Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement Techniques: Comparison of Cement Grouting and Biocement

  • Maryam Naeimi
  • Abdolhosein Haddad
Conference paper


Soil improvement techniques – including both mechanical and chemical stabilization methods such as dynamic compression and grouting – have potential drawbacks such as high cost, high energy consumption and sometimes negative environmental impacts. An alternative approach is to use biocement to improve the engineering properties of soil. Microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) has been introduced as a technique for modification of geotechnical properties of sand. Among many studies concerning biocementation of sand, there are few studies considering the comparison of cost and environmental impacts of cement grouting and microbial methods. The environmental concerns in the present study was focused on the produced CO2 and calcite usage in Portland cement. The primary component of cement is limestone which is a natural resource. Cement manufacturing is highly energy and emissions intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy and generates nearly a ton of CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to society, cement is an obvious place to work on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, calcium chloride was also used as a crucial reagent in MICP treated samples. Therefore, the present study discussed the environmental aspects of conventional and innovative methods of soil improvement. In the cement grouting method, Portland cement was used as a chemical substance. Portland cement were applied by surface percolation and mechanical mixing to the samples. Then, the results of cement grouting were compared with the results of biocement samples which were gathered from literature. The results for treated samples were discussed and compared based on one cubic meter of soil and final target of 700 kPa. The results show that the amount of calcium usage in the cement grouting was 2.5 times more than bio-treated samples and therefore higher energy and gas emissions.


Environmental impacts Soil improvement Cement Biocement 


  1. 1.
    Néri, R.: Consideration of bonding in the behaviour of a sand-cement mixture simulating jet grouting. Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clough, G.W., et al.: Cemented sands under static loading. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 107(6), 799–817 (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Consoli, N.C., et al.: Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133(2), 197–205 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim, S.K., et al.: Effect of different sand grading on strength properties of cement grout. Constr. Build. Mater. 38, 348–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ajorloo, A.M., et al.: Experimental investigation of ce-ment treated sand behavior under triaxial test. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30, 129–143 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Consoli, N.C., et al.: Key parameters for strength control of rammed sand–cement mixtures: influence of types of portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 49, 591–597 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szczesniak, M., Rougelot, T., Burlion, N., Shao, J.-F.: Compressive strength of cement-based composites: roles of aggregate diameter and water saturation degree. Cem. Concr. Compos. 37, 249–258 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sariosseiri, F., Muhunthan, B.: Effect of cement treatment on geotechnical properties of some Washington State soils. Eng. Geol. 104(1), 119–125 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moradi, A.: Study of engineering properties of sand stabilized with cement and lime and comparison with the of biologically improvement method. In: Civil Engineering, Semnan University (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amini, Y., Hamidi, A.: Triaxial shear behavior of a cement-treated sand–gravel mixture. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6(5), 455–465 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hashemi, S., et al.: The failure behaviour of poorly cemented sands at a borehole wall using laboratory tests. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 77, 348–357 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDowell, G., Bolton, M.: On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Geotechnique 48(5), 667–679 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beeghly, J.H.: Recent experiences with lime-fly ash stabilization of pavement subgrade soils, base, and recycled asphalt. In: International Ash Utilization Symposium (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naeimi, M.: Biocementation of sand in geotechnical engineering. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng, L., Cord-Ruwisch, R.: In situ soil cementation with ureolytic bacteria by surface percolation. Ecol. Eng. 42, 64–72 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Petroleum IndustryTehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations