Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stress–dilatancy behavior of cemented sand: comparison between bonding provided by cement and biocement

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biocement as an alternative to cement for soil improvement has been studied for the past decade. A comparative study on the cementation effect on the mechanical behavior of sand by biocement and Portland cement is presented. Drained triaxial tests were carried out on both cement- and biocement-treated sand. The yielding of cemented sand is largely associated with the breakage of bonding. Bonding ratio is defined in this paper to quantify the bonding effect. The bonding provided by biocement is stronger than that by cement, and as a result, the stress ratio at yielding for biocement-treated sand is higher than that for cement-treated sand given the other conditions the same. The shear resistance of cemented sand consists of bonding, dilation and friction. The stress–dilatancy relationship of biocement-treated sand is different from that of cement-treated sand or the Rowe’s stress–dilatancy equation. The increase in stress ratio with dilatancy ratio (1 − δεv/δε1) is higher for biocement-treated sand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A*:

Parameter of the power function y = A*•(1 + x)B*

B*:

Parameter of the power function y = A*•(1 + x)B*

bc :

Biocement content

bc ave :

Average biocement content for each group of bifocement-treated specimens

cc :

Cement content

cc ave :

Average cement content for each group of biocement-treated specimens

D 50 :

Mean grain size (mm)

d :

Dilatancy ratio (− δεpv/δεps)

e s :

Intergranular void ratio

e s,c :

Intergranular void ratio after consolidation

M :

Effective stress ratio at critical state

M μ :

Effective stress ratio corresponding to interparticle friction angle

p′ :

Mean effective stress (kPa)

q :

Deviatoric stress (kPa)

v v :

Volume of voids

v c :

Volume of cement (or biocement)

v s :

Volume of sand particles

ΔW :

Total work

ΔW fric :

Energy dissipated by frictional loss

ΔW bond :

Energy dissipated by bonding breakage

δε a :

Incremental axial strain

δε 1 :

Major principal total strain increment

δε 3 :

Minor principal total strain increment

δε v :

Incremental total volumetric strain

δε s :

Incremental total shear strain

δε p p :

Incremental plastic volumetric strain

δε p s :

Incremental plastic shear strain

φ f :

Friction angle during shearing

φ cs :

Friction angle of critical state

φ μ :

Interparticle friction angle

δq :

Incremental deviatoric stress (kPa)

σ 1 ′ :

Major principal effective stress (kPa)

σ 3 ′ :

Minor principal effective stress/effective confining pressure (kPa)

(σ 1 ′/σ 3 ′)p :

Stress ratio at peak point

(σ 1 ′/σ 3 ′)r :

Residual stress ratio

(σ 1 ′/σ 3 ′)y :

Stress ratio at yielding point

η :

Stress ratio (q/p′)

η bond :

Bonding ratio (ΔWbond/p′δεps)

References

  1. Airey D (1993) Triaxial testing of naturally cemented carbonate soil. J Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1379),1379-1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amini Y, Hamidi A (2014) Triaxial shear behavior of a cement-treated sand–gravel mixture. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 6(5):455–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. ASTM D6913, D6913M-17 (2017) Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. ASTM, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burbank MB, Weaver TJ, Williams BC, Crawford RL (2012) Urease activity of ureolytic bacteria isolated from six soils in which calcite was precipitated by indigenous bacteria. Geomicrobiol J 29(4):389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R, Shahin MA (2013) Cementation of sand soil by microbially induced calcite precipitation at various degrees of saturation. Can Geotech J 50(1):81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng L, Shahin MA, Chu J (2019) Soil bio-cementation using a new one-phase low-pH injection method. Acta Geotech 14(3):615–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chou C, Seagren E, Aydilek A, Lai M (2011) Biocalcification of sand through ureolysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000532,1179-1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chu J, Ivanov V, Stabnikov V, Li B (2013) Microbial method for construction of an aquaculture pond in sand. Géotechnique 63(10):871–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chu J, Leong WK (2002) Effect of fines on instability behaviour of loose sand. Géotechnique 52(10):751–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clough GW, Sitar N, Bachus RC, Rad NS (1981) Cemented sands under static loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 107 (ASCE 16319 Proceeding)

  11. Consoli NC, da Fonseca AV, Silva SR, Cruz RC, Fonini A (2012) Parameters controlling stiffness and strength of artificially cemented soils. Géotechnique 62(2):177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cuccovillo T, Coop MR (1999) On the mechanics of structured sands. Géotechnique 49(6):741–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui MJ, Zheng JJ, Zhang RJ, Lai HJ, Zhang J (2017) Influence of cementation level on the strength behaviour of bio-cemented sand. Acta Geotech 12(5):971–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DeJong JT, Fritzges MB, Nüsslein K (2006) Microbially induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1381),1381-1392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DeJong JT, Soga K, Kavazanjian E et al (2013) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities and challenges. Géotechnique 63(4):287–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Feng K, Montoya B (2015) Influence of confinement and cementation level on the behavior of microbial-induced calcite precipitated sands under monotonic drained loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001379,04015057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gai X, Sánchez M (2019) An elastoplastic mechanical constitutive model for microbially mediated cemented soils. Acta Geotech 14(3):709–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haeri SM, Hosseini SM, Toll DG, Yasrebi SS (2005) The behaviour of an artificially cemented sandy gravel. Geotech Geol Eng 23(5):537–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ismail MA, Joer HA, Sim WH, Randolph MF (2002) Effect of cement type on shear behavior of cemented calcareous soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:6(520),520-529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ivanov V, Chu J (2008) Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 7(2):139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kenney TC (1997) Residual strength of mineral mixtures. Proc 9th Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 1:155–160

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kuerbis, R, Negussey, D, Vaid, YP (1988) Effect of gradation and fines content on the undrained response of sand. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 21, ASCE, pp 330–345

  23. Li D, Liu X, Liu X (2015) Experimental study on artificial cemented sand prepared with ordinary portland cement with different contents. Materials 8(7):3960–3974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin H, Suleiman MT, Brown DG, Kavazanjian E Jr (2016) Mechanical behavior of sands treated by microbially induced carbonate precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001383,04015066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lo SC, Lade PV, Wardani S (2003) An experimental study of the mechanics of two weakly cemented soils. Geotech Test J 26(3):328–341

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mahawish A, Bouazza A, Gates WP (2018) Effect of particle size distribution on the bio-cementation of coarse aggregates. Acta Geotech 13(4):1019–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malandraki V, Toll DG (1996) The definition of yield for bonded materials. Geotech Geol Eng 14(1):67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martinez B, DeJong J, Ginn T, Montoya B, Barkouki T, Hunt C, Tanyu B, Major D (2013) Experimental optimization of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation for soil improvement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000787,587-598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mitchell JK (1993) Fundamentals of soil behavior, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Montoya BM, DeJong JT, Boulanger RW (2013) Dynamic response of liquefiable sand improved by microbial-induced calcite precipitation. Géotechnique 63(4):302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Montoya B, DeJong J (2015) Stress-strain behavior of sands cemented by microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001302,04015019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mujah D, Cheng L, Shahin MA (2019) Microstructural and geomechanical study on biocemented sand for optimization of MICP process. J Mater Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002660,04019025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mujah D, Shahin MA, Cheng L (2016) State-of-the-art review of bio-cementation by microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) for soil stabilization. Geomicrobiol J 34(6):524–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Donnell T, Kavazanjian E Jr (2015) Stiffness and dilatancy improvements in uncemented sands treated through MICP. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001407,02815004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Porcino DD, Marcianò V (2017) Bonding degradation and stress–dilatancy response of weakly cemented sands. Geomech Geoeng 12(4):221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Qabany AAL, Soga K (2013) Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Géotechnique 63(4):331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Qabany AAL, Soga K, Santamarina C (2012) Factors affecting efficiency of microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000666,992-1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Quiroga AJ, Thompson ZM, Muraleetharan KK, Miller GA, Cerato AB (2017) Stress–strain behavior of cement-improved clays: testing and modeling. Acta Geotech 12(5):1003–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rios S, Da Fonseca AV, Baudet BA (2014) On the shearing behaviour of an artificially cemented soil. Acta Geotech 9(2):215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roscoe KH, Schofield AN, Thurairajah A (1963) Yielding of clays in states wetter than critical. Géotechnique 13(3):211–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rowe PW (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci 269(1339):500–527

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schnaid F, Prietto PD, Consoli NC (2001) Characterization of cemented sand in triaxial compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(857),857-868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van Paassen LA, Ghose R, van der Linden TJM, van der Star WRL, van Loosdrecht MCM (2010) Quantifying biomediated ground improvement by ureolysis: Large-scale biogrout experiment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000382,1721-1728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang Y, Leung S (2008) Characterization of cemented sand by experimental and numerical investigations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:7(992):992-1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang Y, Leung S (2008) A particulate-scale investigation of cemented sand behavior. Can Geotech J 45(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Whiffin VS, van Paassen LA, Harkes MP (2007) Microbial carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique. Geomicrobiol J 24(5):417–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge gratefully that the work presented in this paper is partially supported by the Ministry of Education (MOE2015-T2-2-142) and by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) for providing the scholarship to the first author and the support to Centre for Urban Solutions at NTU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Blk N1, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, 639798, Singapore

    Lei Wang, Jian Chu, Shifan Wu & Hao Wang

Authors
  1. Lei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shifan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Chu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, L., Chu, J., Wu, S. et al. Stress–dilatancy behavior of cemented sand: comparison between bonding provided by cement and biocement. Acta Geotech. 16, 1441–1456 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01146-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01146-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation