Advertisement

Environmental impacts of chemical and microbial grouting

  • Maryam NaeimiEmail author
  • Abdolhosein Haddad
Research Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Climate change is considered the major environmental challenge for the world. Cement and lime production is a highly energy-consuming, heavily polluting process, and the CO2 emissions are very substantial. Alkaline environment, high temperature, and long processing time lead the researchers to work on alternative soil improvements. Microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) has been introduced as a technique for modification of geotechnical properties of sand. The main purpose of the present study was to focus on the efficiency and environmental impact of conventional and microbial grouting. Samples were treated with three chemical stabilizers, namely Portland cement, lime, and cement and lime. The stabilizers were injected with flow gravity and constant head which are almost the same as microbial grouting. Then, the results of conventional grouting were compared with the results of biocement samples which were gathered from previous studies to discuss the efficiency and environmental impacts. The results for treated samples were discussed and compared based on 1 m3 of soil and a final target of 700 kPa. It was found that in order to obtain the same compressive strength, the cost and calcium carbonate consumption of the cement injection method were 2.5 times more than those of the microbial method. Biocementation has some advantages over existing technologies, such as less calcium usage in the same unconfined compressive strength (UCS).

Keywords

Soil improvement Conventional grouting Microbial grouting Calcium usage Efficiency Environmental impacts 

Notes

References

  1. Ajorloo AM, Mroueh H, Lancelot L (2012) Experimental investigation of ce-ment treated sand behavior under triaxial test. Geotech Geol Eng 30:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D-18 (2008) Standard guide for evaluating effectiveness of admixtures for soil stabilization. In Annual Book of ASTM StandardsGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM-D2166 (2006) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM (2011) ASTM D-4609, Guide for evaluating effectiveness of admixtures for soil stabilization. ASTM Annual Book of Standards, volume 04.08 on Soil and Rock, Section 4—Construction. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and MaterialsGoogle Scholar
  5. Amini Y, Hamidi A (2014) Triaxial shear behavior of a cement-treated sand–gravel mixture. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(5):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beeghly JH (2003) Recent experiences with lime-fly ash stabilization of pavement subgrade soils, base and recycled asphalt. Proceedings of the International Ash Utilization Symposium, University of Kentucky, Lexingston, USA, Oct.Google Scholar
  7. Cheng L (2012) Innovative ground enhancement by improved microbially induced CaCO3 precipitation technology. Murdoch University, PhDGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu J, Ivanov V, Naeimi M, Stabnikov V, Liu H-L (2014) Optimization of calcium-based bioclogging and biocementation of sand. Acta Geotech 9(2):277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clough GW, Rad NS, Bachus RC, Sitar N (1981) Cemented sands under static loading. J Geotech Eng Div 107(6):799–817Google Scholar
  10. Consoli NC, Festugato L, Rocha d, Gravina C, Cruz RC (2013) Key parameters for strength control of rammed sand–cement mixtures: Influence of types of portland cement. Constr Build Mater 49:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Consoli NC, Foppa D, Festugato L, Heineck K S-v (2007) Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils. J Geotech Geoenviron 133(2):197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Consoli NC, Prietto PDM, da Silva Lopes L Jr, Winter D (2014) Control factors for the long term compressive strength of lime treated sandy clay soil. Transportation Geotechnics 1(3):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeJong JT, Soga K, Kavazanjian E, Burns S, Van Passens LA, Al Qabany A, Aydilek A, Bang S, Burbank M, Caslake LF, Chen CY, Cheng X, Chu J, Ciurli S, Esnault-Filet A, Fauriel S, Hamdan N, Hata T, Inagaki Y, Jefferis S, Kuo M, Lailoui L, Larrahondo J, Manning DAC, Martinez B, Montoya BM, Nelson DC, Palomino A, Renforth P, Santamarina JC, Seagren EA, Tanyu B, Tsesarsky M, Weaver T (2012) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities and challenges. Géotechnique 63(4):287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hashemi S, Melkoumian N, Taheri A, Jaksa M (2015) The failure be-haviour of poorly cemented sands at a borehole wall using laboratory tests. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 77:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hökfors B (2014) Phase chemistry in process models for cement clinker and lime production. Umeå UniversitetGoogle Scholar
  16. Kittipongvises S (2017) Assessment of environmental impacts of limestone quarrying operations in Thailand. Environ Climate Technol 20(1):67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamare R, Singh O (2016) Limestone mining and its environmental implications in Meghalaya, India. ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology 24:87Google Scholar
  18. Langer, W. H. (2001). Potential environmental impacts of quarrying stone in karst: a literature review, Citeseer.Google Scholar
  19. Lim SK, Tan CS, Chen KP, Lee ML, Lee WP (2013) Effect of different sand grading on strength properties of cement grout. Constr Build Mater 38:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDowell G, Bolton M (1998) On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Geotechnique 48(5):667–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moradi A (2015) Study of engineering properties of sand stabilized with cement and lime and comparison with the of biologically improvement method. Semnan University, MScGoogle Scholar
  22. Naeimi M (2014) Biocementation of sand in geotechnical engineering. PhD disscusionGoogle Scholar
  23. Naeimi M, Haddad A (2018) Investigation on the environmental impact of soil improvement techniques: comparison of cement grouting and biocement. Springer, GeoShanghai International ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  24. Naeimi M, Lashgari A, Haddad A (2019) The study of geotechnical factors on environmental impact assessment case study: Abyek Cement Factory. Environmental Researches In pressGoogle Scholar
  25. Néri R (2013) Consideration of bonding in the behaviour of a sand-cement mixture simulating jet grouting. Instituto Superior Tecnico, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  26. Néri R (2015) Consideration of bonding in the behaviour of a sand-cement mixture simulating jet grouting. M. Sc, Instituto Superior TécnicoGoogle Scholar
  27. Pantazopoulos I, Atmatzidis D (2012) Dynamic properties of microfine cement grouted sands. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 42:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahman A, Rasul M, Khan MMK, Sharma S (2013) Impact of alternative fuels on the cement manufacturing plant performance: an overview. Procedia Engineering 56:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stajanča M and Eštoková A (2012). Environmental impacts of cement productionGoogle Scholar
  30. Szczesniak M, Rougelot B, Thomas N, Shao J-F (2013) Compressive strength of cement-based composites: roles of aggregate diame-ter and water saturation degree. Cem Concr Compos 37:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tariq K, Maki T (2014) Mechanical behaviour of cement-treated sand. Constr Build Mater 58:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Umesha T, Dinesh S, Sivapullaiah P (2009) Control of dispersivity of soil using lime and cement. Int J Geol 3(1):8–16Google Scholar
  33. van Passen LA (2010). Biostimulated ground improvement. First International Conference on Frontiers in Shallow Subsurface Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Forests and Rangeland, AREEOTehranIran
  2. 2.Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations