Next Generation Self-Healing

Concrete:

Infusing
Infusing Bacteria
Bacteria into
into Engineered
Engineered Cementitious
Cementitious
Composite
Composite

Presented by Benjamin G. Kaplan

Mentor: Paramita Mondal, PhD

(Mondal, 2012)

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

Americas Crumbling Concrete

Holes in bridge deck
(Rice, 2013)

D+ by ASCE
(ASCE, 2013)

$2.2 trillion to repair

(Li, 2012)
(Wikipedia Commons)

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

The Problem with Concrete

Most used construction material on
planet
(The Concrete Conundrum, 2008)

Vulnerable to degradation
Diffi cult to repair
7% of carbon footprint
(James, 2013)

( Te x t u r e l i b . c o m )

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

What is Self-Healing
Calcium carbonate
crystalizes in the
matrix
Water dissolves
calcium hydroxide
Healing agents
consumed
Cant heal cracks
larger than 100-200
m ( J o n k e r s & S c h l a n g e n , 2 0 0 8 )

Concrete Cover
Steel
(Breugel, 2007)

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

Bacterial Concrete:
A Novel Approach to Self-Healing

(DeMuynck, 2007)

Microbial Induced Calcium

Carbonate Precipitation (MICCP)
Urease: (CO(NH 2 ) 2 ) NH 4 + + CO 3 2
Ca + + cell cell-Ca +
cell-Ca + + CO 3 2 cell-CaCO

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

Engineered Cementitious Composite

Micromechanically-designed material
Tailored to limit crack growth

Tensile strain Strain hardening

Limits crack size (up to 150 m)
natural self-healing occurs ( L i , 2 0 1 2 )
500 times more ductile
(ahmaran, 2012)

Double initial cost greatly lower end cost

(Li, 2012)

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

ECC Self-Healing in the Field

40% less concrete
used
(Li, 2012)

90% recovery of
Resonant
Frequency
(Li, 2011)

Cracks < 20 m
healed ( L i , 2 0 1 1 )

( Pa n o r a m i o . c o m )

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

Objectives
Investigate infusion of bacteria into ECC
1. Hybrids healing capabilities
2. Healing in fi eld environments vs.
laboratory
3. Compressive strength and amount of water
absorbed (sorptivity) testing

Introducto
ry
Informatio
n

SelfHealing

Bacterial
Concrete

ECC

Objectives

Hypothesis

Hypotheses
H01

B a ct er i a l -E C C w on t sh ow a ddit ion a l h ea l i n g

H1

B a ct er i a l -E C C w i ll sh ow gr ea t est h ea lin g

H02

L a b h ea l i n g = fi eld h ea l in g

H2

L a b h ea l i n g > u n der gr ou n d h ea li n g > ex p osed h ea l i n g

H03

C om p r es s i v e s tr en gt h & sor ptiv it y a r e eq u a l fo r a l l g r ou p s

H3

B a ct er i a l -E C C h a s gr ea t est c om pr essiv e st r en gt h &

lo w est s or p t i v i t y

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

My Role in the Study

Read 25 articles + 100 primer pages
Independently conceived
Determined parameters
Environments
Duration
Te s t t y p e s

Mixed, molded, and de-molded

Tested specimens
Analyzed all stats and wrote report

(Kaplan, 2013)

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

Materials
Sporosarcina
pasteurii
Cul tivation
30C Shaking
table
24h
petri dish
Repeated i n vat

Bacteria
Culturing

Solid media
Ye a s t : 2 . 0 0 g
Ammonium sulfate
(NH4)2 SO4: 1.00g
Tr i s ( H O C H 2 ) 3 ( C N H 2 ) :
1.57g
Agar: 2.00g
Liquid media
Ye a s t : 2 0 . 0 0 g i n
400mL
Ammonium sulfate:
10.00 g in 300mL
5.73 g of tris in
300mL

Nutrient
Mediums
(Kaplan, 2013)

Derived from ECC R0

(Li, 2004)

C h a n g e s t o Fo r m u l a :
Less superplasticizer
W/C = 0.395
Amounts
Cement: 446.39g
F110 silica
sand:446.05g
Polyvinyl alcohol
( P VA ) fi b e r s : 1 1 . 9 0 g
Wa t e r / m e d i u m :
178.90g (with 1.6g of
super plasticizer for
ECC)

Mix

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

Specimen Preparation
Cubes
5.08 x
5.08 x
5.08
cm

Beams
30.48 x
2.54 0x
2.54 cm

( K a p l a n , 2 0(1K3a)p l a n , 2 0 1 3 )

Bisecti on
12.7x2.54x2. 54 cm

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

Environments

1.

3.
(Kaplan, 2013)
2.

E x p o s e d
D r y, l i t t l e
rainfall
(Angel, 2013)
L a b o r a t o r y
Control
Lime water
30C

Underground
Buried 21.6 cm

Re-saturated

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

Resonant Frequency Testing

Wave propagation
stiff ness measurement
A S TM C 2 1 5

7 days curing RF tests

3 point 1 s t crack
RF re-measured
28 days healing
RF re-measured

(Kaplan, 2013)

M
My
y R
Ro
o ll e
e

M
Ma
a tt e
e rr ii a
a ll s
s

S
Sp
pe
ec
c ii m
me
en
n
P
P rr e
ep
pa
a rr a
a tt ii o
on
n

E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
en
n
tt s
s

R
Re
es
so
on
na
an
n tt
F rr e
F
eq
qu
ue
en
nc
cy
y
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g

C
Co
om
mp
p // S
So
o rr p
p
Te
Te s
s tt ii n
ng
g &
&
S
S tt a
a tt s
s

Compressive/Sorptivity Testing & Stats

Sorptivity

ASTM C642 standard

48 h oven drying
We igh e d, i m me rsed, su rfa c e-dri e d, re -im m erse d, re pea te dl y
0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 6, 24, 48, 52.5 h

C o m p r e s s i v e St r e n g t h
48 h re-drying
Fo r n e y Q C - 0 4 1 0 - D 3 p o i n t l o a d f r a m e

Stats
T- t e s t
Independent
Pa i re d
1-tailed

Pearsons R
= 0.05

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Self-Healing Beams

RF increases as samples cure (age)

Healing gains may be exaggerated
(absolutely)

Conclusion
s
s

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusion
s
s

Damage-Healing Correlation

Laboratory Environment
Linear (Laboratory
Environment)
Underground Environment
Linear (Underground
Environment)
Exposed Environment
Linear (Exposed
Environment)

Damage and RF regains: signifi cantly positive for all

L a b : r = 0 .9 0 & p = 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 6
E x p o s e d : r = 0 .5 5 & p = 0 . 0 3 3
U n d er g r o un d : r = 0 . 8 6 & p = 0 . 0 0 0 1 4

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusion
s
s

Differences amongst ECC types

12%
10%
8%
R.F. % Increase

6%
4%
2%
0%
ECC

ECC+ Medium

ECC + Bacteria

Type

Healing for ECC b a c t e r i a signifi cantly >

ECC r e g u l a r (p = 0.042) > ECC m e d i u m (p =
0.007)

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusion
s
s

Environmental Testing
14%
12%
10%
8%
R.F % Increase

6%
4%
2%
0%
Control

Exposed

Underground

Environment

No sig. diff erence between lab and

underground healing (p = 0.44)

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusion
s
s

Sorptivity Testing
Absorption Rate

OPC-R-A
OPC-R-B
OPC-R-C
OPC-M-A
OPC-M-B
OPC-M-C
OPC-B-A
OPC-B-B
OPC-B-C

Not in line with expectations

Micro-cracking?

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusion
s
s

Compressive Strength Testing

70000
60000 Required for Failure
Pascals
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
ECC-R-A

ECC-R-B

ECC-R-C

ECC-M-A

ECC-M-B

ECC-M-C

ECC-B-A

ECC-B-B

ECC-B-C

ECC-R

ECC-M

Individual ECC Specimen

Microcracking OPC cube results inconclusive

Dead bacteria weaker comp. strength
(Ramachandran, 2001)

ECC-B

ECC Type Average

General
Tr
Tr e
en
nd
ds
s

H
He
ea
a ll ii n
ng
g b
by
y
E
En
nv
v ii rr o
on
nm
me
e
nt

Healing by
Ty
Ty p
pe
e

Sorptivity
R
Re
es
su
u ll tt s
s

C
Co
om
mp
p rr e
es
ss
s ii v
v
e
e S
S tt rr e
en
ng
g tt h
h
Results

Conclusions
H 1 con fi rm ed
H 0 2 s erendipitou sly con fi rm ed in par t
Proof of con cept for bacter ial-E CC
Fu t u r e i n q u i r i e s : m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e t h o d s

Additional fi eld stu dies

E.g. Underwater
D i ff e r e n t s e a s o n s
D i ff e r e n t c l i m a t e s

Altern ative m easu r in g

In frastr uctu r e for th e 21 s t centu r y

Conclusion
s
s

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Paramita
Mondal, her doctoral candidates, Pete Stynoski and
Bin Zhang along with graduate student Jeevaka
Somaratna, my science research advisors: Mr. David
Keith, Mr. Ken Kaplan, and Ms. Stephanie Greenwald,
and lastly my parents: Dr. Howard Kaplan and Ms.
Jennifer Lacks Kaplan, my stepmother: Janet Shimer,
and my grandfather: Dr. Sanford Lacks.

References

References

Achal, V., Mukherjee, A., & Reddy, M. S. (2010). Microbial Concrete: A Way to Enhance the Durability
of Building Structures. J ournal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23(6). doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000159
Angel, J. (2013, August 31). Climate Observations for Champaign-Urbana, IL (Rep.). Retrieved
October/November, from University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign website:

Li, V. C., Stang, H. and Krenchel, H. (1993). Micromechanics of crack bridging in fiber
reinforced concrete. J . of Materials and Structures, 26, 486-494.
Mather, B. and Warner, J., (2003). Why do concrete repairs fail. Interview held at Univ. of
Wisconsin, Dept. of Eng. Professional Development, MD, WI,
<http://aec.engr.wisc.edu/resources/rsrc07.html>. Accessed, Nov., 2013.

http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/cuweather/
Cocks, J. (2013, June 7). Roman concrete provides the secret for modern advances. Archaeology News
fromPast Horizons RSS. Retrieved from
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/06/2013/roman-concrete-provides-the-secretfor-modern-advances
Demuynck, W., Debrouwer, D., Debelie, N., & Verstraete, W. (2008). Bacterial carbonate precipitation

Mechtcherine, V. (2006). Testing the behavior of strain hardening cementitious composites in tension
18. Retrieved from http://tchfc.engin.umich.edu/doc/HawaiiPapers/A/Mechtcherine-Testing.pdf

Prabhakara, R. (2013). Bio Mineralisation Of Calcium Carbonate By Different Bacterial Strains And
Their Application In Concrete Crack Remediation. International J ournal of Advances in
Engineering & Technology, 6(1), 202213.

improves the durability of cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 38(7), 10051014. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.03.005
Herbert, E. N. and Li, V. C., (2011). Self-healing of engineered cementitious composites in the
natural environment. In: High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites 6, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA, June 20-22.
Jonkers, H. M., (2011). Bacteria-based self-healing concrete. Heron, 56(1/2), 1-12.
Jonkers, H. M., & Schlangen, E. (2008). Development of a bacteria-based self healing concrete. Tailor
Made Concrete Structures.
Li, V. C.; Fischer, G.; Lepech, M.(2004). "Crack Resistant Concrete Material
for Transportation Construction" Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting,

Ramachandran, S. K., Ramakrishnan, V., & Bang, S. S. (2001). Remediation of concrete using microorganisms. Materials J ournal, (98), 39. Retrieved from
http://sphinx.murdoch.edu.au/units/extern/BIO301/teach/download/Chemostat/B. pasteuri literature
examples/Concrete remediation with B. pasteurii.pdf
Rice, A. (2013, January 27). New York Magazine. NYMag.com. Retrieved from
http://nymag.com/news/features/tappan-zee-bridge-2013-2/
Sahmaran, M. and Li, V. C., (2008). Durability of mechanically loaded engineered cementitious
composites under highly alkaline environments. Cement and Concrete Composites, 30, 72-81.
Wu, M., Johannesson, B. and Geiker, M., (2012). A review: Self-healing in cementitious

Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Compendium of Papers

materials and engineered cementitious composite as a self-healing material. Construction and

CD ROM, Paper 04-4680, 2004. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/84828>

Building Materials, 28, 571-583.

Li, V.C., & Herbert, E. (2012). Robust Self-Healing Concrete for Sustainable Infrastructure. J ournal
of Advanced Concrete Technology, 10, 207-218.

Yang, Y., Lepech, M. D., Yang, E. and Li, V. C., (2009). Autogenous healing of engineered
cementitious composites under wet-dry cycles. Cement and Concrete Research, 39, 382-390.