Introduction
Concrete is the most widely utilized construction material globally due to its exceptional
compressive strength, durability, economic feasibility, and ability to be molded into various
shapes and sizes. Its inherent versatility makes it the backbone of modern infrastructure.
However, despite these advantages, concrete suffers from a significant limitation—its
susceptibility to cracking. Cracks in concrete, which may arise due to mechanical loads,
shrinkage, temperature fluctuations, and environmental conditions, serve as entry points
for aggressive agents such as water, chloride ions, and carbon dioxide. These agents can
infiltrate the concrete matrix and initiate corrosion of embedded steel reinforcements,
ultimately compromising the structural integrity and reducing the lifespan of the structure
[1–3].
Conventional repair methods such as polymer injection, epoxy resins, and chemical sealants
are often labor-intensive, costly, and environmentally unsustainable [4,5]. These methods
also require human intervention and cannot address micro-cracks that are not visible or
easily accessible. In response to these limitations, the concept of self-healing concrete has
garnered increasing attention in recent years. Among various self-healing strategies,
Microbiologically Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation (MICP) stands out due to its eco-
friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and compatibility with the cement matrix [6–8].
MICP utilizes specific bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pasteurii that can
survive in the high alkaline environment of concrete. These bacteria, upon activation by
water ingress through cracks, initiate a biochemical reaction—most commonly urease-
mediated hydrolysis of urea—that leads to the formation and precipitation of calcium
carbonate (CaCO₃). This CaCO₃ effectively seals the cracks, restoring the structural integrity
and durability of the concrete [9–12]. However, directly incorporating bacteria into
concrete presents challenges due to the hostile internal environment during the curing
process, which can compromise bacterial viability and functionality.
To address this, encapsulation techniques have been developed to protect the bacterial
spores from extreme pH levels, mechanical stress, and dehydration. Encapsulation
materials such as hydrogels, calcium alginate beads, and lightweight aggregates serve as
protective carriers that ensure the survival and timely activation of bacteria when cracks
occur [13–15]. These carriers allow water and nutrients to diffuse in and trigger bacterial
activity, thus enabling autonomous healing without external intervention. Research has
shown that encapsulated bacterial systems can heal crack widths up to 0.64 mm and
enhance compressive strength by over 20% compared to conventional concrete [16–18].
Despite the promising outcomes, there remains a gap in understanding the interplay
between healing time and mechanical strength recovery, particularly under various
encapsulation strategies and bacterial dosages. Therefore, this research aims to
systematically investigate the compressive strength development and healing efficiency of
encapsulated bacterial self-healing concrete. Specifically, the study evaluates the
effectiveness of bacterial spores embedded in protective carriers to heal cracks over time
and assesses the corresponding recovery in mechanical properties.
Through experimental analysis, this study seeks to contribute valuable insights into
optimizing bacterial concentration, encapsulation methods, and curing conditions. The
findings are expected to advance the development of sustainable, high-performance bio-
concrete that reduces maintenance costs and prolongs the lifespan of civil infrastructure.
References:
1. Materials 2022, 15, 7731. [Link]
2. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13:7844. [Link]
3. Civil Engineering Journal, 2020, Vol. 6, No. 8. [Link]
03091559
4. Materials 2019, 12, 4099. [Link]
5. Nordic Concrete Research, NCR 62, 2020, Article 4, pp. 63-85.
6. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6845. [Link]
7. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2022) 3:3. [Link]
8. Ghosh et al., 2005. Current Science, 89(1), 61–66.
9. De Muynck et al., 2010. Ecological Engineering, 36(2), 118–136.
10. Wiktor, V. & Jonkers, H.M. (2011). Cement and Concrete Research, 41(5), 487–493.
11. Khaliq, W., & Ehsan, M.B. (2016). Construction and Building Materials, 121, 171–176.
12. Wang, J.Y. et al. (2014). Cement and Concrete Composites, 45, 30–40.
13. Palin, D. et al. (2017). Materials, 10(11), 1214.
14. Perito, B. & Mastromei, G. (2006). Journal of Cultural Heritage, 7(4), 253–260.
15. Vempada et al., (2011). Construction and Building Materials, 25(10), 3791–3801.
16. Nain et al., (2019). Materials Today: Proceedings, 17, 746–752.