4.7 Article

Quantification of crack-healing in novel bacteria-based self-healing concrete

期刊

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 763-770

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.03.012

关键词

Self-healing; Cracks; Bacteria; Concrete

资金

  1. Delft Centre for Materials (DCMat) [SHM08704]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crack formation is a commonly observed phenomenon in concrete structures. Although micro crack formation hardly affects structural properties of constructions, increased permeability due to micro crack networking may substantially reduce the durability of concrete structures due to risk of ingress of aggressive substances particularly in moist environments. In order to increase the often observed autogenous crack-healing potential of concrete, specific healing agents can be incorporated in the concrete matrix. The aim of this study was to quantify the crack-healing potential of a specific and novel two-component bio-chemical self-healing agent embedded in porous expanded clay particles, which act as reservoir particles and replace part of regular concrete aggregates. Upon crack formation the two-component biochemical agent consisting of bacterial spores and calcium lactate are released from the particle by crack ingress water. Subsequent bacterially mediated calcium carbonate formation results in physical closure of micro cracks. Experimental results showed crack-healing of up to 0.46 mm-wide cracks in bacterial concrete but only up to 0.18 mm-wide cracks in control specimens after 100 days submersion in water. That the observed doubling of crack-healing potential was indeed due to metabolic activity of bacteria was supported by oxygen profile measurements which revealed O-2 consumption by bacteria-based but not by control specimens. We therefore conclude that this novel bio-chemical self-healing agent shows potential for particularly increasing durability aspects of concrete constructions in wet environments. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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