Bioremediated Ground Improvement

7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement

1/26

10/26/20

BioBioMediated Ground Improvement:Mediated Ground Improvement:

Jason DeJong

October 12th, 2010

www.sil.ucdavis.edu

Biological

System & Process(biodiversity, (an)aerobic

conditions, nutrients,

etc.)

Chemical Reaction

Network(compounds,

concentrations, pH,

alkilinity, etc.)

Biogeochemistry

BioMediated Ground Improvement Systems

Soil Habitat(mineralogy,

groundwater, flow,

particle characteristics,

etc.)BioTreatment

Process

Monitoring

Upscaling

Mechanical Properties &

Environmental Conditions(mechanical soil properties, hydraulic &

flow conditions, groudwater properties,

coprecipitation of metals,

carbon sequestration)

Field Applications(civil infrastructure, groundwater

control, material storage, environmental

remediation, etc.)


2/26

10/26/20

Liquefaction Prevention cementation and/or gas generation to prevent liquefaction

Dam and Levee Safety injection to plug erosive piping Scour/erosion Prevention increase resistance to erosive forces of water flow

Foundation Improvement/Reuse/Retrofit in situ retrofitting of foundations

Applications w/ Ongoing Research

Groundwater Flow modification of ground water flow

Bioreactors cleanup of contaminated water and soil (e.g. 90Sr)

Dust Suppression agglomeration of fines particles

Stone Structures/Monuments strengthening and repair

oncre e re a a on ea ng o concre e

Green Wall Sahara antidesertification in Africa

Possible Future Applications


3/26

10/26/20


Carbon Sequestration sequestration through plant roots


CO2 uptake CO2 uptak

Plants

Topsoil

SubsoilCO2 and organic

acids are released

from plant roots,

mycelium and

bacteria.

plant root

Bedrock

The organic acids

are oxidised toCO2 (HCO3

and

CO32 in solution).

If sufficient

calcium is preset

the solution will

precipitate CaCO3

c

c

c

co

o

o ca


Carbon Sequestration sequestration through plant roots

Tunneling soil stabilization prior to tunneling

Bluff and Slope Stabilization treatment could provide stability needed


Aquifer Storage and Recovery enhance storage and reduce losses in aquifers

Energy (fuel) Storage used to create subsurface facilities for fuel storage

BioFoundations in situ formation for foundation solutions with biocrete

Roadway

Railroad

Reticulation

WellSubgrade Stabilization

TracksEmbankment

Surface

Erosion

Protection

Slope

Stabilization

WallsRunoff

Water

Filtration

Local Water Aquifer

Low

Flow

Barrier

Subbase Stabilization &

Recirculation Treatment


4/26

10/26/20

Biomediated Soil Improvement

Permeability

Stiffness

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

Soil


Permeability

Stiffness

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

inor anic reci itation

Soil

organic precipitation

gas generation


5/26

10/26/20

Biomediated Soil ImprovementBiological Mediation

Permeability

Stiffness

timing

ratedistribution

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

inor anic reci itation

Soil

organic precipitation

gas generation


Biological Mediation

Permeability

Stiffness

timing

rate

distribution

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

Index Props

e, S, GSD

inor anic reci itation biomineralization

Soil

organic precipitation biofilms

gas generation biogas


6/26

10/26/20


Permeability

Stiffness

timing

ratedistribution

nutrients

[ microbe ]

activity stateactivity potential

biomass

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

pH

[ ]

Vp

Vs

Index Props

e, S, GSD


Soil




Biological Mediation

Permeability

Stiffness

timing

rate

distribution 103x

102x

Potential

Changenutrients

[ microbe ]

activity state

activity potential

biomass

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

pH

[ ]

Vp

Vs

102x

10x

to

Index Props

e, S, GSD


Soil




7/26

10/26/20


Permeability

Stiffness

timing

ratedistribution

103x

102x

Potential

Changenutrients

[ microbe ]


biomass

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

pH

[ ]

Vp

Vs

102x

10x

to

Index Props

e, S, GSD

inor anic reci itation biomineralization Upscaling

Soil

Permanence

Spatial

UniformityField

Application



[Microbes/mL]

1010

Depth

Microbial Concentrations in Subsurface

3m

108

106

104

1

320m

m

100

102

EarthLab (2007)

205000


8/26

10/26/20

[Microbes/mL]

1010

3m

DepthBiological Systems

Microbial Concentrations in Subsurface

108

106

104

1

320m

m

biofilm

uranium

bioremediation

dechlorination

bioremediatio

100

102

20

5000

EarthLab (2007)

[Ca2+]

mg/L

Davis, Ca

~

New Orleans

~

101 104103102 105

Calcium Concentrations in Subsurface

mg

Snake River

(~40 mg/L)

Sea Water

(~400 mg/L)

mg

San

Francisco

(~30 mg/L)

(500 2,000 mg/L)

ea ea

(~14000 mg/L)

,

(~50 mg/L)


9/26

10/26/20

bacteria

Microbe Soil Pore (Throat) Size Compatibility

nm m mmLength

Scale

atoms polymers eukaryaviruses archeaBiology

clay minerals silt sand gravelSoil

bacteria

limit of treatment

by insitu injection

unhindered microbial motion

and easy nutrient transport

fraction of microbes at

particleparticle contacts

decreases, minimizing effectiveness

Geometric

Limitslimit of treatment

by exsitu mixing


nm m mmLength

Scale




10/26

10/26/20

bacteria

limit of treatment

by insitu injection

unhindered microbial motion

and easy nutrient transportfraction of microbes at

particleparticle contacts

decreases, minimizing effectiveness

GeometricLimits

limit of treatment

by exsitu mixing


nm m mmLength

Scale



Biomineralization

Application Range

Biofilm A lication

? ?

Range

Biogas Application

Range

nm m mm

?

??

Microbe Soil Stress Compatibility0.001

0.01

MontmorilloniteIllite

KaoliniteSilt Sand

Diffusive nutrient transport

Trapped Motile

.

1

10Depth[m]

Particle

buckling

(d) Puncture(a) Habitable pore space

Single particle

displacement

(b) Traversable pore throats

(f)

Depth[m]

100

1000

10000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

(c) Squeezing

Equivalent

continuum

(e)

Particle Size D10 [m] (Santamarin a 2007)


11/26

10/26/20

BioTreatment Range Conceptual

(Modified from Mitchell 2008)

BioTreatment Range Conceptual

BIOMEDIATED SOIL

PARTICULATE GROUTS

CHEMICAL GROUTS

IMPROVEMENT

(Modified from Mitchell 2008)


12/26

10/26/20

BioMediated Soil ImprovementBiological Mediation

Permeability

Stiffness

timing

ratedistribution

103x

102x

Potential

Changenutrients

[ microbe ]


biomass

Chemical

Reaction

Mechanical

Properties

Shear Response

Compressibility

Volumetric Response

pH

[ ]

Vp

Vs

102x

10x

to

Index Props

e, S, GSD

inor anic reci itation biomineralization Upscaling

Soil

Permanence

Spatial

UniformityField

Application



Microscale Images

Silica

Calcite


13/26

10/26/20

Microscale Images

Silica

Calcite

Structure of BioTreated Sand

Resolution

= 9.7 m

Calcite = 8%

Pore Space = 34%

Particles = 58%

Vcalcite/Vvinitial = 19%

einitial = 0.72etreated= 0.51


14/26

10/26/20

TreatmentCondition

InitialVoid

Ratio

Vcalcite/Vvinitial(%)

FinalVoid

Ratio

RelativeDensity

(%)

Shear Velocity@ 100 kPa

(m/s)

Modification to Pore Space

max .

Untreated 40% Dr 0.74 40 180

Lightly Cemented 0.74 6 0.67 63 ~350

Heavily Cemented 0.74 17 0.55 100 ~1000

Untreated emin 0.55 100 210

n rea e r g y emen e eav y emen e

Monitoring

Technique

Fundamental

Relationships

Primary Soil Properties

Affecting Measurement

particleparticle contact stiffness,

Geophysical Monitoring Swave

v

Shearwave

velocity (Vs) Vs = (G/)1/2

particle stiffness,

soil density,

confining stress,

degree of saturation

Compression

wave

velocity (Vp)

Vp = ((B + 4/3

G)/)1/2

bulk modulus of the pore fluid,

degree of saturation,

porosity,

bulk modulus of material comprising grains

Soil

Bender

ElementsInjection

Port

L

Resistivity

(m) m = (V/I) A G

pore fluid chemical composition,

particle mineral composition,

volume fractions of particles and voids,

soil particle specific surface area,

degree of saturation

Injection Port


15/26

10/26/20

Bender

Elements

v

Injection

Port


T -10

-5

0

5

10

15

Travel Time

Sending

Element

Sending

oltage(V)

T

Soil

Injection Port

Sampling

SeptumsNeedle/

Resistivity

Probes

-0.25 0.00 0.25 0 .50

TransmittedVoltage(V)

-15

Time (ms)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0 .75

ReceivedVolta

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

Transmitted Signal

Received Signal

First Arrival Peak

Synthetic Porous Stones Top Platen

Receiving

Element

V

Received

Voltage(V)

L

Coaxial Connectors Triaxial Cell Base

Base Platen

Connectors

Shear Wave Velocity:Vs= L /T

G = Vs2

E = 2G (1+)

Bender

Elements

v

Injection

Port

Example of Discrete Injections with BioAugmentation


Soil

Injection Port

Sampling

SeptumsNeedle/

Resistivity

Probes

WaveVelocity

Time

Shea

r


16/26

10/26/20


Bender

Elements

v

Injection

Port

Example of Discrete Injections with BioAugmentation

WaveVelocity

Soil

Injection Port

Sampling

SeptumsNeedle/

Resistivity

Probes

Time

Shear

500

600Onset of Nutrient Injections 540 m/s


0 500 1000 1500 2000100

200

300

400

180 m/s

Vs(m/s)

Time (min)Time (min)

100 m


17/26

10/26/20

500

600 Onset of Nutrient Injections 540 m/s


0 500 1000 1500 2000100

200

300

400

180 m/s SiteClass

Soil Profile Name

Soil Shear WaveVelocity, Vs (m/s),

of Upper 30 m(IBC 2000)

A Hard Rock Vs > 1524

Vs(m/s)

NEHRP Site Classification (2003)

Time (min) B Rock 762


18/26

10/26/20

BioTreatment Range Soil Size

4

5

6

eVelocity

Silt

Glass Beads 170-325Nevada w/ 15% fines

Cameco

Ottawa 50-70

1

2

3

NormalizedShearWa Glass Beads 40-60

Ottawa 2030

Pea Gravel

All treated soils increase in shear stiffness

Improvement rate varies due to favorable precipitation dynamics and grain

size distribution

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (hours)

BioTreatment Range Mineralogy

4

5

Velocity(V/Vo) Silica Sand, 3.71% calcite

Calcite Sand, 7.70% calcite

Iron Sand, 3.25% calcite

Beach Sand, 5.96% calcite

0

1

2

NormalizedShearWav

0 10 20 30 40 50

Effective Treatment Time (hr)*Vo= 174 m/s

All treated soils increase in shear stiffness

Improvement rate varies due to grain mineralogy


19/26

10/26/20

BioTreatment Range Salinity

3.0

3.5

4.0

Velocity(V

/Vo)

0% saltwater

25% saltwater

50% saltwater

75% saltwater

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

.

NormalizedShearWave 100% saltwater

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (hr)*Vo= 204 m/s

All treated soils increase in shear stiffness regardless of salinity

Improvement rate varies due to varying quantities of cations available to

precipitate

Drained Compression Triaxial Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300350

q(kPa)

untreated

treated

300

350

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

ShearWave

Velocity(m/s)

treated

untreated

0 3 6 9 12 15

50

100

150

200

250

q(kPa)

untreated

0 3 6 9 12 15

Axial Strain (%)

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6-8

Volumetric

Strain(%)

untreated

treated

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

p' (kPa)

0


20/26

10/26/20

Undrained Compression Triaxial Results

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

q/p' loose

densetreated

800

dense

0 2 4 6

200

400

q(kPa)

loose

treated

y-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

u/p'(kPa)

dense

treated

loose

0 200 400 600 800

p' (kPa)

0

0 2 4 6

Axial Strain (%)

0

200

400

600

800

ShearWaveVeloci

(m/s)

dense

loose

treated

Upscaling of BioTreatment

m mm

Length

Scale cm

dm m km


21/26

10/26/20

0.5 m Rigid Cells Test Program

Parameter Investigated:

Injection scheme

Flow rate

Biotreatment formulation

Soil 0.5 m

Measurements:

Shear Wave Velocity

Bacterial density

pH

Chemical concentrations

Biogeochemical modeling:

TOUGHREACT to predict spatial

distribution of calcite

Flow port BioTreatment Process

1. Biological augmentation top down

2. Calcium cementation solution bottom up

[Microbe]

StopFlow vs. Continuous Injection

Soil

.

Intermediate pulses of solution followed by

a rest period at high flow rate

Continuous flow at slow flowrate

Equivalent mass flux

[Treatment]

2 inches

Flow port

time

etc


22/26

10/26/20

0.5 m Rigid Cell Shear Wave & Calcite

1600

1800

2000

city(m/s)

Location

1200

1400

1600

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Horiz.ShearWaveVelo

B

C

D

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Calcite(mol/m

ACB

D

Shear wave velocity time histories for realtime monitoring

Posttreatment calcite measurements to confirm final shear wave and

calcite distributions within the column

Time (hours) Distance (cm)

0.5 m Rigid Cell Permeability

1.E-01

1.E+00

Bulk Permeability Time Histories

1.E-03

1.E-02

Permability(cm/s)

Pulse Flow

ContinuousFlow

Permeability measured by falling head tests At most two orders of magnitude decrease in columns with

dense calcite precipitation

1.E-04

0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (hours)


23/26

10/26/20

0.5 m Rigid Cell Modeling [Ca] & Vs

1800

2000Pulse Flow

Location

1030

1150Continuous Flow

40

45

Pulse Flow

Measured

Modeling w/ TOUGHREACT, a biogechemical reactive transport model

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

hearWaveVelocity(m/s) A

B

C

D

430

550

670

790

910

dCalciteContent(mol/m3)

15

20

25

30

35

Distance(cm)

Continuous

Flow

Measured

Pulse Flow

Predicted

Continuous

Flow

Predicted

0

200

400

600

0 12 24 36 48 60

Horiz.

Time (hours)

-50

70

190

310

0 12 24 36 48 60

Predict

Time (hours)

0 1000 2000 3000

0

5

10

Calcite Content (mol/m3)

B

1.5B

System Response Model Shallow Foundation

2B


24/26

10/26/20

00 20 40 60 80 100

Stress (kPa)

(%)

System Response Model Shallow Foundation

2

4

isplacement,/B,

Untreated

Biotreated8

10Normaliz

edDi

Untreated

Biotreated

Upscaling

m mm

Length

Scale cm

dm m km


25/26

10/26/20

Cost Estimates

Materials

Material

Price($/kg)

Amount of

Additives

Required(kg/m

3)

Cost of

Additives

($/m3)

Conventional Grouts

Lignosulphites L ignosulphonates 0.10.3 2060 218

Material cost estimates:

So dium s ilicate formulatio ns 0.6 1.8 1 040 672

Phenoplasts 0.51.5 510 2 .515

Acryl ates 1.0 3.0 510 530

Acrylamides 1.03.0 510 530

Polyurethanes 5.010.0 15 550

BioMediated Materials

Molas ses + microo rgan is ms 0.1 0.2 520 0.54.0

Homogenized foodprocessing wastes +

microorganisms0.10.2 1020 1.04.0


Organic wastes (agricultural,

horticultural, foodprocessing wastes)

0.050.1 1020 0.52.0

Calcium chloride + urea +


Equipment / installation cost estimates: use of remediation/grouting type equipment.

Total cost is comparable.

(Ivanov & Chu 2008)

Closurebut just the beginning

Biomineralization

stabilizing slope

Bioreinforcementpreventing erosion

Biofilm preventing

groundwater seepage

Bioremediation

of contaminants

Biomineralization

immobilizing carbon

LEVEE

Biomediated soil improvement is young, but

emerging rapidly

Many different biogeochemical systems and

applications are being investigated

Research todate demonstrates promise

Range of applicability and costs comparable

to some conventional GI methods

Microbially Induced Calcite Precipitation(MICP) acts as a cementation agent

Nondestructive process monitoring with

geophysics increases certainty of execution

Significant improvement of engineering soil

properties can be achieved

Upscaling process underway, but we need

industry partners for next stepsfield trials.


26/26

10/26/20

Acknowledgements

Tim Ginn, CoPI Burak Tanyu

Doug Nelson, CoPI

Brian Martinez

Brina Mortensen, PE

Matt Weil

Jack Waller

Tess Weathers

Dave Major

Other Collaborators:

Laurie Caslake, Mary Roth, Kenichi Soga, Steven

Tammer Barkouki

, , ,

Michael Tesarsky, Carlos Santamarina,

and Nic Speacher

TheTheFuture?Future?

Thanks!Thanks!

(modifiedwithout

permission from

Hayward Baker)

Documents

Bioremediated Ground Improvement