4.7 Article

Effect of Bacillus subtilis on mechanical and self-healing properties in mortar with different crack widths and curing conditions

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34837-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the effectiveness of Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) in self-healing cracks in concrete and enhancing concrete strength through microbial induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP). The study evaluates the ability of the mortar to cover cracks within 28 days, taking into account the width of the crack, and observes the recovery of strength after self-healing. The use of microencapsulated endospores of B. subtilis is also examined for its impact on the strength of concrete. Compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths are compared between normal mortar and biological mortar, and it is found that biological mortar has a higher strength capacity. Microstructure analysis using SEM and EDS shows that bacterial growth increases calcium production, contributing to the improved mechanical properties of the bio-mortar.
This research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) in self-healing cracks in concrete and enhancing concrete strength through microbial induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP). The study evaluated the ability of the mortar to cover cracks within 28 days, taking into account the width of the crack, and observed the recovery of strength after self-healing. The use of microencapsulated endospores of B. subtilis was also examined for its impact on the strength of concrete. The compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths of normal mortar were compared to those of biological mortar, and it was found that biological mortar had a higher strength capacity. Microstructure analysis using SEM and EDS showed that bacterial growth increased calcium production, contributing to the improved mechanical properties of the bio-mortar.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据