al.
fibers for liquefaction fiber content. However, the load transfer (2010, 2012), Karakan
mitigation. brittleness index and initial mechanism depends et al. (2018), Liu et al.
The synthetic fiber possesses stiffness decreased. on fiber durability and (2011), Maher and Gray
higher durability than natural The shear strength was orientation, which is (1990), Meddah and
fibers. higher at the 60° orientation difficult to understand Merzoug (2017),
Fiber geotextile can be used of fiber with respect to shear in complex soil Noorzad and Amini
to improve the engineering plane. environments. (2014), Rashid et al.
properties of sand. The length and increase of A detailed study is (2017), Shao et al.
fiber content increase the required on fiber (2014), Ye et al. (2017)
shear modulus and the fabric, length, content, and Yetimoglu and
number of cycles to orderly, and random Salbas (2003)
liquefaction. distribution effects on
The inclusion of fiber the interlocking of soil
geotextile leads to an and fiber and strength
increase in bearing capacity, improvement.
ductility, axial deformation The durability of the
at failure, and reduction in fiber under adverse
geotextile layer dilation. conditions, fracture
mechanism, and
pretreatment required
for fiber need to be
explored.
Note: CSR = cyclic stress ratio; SPP = sodium pyrophosphate.

The cost of the required quantity of gellan gum is 20 times allow the grout to reach the required location. The damping ratio
higher than the required quantity of cement for similar strength variations are not significant. The nonuniform transport and distri-
improvement. Therefore, it is not practical to use gellan gum as bution observed in bentonite dispersions are due to the higher vis-
a soil stabilizer. The use of gellan gum, or other expensive bio- cosity, initial yield stresses, and lower gelation time. When
polymers, will only be possible according to the economy when comparing all three nanomaterials, it can be seen that the use of la-
these biopolymers are commercialized similarly to xanthan gum ponite is beneficial over the other two. The reason for this is the
(a price drop of approximately 90% in 20 years). When consider- comparatively smaller sizes of the particles and the Newtonian be-
ing the carbon emissions and environmental aspects of cement havior of the solution following the addition of polyethylene oxide
and biopolymer treatment, interesting results were found. Chang and pyrophosphate. The delayed gelation process allows for uni-
and Cho (2012) explored the total indirect impact of CO2 emission form distribution in the soil matrix. Field studies are required to
(kg) on the environment. The CO2 emission from 1 t of soil treated further explore the application challenges.
with cement and a beta-1,3/1,6- glucan polymer treatment was The soil reinforcement technique using natural fibers has been
129,180 and 66.72 kg, respectively. Hence, the total cost, includ- well known for many decades. Although, the random distribution
ing the direct material price with the indirect carbon emission ex- of fibers for soil reinforcements is gaining attention again for ground
pense, was USD 2,848 and USD 1,576 for a 10% cement mixture improvement (Hejazi et al. 2012; Michalowski and Zhao 1996). Nat-
and 0.49% beta-1,3/1,6-glucan treatment, respectively. Therefore, ural fibers in random distribution can be a good alternative to in-
from environmental, economic, and engineering aspects beta- crease the liquefaction resistance of sands because they are
glucan can be used for the strengthening of sand. Nevertheless, economical and pollution-free. However, the natural fibers are not
the studies on biopolymers are experimental and at the laboratory as durable compared with synthetic fibers. Natural fibers can only
stage. The field applications for liquefaction mitigation need to be be applied at sites where they are required to help at the initial
explored, considering the biodegradability of biopolymers and the stage, or after construction for a specific time duration (Garg et al.
resaturation effects of treated sands. 2020a). Ni et al. (2019) carried out a study into water retention
Recently, a few studies have been carried out on the addition of and hydraulic conductivity of lignocellulose (natural) fiber-low plas-
biochar to soil from a geotechnical point of view. Biochar is pro- ticity silt composites. The results showed an increase in porosity and
duced by the pyrolysis of biomass under limited oxygen conditions. permeability that enhanced the liquefaction potential of the soil.
Pardo et al. (2018, 2019) and Pardo and Orense (2016) demon- The use of short synthetic fibers for liquefaction mitigation is an
strated that the addition of biochar resulted in a minor, or almost emerging technique that is advantageous in terms of durability
negligible, effect on the drained resistance of sand. However, the compared with natural fibers. Ibraim et al. (2010) and Noorzad
cyclic simple shear test showed that there was a considerable in- and Amini (2014) investigated unreinforced triaxial sand samples
crease in the liquefaction resistance of sands with added biochar. that failed after liquefaction. Although, the reinforced samples re-
This was interpreted that, because of the creation of a complex tained their shape and did not collapse. Wang et al. (2018) explored
chemical network between the biochar and water, the generation the addition of fibers that reduced the pipeline uplift due to lique-
of excess pore water pressure reduced and produced some shear re- faction. Amini and Noorzad (2018) carried out cyclic triaxial
sistance. Barnes et al. (2014), Garg et al. (2020b), and Ni et al. tests on fiber reinforced sands and found that the number of cycles
(2018) worked on gas permeability, and hydraulic conductivity for liquefaction increased with the addition of the fibers. Liu et al.
of biochar amended soils. It was interpreted that, the gas permeabil- (2020) explored the inclusion effects of short fibers, for example,
ity and saturated hydraulic conductivity were reduced with the ad- glass, polypropylene, and basalt fibers on the engineering proper-
dition of biochar to soil. Further detailed studies are required to ties of polyurethane organic polymer-treated cohesionless soil. It
investigate the strength properties of soils with added biochar for was observed that the strength increased, and the brittle behavior
liquefaction mitigation. was greatly improved due to fiber inclusion compared with sand
The use of nanomaterials has shown significant potential to en- that was only treated with a polymer. The higher strength was
hance the liquefaction resistance of the soil. The application of nano- achieved when polypropylene fiber was added to polymer-treated
materials to the sand matrix enhances the shear strength, stiffness, sand, and glass and basalt fiber showed slightly lower strength in-
compressibility, and swelling index of cohesionless soils. In addi- crement. Higher strength and modulus were achieved with the
tion, it decreases the hydraulic conductivity, liquefaction risk, and polymer and fiber reinforced sand. It has been proved through pre-
settlements. Strength improvement through the addition of nanoma- vious studies that the addition of synthetic fibers to soil enhances
terials is an environmentally friendly technique that does not cause the strength, shear modulus, and liquefaction resistance. The cur-
disturbance to the surrounding sites or structures. When comparing rent research focuses on various fiber fabrics, lengths, and the di-
the cost of conventional grouting solutions (cement and chemical) rection of placement of the fiber. A soil stabilized by the orderly
and nanomaterials (CS, bentonite, and laponite), the cost of nanoma- and disorderly placement of fibers has a different effect on the
terials can be relatively high. Nanomaterials have been found to have strength properties and fracture mechanisms. The higher the tough-
a better price/performance ratio than conventional materials that are ness and ductility of fibers, the higher the liquefaction resistance of
used for chemical grouting. However, the unit price of nanomaterials the stabilized soil. Moreover, the use of short synthetic fibers is a
will be higher (Huang and Wang 2016a). The better price/perfor- cost-competitive method compared with stabilization using other
mance ratio is due to the lower amount of nanomaterials that are materials. In addition, the variable weather conditions do not signif-
needed to achieve significant improvements in strength for similar icantly affect the short synthetic fiber-treated soil. However, the
grouting conditions and the void ratio of soil. In addition, it is ex- problem related to field execution must be solved for large-scale
pected with time that the improved and advanced methods for the applications. These execution problems are related to lack of scien-
manufacture of nanomaterials will be developed, which will decrease tific standards, the bond between sand and fibers, and fibers clump-
the price of them. Hence, as a recently developed method, the utili- ing and balling. Future studies are required to explore the failure
zation of nanomaterials in geotechnical engineering applications has mechanisms and the durability aspects of fiber-stabilized soils
the potential to be economical and environmentally friendly. Never- under severe site conditions.
theless, the challenges related to the field application of nanomateri- All of the methods explained have their advantages and disad-
als need to be resolved. The sinking characteristic of CS does not vantages. The use of supplementary cementitious materials and

recycled materials requires the addition of cement, and does not by-product of the MICP process:
solve the purpose of an environmentally friendly approach. How-
ever, the biopolymers are environmentally friendly and have Urease
CO(NH2 )2 + H2 O → 2NH3 + CO2 (1)
been shown to result in liquefaction resistance for treated sands,
but the cost is relatively high compared with other methods. The The ammonia mole further generates ammonium and hydroxide
biopolymers are biodegradable and have shown reduced strength ions that affect the pH of the solution
when they come into contact with water. Finally, short synthetic fi-
bers can be used with a number of bonding agents and nanomate- 2NH3 + 2H2 O ↔ 2NH+4 + 2OH− (2)
rials to achieve cost economy, sustainable, and environmentally
friendly applications. Bicarbonate and carbonate ions are generated due to the reaction
To overcome these challenges, biogeotechnologies that are of carbon dioxide with hydroxide ions
based on biological processes are being explored for soil improve-
CO2 + 2OH− HCO−3 + 2OH− ↔ CO2−
3 + H2 O
ment, including liquefaction mitigation. These methods are receiv- (3)

ing significant attention and are increasingly being investigated by
researchers worldwide (Fig. 1). The biogeotechnical methods are The bacterial surface act as a nucleation site that gets attached to
discussed in detail in the following section, along with various fac- the calcium ions and generates cell-attached calcite precipitation in
tors that affect the biological processes and their application for liq- the following two equations, respectively (Stocks-Fischer et al. 1999):
uefaction mitigation.
Ca2+ + Cell Cell − Ca2+ (4)
Cell − Ca2+ + CO2−

3 Cell − CaCO3 ↓ (5)
Biogeotechnical Methods for Liquefaction Mitigation
The recent collaborative trend in research has led to the combination Many urease producing bacteria are found in soil. Sporosarcina
of multidisciplinary knowledge, such as geotechnical engineering, pasteurii is a master bacterium that produces the urease enzyme
biotechnology, and geochemistry to evolve a new discipline that and is the most commonly used bacteria in soil biocementation pur-
is known as biogeotechnology. The multidisciplinary approach of poses. S. pasteurii is a soil-based, alkalophilic, gram-positive, non-
biogeotechnical methods has resulted in vast applications for this pathogenic bacteria that ensure the environmentally friendly
process (DeJong and Kavazanjian 2019; Kavazanjian and Karatas behavior of bacteria (Bang et al. 2001; DeJong et al. 2006). Several
2008). Various geotechnical challenges can be mitigated using other bacterial strains produce urease enzymes and have been ex-
plored by other researchers to find a suitable strain for MICP.
this approach, including liquefaction mitigation. The various studies
The recent research studies include the use of Bacillus sphaericus,
on the liquefaction resistance improvement of liquefiable soils
Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus lichenformis, Bacillus megaterium, and
through biomineralization are summarized in Table 3. As listed in
Proteus vulgaris (Gat et al. 2014; Helmi et al. 2016; Jiang et al.
Table 3, the approach of biotreatment via MICP uses two strategies
2017; Moravej et al. 2018; De Muynck et al. 2010; Sharma et al.
or concepts that are related to biostimulation and bioaugmentation.
2019; Whiffin 2004).
The biostimulation process uses the natural microbial habitats of
The detailed and simplified process of MICP is shown in
soil. These microbial habitats are resilient to robust environmental
Fig. 2, it shows the continuous steps for the microbial and reagent
conditions and might have existed intrinsically and biologically
treatment of sand. The poorly graded sand [Fig. 2(a)] was filled at
for approximately 3.5 billion years (Stotzky 1997). In 1 g of soil
a predetermined relative density into a PVC column or plastic
sample collected from 1 m depth, the bacteria and archaea count
tube, and the bacterial solution was left for 6–24 h to allow for at-
is approximately 2 × 109/cm3. The count of these prokaryotes de-
tachment to the sand surface [Figs. 2(b and c)]. Then, the sand was
creased to 1 × 108/cm3 with an increase in depth between 1 and
treated with a reagent solution up to a certain duration for the uni-
8 m from the ground surface. The presence of prokaryotes is ubiq-
form formation of calcite and sufficient strength gain [Fig. 2(d)].
uitous in a subsurface sediment layer, which is approximately 2.3 × Fig. 2(e) shows the biocemented sample after 18 days of contin-
107 cells/cm3 from 10 to 300 m and 6 × 106 cells/cm3 from 300 to uous treatment every 12 h. The scanning electron microscope
500 m (El Mountassir et al. 2018). The microbes are either urease (SEM) image in Fig. 2(e) shows the formation of calcite on and
producing or denitrifying bacteria, which allow for the biostimula- between the sand grains. The sand column method has been
tion for calcite precipitation (Gomez et al. 2014a). Although all bac- adopted by some researchers for the laboratory treatment of cohe-
teria are not urease producing or denitrifying, in this case, sionless soil (Cheng et al. 2017; Choi et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2018;
bioaugmentation will be required for the biological treatment of Whiffin et al. 2007; Wu 2015).
soil (van Veen et al. 1997). The strength and stiffness enhancement of biocemented soil has
Table 3 includes three major approaches to the biocementation been explored by some researchers to analyze the liquefaction resis-
process: MICP, denitrification, and enzyme induced calcite precip- tance of MICP soil treated using the bioaugmentation of bacterial
itation (EICP). strains (Aishwarya and Juneja 2018; DeJong et al. 2006; Feng and
Montoya 2017; Lee et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2013; Montoya
et al. 2013; Riveros and Sadrekarimi 2020; Xiao et al. 2018; Zamani
MICP
and Montoya 2019; Zhang et al. 2020). The biostimulation using the
The microorganisms present in soil produce MICP as a binding agent MICP approach has shown a significant improvement in liquefaction
between soil grains, through their metabolic activity in the presence resistance (Burbank et al. 2013, 2011). Several previous studies have
of nutrients, urea, and a calcium source (DeJong et al. 2006, 2010; been carried out to investigate the unconfined compressive
Ivanov and Chu 2008; van Paassen 2009; Stocks-Fischer et al. strength of MICP-treated sand that showed a significant improve-
1999; Whiffin 2004). The metabolic activity of bacteria produces ment in strength (Cheng et al. 2013, 2014 2017; Choi et al. 2016,
the urease enzyme that hydrolyzes 1 mol of urea into 2 mol ammonia 2017; Gomez et al. 2018b; Li et al. 2018; van Paassen et al. 2010b;
and 1 mol CO2 in the following equation, ammonium is the Al Qabany and Soga 2013; Whiffin et al. 2007; Zhao et al. 2014).

Table 3. Summary of studies on biogeotechnical methods for liquefaction mitigation
Approach of
biotreatment Methodology Test details Results References
MICP approaches
Biocemented sand B. pasteurii, presently known as The laboratory experiments on The CIUC tests results of DeJong et al. (2006)
response to undrained S. pasteurii, was used for MICP. biocemented sand, including biocemented samples exhibited,
shear Cementation solutions were isotropically CIUC were carried high shear stiffness and ultimate
subsequently provided to increase out. shear capacity with
the cementation between sand non-collapsible strain-softening
matrix. shear behavior.
Biostimulation to Laboratory and field investigation Cone penetration testing, cyclic Significant improvement in Burbank et al. (2013,
strengthen liquefiable were carried out on biocemented triaxial shear test, soil sample liquefaction resistance was found. 2011)
soils soil through indigenous microbe. collection for calcite content.

Dynamic response of S. pasteurii was used for MICP. Geotechnical centrifuge test was The liquefaction resistance was Montoya et al.
biocemented sand conducted to examine increased with significant (2013)
cementation uniformity and reduction in excess pore water
dynamic response of biocemented pressure. Rock like behavior of
sand. biocemented sand was observed.
Shear stiffness increase MICP treatment was carried out in The monitoring was conducted Calcite precipitation was found Martinez et al.
of biocemented sand half-meter-scale column using spatial and temporal uniform in column and resulted in (2013)
experiments using 1D flow. observations, which include shear shear wave velocity of 140 m/s of
S. pasteurii was used for wave velocity, hydraulic untreated sand to 600 m/s for
bioaugmentation. conductivity, calcite content, biotreated sand. A significant
bacteria cell concentration, and reduction in hydraulic
aqueous solutions of calcium, conductivity was observed.
ammonium, and urea.
Effect of calcite Ottawa 50–70 sand bioaugmented The distribution of calcite A similar amount of calcite Feng and Montoya
precipitation distribution with S. Pasteurii for MICP precipitation was analyzed in precipitated sand showed different (2017)
on liquefaction treatment. The material behavior similar calcite precipitated shear wave velocities, which
resistance was analyzed corresponding to samples. Cyclic triaxial testing denote the effect of distribution of
MICP treatment to quantify the was conducted to establish the calcite precipitation. The sample
level of cementation concerning relation between shear wave with higher shear wave velocity
shear wave velocity. velocity and liquefaction showed higher liquefaction
resistance. resistance as compared to lower
shear wave velocity.
Cyclic resistance of Sand was treated with S. pasteurii Cyclic direct, simple shear tests The results showed increase in Aishwarya and
biotreated sand for MICP. were carried out. cyclic resistance and decrease in Juneja (2018)
pore pressure ratio with the
increase in calcite precipitation.
Biocementation of MICP method was applied using Cyclic triaxial tests were A significant increase in Xiao et al. (2018,
calcareous sand for S. pasteurii and cementation conducted. liquefaction resistance was 2019)
liquefaction mitigationsolution. observed.
Biocemented silty sandsSilty sands with 0%–35% fines Cyclic direct shear testing was The results indicated that Zamani and
undrained cyclic were used for biotreatment. A conducted to explore the variation liquefaction resistance effectively Montoya (2019)
response preshear void ratio was fixed at 0.7 of liquefaction resistance from increased for all fines percentage
± 0.05 to examine liquefaction untreated to biotreated silty sand tested. The specimen with 5%
resistance improvement. The samples. fines showed metastable structure
biotreatment was carried out using that is sensitive to cyclic loading.
S. pasteurii and chemical solutions The cyclic strength of silty sand
until the shear wave velocity was significantly improved
reached approximately 400 m/s. through MICP.
Application of MICP on Sporosarcina ureae was used for Cyclic direct simple shear tests 67% increase in cyclic resistance Riveros and
Fraser river sand bioaugmentation. and bender element tests were was found in MICP-treated Sadrekarimi (2020)
carried out. samples than untreated sand.
Biocemented calcareous S. pasteurii was used to treat Shake table testing. The results demonstrate that the Zhang et al. (2020)
sandy foundation calcareous sandy foundations, natural frequency, shear wave
evaluation which are liquefaction prone under velocity, and shear strength of soil
dynamic loading. was increased after MICP treatment.
Liquefaction resistance S. pasteurii was used for P and S wave velocities The results demonstrated that lower Lee et al. (2020)
of lightly biocemented biotreatment of poorly graded measurement, and undrained level of cementation could
sands Ottawa F-65 sand. cyclic shearing was conducted in effectively enhance the number of
dynamic cyclic simple shear cycles required to trigger
(DSS) apparatus. The effect of liquefaction (3% single amplitude
lower level of biocementation, shear strain). The results denote that
having shear wave velocity less with the increase in shear wave
than 100 m/s, on triggering and velocity by 25 m/s, a 10-fold
post-triggering of liquefaction. increased number of cycles is
required to trigger the liquefaction.

Approach of
biotreatment Methodology Test details Results References
MIDP approaches
Mechanical effects of The experimental investigation The effect of fines content and The results denote the evidence of Rebata-Landa and
biogenic gas generation was carried out using P. nutrient availability in different gas generation, nitrogen gas Santamarina (2012)
in soils denitrificans for biogenic nitrogen soils was explored on gas formation, and entrapment in clays.
gas generation in various soil generation and P wave velocity. The generated gas volume was
types, monitoring of nucleation of related with specific surface of
gas bubble inside the soil matrix, bubble formation and affect the
and assessment of the variation of degree of supersaturation.
P wave velocity in time. This increases the liquefaction
resistance of soils under cyclic

loading.
Liquefaction mitigation Denitrification process was used Shaking table testing was carried The results demonstrated that the He et al. (2013a)
using biogas for N2 gas generation using out on fully saturated sand and pore pressure in partially saturated
Acidovorax sp. sand entrapped with biogenic sand was less compared with fully
nitrogen gas. saturated sand. Hence, the method
is significant for liquefaction
mitigation.
Microbially desaturated Undrained triaxial compression The test results indicated reduction He and Chu (2014)
soil under undrained and extension tests were carried in degree of saturation of loose sand
monotonic loading out on desaturated sand under from 100% to 95%–88%.
static monotonic loading Strain-softening to strain hardening
conditions, to evaluate of desaturated sand has also been
liquefaction behavior of treated seen. The study justifies that the
sample. biogenic gas generation can
significantly mitigate the
liquefaction under static monotonic
loading conditions.
Two-stage approach Denitrifying bacteria were used to Bench-scale column tests were Biogenic desaturated was Kavazanjian et al.
including denitrification carry out two-stage process. First carried out with triaxial and cyclic observed through P wave (2015) and
stage belongs to biogenic gas simple shear tests. The measurements, at the start of O’Donnell et al.
generation for desaturation and geophysical measurements of P denitrification process. S wave (2017a, b)
second stage belongs to and S waves were taken for measurements indicated the
precipitation of calcite for desaturation commencement improvement in small strain
increasing the shear strength and identification. stiffness with calcite formation
dilatancy for liquefaction over time. The triaxial testing
mitigation. results indicated increased shear
strength and dilatancy because of
calcite precipitation. The cyclic
simple shear tests denote the
capability of desaturation and
calcite formation to enhance the
resistance of soil under cyclic
loading.
Biogeochemical model The model was developed to The model was calibrated with The results demonstrated that the O’Donnell et al.
for strength simulate the amount of calcite laboratory column experiment modeling highlighted the (2019)
enhancement using formation and biogas generation results under nonflow conditions. significance of minimum
denitrification method through MIDP. The aim was aggregation of nitrite acid in full
liquefaction mitigation using completion of denitrification.
microbial denitrification. The Calcite precipitation enhances
model considers all experimental shear strength and static and cyclic
results including, nitrate and stiffness. Desaturation suppresses
acetate loss, accumulation and the excess pore water pressure
consequent nitrite loss, calcite generation. Thus, improving the
precipitation, pH decrease, gas cyclic shear resistance of
generation, growth, and decay of cohesionless soil.
biomass.
EICP approach
Liquefaction resistance EICP treatment was carried out on Undrained cyclic triaxial tests The treatment resulted in enhanced Simatupang et al.
enhancement through varying sand particle sizes, were conducted on biocemented liquefaction resistance and (2018) and
EICP confining pressures, calcite samples. increased small strain stiffness Simatupang and
percent, and degree of saturation with increase in calcite content. Okamura (2017)
during calcite formations. The
effect of treatment on liquefaction
resistance and small strain stiffness
was examined.
Note: CIUC = consolidated (isotropically) undrained compression.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Fig. 2. Detailed MICP process: (a) untreated discrete sand particles; (b) bacterial solution and the attachment of bacteria onto sand surface after a few
hours of exposure; (c) sand column setup for continuous treatment of sand with reagent solution; (d) the formation of calcite between sand grains
because of periodic treatment; and (e) biocemented UCS specimen and SEM image of calcite crystals.
Denitrification or Microbially Induced Desaturation 5CH3 OH + 6NO−3 3N2 ↑ + 5CO2 + 7H2 O + 6OH− (10)
and Precipitation
The second approach listed in Table 3 is denitrification, commonly The produced nitrogen gas from the previously mentioned car-
known as microbially induced desaturation and precipitation bon sources is the most significant for denitrification purposes.
(MIDP). This is a two-stage process that provides mitigation of liq- Moreover, other organic electron donors, for example, acetate
uefaction during earthquakes. Stage 1 includes desaturation via bi- (CH3COOH), protein (C10H15N3O3), and endogenous biomass
ogas generation (He et al. 2013a; He and Chu 2014; Rebata-Landa decay (C5H7O2N) have been used to generate nitrogen gas
and Santamarina 2012), and Stage 2 provides the formation of cal- (O’Donnell et al. 2019). Nitrogen gas is chemically inert, is less
cite (MICP). Desaturation provides short-term mitigation of lique- soluble in water, abundantly found in the atmosphere, and is non-
faction. However, MICP significantly improves the engineering toxic for the environment, and carbon dioxide is highly soluble in
properties of soil and provides long-term liquefaction resistance water and does not support the desaturation process (He et al.
(O’Donnell et al. 2017a, b). The effective application of MIDP 2013a, b; Rebata-Landa and Santamarina 2012).
has been explored in a number of studies that found a significant Denitrifying bacteria use nitrate as an electron acceptor to
improvement in liquefaction resistance (Kavazanjian et al. 2015; achieve the metabolic pathway. Several denitrifying bacteria have
O’Donnell et al. 2017a, b; O’Donnell et al. 2019), as mentioned been used including Paracoccus denitrificans, Acidovorax sp.,
in Table 3. Desaturation occurs due to the generation of nitrogen Pseudomonas denitrificans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomo-
gas through the reduction of nitrate. The complete process of deni- nas stutzeri, Alcaligenes, Thiobacillus, Spirillum, Achromobacter,
trification can be described in the following redox reaction: Micrococcus, Denitro bacillus, and Castellaniella denitrificans
(Carlson and Ingraham 1983; Kavazanjian and Karatas 2008;
Martin et al. 2013; van Paassen et al. 2010a; Zhu and Dittrich 2016).
2NO−3 + 10e− + 12H + N2 + 6H2 O (6)
EICP
The biological MIDP process depends on the type of denitrifica-
tion bacteria, the availability of a carbon source (electron donors), The third approach listed in Table 3, is EICP that is a new soil sta-
anaerobic conditions, and the availability of terminal electron ac- bilization technique that can significantly improve the engineering
ceptors (nitrogen oxides) (Saggar et al. 2013). The generation of properties of soil without causing any environmental degradation.
biogenic gases, for example, nitrogen and carbon dioxide with dif- The urease enzyme is commonly found in the form of a hexameric
ferent carbon sources (ethanol, dextrose, glycerol, and methanol, protein in plants. The urease enzyme act as a catalyst in the urea
respectively) are shown in the following reactions (Wu 2015): hydrolysis process, as previously mentioned in the MICP process.
The reaction takes place in a strongly alkaline environment and
produces calcite precipitation. EICP does not require any bacterial
5C2 H5 OH + 12NO−3 6N2 ↑ + 10CO2 + 9H2 O + 12OH− (7)
inoculation or cultivation procedures. The growth of bacteria in soil
might continue even after the treatment of the soil, which can neg-
atively affect the ecosystem in the MICP process (only in the case
5C6 H12 O6 + 24NO−3 12N2 ↑ +30CO2 + 18H2 O + 24OH− of pathogens). However, the average life span of urease is lower,
(8) and the activity of the enzyme can naturally degrade over time dur-
ing the EICP process (Pettit et al. 1976). The urease enzyme is
available from chemical suppliers, although it is very expensive.
5C3 H8 O3 + 14NO−3 7N2 ↑ + 15CO2 + 13H2 O + 14OH− (9) Research is still ongoing to determine a cheaper alternative to the

urease enzyme. Few researchers have used the EICP method bioclogging was further explored by Chu et al. (2013). It can
for soil stabilization (Almajed et al. 2018, 2019; Hamdan and be interpreted from the results that the permeability reduces
Kavazanjian 2016; Kavazanjian et al. 2017; Kavazanjian and with the increase in calcium carbonate precipitation. In addition,
Hamdan 2015; Phua and Røyne 2018; Simatupang and Okamura it was recommended that a minimum of 9.3% of precipitated cal-
2017). The study carried out by Simatupang et al. (2018) using cite (w/w) was required to initiate bioclogging in sands.
the enzyme showed significant improvement in liquefaction resis- van Paassen (2009) demonstrated that the initial permeability of
tance. However, the strength enhancement was lower compared sands reduced up to 60% at approximately 100 kg/m3 calcite pre-
with the MICP and MIDP techniques. cipitation after biotreatment. Ivanov et al. (2010) reported a
50%–99% reduction in permeability after biotreatment using 1 M
reagent solution concentration. Al Qabany and Soga (2013) re-
Comparison of Three Biological Approaches
corded a 20% reduction in initial permeability at 2% calcite content
When comparing the MICP, MIDP, and EICP approaches, it has using 0.50 M reagent solution for biotreatment. It was interpreted
been found that MICP is a suitable approach for the liquefaction that the higher concentrations (0.50–1 M) of reagent solution led
of mitigation, due to the following: (1) the MICP technique uses to the formation of a larger size of calcite crystals that clogged
the bioaugmentation of nonpathogenic bacteria, (2) during the bio- the pores and significantly reduced the permeability. Accordingly,
stimulation process of MICP, indigenous bacteria in the soil are the lower reagent solution concentration (<0.50 M) showed less re-
stimulated, which is not harmful, (3) MIDP depends on MICP duction in permeability. However, higher concentrations resulted in
for the long-term mitigation of earthquakes, (4) EICP does not localized clogging and nonuniform calcite precipitation (Mujah
show higher strength and stiffness, and (5) EICP is expensive et al. 2019). Hence, it is beneficial to use a lower reagent concen-
due to the high cost of the enzyme. tration when a lower reduction in permeability and uniformity in
The biogeotechnical methods work on nature’s biology concept, calcite precipitation is required. Mahawish et al. (2018a) explored
which includes using living organisms for biocementation. Various the effect of continuous biochemical treatments on permeability.
factors will affect the biogeotechnical process, especially in field They found that the permeability reduced up to 40% after 4 bio-
applications, where it can be difficult to control the biocementation. chemical treatments. The decrease in permeability exponentially
The factors that can significantly affect the biogeochemical process varied with the increase in the number of biochemical treatments.
during biotreatment include the type of bacteria (Sharma et al. The exponential reduction was observed up to 24 biochemical treat-
2019), the cell density of bacteria (Wen et al. 2020), the size of ments after the permeability was marginally reduced. The biocemented
soil particles or type of soil (Rebata-Landa 2007), reagent solution sample sustained approximately 3.76 × 10−6 m/s permeability, which
concentration (Sharma et al. 2019; Wen et al. 2019), pH (range
is required to dissipate the pore water pressure in the soil. Hoang
8–9.5) (Dupraz et al. 2009; Fujita et al. 2004; van Paassen 2009;
et al. (2020) investigated the effect of MICP on permeability. They ob-
Stocks-Fischer et al. 1999), and temperature (range 25°C–60°C)
served that at 13%–16% calcite precipitation, the decrease in perme-
(Whiffin 2004).
ability was 3–4 log. Sharma et al. (2020) performed a study on the
strength enhancement of poorly graded sand using bacteria and blue
Effect of Biocementation on Soil Water Permeability green algae consortia. The results showed unconfined compressive
strength improvement up to 919 kPa with 16% of calcite precipita-
Calcite formation in voids of porous soil media decreases poros- tion when maintaining the significant permeability. The permeabil-
ity, increases the flow resistance of water, and creates new prefer-
ity reduction in biocemented specimens was 35% after 16 days
ential flow paths for the transmission of cementation fluids
treatment using a 0.50 M reagent solution.
(Cheng and Cord-Ruwisch 2014). The precipitation of calcite
The biocementation technique is advantageous over the conven-
leads to a decrease in the permeability of sands. The MICP tech-
tional usage of cementitious materials, for instance, ordinary Port-
nique is advantageous over traditional methods, because this
land cement (OPC), because it retains the permeability of the
method effectively results in low permeability and improved
biocemented specimens. Cheng et al. (2013) carried out a compar-
strength. The permeability reduction is generally not so low that
ative study on OPC, and MICP-treated sands. They observed that
it impedes the injection of cementing media for strength enhance-
ment. Hence, additional biotreatment can be carried out in cases the reduction in permeability of OPC-treated specimens was due
that require higher strength. Permeability retention allows contin- to the formation of insoluble hydrates in voids because of pore
uous or periodic treatments for strength enhancement and an in- water and cement hydration reaction. Simultaneously, the reduced
crease in liquefaction resistance (Whiffin 2004). The improved permeability of biocemented specimens was because of the precip-
strength, while maintaining the permeability, can be achieved itation of calcite crystals in sand voids. These crystals do not signif-
without creating a disturbance to the soil and nearby structures icantly affect the volume of pores compared with the hydrates.
(Kucharski et al. 2006). The comparative details of previous stud- Therefore, biocemented specimens retain significant permeability
ies are listed in Table 4. that allows liquid flow through the treated sample.
Whiffin et al. (2007) demonstrated the effect of biocementa- It was observed from the previous studies that the range of per-
tion at different scales for ground improvement. The results meability reduction varied widely from 30% to 99%. The variation
showed significant improvement in strength with a permeability of reduction in permeability at similar calcite precipitation in differ-
reduction of approximately 30% after the biotreatment. In con- ent studies might be because of the formation of calcite crystal of
trast, Whiffin et al. (2007), and Ivanov and Chu (2008) devel- different shapes and sizes. The morphology of calcite crystals var-
oped the concept of bioclogging, a method for the significant ies due to biogeochemical reactions and environmental factors.
reduction in permeability or hydraulic conductivity of sands. The main factors that affect the MICP process include the type of
The results demonstrated a significant decrease in hydraulic con- soil, type of bacteria, bacterial cell density, reagent solution
ductivity from 5 × 10−5 to 1.4 × 10−7 m/s in loose, clean, cohe- concentration (equimolar and nonequimolar), reagent solution
sionless soil specimens following biotreatment. This denotes injection method, reaction time, treatment duration, pH, and tem-
the possible application of this method as wastewater sealant perature (Mahawish et al. 2018b; Al Qabany et al. 2012; Zhao
for ponds in agricultural treatment and landfill sites. Similarly, et al. 2014).

Table 4. Previous research on hydraulic conductivity reduction in MICP-treated sands
© ASCE
Reagent solution concentration

Initial
Calcium permeability Permeability after
Urea (M) chloride (M) Bacteria Urease activity Type of soil Calcite content (m/s) treatment (m/s) Reference
−5 −6
1.1 1.1 S. pasteurii OD600: 1.583 Activity: Itterbeck sand The reduction in permeability was 1.92 × 10 9 × 10 (average) Whiffin et al. (2007)
0.23 mS/min not related with calcite content.
Maximum calcite content was
approx. 100 kg/m3 at 100 cm
distance from injection point.
1.5 0.75 Bacillus sp. 2.7 mM hydrolyzed urea/min Ottawa sand 2.1 kg/m2 4 × 10−4 3.5 × 10−7 Chu et al. (2013)
0.1, 0.25, 0.50, 0.1, 0.25, S. pasteurii OD600: 0.8–1.2 Silica sand 8.9% 1.98 × 10−4 1.18 × 10−6 Al Qabany and Soga
and 1 0.50, and 1 (2013)
1 1 B. sphaericus OD600: 1.5–2 Silica sand 0.143 g/g sand 9.2 × 10−5 2 × 10−5 Cheng et al. (2013)
1 0.45 Bacillus sp. — Ottawa sand 7.7% 1.0 × 10−4 1.06 × 10−6 Choi et al. (2016)
0.333 0.05 S. pasteurii OD600: 0.8–1.2 Nevada sand 3.8% 5.04 × 10−5 2.45 × 10−6 Zamani and Montoya
(2017)
1 1 S. pasteurii OD600: 3–3.5 Poorly graded approximately 25% 2.22 × 10−3 3.76 × 10−6 Mahawish et al.
coarse sand (2018b)
0.15, 0.25, and 0.15, 0.25, S. pasteurii 2, 5, and 10 mM urea/min Silica sand 13%–16% 10−3 Approx. 10−6 Hoang et al. (2020)
0.50 and 0.50
0.50 0.50 Consortium of algae N. OD600: algae N. commune Narmada sand 14.40% 2.74 × 10−6 to 1.88 × 10−6 Sharma et al. (2020)
commune with S. 2.250, S. pasteurii- 1.316, 4.6 × 10−5
pasteurii and B. sphaericus 2.258
03120001-15
Consortium of algae N. 16% 1.78 × 10−6

commune with B.
sphaericus
J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

Historically, biogeotechnical methods have been investigated in using biostimulation and bioaugmentation processes in identical
saturated sands, and the effect of biocementation on unsaturated tanks of diameter 1.7 m. The results showed that comparable
soils remains underexplored. In general, the hydromechanical pro- strength and calcite precipitation was achieved by both processes,
cesses in unsaturated soils are more complex than saturated soils and that the shear wave velocity of highly precipitated regions
(Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993). The fundamental characteristic of was achieved at >960 m/s. It was interpreted that the biostimulation
unsaturated soil is the soil water retention curve (SWRC). Recently, process has significant potential because the bacteria present in the
Saffari et al. (2019) explored the effect of a biotreatment using soil are urease producing.
B. sphaericus on the SWRC of fine and coarse-grained soil. The re- Overall, from previous research studies, it can be seen that
sults demonstrated that the higher concentration of bacteria in large-scale and field testing requires more attention, especially, for
coarse-grained soils generated a higher air entry value. However, liquefaction mitigation applications. As listed in Table 3, and
when the bacterial concentration in fine-grained specimens was in- from previous research studies, the significant improvement in lique-
creased, it showed an initial increase and further decrease in air faction resistance was found (especially in laboratory studies), be-
entry value. It was concluded that the reason behind the difference cause the method works on nature’s biology concept, for example,
in the behavior of fine-grained soil was due to the change in the po- natural lithification. However, considering the microbial phase of
rous structure of soil and the thickness of the double layer. soil using the concept of diagenesis is a time-consuming process.
The studies were carried out to expedite the process by providing
a sufficient quantity of nutrients and the required chemicals in the
Scale Effects soil. The microbes present in soil bridge the soil particles together
Many small-scale laboratory studies have shown the successful im- through the biomineralization of calcium carbonate between the
provement of soil properties and liquefaction resistance using bio- soil grains. The biocementation leads to the improvement of the
logical processes, mainly with MICP. In addition to these studies, strength and stiffness of soil that increases the liquefaction resistance
few large-scale laboratory experiments and field trials have been of the soil. However, most of the studies were small-scale and were
carried out to investigate the scale-up effects on the MICP process. carried out in a laboratory under controlled environments. Therefore,
van Paassen (2009, 2011) demonstrated a step-wise approach in further research is required to explore the liquefaction potential of bi-
which the biocementation experiments were scaled up from 1 to ocemented soils under nonsterile and environmentally uncontrolled
100 m3 in cohesionless soil samples. Initially, a container size conditions that are representative of actual field conditions.
0.9 m × 1.1 m × 1 m was filled with sand and bioaugmentation
was carried out using S. pasteurii. Then, the bioaugmented sand
was sequentially flushed with 8 batches of 0.5 M cementation solu- Application of Biogeotechnical Methods
tion in 3,500 L volume (equimolar concentration of urea and cal-
cium chloride) for up to 50 days. Subsequently, a large-scale trial This review focuses primarily on the recent advances made in bi-
was conducted in a large container on 100 m3 sand using 100 L bac- ogeotechnical approaches to improve liquefiable soil. Since lique-
terial solution. Then, 1 M cementation solution of 100 m3 was faction predominantly occurs in sands and silts, this review
flushed through this using injection and extraction wells for up to focuses especially on environmentally friendly, sustainable, and
12 days. The biocementation method partially succeeded because economic approaches. The biogeotechnical methods are specifi-
only 43 m3 sand precipitated and bonded with the calcite. The bio- cally dependent on the geometric compatibility of the microor-
treatment resulted in enhanced unconfined compressive strength ganisms and soil structure. The size of the microorganisms
(≤12 MPa), stiffness, and reduced hydraulic conductivity. How- generally varies between 0.5 and 3 µm (Madigan and Martinko
ever, the calcite precipitation was found to be heterogeneously dis- 2003). The transport of microorganisms through the soil matrix
persed throughout the biocemented sample, which negatively depends on the size of the pore throats (DeJong et al. 2010;
affected the strength and stiffness increment uniformity. Mitchell and Santamarina 2005). The movement of the microor-
Another field experiment was carried out by van Paassen ganisms is inhibited in fine-grained soils that contain a significant
(2011) to investigate the effect of biotreatment on borehole stabil- amount of silt and clay (particle size < 2 µm). Moreover, the mem-
ity in gravels. The results of the electrical resistivity test before and brane of the microbial cells might be punctured or suffer tensile
after treatment showed limited resolution, and it was difficult to failure due to the interaction between the cells and soil sediment
find evidence of the precipitated calcite. No significant difference (Rebata-Landa and Santamarina 2006). Hence, MICP using bio-
was observed before and after the biotreatment. It was interpreted augmentation does not apply to soils in which the pore throats
from this field trial that biogeotechnical methods are not favorable are smaller than the microbial cells. Currently, MICP is applied
for gravels. to silty sand, sand, and gravel (DeJong et al. 2013).
A three-dimensional treatment technique was developed by Moreover, the advanced methods listed in Table 2 can be ap-
DeJong et al. (2014) for the field implementation of MICP. The plied to clayey soils according to the feasibility of ground improve-
technique includes a pattern of repeated 5-spots injection/extraction ment, the availability of materials for strength enhancement, and on
wells for the biotreatment of sand, considering the experimental the project requirement or project type. In addition, the inclusion of
layout of 3 m × 3 m × 0.15 m. The targeted treatment zone by fibers with silica fume is gaining attention to stabilize expansive
each spot was 0.5 m × 0.5 m × 0.15 m. The results demonstrated soils (Tiwari et al. 2020; Tiwari and Satyam 2019, 2020). However,
the transformation of biogeochemical spatial and temporal varia- Table 5 gives the multidisciplinary approaches of biogeotechnical
tions during the treatment. The sampling wells and sensors (bender methods that have resulted in the vast application of the process.
elements) were used to analyze the transformations. The scaled The various engineering applications include strength or bearing
model effectively captured the complex treatment conditions re- capacity improvement, oil recovery enhancement, restoration of
quired for biomediated ground improvement. However, the full- old buildings, reduction in hydraulic conductivity of fractured
scale field applicability was not examined. rocks, biotreatment using wastewater that is rich in calcium con-
Bing (2014) carried out biotreatment in a 1 m3 tank under a content, rock permeability reduction, contamination immobilization,
trolled laboratory environment, and 93% cementation efficacy was and erosion control. The application of consortia of bacteria and
achieved. Gomez et al. (2017) explored the large-scale application algae have recently gained attention. Sharma et al. (2020) explored

Table 5. Other applications of MICP process
Application Study area Bacteria used Test details Results Reference
Microbial Field application 1. Simulation of Various field and laboratory The process found to be Finnerty and Singer
enhancement of oil endogenous microbes experiments were carried effective in recovering oil (1983)
recovery 2. Injection of microbes out to find the successful with lower viscosity. Calcite
which are capable of working of MICP process. precipitation also reduces
performing in situ Gases, acids, and formation the damage of area in well
of surface-active products bore.
were measured.
Microbial plugging Laboratory B. pasteurii and S. ureae The experiments were The results showed that Gollapudi et al. (1995)
for reduction in flow investigation carried out to explore the thorough bioplugging
rates of permeable probability of bioplugging (resulting in nil flow rate)
sands of highly permeable could be achieved by

channels under different providing nutrient solution
conditions. in a cohesionless soil-filled
column containing microbe
within few days.
Protection and Laboratory and Heterotrophic bacterial Laboratory experiments The biocementation recreates Le Métayer-Levrel et al.
reclamation of field communities or were conducted to find a material that is almost (1999)
limestone in old applications biosimulation eligibility for most active similar to the limestone
structures bacterial strains. The substrate, which signifies the
different nutritional natural microbial mediation,
solutions were used to including the formation of
stimulate the metabolic many limestones naturally.
pathways for aerobic The consecutive
conditions. measurements, observations,
and life-size experiments
denote the applicability of
biomineralization in
industrial constraints.
Calcium-rich Laboratory Ureolytic microbe The appropriate The calcium removal of Hammes et al. (2003)
industrial investigation concentration of urea and almost 90% was achieved
wastewater flow rate were determined during the experimentation
treatment by batch experiments. period. The pH of effluent
remained at a reasonable
level throughout the
experiments.
Strength Laboratory S. pasteurii, P. vulgaris Shear strength, stiffness, Koolschijn sand showed a Whiffin (2004)
enhancement in soil investigation of calcite content shear strength of 1.8 MPa
strata biocement and stiffness of 250 Mpa,
production in representing an 8-fold and
sand 3-fold respective
enhancement in strength
compared with untreated
sand.
Laboratory to S. pasteurii Strength testing on Significant amount of van Paassen (2011) and
pilot-scale laboratory prepared strength improvement was Whiffin et al. (2007)
applications samples to CPT and SPT found in 5 m long column,
testing on field applications 1, and 100 m3 experiments.
Although no significant
increase was found in field
application while
performing CPT and SPT
before and after treatment.
Large-scale Biostimulation of native Shear strength testing, shear The results showed the Gomez et al. (2014b 2017,
experiments bacteria and wave velocity observations successful application of 2018a, b 2019)
bioaugmentation of during and after treatment, biostimulation of native
S. pasteurii dynamic cone penetration ureolytic bacteria and
testing bioaugmentation of S.
pasteurii. The similar
variations in the chemistry
of aqueous solution and
after treatment calcite
formations at meter-scale
experiment. The simulation
of native microbe was found
more dominating in
augmentation tank also at
the end of 8 days treatment.

Application Study area Bacteria used Test details Results Reference
Fractured rock Field S. pasteurii Permeability measurements The results indicated Cuthbert et al. (2013)
permeability investigation successful application of
reduction MICP to decrease hydraulic
conductivity of fractured
rock under field conditions.
Internal erosion Laboratory S. pasteurii A series of constant The erosion and axial Jiang and Soga (2017)
control in gravel– investigation pressure internal erosion deformation were found
sand mixtures for using large 1D tests were carried out on negligible in soil treated with
earth-filled column untreated and MICP-treated >0.4 M reagent solutions.
embankment dam apparatus gravel–sand mixtures. The The limited reduction in
visual investigation, permeability was observed

hydromechanical behavior with the increase in reagent
analysis, and erosion solution concentration. A
characteristic observations significant increase in
were used to explore the permeability was measured
effect of low to high (0.2, in untreated and biotreated
0.4, 0.6, 1.0, 2.0 M) reagent with low concentration of
solution concentrations reagent solution after the
used for MICP for erosion erosion process. The
control. correlation of erosion rate–
flow rate showed that the
critical flow rate increases in
biocemented samples. It was
interpreted that the
precipitation of clusters of
calcite resulted in soil
erosion reduction.
Wind erosion Laboratory S. pasteurii The MICP-treated soil The low and high bacteria Maleki et al. (2016)
control of sand investigation samples was investigated mix solutions were showed
for erosion control through 1.29% and 0.16% weight
experimentation in a wind loss in biotreated samples
tunnel using wind velocity relative to the control
of 45 km h−1. The samples. The results
penetration resistance was indicated that considerable
measured at the surface erosion control was achieved
layers. in biotreated specimens.
Significant improvements in
the penetration resistance of
the biotreated soil specimens
were observed.
Immobilization of Laboratory S. pasteurii, Rhodobacter Lead, arsenic, chromium, 68.1%–100% immobilization Achal et al. (2012), Kang
contaminants investigation spharoides, Enterobacter and other heavy metal of contaminants has been et al. (2015), Li et al.
cloacae, Terrabacter contamination achieved through MICP. (2013), Molins et al.
tumescens, Sporosarcina immobilization Significant strength (2015), Mwandira et al.
ginsengisoli, and a improvement was obtained (2017), Sharma et al.
consortium of bacteria by biocemented sample. (2020) and Sobolev and
(S. pasteurii and B. MICP showed successful Begonia (2008)
sphaericus) and blue green contamination
algae immobilization, and strength
enhancement is all studies
carried out yet.
Bearing capacity Laboratory B. subtilis The bearing capacity was The UCS increases Hasriana et al. (2018)
improvement of investigation determined through UCS, correspondingly with 3, 7, 14,
high plasticity clay Soil reaction modulus, and and 28 days of curing. The
CBR. bacterial solution of 3.5%–
6% was found suitable as
road material, according to
the criteria of CBR value for
subbase layer (20%
≤ CBR<40%). The stabilized
clay showed the modulus of
soil reaction of 68–110 kN/
m2/mm. The results denote
the effective applicability of
B. subtilis to highly plastic
clay for stabilization.
Note: CBR = California bearing ratio.

that a consortium of algae, Nostoc commune and B. sphaericus, has a 300-times higher potential for global warming than carbon di-
efficiently improved the strength of uncontaminated and lead- oxide (Osinubi et al. 2020). The combustible and toxic H2S gas is
contaminated sand samples. The consortium achieved lead immo- released due to the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria. In addi-
bilization up to 99.2%. tion, H2S is environmentally unfriendly and has odors and a detri-
mental effect on human health (Paul et al. 2017). These by-products
might be a major concern for environmental enforcement agencies
Challenges and Future Directions and might require special permits or monitoring requirements. The
for Biogeotechnologies by-products can only be avoided by the identification of suitable
strategies for their mitigation or their applications for another pur-
It has been recognized that biogeotechnologies are preferred for liq- pose. Adopting a significant treatment methodology could be used
uefaction mitigation, especially under the existing surface and sub- to eliminate or remove the by-products (Zhu and Dittrich 2016).
surface infrastructure conditions. These methods are inexpensive Recently, Lee et al. (2019) and Pablo et al. (2020) explored the
and environmentally friendly and lead to a sustainable approach method for the removal of the unwanted by-product ammonium
for the mitigation of liquefaction potential. However, the imple- from biocemented soil. However, the other by-products generated
mentation and success of these biogeotechnologies depend on from the denitrification process are not very harmful (van Paassen
overcoming the following fundamental and practical challenges. 2009). Lee et al. (2019) investigated the ureolytic biocementation
in 3.7 m long soil columns. After treatment, removal of the ammo-
nium by-product was carried out using a rinsing solution of high
Limitation of Microorganisms pH and high ionic strength. The results showed that > 97.9% of
In general, MICP experiments have been conducted in the labora- the cumulative ammonium removal was achieved after rinsing. It
tory under nutrient-rich and environmentally controlled conditions. was interpreted that the ammonium by-products could be signifi-
The field conditions might vary and might be unfavorable for bac- cantly removed from calcite precipitated soil.
terial growth and survival. The bacteria might be exposed to high
temperature, high pH, anaerobic conditions, evaporation of nutri- Cost of Biotreatment
ents and reagent solutions, nutrient deficiency at greater depths,
high pressure, and desiccation. van Paassen (2011) conducted a Ivanov and Stabnikov (2017) analyzed that the cost of biotreatment
field trial on a plot of 24 m × 4 m. The results demonstrate that was approximately USD 41 /m3 using calcium chloride and urea at
there was no significant difference between cone penetration test 88 and 96 Kg for 1 m3 of sand to generate calcite precipitation of
(CPT) and standard penetration test (SPT) measurements before 75–100 g/kg for cohesionless soil. The method is expensive for large-
and after the treatment. Although, the calcite measurement of exca- scale applications. However, it is applicable to address geotechnical
vated (disturbed sample) provided evidence of biogrouting with 6% challenges due to higher strength improvement. van Paassen (2011)
of calcite of total dry weight of soil. This shows that MICP is dif- demonstrated that the field application of the biocementation method
ficult to apply or monitor in the field because it can be influenced by requires several preliminary investigations and that the price of ce-
many site-specific factors. Future research should focus on the field mentation media components is higher than the cement. Moreover,
applications for MICP by reducing the failure components. the cost analysis did not include the cost of the bacterial solution
and treatment arrangements, for example, injection and extraction
wells. The overall cost, including the cementation reagents, equip-
Nonuniformity of Calcite Precipitation ment required, and installation of the experimental setup in saturated
The uniformity in precipitation of calcite combined with the treat- sand varies from USD 25 to USD 75 /m3 to approximately USD
ment depth is one of the biggest challenges of this technique. The 500 /m3 and depends on the reagent grade of the cementation
presence of urease producing, or denitrifying bacteria, nutrients, media components (DeJong et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2017). However,
and cementation media concentrations significantly affect the pro- the cost could be reduced in the future following the industrialization
cess (Al Qabany et al. 2012). The nonuniformity in calcite formation of cementation media components.
might occur due to the high flow rates of the reagent solutions, the
concentration of cementation solution might be too high or too
Other Challenges
low, and the nutrients might not be sufficient for the process (Sharma
et al. 2019; Tobler et al. 2012; Whiffin et al. 2007). A few researchers There are a number of other challenges, such as the lack of suc-
have suggested the stopped-flow method, for instance, the intermit- cessful case studies that demonstrate satisfactory performance, bi-
tent or periodic injection method that provides sufficient time for the oclogging at the injection point, the high cost of treatment, a lack
reaction to occur and avoids the flushing of nutrients and bacteria be- of knowledge among the practitioners/contractors, and that treat-
fore the completion of the reactions (Barkouki et al. 2011; Inagaki ment at greater depths can be difficult due to the anaerobic envi-
et al. 2011; Martinez et al. 2013; Park et al. 2014). ronment. The subsurface soil conditions could vary significantly
within short distances at a site, and the resilience of biotreatment
to these variable soil and pore chemistry conditions should be ex-
Unwanted By-Products plored. Moreover, longevity (permanence) of the biotreatment
MICP generates by-products during the process that might be a with changing conditions over time is a critical issue that needs
concern for public health and the environment. The by-products in- to be addressed for the practical acceptance of this option for liq-
clude ammonia, ammonium, nitrite, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, uefaction mitigation.
and hydrogen sulfite (H2S). The ammonium might contaminate the
groundwater and will be costly to treat (Erş an et al. 2015; Hommel
Future Research Directions
et al. 2016; De Muynck et al. 2013). The greenhouse gases (nitrite
and nitrous oxide) are produced during the denitrification process To overcome the above mentioned challenges, future studies are re-
due to incomplete reactions (van Paassen et al. 2010c). Nitrous quired for the following: (1) additional fundamental research stud-
oxide gas has a life span of 114 years in the atmosphere, which ies are required to systematically evaluate the system variables

(soil, pore water chemistry, and biological conditions) under con- liquefaction mitigation. The observations related to the MICP
trolled laboratory conditions, (2) field application of biogeotechnical method are as follows:
methods for shear strength, stiffness improvement, and liquefaction • The strength enhancement of soil is directly related to bacterial
mitigation, (3) field pilot and full-scale projects to understand the cell density.
scale-up issues, and methods to monitor initial conditions with time • The metabolic reaction that takes place during the MICP pro-
to ensure that the processes are occurring, (4) feasibility of applying cess leads to the formation of calcite between soil grains,
in situ geotechnical/geophysical methods to assess soil improvement which decreases the hydraulic conductivity and increases
in the field, and (5) applications that address geotechnical issues (per- the shear strength.
meability reduction, strength enhancement, liquefaction mitigation, • Because this process is related to the living phase of soil, various
and erosion control), and that simultaneously address environmental factors affect the MICP process. The effective application of
issues, such as environmental remediation including immobilization MICP depends on the type of soils, type and density of bacteria,
of toxic metals and biodegradation of organic contaminants. the concentration of reagents, subsequent treatment intervals,
total days of treatment, the temperature (suitable range for bac-

terial growth is from 25°C to 70°C), and pH (8.0–9.5).
Conclusion • The applications of MICP can be very broad; however, the
large-scale applications remain underexplored due to higher
The review includes an overview of the evolution of liquefaction cost, nonuniform precipitation, less knowledge of biogeochem-
mitigation techniques. The comprehensive demonstration of con- ical interactions, and factors that affect the process.
ventional and advanced ground improvement methods to overcome • Some important controlling factors should be explored through
the liquefaction hazard mitigation was carried out. The advantages laboratory investigations, for example, bacterial density and at-
and disadvantages of conventional and advanced methods were tachment with sand, injection interval for the cementation solu-
compared for their effectiveness and sustainable applications for tion, the total duration of treatment to achieve significant
liquefaction mitigation. Among the advanced methods, the recently strength, nonsterile testing, mass production of bacterial solu-
developed biogeotechnical methods, such as MICP have the poten- tions, and unwanted by-product removal or utilization for
tial to be effective, environment-friendly, and economical, and other applications. Additional research studies and field
therefore, sustainable techniques for ground improvement and pilot-scale tests are warranted to address these limitations.
Appendix. Devastating Events of Soil Liquefaction in History
Magnitude
Earthquake incident (Richter scale) Details and damages associated References
Assam earthquake, India 8.8 Sand, coal pieces, and peat rose 0.6–1.21 m from cracks on the ground Oldham (1899)
(June 12, 1897) surface, along with large numbers of water jets, during and within 20–30
mins after the earthquake. Even 4.6–6.1 m deep drainage channels forced
up until they became level with their bounding banks. In some places,
buildings settled bodily, and only roofs remained above the ground.
San Francisco earthquake, 7.9 Like the phenomenon of Assam earthquake, a muddy mix of water and Lawson (1908)
United States cohesionless soil ejected into the air up to several meters and continued for
(April 18, 1906) several minutes behind the earthquake. The material ejected with fluid was
perceived to be the same as that encountered strata in wells up to 25 m deep.
Alaska earthquake, United 8.4–8.6 The earthquake almost released twice the energy and destruction of Grantz et al. (1964)
States (March 27, 1964) San Francisco earthquake, and it was felt over an area of 1.29 × 106 km2.
Several waterfront communities for shipping and fishing industries lost
their livelihoods.
Niigata earthquake, Japan 7.5 Calamitous ground failure was seen near Shinano riverbank, Japan National Committee on
(June 16, 1964) Kawagishi-cho apartments (differential settlement and bearing capacity Earthquake Engineering (1965)
failure), sand boils, and Showa bridge collapsed (due to lateral movement,
the simply supported spans turned unseated).
Tangshan earthquake, China 7.8 Almost 100% of the living area and 80% of industrial buildings were destroyed. Blume (1980) and Shengcong
(July 28, 1976) The occurrence of major aftershocks of magnitude 7.1 were observed. and Tatsuoka (1984)
Kobe earthquake, Japan 6.9 Landfill sites along the coastal line of Kobe city subsided due to Chung (1996)
(January 17, 1995) liquefaction and lateral spreading.
Kocaeli earthquake, Turkey 7.4 Approximately a 2-km stretch of buildings in Adapazarı’s city center was Bendimerad et al. (2000)
(August 17, 1999) destroyed because of the liquefaction of highly saturated soil strata.
Common damages were found on highways, bridges, rail arteries, and
foundation failures.
Bhuj earthquake, India 7.7 Liquefaction occurred in >10,000 km2 area of Rann of Kachchh in the form van Westen and Ray (2001)
(January 26, 2001) of sand boils, mud volcanos, and fissures. The large-scale ejection of
groundwater led to a report of the reappearance of the fictitious Indus or
Saraswati river.
Canterbury earthquake 5.8–7.1 The sequence of natural disasters began with the Darfield earthquake 7.1 Bannister and Gledhill (2012)
sequence, New Zealand magnitudes on September 4, 2010, and continued with aftershocks until
(2010–2012) early 2011. The Christchurch earthquake magnitude 6.2 on February 22,
2011, resulted in extensive liquefaction and destruction. The significant
aftershocks magnitude 5.8–5.9 were felt until December 2011.

Data Availability Statement Conf. Series 16: 012104. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/16/1
/012104.
No data, models, or code were generated or used during the study. Bang, S. S., J. K. Galinat, and V. Ramakrishnan. 2001. “Calcite precipita-
tion induced by polyurethane-immobilized Bacillus pasteurii.” Enzyme
Microb. Technol. 28 (4–5): 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141
Acknowledgments -0229(00)00348-3.
Bannister, S., and K. Gledhill. 2012. “Evolution of the 2010–2012
Canterbury earthquake sequence.” N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 55 (3):
The authors thank the Ministry of Human Resource Development, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.680475.
the Government of India for funding the Doctoral Fellowship of the Bao, X., Z. Jin, H. Cui, X. Chen, and X. Xie. 2019. “Soil liquefaction mit-
first author. igation in geotechnical engineering: An overview of recently developed
methods.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 120: 273–291. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.020.
References Barkouki, T. H., B. C. Martinez, B. M. Mortensen, T. S. Weathers, J. D. de

Jong, T. R. Ginn, N. F. Spycher, R. W. Smith, and Y. Fujita. 2011.
“Forward and inverse bio-geochemical modeling of microbially in-
Achal, V., X. Pan, Q. Fu, and D. Zhang. 2012. “Biomineralization based
duced calcite precipitation in half-meter column experiments.”
remediation of As(III) contaminated soil by Sporosarcina ginsengi-
Transp. Porous Media 90 (1): 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242
soli.” J. Hazard. Mater. 201–202: 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
-011-9804-z.
.jhazmat.2011.11.067.
Barnes, R. T., M. E. Gallagher, C. A. Masiello, Z. Liu, and B. Dugan. 2014.
Adibkia, K., M. R. S. Shadbad, A. Nokhodchi, A. Javadzedeh, M.
“Biochar-induced changes in soil hydraulic conductivity and dissolved
Barzegar-Jalali, J. Barar, G. Mohammadi, and Y. Omidi. 2007.
nutrient fluxes constrained by laboratory experiments.” PLoS One 9 (9):
“Piroxicam nanoparticles for ocular delivery: Physicochemical character-
e108340. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108340.
ization and implementation in endotoxin-induced uveitis.” J. Drug
Bendimerad, F., L. Johnson, A. Coburn, R. Mohsen, and G. Morrow. 2000.
Targeting 15 (6): 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611860701453125.
Event report Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. Newark, CA: Risk
Aishwarya, T., and A. Juneja. 2018. “Sand bonded with calcite precipita-
Management Solutions.
tion under cyclic simple shear.” In Geotechnical Earthquake
Benhelal, E., G. Zahedi, E. Shamsaei, and A. Bahadori. 2013. “Global strat-
Engineering and Soil Dynamics V: Liquefaction Triggering,
egies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry.”
Consequences, and Mitigation, Geotechnical Special Publication 290,
J. Cleaner Prod. 51: 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012
edited by S. J. Brandenberg, and M. T. Manzari, 554–560. Reston,
VA: ASCE. .10.049.
Bing, L. I. 2014. “Geotechnical properties of biocement treated sand and
Almajed, A., H. Khodadadi, and E. Kavazanjian. 2018. “Sisal fiber rein-
forcement of EICP-treated soil.” In IFCEE 2018: Innovations in clay.” Doctoral thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Ground Improvement for Soils, Pavements, and Subgrades, Nanyang Technological Univ.
Geotechnical Special Publication 296, edited by A. W. Stuedlein, A. Blume, J. A. 1980. “The 1976 Tangshan, China earthquake.” In Proc., 2nd
Lemnitzer, and M. T. Suleiman, 29–36. Reston, VA: ASCE. U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering Held at Stanford
Almajed, A., H. K. Tirkolaei, E. Kavazanjian, and N. Hamdan. 2019. Univ., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1–101. Berkeley,
“Enzyme induced biocementated sand with high strength at low carbon- California: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
ate content.” Sci. Rep. 9 (1): 1135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018 Bouazza, A., W. P. Gates, and P. G. Ranjith. 2009. “Hydraulic conductivity
-38361-1. of biopolymer-treated silty sand.” Géotechnique 59 (1): 71–72. https://
Al Qabany, A., and K. Soga. 2013. “Effect of chemical treatment used in doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.00137.
MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils.” Géotechnique Burbank, M., T. Weaver, R. Lewis, T. Williams, B. Williams, and R.
63 (4): 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.022. Crawford. 2013. “Geotechnical tests of sands following bioinduced cal-
Al Qabany, A., K. Soga, and C. Santamarina. 2012. “Factors affecting ef- cite precipitation catalyzed by indigenous bacteria.” J. Geotech.
ficiency of microbially induced calcite precipitation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (6): 928–936. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (8): 992–1001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) GT.1943-5606.0000781.
GT.1943-5606.0000666. Burbank, M. B., T. J. Weaver, T. L. Green, B. C. Williams, and R. L.
Ambraseys, N., and S. Sarma. 1969. “Liquefaction of soils induced by Crawford. 2011. “Precipitation of calcite by indigenous microorgan-
earthquakes.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 59 (2): 651–664. isms to strengthen liquefiable soils.” Geomicrobiol. J. 28 (4): 301–
Ambraseys, N. N. 1973. “Dynamics and response of foundation materials 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490451.2010.499929.
in epicentral regions of strong earthquakes.” In Proc., 5th World Conf. Carlson, C. A., and J. L. Ingraham. 1983. “Comparison of denitrification by
on Earthquake Engineering, 126–147. London: University of London. Pseudomonas stutzeri, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Paracoccus de-
Amini, P. F., and R. Noorzad. 2018. “Energy-based evaluation of liquefac- nitrificans.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 45 (4): 1247–1253. https://doi
tion of fiber-reinforced sand using cyclic triaxial testing.” Soil Dyn. .org/10.1128/AEM.45.4.1247-1253.1983.
Earthquake Eng. 104: 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017 Carvalho, A. J. F. 2011. “Starch as source of polymeric materials.” In
.09.026. Biopolymers: Biomedical and environmental applications, edited by
Annabi, M., S. Houot, C. Francou, M. Poitrenaud, and Y. L. Bissonnais. S. Kalia, and L. Avérous, 81–98. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2007. “Soil aggregate stability improvement with urban composts of Chang, I., and G. C. Cho. 2012. “Strengthening of Korean residual soil with
different maturities.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71 (2): 413–423. https://doi β-1,3/1,6-glucan biopolymer.” Constr. Build. Mater. 30: 30–35. https://
.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0161. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.030.
Ateş , A. 2016. “Mechanical properties of sandy soils reinforced with ce- Chang, I., and G.-C. Cho. 2014. “Geotechnical behavior of a beta-1,3/
ment and randomly distributed glass fibers (GRC).” Composites, Part 1,6-glucan biopolymer-treated residual soil.” Geomech. Eng. 7 (6):
B 96: 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.04.049. 633–647. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2014.7.6.633.
Bahadori, H., and R. Farzalizadeh. 2018. “Dynamic properties of saturated Chang, I., J. Im, and G.-C. Cho. 2016. “Geotechnical engineering behav-
sands mixed with tyre powders and tyre shreds.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (4): iors of gellan gum biopolymer treated sand.” Can. Geotech. J.
395–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0136-9. 53 (10): 1658–1670. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0475.
Bahadori, H., and S. Manafi. 2015. “Effect of tyre chips on dynamic prop- Chang, I., A. K. Prasidhi, J. Im, and G. C. Cho. 2015. “Soil strengthening
erties of saturated sands.” Int. J. Phys. Modell. Geotech. 15 (3): 116– using thermo-gelation biopolymers.” Constr. Build. Mater. 77: 430–
128. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.13.00014. 438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.116.
Baharuddin, I. N. Z., R. C. Omar, and Y. Devarajan. 2013. “Improvement Cheng, L., and R. Cord-Ruwisch. 2014. “Upscaling effects of soil improve-
of engineering properties of liquefied soil using Bio-VegeGrout.” IOP ment by microbially induced calcite precipitation by surface

percolation.” Geomicrobiol. J. 31 (5): 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1080 DeJong, J. T., K. Soga, S. A. Banwart, W. R. Whalley, T. R. Ginn, D. C.
/01490451.2013.836579. Nelson, B. M. Mortensen, B. C. Martinez, and T. Barkouki. 2011. “Soil
Cheng, L., R. Cord-Ruwisch, and M. A. Shahin. 2013. “Cementation of engineering in vivo: Harnessing natural biogeochemical systems for
sand soil by microbially induced calcite precipitation at various degrees sustainable, multi-functional engineering solutions.” J. R. Soc.
of saturation.” Can. Geotech. J. 50 (1): 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1139 Interface 8 (54): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2010.0270.
/cgj-2012-0023. Dupraz, S., B. Ménez, P. Gouze, R. Leprovost, P. Bénézeth, O. S.
Cheng, L., M. A. Shahin, and R. Cord-Ruwisch. 2014. “Bio-cementation of Pokrovsky, and F. Guyot. 2009. “Experimental approach of CO2 biomi-
sandy soil using microbially induced carbonate precipitation for marine neralization in deep saline aquifers.” Chem. Geol. 265 (1–2): 54–62.
environments.” Géotechnique 64 (12): 1010–1013. https://doi.org/10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.12.012.
.1680/geot.14.T.025. El Howayek, A., A. Bobet, C. T. Johnston, M. Santagata, and J. V. Sinfield.
Cheng, L., M. A. Shahin, and D. Mujah. 2017. “Influence of key environ- 2014. “Microstructure of sand-laponite-water systems using cryo-SEM.”
mental conditions on microbially induced cementation for soil stabiliza- In Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers: Geo-Characterization and
tion.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (1): 04016083. https://doi.org Modeling for Sustainability, Geotechnical Special Publication 234, ed-
/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001586. ited by M. Abu-Farsakh, X. Yu, and L. R. Hoyos, 693–702. Reston,

Choi, S. G., J. Chu, R. C. Brown, K. Wang, and Z. Wen. 2017. “Sustainable VA: ASCE.
biocement production via microbially induced calcium carbonate pre- El Mountassir, G., J. M. Minto, L. A. van Paassen, E. Salifu, and R. J.
cipitation: Use of limestone and acetic acid derived from pyrolysis of Lunn. 2018. “Applications of microbial processes in geotechnical engi-
lignocellulosic biomass.” ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 5 (6): 5183– neering.” Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 104: 39–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs
5190. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00521. .aambs.2018.05.001.
Choi, S.-G., S. Wu, and J. Chu. 2016. “Biocementation for sand using an Erş an, Y. Ç., N. de Belie, and N. Boon. 2015. “Microbially induced CaCO3
eggshell as calcium source.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (10): precipitation through denitrification: An optimization study in minimal
06016010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001534. nutrient environment.” Biochem. Eng. J. 101: 108–118. https://doi.org
Chu, J., V. Ivanov, V. Stabnikov, and B. Li. 2013. “Microbial method for /10.1016/j.bej.2015.05.006.
construction of an aquaculture pond in sand.” Géotechnique 63 (10): Feng, K., and B. M. Montoya. 2017. “Quantifying level of microbial-induced
871–875. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.007. cementation for cyclically loaded sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Chung, R. 1996. January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake: 143 (6): 06017005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001682.
Performance of structures, lifelines, and fire protection systems. NIST Ferris, F. G., L. G. Stehmeier, A. Kantzas, and F. M. Mourits. 1996.
Special Publication 901. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. “Bacteriogenic mineral plugging.” J. Can. Pet. Technol. 35 (8): 56–
Conlee, C. T., P. M. Gallagher, R. W. Boulanger, and R. Kamai. 2012. 59. https://doi.org/10.2118/96-08-06.
“Centrifuge modeling for liquefaction mitigation using colloidal Ferruzzi, G. G., N. Pan, and W. H. Casey. 2000. “Mechanical properties of
silica stabilizer.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (11): 1334–1345. gellan and polyacrylamide gels with implications for soil stabilization.”
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000703. Soil Sci. 165 (10): 778–792. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694
Cuthbert, M. O., L. A. McMillan, S. Handley-Sidhu, M. S. Riley, D. J. -200010000-00003.
Tobler, and V. R. Phoenix. 2013. “A field and modeling study of frac- Finnerty, W. R., and M. E. Singer. 1983. “Microbial enhancement of oil
tured rock permeability reduction using microbially induced calcite pre- recovery.” Nat. Biol. 1: 47–54.
cipitation.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (23): 13637–13643. https://doi Fredlund, D. G., and H. Rahardjo. 1993. Soil mechanics for unsaturated
.org/10.1021/es402601g. soils. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Das, A., C. Jayashree, and B. V. S. Viswanadham. 2009. “Effect of ran- Fritzges, M. B., J. T. DeJong, and K. Nüsslein. 2006. “Biologically induced
domly distributed geofibers on the piping behaviour of embankments improvement of loose sand.” In Proc., 8th US National Conf. on
constructed with fly ash as a fill material.” Geotext. Geomembr. Earthquake Engineering 2006, 9723–9732. California: Earthquake
27 (5): 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.02.004. Engineering Research Institute.
Dehghan, A., and A. Hamidi. 2016. “Triaxial shear behaviour of sand-gravel Fujita, Y., G. D. Redden, J. C. Ingram, M. M. Cortez, F. G. Ferris, and
mixtures reinforced with cement and fibre.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 10 (5): R. W. Smith. 2004. “Strontium incorporation into calcite generated
510–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1175217. by bacterial ureolysis.” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 68 (15): 3261–
De Muynck, W., N. De Belie, and W. Verstraete. 2010. “Microbial carbon- 3270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2003.12.018.
ate precipitation in construction materials: A review.” Ecol. Eng. 36 (2): Gallagher, P. M., C. T. Conlee, and K. M. Rollins. 2007a. “Full-scale field
118–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.02.006. testing of colloidal silica grouting for mitigation of liquefaction risk.”
De Muynck, W., K. Verbeken, N. De Belie, and W. Verstraete. 2013. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (2): 186–196. https://doi.org/10
“Influence of temperature on the effectiveness of a biogenic carbonate sur- .1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:2(186).
face treatment for limestone conservation.” Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Gallagher, P. M., and Y. Lin. 2005. “Column testing to determine colloidal
97 (3): 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-3997-0. silica transport mechanisms.” In Innovations in Grouting and Soil
DeJong, J. T., et al. 2013. “Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical ap- Improvement, Geotechnical Special Publication 130, edited by V. R.
plications: Progress, opportunities and challenges.” Géotechnique Schaefer, D. A. Bruce, and M. J. Byle, 1–10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
63 (4): 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.017. Gallagher, P. M., and Y. Lin. 2009. “Colloidal silica transport through
DeJong, J. T., M. B. Fritzges, and K. Nüsslein. 2006. “Microbially induced liquefiable porous media.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (11):
cementation to control sand response to undrained shear.” J. Geotech. 1702–1712. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000123.
Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (11): 1381–1392. https://doi.org/10.1061 Gallagher, P. M., and J. K. Mitchell. 2000. “Passive site remediation for
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1381). mitigation of liquefaction risk.” Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and
DeJong, J. T., and E. Kavazanjian. 2019. “Bio-mediated and bio-inspired Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
geotechnics.” In Geotechnical fundamentals for addressing New Univ.
world challenges, edited by N. Lu, and J. K. Mitchell, 193–207. Gallagher, P. M., A. Pamuk, and T. Abdoun. 2007b. “Stabilization of lique-
Berlin: Springer. fiable soils using colloidal silica grout.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (1): 33–
DeJong, J. T., B. C. Martinez, T. R. Ginn, C. Hunt, D. Major, and B. Tanyu. 40. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:1(33).
2014. “Development of a scaled repeated five-spot treatment model for Garg, A., S. Bordoloi, S. Mondal, J. J. Ni, and S. Sreedeep. 2020a.
examining microbial induced calcite precipitation feasibility in field ap- “Investigation of mechanical factor of soil reinforced with four types
plications.” Geotech. Test. J. 37 (3): 20130089. https://doi.org/10.1520 of fibers: An integrated experimental and extreme learning machine ap-
/GTJ20130089. proach.” J. Nat. Fibers 17 (5): 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1080
DeJong, J. T., B. M. Mortensen, B. C. Martinez, and D. C. Nelson. 2010. /15440478.2018.1521763.
“Bio-mediated soil improvement.” Ecol. Eng. 36 (2): 197–210. https:// Garg, A., H. Huang, V. Kushvaha, P. Madhushri, V. Kamchoom, I. Wani,
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.029. N. Koshy, and H. H. Zhu. 2020b. “Mechanism of biochar soil

pore–gas–water interaction: Gas properties of biochar-amended sandy He, J., J. Chu, and V. Ivanov. 2013a. “Mitigation of liquefaction of satu-
soil at different degrees of compaction using KNN modeling.” Acta rated sand using biogas.” Géotechnique 63 (4): 267–275. https://doi
Geophys. 68 (1): 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-00387-y. .org/10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.004.
Gat, D., M. Tsesarsky, D. Shamir, and Z. Ronen. 2014. “Accelerated He, J., J. Chu, and V. Ivanov. 2013b. “Remediation of liquefaction poten-
microbial-induced CaCO3 precipitation in a defined coculture of ureo- tial of sand using the biogas method.” In Geo-Congress 2013: Stability
lytic and non-ureolytic bacteria.” Biogeosciences 11 (10): 2561–2569. and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III, Geotechnical Special
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2561-2014. Publication 231, edited by C. Meehan, D. Pradel, M. A. Pando, and J. F.
Gollapudi, U. K., C. L. Knutson, S. S. Bang, and M. R. Islam. 1995. “A Labuz, 879–887. Reston, VA: ASCE.
new method for controlling leaching through permeable channels.” Hejazi, S. M., M. Sheikhzadeh, S. M. Abtahi, and A. Zadhoush. 2012. “A
Chemosphere 30 (4): 695–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(94) simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fi-
00435-W. bers.” Constr. Build. Mater. 30: 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Gomez, M. G., C. M. Anderson, J. T. DeJong, D. C. Nelson, and X. H. Lau. .conbuildmat.2011.11.045.
2014a. “Stimulating in situ soil bacteria for bio-cementation of sands.” Helmi, F. M., H. R. Elmitwalli, S. M. Elnagdy, and A. F. El-hagrassy.
2016. “Calcium carbonate precipitation induced by ureolytic bacteria
In Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers: Geo-Characterization and

Modeling for Sustainability, Geotechnical Special Publication 234, ed- Bacillus licheniformis.” Ecol. Eng. 90: 367–371. https://doi.org/10
ited by M. Abu-Farsakh, X. Yu, and L. R. Hoyos, 1674–1682. Reston, .1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.044.
VA: ASCE. Hoang, T., J. Alleman, B. Cetin, and S. G. Choi. 2020. “Engineering prop-
Gomez, M. G., C. M. Anderson, C. M. R. Graddy, J. T. DeJong, D. C. erties of biocementation coarse- and fine-grained sand catalyzed by bac-
Nelson, and T. R. Ginn. 2017. “Large-scale comparison of bioaugmen- terial cells and bacterial enzyme.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 32 (4): 04020030.
tation and biostimulation approaches for biocementation of sands.” https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003083.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (5): 04016124. https://doi.org/10 Hommel, J., E. Lauchnor, R. Gerlach, A. B. Cunningham, A. Ebigbo, R.
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001640. Helmig, and H. Class. 2016. “Investigating the influence of the initial
Gomez, M. G., J. T. DeJong, and C. M. Anderson. 2018a. “Effect of bio- biomass distribution and injection strategies on biofilm-mediated calcite
cementation on geophysical and cone penetration measurements in precipitation in porous media.” Transp. Porous Media 114 (2): 557–
sands.” Can. Geotech. J. 55 (11): 1632–1646. https://doi.org/10.1139 579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-015-0617-3.
/cgj-2017-0253. Huang, Y., and L. Wang. 2016a. “Experimental studies on nanomaterials
Gomez, M. G., C. M. R. Graddy, J. T. DeJong, and D. C. Nelson. 2019. for soil improvement: A review.” Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (6): 1–10.
“Biogeochemical changes during bio-cementation mediated by stimu- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5118-8.
lated and augmented ureolytic microorganisms.” Sci. Rep. 9 (1): Huang, Y., and L. Wang. 2016b. “Laboratory investigation of liquefaction
11517. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47973-0. mitigation in silty sand using nanoparticles.” Eng. Geol. 204: 23–32.
Gomez, M. G., C. M. R. Graddy, J. T. DeJong, D. C. Nelson, and M. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.01.015.
Tsesarsky. 2018b. “Stimulation of native microorganisms for bioce- Huang, Y., and Z. Wen. 2015. “Recent developments of soil improvement
mentation in samples recovered from field-scale treatment depths.” methods for seismic liquefaction mitigation.” Nat. Hazards 76 (3):
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (1): 04017098. https://doi.org/10 1927–1938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1558-9.
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001804. Ibraim, E., A. Diambra, D. Muir Wood, and A. R. Russell. 2010. “Static
Gomez, M. G., B. C. Martinez, J. T. DeJong, C. E. Hunt, L. A. deVlaming, liquefaction of fibre reinforced sand under monotonic loading.”
D. W. Major, and S. M. Dworatzek. 2014b. “Field-scale bio- Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (4): 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
cementation tests to improve sands.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground .geotexmem.2009.12.001.
Improv. 168 (3): 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.13.00052. Ibraim, E., A. Diambra, A. R. Russell, and D. Muir Wood. 2012.
Grantz, A., G. Plafker, and R. Kachadoorian. 1964. Alaska’s Good Friday “Assessment of laboratory sample preparation for fibre reinforced
earthquake, March 27, 1964: A preliminary geologic evaluation. sands.” Geotext. Geomembr. 34: 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Reston, VA: USGS. .geotexmem.2012.03.002.
Haeri, S. M., R. Noorzad, and A. M. Oskoorouchi. 2000. “Effect of geotextile Iler, R. K. 1979. The chemistry of silica - solubility, polymerization, colloid
reinforcement on the mechanical behavior of sand.” Geotext. Geomembr. and surface properties and biochemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18 (6): 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(00)00005-4. Inagaki, I., M. Tsukamoto, H. Mori, T. Sasaki, K. Soga, A. Al Qabany, and
Hamdan, N., and E. Kavazanjian. 2016. “Enzyme-induced carbonate min- T. Hata. 2011. “The influence of injection conditions and soil types on
eral precipitation for fugitive dust control.” Géotechnique 66 (7): 546– soil improvement by microbial functions.” In Geo-Frontiers 2011:
555. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.168. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special
Hamderi, M., and P. M. Gallagher. 2015. “Pilot-scale modeling of colloidal Publication 211, edited by J. Han, and D. E. Alzamora, 4021–4030.
silica delivery to liquefiable sands.” Soils Found. 55 (1): 143–153. Reston, VA: ASCE.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.011. Ivanov, V., and J. Chu. 2008. “Applications of microorganisms to geotech-
Hammes, F., A. Seka, S. De Knijf, and W. Verstraete. 2003. “A novel approach nical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ.”
to calcium removal from calcium-rich industrial wastewater.” Water Res. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 7 (2): 139–153. https://doi.org/10
37 (3): 699–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00308-1. .1007/s11157-007-9126-3.
Harada, T., A. Misaki, and H. Saito. 1968. “Curdlan: A bacterial gel- Ivanov, V., J. Chu, V. Stabnikov, J. He, and M. Naeimi. 2010. “Iron-based
forming β-1, 3-glucan.” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 124: 292–298. bio-grout for soil improvement and land reclamation.” In Proc., 2nd Int.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(68)90330-5. Conf. on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies,
Hasriana, L. Samang, M. N. Djide, and T. Harianto. 2018. “A study on clay 415–420. Ancona, Italy: Università Politecnica della Marche.
soil improvement with Bacillus subtilis bacteria as the road subbase Ivanov, V., and V. Stabnikov. 2017. Construction biotechnology. Berlin:
layer.” Int. J. GEOMATE 15 (52): 114–120. Springer.
Hausmann, M. 1990. Engineering principles of ground modification: Japan National Committee on Earthquake Engineering. 1965. “Niigata earth-
International addition. New York: McGraw-Hill. quake, 1964.” In Proc., 3rd World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Hazarika, H., M. Hyodo, and K. Yasuhara. 2010. “Investigation of tire 78–105. Wellington, N.Z.: New Zealand National Committee on
chips–sand mixtures as preventive measure against liquefaction.” In Earthquake Engineering.
Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special Jiang, N.-J., and K. Soga. 2017. “The applicability of microbially induced
Publication 207, edited by A. J. Puppala, J. Huang, J. Han, and L. R. calcite precipitation (MICP) for internal erosion control in gravel–sand
Hoyos, 338–345. Reston, VA: ASCE. mixtures.” Géotechnique 67 (1): 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot
He, J., and J. Chu. 2014. “Undrained responses of microbially desaturated .15.P.182.
sand under monotonic loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (5): Jiang, N.-J., K. Soga, and M. Kuo. 2017. “Microbially induced carbonate
04014003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001082. precipitation for seepage-induced internal erosion control in

sand–clay mixtures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (3): 04016100. Li, M., X. Cheng, and H. Guo. 2013. “Heavy metal removal by biomineral-
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001559. ization of urease producing bacteria isolated from soil.” Int. Biodeterior.
Kaneko, T., R. P. Orense, M. Hyodo, and N. Yoshimoto. 2013. “Seismic Biodegrad. 76: 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.06.016.
response characteristics of saturated sand deposits mixed with tire Li, M., K. Wen, Y. Li, and L. Zhu. 2018. “Impact of oxygen availability on
chips.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (4): 633–643. https://doi microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) treatment.”
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000752. Geomicrobiol. J. 35 (1): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490451
Kang, C. H., S. J. Oh, Y. J. Shin, S. H. Han, I. H. Nam, and J. S. So. 2015. .2017.1303553.
“Bioremediation of lead by ureolytic bacteria isolated from soil at aban- Liu, J., Y. Bai, Z. Song, D. Prasanna, Y. Wang, F. Bu, and Z. Chen. 2020.
doned metal mines in South Korea.” Ecol. Eng. 74: 402–407. https://doi “Stabilization of sand using different types of short fibers and organic
.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.10.009. polymer.” Constr. Build. Mater. 253: 119164. https://doi.org/10.1016
Karakan, E., T. Eskiş ar, and S. Altun. 2018. “The liquefaction behavior of /j.conbuildmat.2020.119164.
poorly graded sands reinforced with fibers.” Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018: 1–14. Liu, J., G. Wang, T. Kamai, F. Zhang, J. Yang, and B. Shi. 2011. “Static
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4738628. liquefaction behavior of saturated fiber-reinforced sand in undrained
Karol, R. H. 2003. Chemical grouting and soil stabilization. New York: ring-shear tests.” Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (5): 462–471. https://doi.org
Marcel Dekker. /10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.03.002.
Kavazanjian, E., A. Almajed, and N. Hamdan. 2017. “Bio-inspired soil Madigan, M. T., and J. M. Martinko. 2003. Brock biology of microorgan-
improvement using EICP soil columns and soil nails.” In Grouting isms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2017:Grouting, Drilling, and Verification, Geotechnical Special Mahawish, A., A. Bouazza, and W. P. Gates. 2018a. “Improvement of
Publication 288, edited by M. J. Byle, L. F. Johnsen, D. A. Bruce, coarse sand engineering properties by microbially induced calcite pre-
C. S. El Mohtar, P. Gazzarrini, and T. D. Richards Jr., 13–22. cipitation.” Geomicrobiol. J. 35 (10): 887–897. https://doi.org/10
Reston, VA: ASCE. .1080/01490451.2018.1488019.
Kavazanjian, E., S. T. O. Donnell, and N. Hamdan. 2015. “Biogeotechnical Mahawish, A., A. Bouazza, and W. P. Gates. 2018b. “Factors affecting the
mitigation of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction by denitrification: A bio-cementing process of coarse sand.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground
two-stage process.” In Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Improv. 172 (1): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.17.00039.
Geotechnical Engineering. New Zealand: ISSMGE and Christchurch. Maher, M. H., and D. H. Gray. 1990. “Static response of sands reinforced
Kavazanjian, E., and N. Hamdan. 2015. “Enzyme induced carbonate precipita- with randomly distributed fibers.” J. Geotech. Eng.116 (11): 1661–
tion (EICP) columns for ground improvement.” In Proc., Int. Foundations 1677. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:11(1661).
Congress and Equipment Expo, 2252–2261. Reston, VA: ASCE. Maher, M. H., and Y. C. Ho. 1994. “Mechanical properties of kaolinite/
Kavazanjian, E., and I. Karatas. 2008. “Microbiological improvement of fiber soil composite.” J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (8): 1381–1393. https://
the physical properties of soil.” In Int. Conf. on Case Histories in doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1381).
Geotechnical Engineering, 1–10. Rolla, MO: Missouri University of Maleki, M., S. Ebrahimi, F. Asadzadeh, and M. Emami Tabrizi. 2016.
Science and Technology. “Performance of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation on wind
Keramatikerman, M., A. Chegenizadeh, and H. Nikraz. 2017. erosion control of sandy soil.” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13 (3):
“Experimental study on effect of fly ash on liquefaction resistance of 937–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-015-0921-z.
sand.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 93: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Martin, D., K. Dodds, I. B. Butler, and B. T. Ngwenya. 2013. “Carbonate
.soildyn.2016.11.012. precipitation under pressure for bioengineering in the anaerobic subsur-
Khachatoorian, R., I. G. Petrisor, C. C. Kwan, and T. F. Yen. 2003. face via denitrification.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (15): 8692–8699.
“Biopolymer plugging effect: Laboratory-pressurized pumping flow https://doi.org/10.1021/es401270q.
studies.” J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 38 (1–2): 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016 Martinez, B. C., J. T. DeJong, T. R. Ginn, B. M. Montoya, T. H. Barkouki,
/S0920-4105(03)00019-6. C. Hunt, B. Tanyu, and D. Major. 2013. “Experimental optimization of
Khatami, H. R., and B. C. O’Kelly. 2013. “Improving mechanical proper- microbial-induced carbonate precipitation for soil improvement.”
ties of sand using biopolymers.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8): J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (4): 587–598. https://doi.org/10
1402–1406. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000861. .1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000787.
Khodadadi, H., and H. Bilsel. 2012. “Application of microorganisms for Meddah, A., and K. Merzoug. 2017. “Feasibility of using rubber waste fi-
improvement of liquefiable sand.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on New bers as reinforcements for sandy soils.” Innovative Infrastruct.
Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Solutions 2: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-017-0053-z.
857–863. Nicosia, North Cyprus: Near East University. Michalowski, R. L., and A. Zhao. 1996. “Failure of fiber-reinforced gran-
Kucharski, E., R. Cord-Ruwisch, V. Whiffin, and S. Al-Thawadi. 2006. ular soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (3): 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1061
“Microbial biocementation.” World Patent 066326. /(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:3(226).
Latifi, N., S. Horpibulsuk, C. L. Meehan, M. Z. A. Majid, and A. S. A. Mitchell, J. K., and J. C. Santamarina. 2005. “Biological considerations in geo-
Rashid. 2016. “Xanthan gum biopolymer: An eco-friendly additive technical engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (10): 1222–
for stabilization of tropical organic peat.” Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (9): 1233. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:10(1222).
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5643-0. Mitchell, J. K., and F. J. Wentz. 1991. Performance of improved ground
Lawson, A. C. 1908. The California earthquake of April 18, 1906. during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake
Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley.
Le Métayer-Levrel, G., S. Castanier, G. Orial, J. F. Loubière, and J. P. Mohtar, C. S. E., A. Bobet, V. P. Drnevich, C. T. Johnston, and M. C.
Perthuisot. 1999. “Applications of bacterial carbonatogenesis to the Santagata. 2014. “Pore pressure generation in sand with bentonite:
protection and regeneration of limestones in buildings and historic pat- From small strains to liquefaction.” Géotechnique 64 (2): 108–117.
rimony.” Sediment. Geol. 126 (1–4): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.P.169.
/S0037-0738(99)00029-9. Mohtar, C. S. E., A. Bobet, M. C. Santagata, V. P. Drnevich, and C. T.
Lee, M., M. G. Gomez, M. E. Kortbawi, and K. Ziotopoulou. 2020. Johnston. 2013. “Liquefaction mitigation using bentonite suspensions.”
“Examining the liquefaction resistance of lightly cemented sands J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8): 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10
using microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP).” In .1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000865.
Geo-Congress 2020: Biogeotechnics, Geotechnical Special Mohtar, C. S. E., J. Clarke, A. Bobet, M. Santagata, V. Drnevich, and C.
Publication 320, edited by E. Kavazanjian Jr., J. P. Hambleton, R. Johnston. 2008. “Cyclic response of a sand with thixotropic pore
Makhnenko, and A. S. Budge, 53–64. Reston, VA: ASCE. fluid.” In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
Lee, M., M. G. Gomez, A. C. M. S. Pablo, C. M. Kolbus, C. M. R. Graddy, IV, Geotechnical Special Publication 181, edited by D. Zeng, M. T.
J. T. DeJong, and D. C. Nelson. 2019. “Investigating ammonium by- Manzari, and D. R. Hiltunen, 1–10. Reston, VA: ASCE.
product removal for ureolytic bio-cementation using meter-scale experi- Mola-Abasi, H., and I. Shooshpasha. 2016. “Influence of zeolite and ce-
ments.” Sci. Rep. 9: 18313. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54666-1. ment additions on mechanical behavior of sandy soil.” J. Rock Mech.

Geotech. Eng. 8 (5): 746–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016 backfilling with recycled materials.” Soils Found. 56 (3): 365–378.
.01.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.004.
Molins, S., J. Greskowiak, C. Wanner, and K. U. Mayer. 2015. “A bench- Pablo, A. C. M. S., et al.et al. 2020. “Examining spatial control, ammonium
mark for microbially mediated chromium reduction under denitrifying by-product removal, and chemical reductions for bio-cementation soil
conditions in a biostimulation column experiment.” Comput. Geosci. improvement using meter-scale experiments alexandra.” In
19 (3): 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-014-9432-0. Geo-Congress 2020: Foundations, Soil Improvement, and Erosion,
Mongondry, P., T. Nicolai, and J. F. Tassin. 2004. “Influence of pyrophos- Geotechnical Special Publication 315, edited by J. P. Hambleton, R.
phate or polyethylene oxide on the aggregation and gelation of aqueous Makhnenko, and A. S. Budge, 458–468. Reston, VA: ASCE.
laponite dispersions.” J. Colloid Interface Sci. 275 (1): 191–196. https:// Pardo, G. S., and R. P. Orense. 2016. “Use of biochar as countermeasure
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.01.037. against liquefaction.” In New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Montoya, B. M., J. T. DeJong, and R. W. Boulanger. 2013. “Dynamic re- Engineering Annual Technical Conf., 1–8. Christchurch: New
sponse of liquefiable sand improved by microbial-induced calcite pre- Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
cipitation.” Géotechnique 63 (4): 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1680 Pardo, G. S., R. P. Orense, and A. K. Sarmah. 2018. “Cyclic strength of
/geot.SIP13.P.019. sand mixed with biochar: Some preliminary results.” Soils Found.
Moravej, S., G. Habibagahi, E. Nikooee, and A. Niazi. 2018. “Stabilization 58 (1): 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.11.004.
of dispersive soils by means of biological calcite precipitation.” Pardo, G. S., A. K. Sarmah, and R. P. Orense. 2019. “Mechanism of im-
Geoderma 315: 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11 provement of biochar on shear strength and liquefaction resistance of
.037. sand.” Géotechnique 69 (6): 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot
Mujah, D., L. Cheng, and M. A. Shahin. 2019. “Microstructural and geo- .17.P.040.
mechanical study on biocemented sand for optimization of MICP pro- Park, S.-S., S.-G. Choi, and I.-H. Nam. 2014. “Effect of plant-induced cal-
cess.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (4): 04019025. https://doi.org/10.1061 cite precipitation on the strength of sand.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (8):
/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002660. 06014017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001029.
Mwandira, W., K. Nakashima, and S. Kawasaki. 2017. “Bioremediation of Patricia, G. G., and M. M. James. 2002. “Influence of colloidal silica grout
lead-contaminated mine waste by Pararhodobacter sp. based on the mi- on liquefaction potential and cyclic undrained behavior of loose sand.”
crobially induced calcium carbonate precipitation technique and its ef- Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 22 (9–12): 1017–1026. https://doi.org/10
fects on strength of coarse- and fine-grained sand.” Ecol. Eng. 109: 57– .1016/S0267-7261(02)00126-4.
64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.09.011. Paul, V. G., D. J. Wronkiewicz, and M. R. Mormile. 2017. “Impact of elevated
Naseri, F., M. Irani, and M. Dehkhodarajabi. 2016. “Effect of graphene CO2 concentrations on carbonate mineral precipitation ability of
oxide nanosheets on the geotechnical properties of cemented silty sulfate-reducing bacteria and implications for CO2 sequestration.” Appl.
soil.” Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 16 (4): 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1016 Geochem. 78: 250–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.01.010.
/j.acme.2016.04.008. Persoff, P., J. Apps, G. Moridis, and J. M. Whang. 1999. “Effect of dilution
Ni, J. J., X. W. Chen, C. W. W. Ng, and H. W. Guo. 2018. “Effects of bio- and contaminants on sand grouted with colloidal silica.” J. Geotech.
char on water retention and matric suction of vegetated soil.” Géotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (6): 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
Lett. 8 (2): 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.17.00180. 1090-0241(1999)125:6(461).
Ni, J. J., B. Sanandam, A. Garg, W. Shao, and S. Sreedeep. 2019. “Simple Pettit, N. M., A. R. J. Smith, R. B. Freedman, and R. G. Burns. 1976. “Soil
model on water retention and permeability in soil mixed with lignocel- urease: Activity, stability and kinetic properties.” Soil Biol. Biochem.
lulose fibres.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 23 (1): 138–146. https://doi.org/10 8 (6): 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(76)90089-4.
.1007/s12205-017-0657-z. Phua, Y. J., and A. Røyne. 2018. “Bio-cementation through controlled
Noorzad, R., and P. F. Amini. 2014. “Liquefaction resistance of Babolsar dissolution and recrystallization of calcium carbonate.” Constr. Build.
sand reinforced with randomly distributed fibers under cyclic loading.” Mater. 167: 657–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.059.
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 66: 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Rashid, A. S. A., M. G. Shirazi, H. Mohamad, and F. Sahdi. 2017. “Bearing
.soildyn.2014.07.011. capacity of sandy soil treated by Kenaf fibre geotextile.” Environ. Earth
Nugent, R. A., G. Zhang, and R. Gambrell. 2009. “Effect of exopolymers Sci. 76 (12): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6762-y.
on the liquid limit of clays and its engineering implications.” Transp. Rebata-Landa, V. 2007. “Microbial activity in sediments: effects on soil be-
Res. Rec. 2101: 34–43. https://doi.org/10.3141/2101-05. havior.” Doctoral dissertation, School of Civil & Environmental
O’Donnell, S. T., C. A. Hall, E. Kavazanjian Jr., and B. E. Rittmann. 2019. Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
“A biogeochemical model for soil improvement by denitrification.” Rebata-Landa, V., and J. C. Santamarina. 2006. “Mechanical limits to mi-
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (11): 04019091. https://doi.org/10 crobial activity in deep sediments.” Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002126. 7 (11): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GC001355.
O’Donnell, S. T., E. Kavazanjian, and B. E. Rittmann. 2017a. “MIDP: Rebata-Landa, V., and J. C. Santamarina. 2012. “Mechanical effects of
Liquefaction mitigation via microbial denitrification as a two-stage pro- biogenic nitrogen gas bubbles in soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
cess. II: MICP.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (12): 04017095. Eng. 138 (2): 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001806. -5606.0000571.
O’Donnell, S. T., B. E. Rittmann, and E. Kavazanjian. 2017b. “MIDP: Riveros, G. A., and A. Sadrekarimi. 2020. “Liquefaction resistance of
Liquefaction mitigation via microbial denitrification as a two-stage pro- Fraser River sand improved by a microbially-induced cementation.”
cess. I: Desaturation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (12): Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 131: 106034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
04017094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001818. .soildyn.2020.106034.
Ochoa-Cornejo, F., A. Bobet, C. T. Johnston, M. Santagata, and J. V. Rugg, D. A., J. Yoon, H. Hwang, and C. S. E. Mohtar. 2011. “Undrained
Sinfield. 2016. “Cyclic behavior and pore pressure generation in shearing properties of sand permeated with a bentonite suspension
sands with laponite, a super-plastic nanoparticle.” Soil Dyn. for static liquefaction mitigation.” In Geo-Frontiers 2011:
Earthquake Eng. 88: 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special
.2016.06.008. Publication 211, edited by J. Han, and D. E. Alzamora, 677–686.
Oldham, R. D. 1899. Report of the great earthquake of 12th June, 1897. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Kolkata, India: Geological Survey of India. Sabbar, A. S., A. Chegenizadeh, and H. Nikraz. 2017. “Static liquefaction
Osinubi, K. J., A. O. Eberemu, T. S. Ijimdiya, S. E. Yakubu, E. W. of very loose sand–slag–bentonite mixtures.” Soils Found. 57 (3): 341–
Gadzama, J. E. Sani, and P. Yohanna. 2020. “Review of the use of mi- 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.05.003.
croorganisms in geotechnical engineering applications.” SN Appl. Sci. Saffari, R., E. Nikooee, G. Habibagahi, and M. T. van Genuchten. 2019.
2: 207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-1974-2. “Effects of biological stabilization on the water retention properties of
Otsubo, M., I. Towhata, T. Hayashida, B. Liu, and S. Goto. 2016. “Shaking unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (7): 04019028.
table tests on liquefaction mitigation of embedded lifelines by https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002053.

Saggar, S., N. Jha, J. Deslippe, N. S. Bolan, J. Luo, D. L. Giltrap, D. G. silica fume stabilized clayey soil.” Geosciences 9 (9): 377. https://doi
Kim, M. Zaman, and R. W. Tillman. 2013. “Denitrification and N2O: .org/10.3390/geosciences9090377.
N2 production in temperate grasslands: Processes, measurements, mod- Tiwari, N., and N. Satyam. 2020. “An experimental study on the behavior
elling and mitigating negative impacts.” Sci. Total Environ. 465: 173– of lime and silica fume treated coir geotextile reinforced expansive soil
195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.050. subgrade.” Eng. Sci. Technol. 4–12.
Santagata, M., J. P. Clarke, A. Bobet, V. P. Drnevich, C. S. El Mohtar, P. T. Tiwari, N., N. Satyam, and K. Singh. 2020. “Effect of curing on micro-
Huang, and C. T. Johnston. 2014. “Rheology of concentrated bentonite physical performance of polypropylene fiber reinforced and silica
dispersions treated with sodium pyrophosphate for application in miti- fume stabilized expansive soil under freezing thawing cycles.” Sci.
gating earthquake-induced liquefaction.” Appl. Clay Sci. 99: 24–34. Rep. 10: 7624. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64658-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.05.017. Tobler, D. J., E. Maclachlan, and V. R. Phoenix. 2012. “Microbially medi-
Seed, H. B. 1968. “Landslides during earthquakes due to soil liquefaction.” ated plugging of porous media and the impact of differing injection
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 94 (5): 1053–1122. strategies.” Ecol. Eng. 42: 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1971. “A simplified procedure for evaluat- .2012.02.027.
ing soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): Torgal, F. P., J. A. Labrincha, M. V. Diamanti, C. P. Yu, and H. K. Lee.
1249–1273. 2015. Biotechnologies and biomimetics for civil engineering. Berlin:
Seed, R. B., K. O. Cetin, R. E. S. Moss, A. M. Kammerer, J. Wu, J. M. Springer.
Pestana, and M. F. Riemer. 2001. “Recent advances in soil liquefaction Towhata, I. 2008. “Mitigation of liquefaction-induced damage.” In Vol. 1
engineering and seismic site response evaluation.” In Proc., 4th Int. of Geotechnical earthquake engineering, edited by I. Towhata, 588–
Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering 642. Berlin: Springer.
and Soil Dynamics and Symp. in Honor of Professor W. D. Liam van Paassen, L. A. 2009. “Biogrout: Ground improvement by microbially in-
Finn, 1–45. Rolla, Missouri: Missouri University of Science and duced carbonate precipitation.” Ph.D. thesis, Biotechnology, Delft Univ.
Technology. of Technology.
Shao, W., B. Cetin, Y. Li, J. Li, and L. Li. 2014. “Experimental investiga- van Paassen, L. A. 2011. “Bio-mediated ground improvement: From labo-
tion of mechanical properties of sands reinforced with discrete ran- ratory experiment to pilot applications.” In Geo-Frontiers Congress:
domly distributed fiber.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 32 (4): 901–910. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9766-3. Publication 211, edited by J. Han, and D. E. Alzamora, 4099–4108.
Sharma, M., N. Satyam, and K. R. Reddy. 2019. “Investigation of various Reston, VA: ASCE.
gram-positive bacteria for MICP in Narmada Sand, India.” Int. J. van Paassen, L. A., C. M. Daza, M. Staal, D. Y. Sorokin, W. van der Zon,
Geotech. Eng. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1691322. and M. C. M. van Loosdrecht. 2010a. “Potential soil reinforcement by
Sharma, M., N. Satyam, and K. R. Reddy. 2020. “Strength enhancement biological denitrification.” Ecol. Eng. 36 (2): 168–175. https://doi.org
and lead immobilization of sand using consortia of bacteria.” /10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.03.026.
J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 24 (4): 04020049. https://doi.org/10 van Paassen, L. A., R. Ghose, T. J. van der Linden, W. R. L. van der Star,
.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000548. and M. C. M. van Loosdrecht. 2010b. “Quantifying biomediated
Shengcong, F., and F. Tatsuoka. 1984. “Soil liquefaction during Haicheng ground improvement by ureolysis: Large-scale biogrout experiment.”
and Tangshan earthquake in China; a review.” Soils Found. 24 (4): 11– J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (12): 1721–1728. https://doi.org/10
29. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.24.4_11. .1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000382.
Simatupang, M., and M. Okamura. 2017. “Liquefaction resistance of sand van Paassen, L. A., V. P. Pham, and W. R. L. van der Star. 2010c.
remediated with carbonate precipitation at different degrees of satura- “Quantifying the desaturation effect of biogenic gas formation in sandy
tion during curing.” Soils Found. 57 (4): 619–631. https://doi.org/10 soil.” J. Virol. 84 (1): 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01808-09.
.1016/j.sandf.2017.04.003. van Veen, J. A., L. S. van Overbeek, and J. D. van Elsas. 1997. “Fate and
Simatupang, M., M. Okamura, K. Hayashi, and H. Yasuhara. 2018. activity of microorganisms introduced into soil.” Microbiol. Mol. Biol.
“Small-strain shear modulus and liquefaction resistance of sand with Rev. 61 (2): 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1128/.61.2.121-135.1997.
carbonate precipitation.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 115: 710–718. van Westen, C., and P. K. C. Ray. 2001. Liquefaction hazard zonation,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.027. case study Bhuj, India. Enschede, Netherlands: International Institute
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and A. K. Vasudevan. 2008. “Strength and stiff- for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, ITC.
ness response of coir fiber-reinforced tropical soil.” J. Mater. Civ. Wan, M. W., I. G. Petrisor, H. T. Lai, D. Kim, and T. F. Yen. 2004.
Eng. 20 (9): 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008) “Copper adsorption through chitosan immobilized on sand to
20:9(571). demonstrate the feasibility for in situ soil decontamination.”
Sobolev, D., and M. F. T. Begonia. 2008. “Effects of heavy metal contam- Carbohydr. Polym. 55 (3): 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol
ination upon soil microbes: Lead-induced changes in general and deni- .2003.09.009.
trifying microbial communities as evidenced by molecular markers.” Wang, K., A. J. Brennan, J. A. Knappett, S. Robinson, and A. G. Bengough.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 5 (5): 450–456. https://doi.org/10 2018. “Centrifuge modelling of remediation of liquefaction-induced
.3390/ijerph5050450. pipeline uplift using model root systems.” In Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on
Spencer, L., G. J. Rix, and P. Gallagher. 2008. “Colloidal silica gel and Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 1265–1270. London: CRC Press.
sand mixture dynamic properties.” In Geotechnical Earthquake Wang, Z., N. Zhang, G. Cai, Y. Jin, N. Ding, and D. Shen. 2017. “Review
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, Geotechnical Special Publication of ground improvement using microbial induced carbonate precipitation
181, edited by D. Zeng, M. T. Manzari, and D. R. Hiltunen, 1–10. (MICP).” Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 35 (8): 1135–1146. https://doi
Reston, VA: ASCE. .org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1297877.
Stocks-Fischer, S., J. K. Galinat, and S. S. Bang. 1999. “Microbiological Wen, K., Y. Li, F. Amini, and L. Li. 2020. “Impact of bacteria and urease
precipitation of CaCO3.” Soil Biol. Biochem. 31 (11): 1563–1571. concentration on precipitation kinetics and crystal morphology of cal-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00082-6. cium carbonate.” Acta Geotech. 3: 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1007
Stotzky, G. 1997. “Soil as an environment for microbial life.” In Modern /s11440-019-00899-3.
soil microbiology, edited by J. van Elsas, J. Trevors, and E. Wen, K., Y. Li, S. Liu, C. Bu, and L. Li. 2019. “Development of an im-
Wellington, 1–20. London: Taylor & Francis. proved immersing method to enhance microbial induced calcite precip-
Sun, X., L. Miao, T. Tong, and C. Wang. 2018. “Improvement of itation treated sandy soil through multiple treatments in low
microbial-induced calcium carbonate precipitation technology for cementation media concentration.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 37 (2): 1015–
sand solidification.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (11): 04018301. 1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0669-6.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002507. Whiffin, V. S. 2004. “Microbial CaCO3 precipitation for the production of
Tiwari, N., and N. Satyam. 2019. “Experimental study on the influence of biocement.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Biological Sciences &
polypropylene fiber on the swelling pressure expansion attributes of Biotechnology, Murdoch Univ.

Whiffin, V. S., L. A. van Paassen, and M. P. Harkes. 2007. “Microbial car- J. Agric. Food. Chem. 54 (11): 3815–3818. https://doi.org/10.1021
bonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique.” Geomicrobiol. J. /jf060243w.
24 (5): 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490450701436505. Zamani, A., and B. M. Montoya. 2017. “Shearing and hydraulic behavior
Wu, S. 2015. “Mitigation of liquefaction hazards using the combined bio- of MICP treated silty sand.” In Geotechnical Frontiers 2017: Seismic
desaturation and bioclogging method.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Performance and Liquefaction, Geotechnical Special Publication 281,
(Geotechnical Engineering), Iowa State Univ. edited by T. L. Brandon, and R. J. Valentine, 290–299. Reston, VA:
Xiao, P., H. Liu, A. W. Stuedlein, T. M. Evans, and Y. Xiao. 2019. “Effect ASCE.
of relative density and bio-cementation on the cyclic response of calcar- Zamani, A., and B. M. Montoya. 2019. “Undrained cyclic response of silty
eous sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 56 (12): 1849–1862. https://doi.org/10 sands improved by microbial induced calcium carbonate precipitation.”
.1139/cgj-2018-0573. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 120: 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Xiao, P., H. Liu, Y. Xiao, A. W. Stuedlein, and T. M. Evans. 2018. .soildyn.2019.01.010.
“Liquefaction resistance of bio-cemented calcareous sand.” Soil Zhang, X., Y. Chen, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, and X. Ding. 2020. “Performance
Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 107: 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn evaluation of a MICP-treated calcareous sandy foundation using
.2018.01.008. shake table tests.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 129: 105959. https://doi
Xu, H., W. Zhu, X. Qian, S. Wang, and X. Fan. 2016. “Studies on hydraulic .org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105959.
conductivity and compressibility of backfills for soil-bentonite cutoff Zhao, Q., L. Li, C. Li, M. Li, F. Amini, and H. Zhang. 2014. “Factors
walls.” Appl. Clay Sci. 132–133: 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j affecting improvement of engineering properties of MICP-treated
.clay.2016.06.025. soil catalyzed by bacteria and urease.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26
Ye, B., Z. R. Cheng, C. Liu, Y. D. Zhang, and P. Lu. 2017. “Liquefaction (12): 04014094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
resistance of sand reinforced with randomly distributed polypropylene .0001013.
fibres.” Geosynthetics Int. 24 (6): 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1680 Zhu, T., and M. Dittrich. 2016. “Carbonate precipitation through microbial
/jgein.17.00029. activities in natural environment, and their potential in biotechnology:
Yetimoglu, T., and O. Salbas. 2003. “A study on shear strength of sands re- A review.” Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 4: 4. https://doi.org/10.3389
inforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers.” Geotext. Geomembr. /fbioe.2016.00004.
21 (2): 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00003-7. Zobel, H. F. 1988. “Molecules to granules: A comprehensive starch re-
Yun, J. C., S. Lee, A. Y. Mi, and G. L. Hyeon. 2006. “Structural and view.” Starch - Stärke 40 (1): 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/star
biological characterization of sulfated-derivatized oat β-glucan.” .19880400203.

10 1061@ascehz 2153-5515 0000557

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1061@ascehz 2153-5515 0000557

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State-of-the-Art Review

State of the Art Review of Emerging and Biogeotechnical

Introduction vibrational energy from underground layers to surface structures.

© ASCE 03120001-1 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

effective than vibrodensiﬁcation. However, conventional grouting

Advanced Liquefaction Mitigation Methods

Recently, advanced methods have been developed to overcome the

© ASCE 03120001-2 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

dense, overconsolidated soils and clays (>5% ﬁnes).

© ASCE 03120001-3 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-4 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

be increased to resist axial or

© ASCE 03120001-5 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-6 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

interaction of water and

© ASCE 03120001-7 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

solution, which allows the liquefaction and CSR under

© ASCE 03120001-8 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-9 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

ment, including liquefaction mitigation. These methods are receiv- (3)

Cell − Ca2+ + CO2−

© ASCE 03120001-10 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

soils soil through indigenous microbe. collection for calcite content.

© ASCE 03120001-11 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

resistance of soils under cyclic

© ASCE 03120001-12 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

© ASCE 03120001-13 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-14 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

Reagent solution concentration

Consortium of algae N. 16% 1.78 × 10−6

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-16 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

sands of highly permeable could be achieved by

© ASCE 03120001-17 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

visual investigation, permeability was observed

© ASCE 03120001-18 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

© ASCE 03120001-19 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

total days of treatment, the temperature (suitable range for bac-

Appendix. Devastating Events of Soil Liquefaction in History

© ASCE 03120001-20 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001

References Barkouki, T. H., B. C. Martinez, B. M. Mortensen, T. S. Weathers, J. D. de

© ASCE 03120001-21 J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste

J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 2021, 25(1): 03120001