| Literature DB >> 28809268 |
Kim Van Tittelboom1, Nele De Belie2.
Abstract
Concrete is very sensitive to crack formation. As wide cracks endanger the durability, repair may be required. However, these repair works raise the life-cycle cost of concrete as they are labor intensive and because the structure becomes in disuse during repair. In 1994, C. Dry was the first who proposed the intentional introduction of self-healing properties in concrete. In the following years, several researchers started to investigate this topic. The goal of this review is to provide an in-depth comparison of the different self-healing approaches which are available today. Among these approaches, some are aimed at improving the natural mechanism of autogenous crack healing, while others are aimed at modifying concrete by embedding capsules with suitable healing agents so that cracks heal in a completely autonomous way after they appear. In this review, special attention is paid to the types of healing agents and capsules used. In addition, the various methodologies have been evaluated based on the trigger mechanism used and attention has been paid to the properties regained due to self-healing.Entities:
Keywords: bacteria; encapsulation; further hydration; mortar; polymers; sustainability
Year: 2013 PMID: 28809268 PMCID: PMC5458958 DOI: 10.3390/ma6062182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Evolution of the amount of papers published on self-healing materials (redrafted after slide shown by S. White during the International Conference on Self Healing Materials 2011 in Bath).
Figure 2Intrinsic self-healing approaches. Improved autogenous healing by restriction of the crack width (A); water supply (B) or improved hydration and crystallization (C).
Figure 3Capsule based self-healing approaches. Leakage of healing agent from the capsules into the crack due to gravitational and capillary forces. Reaction of spherical/cylindrical encapsulated agent (dark colored inclusions) upon contact with (A,B) moisture or air or due to heating; (C,D) the cementitious matrix; (E,F) a second component present in the matrix (small, light colored inclusions) or (G,H) a second component provided by additional capsules (big, light colored inclusions).
Figure 4Vascular based self-healing approaches. Leakage of healing agent from the tank via the vascular into the crack due to gravitational and capillary forces and eventual (hydrostatic) pressure. One-channel (A) and multiple channel vascular system (B).
Overview of the healing agents which have been reported in the literature.
| Agent | Number of components | Viscosity [mPas] | Way of curing | Curing time | Expansion | Strength [MPa] | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | >2 | Yes | No | ||||||
| CA | √ | – | <10 | moist | seconds | – | √ | 20 | [ |
| Epoxy | √ | – | – | moist, air, heat | 60 °C, <100 min | – | √ | – | [ |
| √ | – | 250–500 | moist, air | – | – | √ | 22 | [ | |
| √ | – | – | moist, air | – | – | √ | 25 | [ | |
| – | √ | – | contact component | – | – | √ | – | [ | |
| – | √ | – | contact component | ±1 h | – | √ | – | [ | |
| – | √ | 200 | contact component | – | – | √ | 17.6 | [ | |
| – | √ | 150 | contact component | 30 min | – | √ | 5.1 | [ | |
| – | √ | 80 | contact component | 30 min | – | √ | 4.2 | [ | |
| – | √ | 360 | contact component | 40 min | – | √ | 45 | [ | |
| MMA | √ | – | – | heat | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| – | √ | ±1 | contact component | 30 min | – | √ | 50-75 | [ | |
| – | √ | ±1 | contact component | – | – | √ | – | [ | |
| – | √ | 34 | contact component | 1 h | – | √ | 50 | [ | |
| Silicone | √ | – | – | air | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| Foam | √ | – | – | – | – | √ | – | [ | |
| PU | √ | – | 7200 | moist | 40–180 min | √ | – | [ | |
| – | √ | 600 | contact component | 50–300 s | √ | – | [ | ||
| Polyacrylate | – | √ | 7 | contact component | 40 s | – | √ | – | [ |
| Tung oil | √ | – | – | air | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| Alkali silica solution | √ | – | – | air | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| Ca(OH)2 solution | √ | – | – | CO2 in air | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| Na2SiO3 solution | √ | – | – | Ca(OH)2 matrix | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| Na2FPO3 solution | √ | – | – | hydration and carbonation products | 28 days | – | √ | – | [ |
| Ca(NO2)2 solution | √ | – | – | matrix | – | – | √ | – | [ |
| PU + bacterial solution | – | √ | 600 | contact component | – | √ | – | – | [ |
| Bacterial solution | √ | – | – | water and O2 | 100 days | – | √ | – | [ |
| – | √ | – | water | – | – | √ | – | [ | |
Overview of the encapsulation techniques which have been reported in the literature (“–” means “not reported”, “x” means “not applicable”, “√” means “yes” and “/” means “no”).
| Shell material | Content | Øi | Øo | Wall thickness | Length | Mixed in | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [µm] | [µm] | [µm] | [mm] | ||||||
| Capsule based approach | Spherical | expanded clay | Na2FPO3 | x | 4000 | x | x | √ | [ |
| expanded clay | bacteria | x | 1000–4000 | x | x | √ | [ | ||
| expanded clay | CaC6H10O6 | x | 1000–4000 | x | x | √ | [ | ||
| diatomaceous earth | bacteria | x | – | x | x | √ | [ | ||
| gelatin | acrylic resin | – | 125-297 | – | x | – | [ | ||
| gelatin | epoxy | – | 50 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| gelatin | tung oil | – | 50 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| gelatin | Ca(OH)2 | – | 50 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| wax | retarder agent | – | 120 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| paraffin | water | – | 900 | – | x | – | [ | ||
| cement + paraffin | SAP | – | – | – | x | – | [ | ||
| UF | epoxy | – | 120 | 4 | x | √ | [ | ||
| UFF | epoxy | – | 20–70 | – | x | – | [ | ||
| PU | Na2SiO3 | – | 40–800 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| silica gel | MMA | – | 4.15 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| silica gel | TEB | – | 4.15 | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| silica | epoxy | – | – | – | x | √ | [ | ||
| silica | Na2SiO3 | – | 5000 | – | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| Cylindrical | glass | CA | 800 | 1000 | 100 | 100 | ∕ | [ | |
| glass | CA | 800 | – | – | 75 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 1500 | – | – | 75 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 3000 | – | – | 100 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 3000 | 5000 | – | 250 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 4000 | 6000 | – | 250 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 4000 | 7000 | – | – | – | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 3200 | 4000 | 400 | 200 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | – | 100 | – | 63.5 | √ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 2000–3000 | 2200–3350 | 100 | 20–80 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 2000–3000 | 2200–3350 | 100 | 20–80 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | polyacrylate | 2000–3000 | 2200–3350 | 100 | 20–80 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | PU | 2000–3000 | 2200–3350 | 100 | 20–80 | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | bacteria | 2000–3000 | 2200–3350 | 100 | 20–80 | ∕ | [ | ||
| ceramics | PU | 2500–3500 | 3000–4000 | 250 | 15–50 | ∕ | [ | ||
| perspex | epoxy | – | – | – | – | ∕ | [ | ||
| plant fiber | – | – | 40–188 | – | – | – | [ | ||
| PP with wax | MMA | – | – | – | – | ∕ | [ | ||
| Vascular based approach | Tubular | glass | alkali silica | 800 | 2000 | 600 | x | ∕ | [ |
| glass | epoxy | 800 | 2000 | 600 | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 3000 | 4000 | 500 | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 4800 | 6000 | 600 | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 3200 | 4000 | 400 | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | foam | 1500 | – | – | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| glass | epoxy | 1500 | – | – | X | / | [ | ||
| glass | silicon | 1500 | – | – | X | / | [ | ||
| glass | CA | 1500 | – | – | X | / | [ | ||
| spiral twisted wire with EVA | epoxy | 2000 | 3400 | 700 | x | ∕ | [ | ||
| porous concrete | epoxy | – | 25000–35000 | – | x | ∕ | [ | ||
Figure 5Released volume of healing agent (Vreleased) per crack area (A) as a function of the capsule concentration for spherical and cylindrical capsules with a different length to diameter ratio. The horizontal and vertical crossing lines indicate the magnitude of the effect when changing from spheres to cylindrical capsules with a high length to diameter ratio (redrafted after [146]).
Overview of the mechanisms which might trigger self-healing of cracks.
| Trigger | Result | |
|---|---|---|
| water | Autogenous healing | further hydration | |
| water + CO2 | Autogenous healing | CaCO3 precipitation | |
| water | Expansion, swelling and precipitation of additives | |
| water | Swelling of SAP and autogenous healing [ | |
| high RH | Swelling of SAP and autogenous healing [ | |
| chloride solution | Coating around porous PP tube degrades and Ca(NO2)2 leaches through pores | |
| water + O2 | Activation of spores and bacterial CaCO3 precipitation [ | |
| water | Bacterial CaCO3 precipitation [ | |
| CO2 | Degradation of coating around expanded clay particles and release of Na2PFO3 | |
| External | ||
| 90 °C (+water) | Crack closure by SMA (PET) (followed by autogenous healing) | |
| 100 °C | Melting of wax coating around porous PP capsules and release of MMA | |
| 150 °C | Melting of EVA particles | |
| Internal | Melting of paraffin coating and release of hydration retarder agent | |
| 48 °C | Melting of EVA film around Spiral wire and release of epoxy | |
| 93 °C | ||
| (+water) | Crack closure by SMA (followed by autogenous healing) | |
| Capsule breakage and release of healing agent | ||
| Delamination of plant fibers and release of healing agent | ||
| Actuation of pump and injection of healing agent into porous concrete layer | ||
Techniques used to evaluate the healing efficiency.
| Technique | Possibilities | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| visualization and determination | Optical microscopy + image analysis | Visualization crystal deposition + determination healing rate | [ |
| Scanning electron microscopy | Visualization crystal deposition | [ | |
| Environmental scanning electron microscopy | Visualization breakage of partially embedded capsule | [ | |
| Thin section analysis | Visualization crystal deposition inside crack | [ | |
| X-ray radiography | Visualization release encapsulated agent from embedded capsule | [ | |
| X-ray tomography | Visualization release encapsulated agent from embedded capsule in 3D | [ | |
| Digital image correlation | Visualization of crack closure upon heat treatment of SMA | [ | |
| X-ray diffraction analysis | Determination of crystalline materials | [ | |
| Ramann spectroscopy | Determination chemical composition | [ | |
| Infrared analysis | Determination of precipitated products | [ | |
| regain tightness | Water permeability | low pressure | Water flow through (healed) crack | [ |
| Water permeability | high pressure | Water flow through (healed) crack | [ | |
| Air permeability | Air flow through (healed) crack | [ | |
| Capillary water uptake | Capillary water uptake by (healed) crack | [ | |
| Neutron radiography | Visualize capillary water uptake by (healed) crack | [ | |
| Corrosion test | Resistance against corrosion | [ | |
| Frost salt scaling | Resistance against frost salt scaling | [ | |
| Chloride diffusion | Resistance against chloride ingress | [ | |
| Osmotic pressure | Resistance against ion ingress | [ | |
| Ultrasonic transmission measurements | Continuity of material | [ | |
| regain mechanical properties | Compression test | [ | |
| Tensile test | Regain in strength, stiffness and/or energy obtained when reloading healed specimen | [ | |
| 3-point bending test | [ | ||
| 4-point bending test | Formation of new cracks | [ | |
| Horizontal deformation column/frame | [ | ||
| Impact loading slab | [ | ||
| Acoustic emission analysis | Regain in energy/Notice capsule breakage | [ | |
| Resonance frequency analysis | Regain in stiffness | [ | |