Bioremediated Ground Improvement
Transcript of 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.)
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
3/26
10/26/20
Green Wall Sahara antidesertification in Africa
Carbon Sequestration sequestration through plant roots
Possible Future Applications
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
Green Wall Sahara antidesertification in Africa
Carbon Sequestration sequestration through plant roots
Tunneling soil stabilization prior to tunneling
Bluff and Slope Stabilization treatment could provide stability needed
Possible Future Applications
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
4/26
10/26/20
Biomediated Soil Improvement
Permeability
Stiffness
Chemical
Reaction
Mechanical
Properties
Shear Response
Compressibility
Volumetric Response
Soil
Biomediated Soil Improvement
Permeability
Stiffness
Chemical
Reaction
Mechanical
Properties
Shear Response
Compressibility
Volumetric Response
inor anic reci itation
Soil
organic precipitation
gas generation
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
Biomediated Soil Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
6/26
10/26/20
Biomediated Soil ImprovementBiological Mediation
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
inor anic reci itation biomineralization
Soil
organic precipitation biofilms
gas generation biogas
Biomediated Soil Improvement
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
inor anic reci itation biomineralization
Soil
organic precipitation biofilms
gas generation biogas
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
7/26
10/26/20
Biomediated Soil ImprovementBiological Mediation
Permeability
Stiffness
timing
ratedistribution
103x
102x
Potential
Changenutrients
[ microbe ]
activity stateactivity potential
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
organic precipitation biofilms
gas generation biogas
[Microbes/mL]
1010
Depth
Microbial Concentrations in Subsurface
3m
108
106
104
1
320m
m
100
102
EarthLab (2007)
205000
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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)
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
Microbe Soil Pore (Throat) Size Compatibility
nm m mmLength
Scale
atoms polymers eukaryaviruses archeaBiology
clay minerals silt sand gravelSoil
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
Microbe Soil Pore (Throat) Size Compatibility
nm m mmLength
Scale
clay minerals silt sand gravelSoil
atoms polymers eukaryaviruses archeaBiology
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)
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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)
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
12/26
10/26/20
BioMediated Soil ImprovementBiological Mediation
Permeability
Stiffness
timing
ratedistribution
103x
102x
Potential
Changenutrients
[ microbe ]
activity stateactivity potential
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
organic precipitation biofilms
gas generation biogas
Microscale Images
Silica
Calcite
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
15/26
10/26/20
Bender
Elements
v
Injection
Port
Geophysical Monitoring Swave
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
Geophysical Monitoring Swave
Soil
Injection Port
Sampling
SeptumsNeedle/
Resistivity
Probes
WaveVelocity
Time
Shea
r
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
16/26
10/26/20
Geophysical Monitoring Swave
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
Geophysical Monitoring Swave
0 500 1000 1500 2000100
200
300
400
180 m/s
Vs(m/s)
Time (min)Time (min)
100 m
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
17/26
10/26/20
500
600 Onset of Nutrient Injections 540 m/s
Geophysical Monitoring Swave
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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)
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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
microorganisms0.050.1 1020 0.52.0
Organic wastes (agricultural,
horticultural, foodprocessing wastes)
0.050.1 1020 0.52.0
Calcium chloride + urea +
microorganisms0.20.3 2030 4.09.0
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.
-
7/26/2019 Bioremediated Ground Improvement
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)