A RESEARCH FOR BACTERIAL SELF-HEALING IN METAKAOLIN BASED GEOPOLYMER MORTARS

Abstract

Cement production is a polluting process for nature. For this reason, new types of concrete which can be produced with recycled materials and without cement continue to be investigated. On the other hand; cracks in structural elements reduce the strength and durability of a building. Extending service life of buildings has eliminated the cost of rebuilding and thus, contributed to both the economy and the ecosystem. Due to this, research on crack healing in Portland cement concretes with various bacteria is continuing for some time. However, there are not enough studies in literature regarding the improvement of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortars produced without using cement by urolytic bacteria. The parameters of temperature, pH and void ratio of bacterial geopolymer mortar affect the viability of bacteria. For example, pH value of the medium required for the survival of bacteria is, generally around nine. During the production of geopolymer concrete, a sudden increase in high alkali environment occurs due to use of activators. This reduces the survival rate of bacteria added to the mixture during the production of geopolymer mortar. In this study, the most suitable environment for geopolymer mortar, and the conditions for the bacteria to survive until the end of the curing process for the mortar to be strengthened were investigated. Analyses on the effects of urolytic bacteria and geopolymer mortar healing process on mechanical strength of the mortar were conducted. Sporosarcina Pasteurii were used for the self healing process. Various mixtures of geopolymer mortars were cured under different environmental conditions to observe changes in their mechanical strength and water absorption capacity. As the result of the study, the most suitable mixture ratio and curing medium were identified. It was observed that the nutrient, ensuring the life cycle of the urolytic bacteria, had no negative effect on the mechanical strength of mortar and reduced capillary water absorption of the mortar. This study is a specific text in the literature that analyzes bacterial curing conditions and the effect of improving geopolymer mortar.

Keywords

• Geopolymer concrete
• urea
• self healing
• bacterial healing
• mechanical properties

References

1. [1] J. Van Deventer, J. Provis and P. Duxson, «Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement.,» Miner. Eng., Vol. 229, pp. 89_104, 2012.
2. [2] J. Davidovits, «proporties of geopolymer cements,» First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Saint-Quentin, France, 1994.
3. [3] C. Li, H. Sun and L. Li, «A review: the comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si+Ca) and metakaolin (Si1Al) cements.,» Cem. Concr. Res., Vol.. 40, pp. 1341_1349, 2010.
4. [4] J. Van D., J. Provis, D. Brice and P. Duxson, «Chemical research and climate change as drivers in the commercial adoption of alkali activated materials,» Waste Biomass Valor., Vol. 1, pp. 145_155, 2010.
5. [5] J. Provis, «Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what?,» Mater. Struct. , Vol. 47, pp. 11_25., 2014.
6. [6] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Z. Abdollahnejad and S. Miraldo., «Alkali-activated cement-based binders (AACB) as durable and cost competitive low CO2 binders: some shortcomings that need to be addressed.,» Handbook of Low Carbon Concrete, first ed., Waltham, Elsevier Science and Tech, 2016, pp. 195_216.
7. [7] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, G. M. and S. Bhattacharyy, «Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments,» Constr. Build. Mater. Vol. 85, pp. 78-90, 2015.
8. [8] P. Rovnanik, «Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of metakaolin-based geopolymer,» Constr. Build. Mater. Vol. 24:7, pp. 1176-1183, 2010.

9. [9] A. Karthika, K. Sudalaimani, C. Vijayakumar and S. Saravanakumar, «Effect of bio-additives on physico-chemical properties of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based self cured geopolymer mortars,» Journal of hazardous Mater. Vol. 2361: 56-63, 2019.
10. [10] F. Pacheco T., Z. Abdollahnejad and S. Miraldo, «An overview on the potential of geopolymers for concrete infrastructure rehabilitation,» Constr. Build. Mater., Vol 36, pp. 1053_1058, 2012.
11. [11] F. G. J. J. S. Pacheco-Torgal, «Adhesion characterization of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder. Influence of OPC concrete substrate surface treatment.,» Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 154_161., Vol. 22, pp. 154_161., 2008.
12. [12] M. Uysal, M. Al-mashhadan, Y. Aydönmez and O. Canpolat, «Effect of using colemanite waste and silica fume as partial replacement on the performance of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortars,» Constr. Build. Mater. Vol. 176: 271–282, 2018.
13. [13] A. J. BacteriolLarson and R. Kallio, «Purification and properties of bacterial urease,» Journal of bacteriology . Vol. 68, pp.67–73, 1954.
14. [14] M. Burbank, T. Weaver, B. Williams ve R. Crawford, «Urease activity of ureolytic bacteria isolated from six soils in which calcite was precipitated by indigenous bacteria,» Geomicrobiology, Vol. 29, pp.389–395, 2012.
15. [15] M. Li, X. Cheng and H. Guo, «Heavy metal removal by biomineralization of urease producing bacteria isolated from soil,» International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, Vol. 76, pp.81–85, 2013.
16. [16] Z. Basaran, Biomineralization in Cement Based Materials: Inoculation of Vegetative Cells”. Ph.D. dissertation.,The University Texas at Austin, 2013.
17. [17] Z. Bundur, A. Amiri, Y. Ersan, N. De Belie and N. Boon, «Impact of air entraining admixtures on biogenic calcium carbonate precipitation and bacterial viability.,» Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 98, pp. 44-49, 2017.
18. [18] N. Chahal, R. Siddique and A. Rajor, «Influence of bacteria on the compressive strength, water absorption and rapid chloride permeability of fly ash concrete,» Constr. Build. Mater., , Vol. 228, pp.351-356, 2012.
19. [19] W. De Muynck, K. Cox, N. De Belie and W. Verstraete, «Bacterial carbonate precipitation as an alternative surface treatment for concrete,» Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 222, pp.875-885, 2008.
20. [20] R. Andalib, M. Abd Majid and Hussin, «Optimum concentration of Bacillus megaterium for strengthening structural concrete,» Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 2118, pp.180-193, 2016.
21. [21] J. Bashir, I. Kathwari, A. Tiwary and K. Singh, «Bio Concrete- The Self-Healing Concrete,» Indian Journal of Science, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 9(47), 2016.
22. [22] Y. Erşan, F. Da Silva, N. Boon, W. Verstraete and N. De Belie, «Screening of bacteria and concrete compatible protection materials,» Construction and building materials, Vol. 88, pp. 196-203, 2015.
23. [23] Z. Bundur, M. Kirisits M.J. and R. Ferron , «Biomineralized cement-based materials: Impact of inoculating vegetative bacterial cells on hydration and strength.,» Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 67, pp.237–245. , 2015.
24. [24] F. Nosouhian, D. Mostofinejad and H. Hasheminejad, «Concrete durability improvement in a sulfate environment using bacteria», Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 28 (1), 2016.
25. [25] C. Montes and E. Alouche, «Rheological behaviour of fly ash-based geopolymers.,» STP 1566 Geopolym. Binder Syst., Vol. 24, pp.72-84., 2013..
26. [26] B. Zhang, K. MacKenzie and I. Brown, «Crystalline phase formation in metakaolinite geopolymers activated with NaOH and sodium silicate,» J. Mater. Sci., Vol. 244, pp.4668-4676., 2009.
27. [27] N. Chahal, R. Siddique and A. Rajor, «Influence of bacteria on the compressive strength, water absorption and rapid chloride permeability of fly ash concrete,» Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 228, pp.351-356, 2012.
28. [28] R. Andalib, M. Majid, M. Hussin, A. Keyvanfar, A. Talaiekhozani and H. Ismail, «Geo-polymer Bacterial Concrete Using Microorganism,» J. Environ. Treat. Tech. , Vol. 3(4), pp. 212-215, 2015.
29. [29] A. Mishra, D. Choudhary, D, N. Jain, M. Kumar, N. Sharda and D. Dutt, «Effect of concentratıon of alkalıne lıquıd and curıng tıme on strength and water absorptıon of geopolymer concrete.,» ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3(1), 2008.
30. [30] P. Duxson, A. Fernández-Jiménez, J. Provis, G. Luckey, A. Palomo and J. Van Deventer, «Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art,» Vol. 42 (9), pp. 2917-2933, 2007.
31. [31] M. M.Al-mashhadania, O. Canpolat, Y. Aygörmez, M. Uysal and S. Erdem, «Mechanical and microstructural characterization of fiber reinforced fly ash based geopolymer composites,» Construction and building materials, Vol. 167, pp. 505-513, 2018.
32. [32] A. Lloyd and M. Sheaffe, «Urease activity in soils,» Plant and Soil, Vol. 39, pp.71–80, 1973.
33. [33] H. Mobley, M. Island and R. Hausinger, «Molecular biology of microbial ureases,», Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., Vol. 59, pp.451–480, 1995.
34. [34] N. Ha, S. Oh, J. Sung, K. Cha, M. Lee and B. Oh, «Supramolecular assembly and acid resistance of Helicobacter pylori urease,», Nature Structural Biology, Vol. 8, pp.505–509, 2001.