See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324940301

Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement Techniques:

Comparison of Cement Grouting and Biocement

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-0128-5_53

CITATIONS READS

3 502

2 authors:

Maryam Naeimi Abdolhosein Haddad

Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands Semnan University
32 PUBLICATIONS   311 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   566 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil Stabilization by Alkali-Activated Slag Cement View project

Waste Materials Reuse and Applications of Recycled Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdolhosein Haddad on 21 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

Maryam Naeimi1 and Abdolhosein Haddad2(&)

1
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry, 14875-33111 Tehran, Iran
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
Haddad@semnan.ac.ir

Abstract. 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 bioce-
mentation of sand, there are few studies considering the comparison of cost and
environmental impacts of cement grouting and microbial methods. The envi-
ronmental 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 emis-
sions 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.

Keywords: Environmental impacts
Soil improvement
Cement

Biocement

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

A. Farid and H. Chen (Eds.): GSIC 2018, Proceedings of GeoShanghai 2018
International Conference: Geoenvironment and Geohazard, pp. 483–490, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0128-5_53
484 M. Naeimi and A. Haddad

1 Introduction

Increasing the population in sedimentary environments with soft soils shows the
necessity of escalating the load capacity of soil. Various soil improvement techniques
have been studied such as chemical stabilization methods. The most used stabilizer for
sand is cement. Cement is a soft roundness, water absorbent and binder. Neri (2015)
reported the effect of cement and the effect of high pressure slurry injection on the
hydro-mechanical properties of the soil before and after injection. Results showed that
the increment of strength and the elasticity of hardness as well as decrease the per-
meability over time. However, soil density, particle size distribution and degree of
cementation has significant correlation with the value of hardness and strength [2].
However, porosity and moisture content are key parameters to control the strength of
the treated soil [3]. For example, the moisture content in samples with water to cement
ratio up to 0.4 is not sufficient for hydration of cement particles [4]. Therefore,
researches in the application of cement in slope stability, reconstruction of roads,
foundation of road construction, refineries, reduction of permeability in reservoirs and
protection of rivers was reported [5–7].
On the other hand, cement manufacturing requires a calcium source (usually
limestone) and a source of silicon (such as clay or sand). Cement manufactured through
the treatment of cooked calcium oxide with silicon oxide and iron oxide. Then, the
material turns into almost black colored balls called clinger. In order to adjust the
setting time, after cooling, the clinger is mixed and grounded with some gypsum.
Therefore, the gray powder is produced. Under this process, lime and carbon dioxide
(CO2) are produced as shown in reaction (1). The process is highly energy and
emissions intensive because of the extreme heat requirement. Producing a ton of
cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy and generates CO2 which is a concern in
environmental engineering.

CaCO3 ! CaO þ CO2 ð1Þ

Two sources are known for the release of CO2 in the cement production process.
Firstly, combustion of fossil fuels for the activity of the rotary ovens, which are the
largest sources for CO2 production. Secondly, the chemical process of converting
limestone to lime. Thus, a total of 1.3 tons of CO2 per ton of cement is released into the
atmosphere. Hence, it can conclude that soil improvement techniques using cement
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
sand. Microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) has been introduced as a tech-
nique using reagents for modification of geotechnical properties of sand since 2005.
The process involves two main parts: (1) absorption of urease enzymes or urease
cells on sand aggregates; (2) hydrolysis of the urea enzyme and formation of calcium
carbonate crystals in the presence of calcium ions.
Biocement has been considered as an appropriate solution for replacement with
cement grouting because of low viscosity and being environmentally friendly.
 Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement 485

However, among many studies concerning MICP technique, there are few studies
considering the comparison of cost and environmental impacts of cement grouting and
biocement.
The primary component of cement is limestone while calcium chloride also used as a
crucial reagent in bio-cemented samples. Therefore, the present study discussed the
comparison of conventional and innovative methods. In the grouting method, Portland
cement was used as a chemical substance. Note that, the environmental concerns in the
present study was focused on the calcium usage in Portland cement as well as biocement.
Sariosseiri and Muhunthan (2009) reported that a compressive strength equal or greater
than 345 kPa is required for an effective soil improvement. Therefore, it was chosen as a
standard to compare the cement and bio treated methods of the present paper.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials
In the present study, sand from Garmsar region, Semnan province in Iran was provided.
The size distribution curve according to ASTM 2487 has been carried out as shown in
Fig. 1. Sand was categorized as SP based on its characteristics with the specific gravity
of 1450 kg/m3. Shahrood Portland cement, Type 2, with a maximum setting time of
4 h (GS = 3.15 g/cm3) was selected as the stabilizer. Physical characteristic of Portland
cement was reported in Table 1 [9].

Fig. 1. Size distribution curve

2.2 Methods
Samples was prepared in a PVC mold of 50 * 100 mm. As shown in Table 2, the
percentage of Portland cement (C) and water to cement (w/c) ratio has been chosen
based on literature [1, 10–12]. Samples were treated with Portland cement using four
procedures in room temperature. Procedures was chosen as close to the bio-treatment of
sand. Detailed of the procedures has been reported in Table 2. The remarkable point
after removing samples from the mold was that the method was fixed only at the points
where the injection was performed. Therefore, the sand improvement was not uniform
and the sample would be disrupted after the time elapsed. This was seen in samples of
486 M. Naeimi and A. Haddad

Table 1. Physical characteristics of Portland cement (type II)

Physical characteristics Average
Fineness (cm2/gr) 3309
Expansion 0.039
Setting time
Initial (min) 140
Final (hour) 3:30
Compressive strength (kg/cm2)
Day 1 ¼==
Day 3 275
Day 7 372
Day 28 469

procedure II and III. Therefore, the UCS of samples of procedure I and IV was tested. In
procedure I, samples were treated using mechanical mixing of sand, cement and water.
While, in procedure IV, cement and sand was homogenously mixed and placed in the
mold in a dry state. Then, a flow rate of water was injected. Among various setting time
reported in literature [12, 13], 7 and 28-days was selected for samples for further
investigation. Later on, selected samples were tested using unconfined compressive
strength (UCS). Note that the code of selected samples were shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Testing program

Groups Methods C% w/c Code of
samples
I Mechanical 6-8-10 0.7-1.4 I6
I8
I 10
II Grouting with flow from top to bottom 2-4-6-8-10 2-3-4-5-9-19 –
III Grouting injection with constant head 2-4-6-8-10 2-3-4-5-9-19 –
of 2.2 L/h
IV Water injection with constant head on dry 2-4-6-8-10 2-3-4-5-9-19 IV 2-W 19
sand mixed with cement of 2.2 L/h IV 8-W 4
IV 10-W 3
IV 12-W 2
IV 6-W 5.6
IV 4-W 9
 Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement 487

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Comparison of Cement Treated Sand with Procedure I and IV
Energy consumption is one of the most important environmental issues related to
cement production. Cement is one of the industries that consumes the most energy
which includes direct fuel consumption for the extraction and transportation of raw
materials. Therefore, less environmental degradation methods are in a favor.
Comparison of cement treated sand using procedure I and IV based on UCS,
amount of Portland cement and calcium are presented in Fig. 2. The results show that
the only method to prepare samples with less than 60 (kg/m3) is the injection method.
Calcium is the most important component of cement that supplies it through the use of
limestone. Also, it plays a significant role in increasing of compressive strength. In the
same calcium content as shown in common part of the graphs of Fig. 2, it can conclude
that the injection method produces higher UCS for the same calcium content.

3.2 Comparison of Conventional and Microbial Soil Improvement

Techniques
The use of microbial processes has been considered in recent years for in situ soil
improvement. Biocementation has some advantages over existing technologies, such as
less calcium usage in same UCS. The data obtained from previous studies and present
study was gathered in Table 3. It can be stated that the calcium usage in biocement is
half of cement treated samples. Therefore, it can surely state that one of the key benefits
of bio-stabilization is to significantly reduce the loss of energy and eliminate carbon
emission.
Regarding to the cost of biogeochemical stabilization projects, it was reported that
the cost was a factor of process and the specific details of each project. Despite the very
limited field applications that have been done. The actual cost of various upgrading
processes has remained largely unknown. To date, there have been widely differing
studies and estimates due to revised and optimal designs that are ongoing to date.
For MICP, the cost of materials (urea, calcium) and the total cost of consolidation
(materials, equipment, and installation) in saturated soils were estimated. Cheng (2012)
studied the economic solutions which led to a reduction in the cost of cultivating
bacterial and the cost of chemicals [15]. Production of urease-producing bacteria is a
major contributor to costs, including laboratory costs, equipment, implementation,
chemicals, sterilization and transfer of the environment from the biotechnology com-
pany to the site. In research, they cultivated bacteria in a non-sterile environment, thus
reducing the cost of 50% compared with sterilized culture media [15]. Comparison of
UCS and cost in biocement (Cheng 2012) and Portland cement treatment (present
study) were shown in Fig. 3.
As shown in Fig. 3, the modified biocementation, with non- sterile culture and the
use of gravity flow, significantly reduces the costs. However, the results of treated
samples with mechanical and injection methods with UCS equal to 700 kPa, are about
$ 22 cheaper than the modified biocementation.
488 M. Naeimi and A. Haddad

Fig. 2. Compression of UCS and Calcium usage in the Portland cement treatment
 Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement 489

Table 3. Comparison of calcium (%) usage in biocement and Portland cement [9]
UCS Ca (Kg/m3)
(KPa) Biocement Portland
cement
(this
study)
— Whiffin Van paasen Cheng Chu et al. Naeimi (I) (IV)
(2007) (2010) (2012) (2014) (2014)
500 8.7 — 8.8 8.74 9.32 26 25
750 — 79.5 12 13.1 13.9 28 27
1000 — 85.4 12.8 17.4 20.3 30 29
1250 — 87.9 16 21.5 26.2 34 32
1500 — 91.1 17 26.5 29.1 36 33

Fig. 3. Comparison of UCS and cost in biocement (Cheng 2012) and Portland cement treatment
(present study)

4 Conclusion

Cement is considered as an unhealthy substance because of its high energy con-

sumption, extraction of large amounts of raw materials and land degradation. There-
fore, the innovative bio-stabilization has been compared with the results of Portland
cement. The results of samples treated by Portland cement indicated the direct corre-
lation between C% and UCS. Samples treated with 6, 8, 10 and 12% after 28-days
showed the increment of USC by 70, 108, 25 and 40% respectively in comparison with
7-days.
The results show the only method to prepare samples with cement less than 60
(kg/m3) is the injection method. In the same calcium content, it can conclude that
samples treated with the injection method showed higher UCS. Regarding to the
comparison of calcium usage, it can be stated that the calcium usage in biocementation
490 M. Naeimi and A. Haddad

is half of Portland cement grouting. Additionally, the results of samples treated with
mechanical and injection methods with UCS of 700 kPa, are cheaper than the modified
bio-treatment.

References
1. Néri, R.: Consideration of bonding in the behaviour of a sand-cement mixture simulating jet
grouting. Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon (2015)
2. Clough, G.W., et al.: Cemented sands under static loading. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 107(6),
799–817 (1981)
3. Consoli, N.C., et al.: Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133(2), 197–205 (2007)
4. Lim, S.K., et al.: Effect of different sand grading on strength properties of cement grout.
Constr. Build. Mater. 38, 348–355 (2013)
5. Ajorloo, A.M., et al.: Experimental investigation of ce-ment treated sand behavior under
triaxial test. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30, 129–143 (2012)
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)
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)
8. Sariosseiri, F., Muhunthan, B.: Effect of cement treatment on geotechnical properties of
some Washington State soils. Eng. Geol. 104(1), 119–125 (2009)
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)
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)
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)
12. McDowell, G., Bolton, M.: On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Geotechnique
48(5), 667–679 (1998)
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)
14. Naeimi, M.: Biocementation of sand in geotechnical engineering. Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore (2014)
15. Cheng, L., Cord-Ruwisch, R.: In situ soil cementation with ureolytic bacteria by surface
percolation. Ecol. Eng. 42, 64–72 (2012)

View publication stats