Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining the structuration of biopolymer-bound soil composite

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Engineers and scientists are in search of new construction materials to advance exploration in space and to reduce our CO2 emissions on Earth. Biopolymer-bound Soil Composite (BSC), a promising novel construction material, is being investigated for extrusion-based 3D printing applications that could both assist in lunar habitat construction and reduce earth-based CO2 emissions. For extrusion-based 3D printing applications, knowledge of BSC structuration is required. In this study, we evaluated the formation of a crust on the outer surface of BSC test specimens at various desiccation levels and the effect of the crust on the strength of the specimens. We measured the crust depth, determined the crust moisture content, and performed uniaxial compressive strength testing for selected specimens. We found that the depth of the BSC crust develops linearly with overall desiccation level and is the source of the specimen’s initial strength and stiffness. Additionally, we found that the crust begins to form when the biopolymer solution concentration at the specimen surface reaches a critical value and then moves inward with moisture loss. A methodology for modeling BSC structuration is developed based on knowledge of the BSC mixture design, the level of BSC desiccation, and the crust-forming biopolymer solution concentration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The water concentration was calculated by dividing the mass of water by the total mass (water, soil, and biopolymer). This value is not the same as the moisture content, defined in BSC research as the mass ratio of water to soil [4]. The initial BSC mixture had a water concentration of 11.5% and moisture content of 14.3%.

  2. Equation 4 is derived using Eqs. 9b and 10 with rdf = 0.

  3. The use of a quadratic growth function resulted in better model agreement with experimental data compared to a linear or cubic growth function, and the nonlinear function is consistent with surface drying profiles found in the literature [20].

  4. The [%w/w]BP*(r = R) = 100% assumption can only be valid in an environment with no water vapor (0% R.H.); however, this approximation is suitable for most drying environments.

References

  1. Roussel N (2018) Rheological requirements for printable concretes. Cem Concr Res 112:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amanda Hasse J, Prevedello Rubin A, Carvalho Quintanilha L, Longuini Repette W, Hasse JA, Rubin AP, Quintanilha LC, Repette WL (2020) Increasing structuration rate of 3D printable concretes: the effect of viscosity enhancing admixtures. Rev IBRACON Estruturase Mater 13:2020.https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-41952020000400012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rahul AV, Santhanam M, Meena H, Ghani Z (2019) 3D printable concrete: mixture design and test methods. Cem Concr Compos 97:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roedel H, Rosa I, Lepech M, Loftus D (2015) Sustainability assessment of protein-soil composite materials for limited resource environments. J Renew Mater 3:183–194. https://doi.org/10.7569/JRM.2015.634107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosa I, Roedel H, Allende MI, Lepech MD, Loftus DJ, Henning R, Allende MI, Lepech MD, Loftus DJ (2020) On designing biopolymer-bound soil Composites (BSC) for peak compressive strength. J Renew Mater 8:845–861. https://doi.org/10.32604/JRM.2020.09844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allende MI, Lepech MD, Loftus DJ (2017) A performance-based impact engineering framework: a probabilistic approach to quantify micrometeorite damage to lunar surface structures. Proc Int Astronaut Congr IAC 1:164–172

    Google Scholar 

  7. Panda B, Lim JH, Tan MJ (2019) Mechanical properties and deformation behaviour of early age concrete in the context of digital construction. Compos Part B Eng 165:563–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.02.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Perrot A, Rangeard D, Levigneur A (2016) Linking rheological and geotechnical properties of kaolinite materials for earthen construction. Mater Struct Constr 49:4647–4655. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0813-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Perrot A, Rangeard D, Courteille E (2018) 3D printing of earth-based materials: processing aspects. Constr Build Mater 172:670–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Biggerstaff A, Fuller G, Lepech M, Loftus D (2021) Determining the yield stress of a Biopolymer-bound soil composite for extrusion-based 3D printing applications. Constr Build Mater 305:124730. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.124730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. ASTM E104 (2020) Standard practice for maintaining constant relative humidity by means of aqueous solutions 1, https://doi.org/10.1520/E0104-20A.

  12. Coussot P (2005) Rheometry of Pastes, suspensions, and granular materials, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/0471720577

  13. ASTM C39, C39M (2021) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens 1. ASTM Stand B 1:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A. Biggerstaff M, Lepech D, Loftus A, (2021) Shape Stability Model for 3D Printable Biopolymer-Bound SoilComposite, Constr. Build. Mater. Pre-Print.

  15. Jaenicke R (1990) Protein structure and function at low temperatures, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. B. Biol. Sci. 326:535–551. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.1990.0030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. H. Roedel, (2017) On the Compressive Strength and Sustainability of Protein Bound Concretes, Stanford University.

  17. Yiotis AG, Tsimpanogiannis IN, Stubos AK, Yortsos YC (2007) Coupling between external and internal mass transfer during drying of a porous medium. Water Resour Res 43:6403. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brownsey GJ, Noel TR, Parker R, Ring SG (2003) The glass transition behavior of the globular protein bovine serum albumin. Biophys J 85:3943–3950. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74808-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson GW, Fredlund DG, Barbour SL (1994) Coupled soil-atmosphere modelling for soil evaporation. Can Geotech J 31:151–161. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ginzburg AS, Dubrovskii VP (1966) Moisture distribution in granular material during drying in a fluidized bed. J Eng Phys 11(3):175–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00829571

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford University for laboratory equipment funding and other resources. The authors would also like to acknowledge the U.S. Army for partially funding this research through the Advanced Civil Schooling (ACS) program. Additionally, the authors would like to thank SSERVI-NASA for supplying the BP-1 lunar regolith simulant. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Army or NASA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Adrian Biggerstaff & Michael Lepech

  2. Space Biosciences Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA

    David Loftus

Authors
  1. Adrian Biggerstaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Lepech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Loftus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Biggerstaff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biggerstaff, A., Lepech, M. & Loftus, D. Determining the structuration of biopolymer-bound soil composite. Mater Struct 55, 190 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-02004-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-02004-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation