10/26/2010

Bio MediatedGroundImprovement:
Bio
Part of the Future?
PartoftheFuture?
JasonDeJong
October12th,2010

www.sil.ucdavis.edu

BioMediatedGroundImprovementSystems
Biogeochemistry
ChemicalReaction
Network

Biological
System&Process

(compounds,
concentrations,pH,
alkilinity,etc.)

(biodiversity,(an)aerobic
conditions,nutrients,
etc.)

SoilHabitat
(mineralogy,
groundwater,flow,
particlecharacteristics,
etc.)

BioTreatment
Process
Monitoring

Upscaling

MechanicalProperties&
EnvironmentalConditions
(mechanicalsoilproperties,hydraulic&
flowconditions,groudwater properties,
coprecipitationofmetals,
carbonsequestration)

FieldApplications
(civilinfrastructure,groundwater
control,materialstorage,environmental
remediation,etc.)

10/26/2010

Applications w/OngoingResearch

LiquefactionPrevention cementationand/orgasgenerationtopreventliquefaction

DamandLeveeSafety injectiontoplugerosivepiping

Scour/erosionPrevention increaseresistancetoerosiveforcesofwaterflow

FoundationImprovement/Reuse/Retrofit
p
insituretrofittingoffoundations
g

GroundwaterFlow modificationofgroundwaterflow

Bioreactors cleanupofcontaminatedwaterandsoil(e.g.90Sr)

DustSuppression agglomerationoffinesparticles

StoneStructures/Monuments strengtheningandrepair

Concrete rehabilitation/healingofconcrete
Concrete
rehabilitation/healing of concrete

PossibleFutureApplications

GreenWallSahara antidesertificationinAfrica

10/26/2010

PossibleFutureApplications

CO2 uptake
GreenWallSahara antidesertificationinAfrica
CarbonSequestration sequestrationthroughplantroots

CO2 uptake

Plants
Topsoil
Subsoil

CO2 andorganic
acidsarereleased
fromplantroots,
myceliumand
bacteria.

plantroot

o
c

c
o

ca

Bedrock

Theorganicacids
areoxidisedto
CO2 (HCO3 and
CO32 insolution).
Ifsufficient
calciumispreset
thesolutionwill
precipitateCaCO3

PossibleFutureApplications

GreenWallSahara antidesertificationinAfrica
CarbonSequestration sequestrationthroughplantroots

Tunneling soilstabilizationpriortotunneling

BluffandSlopeStabilization treatmentcouldprovidestabilityneeded

AquiferStorageandRecovery enhancestorageandreducelossesinaquifers

Energy(fuel)Storage usedtocreatesubsurfacefacilitiesforfuelstorage

BioFoundations insituformationforfoundationsolutionswithbiocrete
Roadway
Reticulation
Well

SubgradeStabilization

Railroad
Tracks

Embankment

Runoff
Water
Filtration

Slope
Stabilization
Walls

Surface
Erosion
Protection

SubbaseStabilization&
RecirculationTreatment

Low
Flow
Barrier

LocalWaterAquifer

10/26/2010

BiomediatedSoilImprovement

Permeability
Stiffness

Chemical
Reaction

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility
ShearResponse

Soil
VolumetricResponse

BiomediatedSoilImprovement

Permeability
Stiffness

Chemical
Reaction

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility
ShearResponse

Soil
VolumetricResponse

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

organicprecipitation

gasgeneration

10/26/2010

BiomediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

Permeability
Stiffness

Chemical
Reaction

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility
ShearResponse

Soil
VolumetricResponse

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

organicprecipitation

gasgeneration

BiomediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

Permeability
Stiffness

Chemical
Reaction

IndexProps
e,S,GSD

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility
ShearResponse

Soil
VolumetricResponse

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

biomineralization

organicprecipitation

biofilms

gasgeneration

biogas

10/26/2010

BiomediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

nutrients
[microbe]
activitystate
activitypotential
biomass

Permeability
Stiffness

Chemical
Reaction
pH
[ ]


IndexProps
e,S,GSD

Soil

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility

Vp
Vs


ShearResponse
VolumetricResponse

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

biomineralization

organicprecipitation

biofilms

gasgeneration

biogas

BiomediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

Chemical
Reaction
pH
[ ]


Potential
Change

nutrients
[microbe]
activitystate
activitypotential
biomass

IndexProps
e,S,GSD

Soil

Permeability

103x

Stiffness

102x

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility

102x

Vp
Vs


ShearResponse

10x

VolumetricResponse to

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

biomineralization

organicprecipitation

biofilms

gasgeneration

biogas

10/26/2010

BiomediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

Chemical
Reaction
pH
[ ]


Potential
Change

nutrients
[microbe]
activitystate
activitypotential
biomass

IndexProps
e,S,GSD

Permeability

103x

Stiffness

102x

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility

102x

Vp
Vs


ShearResponse

10x

Soil

VolumetricResponse to

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

biomineralization

organicprecipitation

biofilms

gasgeneration

Upscaling

Field
Application

Spatial
Uniformity
Permanence

biogas

MicrobialConcentrationsinSubsurface
Depth

[Microbes/mL]

3 20m

1 3m

1010

108

106

20 5000m
m

104

102

100
EarthLab (2007)

10/26/2010

MicrobialConcentrationsinSubsurface
BiologicalSystems

Depth

[Microbes/mL]

1 3m
3 20m

dechlorination
n
bioremediation
n

108

106

104
20 5000m
m

uranium
bioremediation

biofilm

1010

102

100
EarthLab (2007)

CalciumConcentrationsinSubsurface
[Ca2+]
mg/L

101

102

Davis,Ca
(~30mg/L)
(~30
/L)
San
Francisco
(~30mg/L)
SnakeRiver
(~40mg/L)
Hanford,WA
Hanford
WA
(~50mg/L)

103

104

105

NewOrleans
(~150
(~150mg/L)
/L)
SeaWater
(~400mg/L)

(500 2,000mg/L)
D dS
DeadSea
(~14000mg/L)

10/26/2010

Microbe SoilPore(Throat)SizeCompatibility

Biology
Length
Scale

atoms polymers

viruses

bacteria
archea

eukarya

m

nm

clayminerals

Soil

mm

silt

sand

gravel

Microbe SoilPore(Throat)SizeCompatibility
limitoftreatment
byinsituinjection

Geometric
Limits

Biology
Length
Scale
Soil

unhinderedmicrobialmotion
andeasynutrienttransport

limitoftreatment
byexsitumixing
atoms polymers

viruses

bacteria
archea

fractionofmicrobesat
particleparticlecontacts
decreases,minimizingeffectiveness
eukarya

m

nm

clayminerals

mm

silt

sand

gravel

10/26/2010

Microbe SoilPore(Throat)SizeCompatibility
limitoftreatment
byinsituinjection

Geometric
Limits

Biology
Length
Scale

unhinderedmicrobialmotion
andeasynutrienttransport

limitoftreatment
byexsitumixing
atoms polymers

bacteria
archea

viruses

eukarya

m

nm

fractionofmicrobesat
particleparticlecontacts
decreases,minimizingeffectiveness

mm

clayminerals

Soil
Biomineralization
ApplicationRange

silt

gravel

sand

Biofilm Application
Application
Range

?
?

BiogasApplication
Range

m

nm

mm

Microbe Soil StressCompatibility

0.001

Montmorillonite
Illite
Kaolinite

Diffusive nutrient transport

Silt

Sand

0.01

Trapped

01
0.1

Depth
Depth[m]
[m]

(f)

Motile

Single particle
displacement

(b) Traversable pore throats

Particle
buckling

10
(a) Habitable pore space

(d) Puncture

100
(e)

Equivalent
continuum

1000

10000
0.001

(c) Squeezing

0.01

0.1

10

Particle Size D10 [m]

100

1000

(Santamarina 2007)

10

10/26/2010

BioTreatmentRange Conceptual

(ModifiedfromMitchell2008)

BioTreatmentRange Conceptual

PARTICULATEGROUTS
CHEMICALGROUTS

BIOMEDIATEDSOIL
IMPROVEMENT

?
?

(ModifiedfromMitchell2008)

11

10/26/2010

BioMediatedSoilImprovement
BiologicalMediation
timing
rate
distribution

Chemical
Reaction
pH
[ ]


Potential
Change

nutrients
[microbe]
activitystate
activitypotential
biomass

IndexProps
e,S,GSD

Soil

Permeability

103x

Stiffness

102x

Mechanical
Properties

Compressibility

102x

Vp
Vs


ShearResponse

10x

VolumetricResponse to

inorganic precipitation
inorganicprecipitation

organicprecipitation

gasgeneration

biomineralization

biofilms

Upscaling

Field
Application

Spatial
Uniformity
Permanence

biogas

Microscale Images

Silica
Calcite

12

10/26/2010

Microscale Images
Silica
Calcite

StructureofBioTreatedSand

Resolution
=9.7Pm
Calcite=8%
PoreSpace=34%
Particles=58%
Vcalcite
/Vvinitial =19%
einitial=0.72
etreated =0.51

13

10/26/2010

ModificationtoPoreSpace
Initial
Void
Ratio

Vcalcite
/Vvinitial
(%)

Final
Void
Ratio

Relative
Density
(%)

Shear Velocity
@100kPa
(m/s)

Untreated emax
Untreated

0 87
0.87





160

Untreated 40%Dr

0.74





40

180

Treatment
Condition

LightlyCemented

0.74

0.67

63

~350

Heavily Cemented

0.74

17

0.55

100

~1000

Untreated  emin

0.55





100

210

Untreated 40%Dr
Untreated
40% Dr

200 Pm
200Pm

Lightly Cemented
LightlyCemented

Heavily Cemented
HeavilyCemented

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
Monitoring
Technique

Fundamental
Relationships

PrimarySoilProperties
AffectingMeasurement

Shear wave
velocity(Vs)

Vs=(G/U)1/2

particleparticle
p
p
contactstiffness,,
particlestiffness,
soildensity,
confiningstress,
degreeofsaturation

Compression
wave
velocity(Vp)

Resistivity
(m)

Vp =((B +4/3
G)/U)1/2

bulkmodulus oftheporefluid,
degreeofsaturation,
porosity,
bulkmodulusofmaterialcomprisinggrains

m=(V/I)AG

porefluidchemicalcomposition,
particle mineralcomposition,
volumefractionsofparticlesandvoids,
soilparticlespecificsurfacearea,
degreeofsaturation

Vv

Bender
Elements

'L

Injection
Port

Soil

InjectionPort

14

10/26/2010

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
Vv

'T
15

Travel Tim e

SSending
Received

Received Voltag

Voltage(V)

Transmitted Voltage (V)

T

Vo
oltage(V)

10

Sending
Element

5
0
-5

Bender
Elements

Injection
Port

-1 0

Tran sm itted S ignal

-1 5
-0 .2 5

0 .0 0

0 .2 5

0 .5 0

-4 .5

'L

Soil

First A rrival P eak

Sampling
Septums

Needle/
Resistivity
Probes

-4 .0

R eceived S ign al
-3 .5
0 .0 0

0 .2 5

0 .5 0

0 .7 5

T im e (m s )

SyntheticPorousStones

TopPlaten

BasePlaten

Receiving
Element
InjectionPort

ShearWaveVelocity:
Vs ='L/'T
Connectors

CoaxialConnectors

TriaxialCellBase

G=U Vs2
E=2G(1+Q)

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
Vv

ExampleofDiscreteInjectionswithBioAugmentation

Bender
Elements

Injection
Port

Soil

ShearrWaveVelocity

Needle/
Resistivity
Probes

Sampling
Septums

Injection Port

Time

15

10/26/2010

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
Vv

ExampleofDiscreteInjectionswithBioAugmentation

Bender
Elements

Injection
Port

Soil

ShearrWaveVelocity

Needle/
Resistivity
Probes

Sampling
Septums

Injection Port

Time

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
600

540 m/s

Onset of Nutrient Injections

Vs(m/s)

500

400

300

180m/s

200

100
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Time(min)
Time
(min)

100Pm

16

10/26/2010

GeophysicalMonitoring Swave
600

540m/s

Onset of Nutrient Injections

Vs(m/s)

500

400

NEHRPSiteClassification(2003)
300

180m/s

200

100
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Time(min)
Time
(min)

Site
Class

Soil Profile Name

Soil Shear Wave

Velocity, Vs (m/s),
of Upper 30 m
(IBC 2000)

Hard Rock

Vs > 1524

Rock

762 <Vs< 1524

Very dense soil & soft rock

366 < Vs< 762

Stiff soil profile

183 < Vs< 366

Soft soil profile

Vs < 183

Problematic Soils

Site Spec. Eval.

Normalized Shear Wave

e Velocity (Vs / Vso )

GeophysicalMonitoring Swaves
5

=TreatmentStopped

1
0

Vo-avg = 222 m/s

/

10

20

30

40

50

M calcite
M initial

0.005

0.01

0.015

Mass Calcite / Initial Dry Mass

Effective Treatment Time (hrs)

Vs Vso  1
249

Massofcalciteincreaseswithshearwavevelocity
Functionalrelationshipbetweenmassofcalciteandnormalizedshearwavevelocity

17

10/26/2010

BioTreatmentRange SoilSize

Normalized Shear Wav

ve Velocity

6
Silt
Glass Beads 170-325
Nevada w/ 15% fines
Cameco
Ottawa 50-70
Glass Beads 40-60
Ottawa 2030
Pea Gravel

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time (hours)

Alltreatedsoilsincreaseinshearstiffness
Improvementratevariesduetofavorableprecipitationdynamicsandgrain
sizedistribution

NormalizedShearWaveeVelocity(V/Vo)

BioTreatmentRange Mineralogy
5
SilicaSand,3.71%calcite
CalciteSand,7.70%calcite
4

IronSand,3.25%calcite
BeachSand,5.96%calcite

0
0

*Vo =174m/s

10

20

30

40

50

EffectiveTreatmentTime(hr)

Alltreatedsoilsincreaseinshearstiffness
Improvementratevariesduetograinmineralogy

18

10/26/2010

NormalizedShearWaveV
Velocity(V/Vo)

BioTreatmentRange Salinity
4.0
0%saltwater
3.5

25%saltwater

3.0

50%saltwater
75%saltwater

25
2.5

100%saltwater

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

10

12

Time(hr)

*Vo =204m/s

Alltreatedsoilsincreaseinshearstiffnessregardlessofsalinity
Improvementratevariesduetovaryingquantitiesofcations availableto
precipitate

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

350
300

treated
0

400
350
300

-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8

12

15

treated

250
200
150
100

Volumetric
Strain (%)

Shear Wave
Velocity (m/s)

450

untreated
treated

250

q (kPa)

q (kPa)

DrainedCompressionTriaxialResults

untreated

untreated
200
150
100
50

12

15
0

untreated

12

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

p' (kPa)

treated

15

Axial Strain (%)

19

10/26/2010

Undrained CompressionTriaxial Results

2

q/p'

dense

treated

1.6
1.2

800

loose

0.8
0.4

dense

600
0

q (kPa)

'u/p' (kPa)

0.8

loose

0.4
0

400

treated

dense

-0.4

loose
200

treated

Shear Wave Velocitty

(m/s)

-0.8
0

800

dense

600

treated

200

400

600

800

p' (kPa)

400
200

loose

0
0

Axial Strain (%)

Upscaling ofBioTreatment
Length
Scale

dm

m

mm

cm

km

20

10/26/2010

0.5mRigidCells TestProgram
ParameterInvestigated:
Injectionscheme
Flowrate
Biotreatmentformulation
Measurements:
ShearWaveVelocity
Soil

Bacterialdensity

0.5m

pH
Chemicalconcentrations
Biogeochemicalmodeling:
TOUGHREACTtopredictspatial
distributionofcalcite

StopFlowvs.ContinuousInjection
BioTreatmentProcess

Flowport

[Microbe]

1. Biologicalaugmentationtopdown
2. Calciumcementationsolutionbottomup
StopFlow
Stop
Flowvs.ContinuousPumping
vs Continuous Pumping

Soil

Intermediatepulsesofsolutionfollowedby
arestperiodathighflowrate

Continuousflowatslowflowrate

Equivalentmassflux

[Treatment]

2inches

etc

time
Flowport

21

10/26/2010

1600

2000
1800

1400

Location
A
B
C
D

1600
1400
1200
1000
800

Calcite (mol/m3)
3)

Horiz. Shear Wave Velo

ocity (m/s)

0.5mRigidCell ShearWave&Calcite

600
400

1200
00
1000

800

600

400
200

200
0

0
0

12

24

36

48

60

Time (hours)

10

20

30

40

Distance (cm)

Shearwavevelocitytimehistoriesforrealtimemonitoring
Posttreatmentcalcitemeasurementstoconfirmfinalshearwaveand
calcitedistributionswithinthecolumn

0.5mRigidCell Permeability
Bulk Permeability Time Histories
1.E+00

Permability (cm/s)

1.E-01

Pulse Flow

1.E-02

Continuous
Flow

1.E-03

1.E-04
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)

Permeabilitymeasuredbyfallingheadtests
Atmosttwoordersofmagnitudedecreaseincolumnswith
densecalciteprecipitation

22

10/26/2010

0.5mRigidCell Modeling [Ca]&Vs

Modelingw/TOUGHREACT,abiogechemical reactivetransportmodel
Pulse Flow

Continuous Flow
1150

45

1800

1030

40

Horiz. S
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)

1400
1200

910
790
670
550

1000

310

400

190

200

70

-50

24

36

48

Time (hours)

60

12 24 36 48
Time (hours)

60

Continuous
Flow
Predicted

20

600

12

Pulse Flow
Predicted

25

430

Continuous
Flow
Measured

30

800

Pulse Flow
Measured

35

Distance (cm)

Location
A
B
C
D

1600

Predicte
ed Calcite Content (mol/m3)

2000

15
10

1000
2000
3000
Calcite Content (mol/m3)

SystemResponse ModelShallowFoundation

1.5B

2B

23

10/26/2010

SystemResponse ModelShallowFoundation
Stress (kPa)
0

20

40

60

80

100

Normalized Diisplacement, '/B, ((%)

0
2
4
6
Untreated
Untreated

Biotreated
Biotreated

10

Upscaling
Length
Scale

dm

m

mm

cm

km

24

10/26/2010

CostEstimates

Materialcost estimates:
Materials
ConventionalGrouts
LignosulphitesLignosulphonates
Sodiumsilicateformulations
Phenoplasts
Acrylates
Acrylamides
Polyurethanes
BioMediatedMaterials
Molasses+microorganisms
Homogenizedfoodprocessingwastes+ 
microorganisms
Ironore+organicwastes+
Iron ore + organic wastes +
microorganisms
Organicwastes(agricultural,
horticultural,foodprocessingwastes)
Calciumchloride+urea+
microorganisms

Material
Price
($/kg)

Amountof
Additives
Required
3
(kg/m )

Costof
Additives
($/m3)

0.10.3
0.61.8
0.51.5
1.03.0
1.03.0
5.010.0

2060
1040
510
510
510
15

218
672
2.515
530
530
550

0.10.2

520

0.54.0

0.10.2

1020

1.04.0

0.050.1

1020

0.52.0

0.050.1

1020

0.52.0

0.20.3

2030

4.09.0

(Ivanov &Chu2008)

Equipment/installationcost estimates:useofremediation/groutingtypeequipment.

Totalcostiscomparable.

Closurebutjustthebeginning
Bioreinforcement
preventingerosion

Biomineralization
stabilizingslope

LEVEE

Biofilmpreventing
groundwaterseepage

Biomineralization
immobilizingcarbon

Biomediated soilimprovementisyoung,but
emergingrapidly
Manydifferentbiogeochemicalsystemsand
applicationsarebeinginvestigated
Researchtodatedemonstratespromise
Rangeofapplicabilityandcostscomparable
tosomeconventionalGImethods

Bioremediation
ofcontaminants

Microbially InducedCalcitePrecipitation
(MICP)actsasacementationagent
Nondestructiveprocessmonitoringwith
geophysicsincreasescertaintyofexecution

Significant improvementofengineeringsoil
propertiescanbeachieved

Upscaling processunderway,butweneed
industrypartnersfornext stepsfieldtrials.

25

10/26/2010

Acknowledgements

TimGinn,CoPI

Burak Tanyu

DougNelson,CoPI

Chris Hunt
ChrisHunt

BrianMartinez

DaveMajor

Brina Mortensen,PE
MattWeil

OtherCollaborators:

JackWaller

LaurieCaslake,MaryRoth,KenichiSoga,Steven

TessWeathers

Banwart Richard Whalley Leon van Paassen

Banwart,RichardWhalley,LeonvanPaassen,

Tammer Barkouki

MichaelTesarsky,CarlosSantamarina,
andNicSpeacher

The
Future?

Thanks!

Questions?
(modified without
permission from
Hayward Baker)

26