| Literature DB >> 35591554 |
Mugahed Amran1,2, Ali M Onaizi3, Roman Fediuk4,5, Nikolai Ivanovicn Vatin5, Raizal Saifulnaz Muhammad Rashid6, Hakim Abdelgader7, Togay Ozbakkaloglu8.
Abstract
Concrete is a material that is widely used in the construction market due to its availability and cost, although it is prone to fracture formation. Therefore, there has been a surge in interest in self-healing materials, particularly self-healing capabilities in green and sustainable concrete materials, with a focus on different techniques offered by dozens of researchers worldwide in the last two decades. However, it is difficult to choose the most effective approach because each research institute employs its own test techniques to assess healing efficiency. Self-healing concrete (SHC) has the capacity to heal and lowers the requirement to locate and repair internal damage (e.g., cracks) without the need for external intervention. This limits reinforcement corrosion and concrete deterioration, as well as lowering costs and increasing durability. Given the merits of SHCs, this article presents a thorough review on the subject, considering the strategies, influential factors, mechanisms, and efficiency of self-healing. This literature review also provides critical synopses on the properties, performance, and evaluation of the self-healing efficiency of SHC composites. In addition, we review trends of development in research toward a broad understanding of the potential application of SHC as a superior concrete candidate and a turning point for developing sustainable and durable concrete composites for modern construction today. Further, it can be imagined that SHC will enable builders to construct buildings without fear of damage or extensive maintenance. Based on this comprehensive review, it is evident that SHC is a truly interdisciplinary hotspot research topic integrating chemistry, microbiology, civil engineering, material science, etc. Furthermore, limitations and future prospects of SHC, as well as the hotspot research topics for future investigations, are also successfully highlighted.Entities:
Keywords: applications; bacteria; efficiency of self-healing; fiber; healing agent; mechanism of self-healing; self-healing; self-healing concrete; strategies
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591554 PMCID: PMC9106089 DOI: 10.3390/ma15093214
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1SHC systems (Adapted with permission from MDPI [4]).
Figure 2Strategies of self-healing phenomenon for concrete (Adapted with permission from IOP [43]).
Figure 3Evolution of crack healing via microbial process: (a) reference; (b) abiotic control; (c) microbial (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [45]).
The performance of bacteria species in healing cracks.
| Type of Bacteria | Type of Healing Agent | Embedded | Strength Recovery | Width of Crack, mm | Durability Effect | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Urea, CaCl2 H2O | Diatomite lam dong | x | 1–1.8 | √ | [ |
|
| Ureolytic activity | Directly with 100 mL cell | √ | 0.15–0.3 | √ | [ |
|
| Urea—2CaCl2 curing | Directly with 2.2 × 106 cells/mL | x | 0.2 | √ | [ |
|
| Urea—CaCl2 curing | Directly with 107 cells/cm3 | √ | 0.28–0.34 | √ | [ |
|
| Urea, yeast extract, | Diatomaceous earth with 109 cell/mL | x | 0.15–0.17 | √ | [ |
| Urea yeast extract, beef extract | Directly with 2.2 × 106 cells/mL | √ | 0.3 | √ | [ | |
|
| Urea, yeast extract, | Hydrogelencapsulated spore | x | 0.5 | √ | [ |
| Urea CaCO3 crystals, yeast extracts, NaCl | Steel bar, Hach dr 2400 portable | √ | 1.- | √ | [ | |
|
| Urea, Ca(NO3)2, 4H2O | Silica gel, polyurethane | √ | 0.35, 0.25 | √ | [ |
|
| Urea-broth culture | Direct with 105 cell/mL of mixing water | x | 0.3 | √ | [ |
|
| Urea, calciumnitrate, yeast extract | Microcapsule | x | 0.97 | √ | [ |
| Urea Ca2+ ion, CaCl2 usage | Trinocular stereomicroscope | √ | 0.4 | √ | [ | |
|
| Mixing water was replaced by urea–yeast extract medium | Direct with 2–6 × 107 cfu/mL | √ | - | x | [ |
|
| Urea, Ca(NO3)2 | Glass tubes with PU foam | √ | 0.3 | - | [ |
Annotation: (√), negative effect, (x), positive effect.
Figure 4Images of crack healing process (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [76]).
Figure 5Previous studies concerning both concrete/mortar and cement pastes’ influence on self-healing, up to 2018 (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [96]).
Methods used to evaluate the crack’s healing efficiency.
| Method | Possibilities | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visualization and determination | X-ray radiography | Imagining release encapsulated agent from embedded capsule | [ |
| Scanning electron microscopy | Imagining crystal deposition | [ | |
| Environmental scanning electron microscopy | Imagining breakage of partially embedded capsule | [ | |
| Thin section analysis | Imagining crystal deposition inside crack | [ | |
| Optical microscopy and image analysis | Imagining crystal deposition and determination of healing rate | [ | |
| X-ray tomography | Imagining release encapsulated agent from embedded capsule in 3D | [ | |
| Release of encapsulated agent | [ | ||
| Environmental scanning electron microscopy | Imagining breakage of partially embedded capsule | [ | |
| X-ray diffraction analysis | Finding of crystalline materials | [ | |
| Determination of crystalline materials | [ | ||
| Infrared analysis | Finding of precipitated products | [ | |
| Raman spectroscopy | Determination chemical composition | [ | |
| Correlation of digital image | Crack tends to close after treatment | [ | |
| Micromorphology | Crystals starts to deposit in crack | [ | |
| Image analysis/optical microscopy | Determination of healing rate | [ | |
| Regain tightness | Air permeability | Air flow via crack | [ |
| Water permeability | Water flow via crack | [ | |
| Capillary water uptake | Capillary water uptake by crack | [ | |
| Corrosion test | Resistance against corrosion | [ | |
| Corrosion resistance | [ | ||
| Neutron radiography | Visualize capillary water uptake | [ | |
| Frost salt scaling | Resistance against frost salt scaling | [ | |
| Ultrasonic transmission measurements | Continuity of material | [ | |
| Osmotic pressure | Resistance against ion ingress | [ | |
| Chloride diffusion | Resistance against chloride ingress | [ | |
| Pressure water/air permeability | Water flows via cracks healed | [ | |
| Salt scaling | Salt scaling resistance | [ | |
| Ultrasonic transmission technique | Continuation of material | [ | |
| Osmotic pressure | Ion ingression resistance | [ | |
| Neutron radiography | Finding of water uptake | [ | |
| Diffusion of chloride | Chloride ingression resistance | [ | |
| Regain mechanical properties | Water uptake through capillary action | Water uptake | [ |
| 4-point bending test | Reopening of old cracks versus creation of new cracks | [ | |
| 3-point bending test | [ | ||
| Regain of stiffness and strength | [ | ||
| Resonance frequency analysis | Regain of stiffness | [ | |
| Compression test and tensile test | Regain of strength, energy, and stiffness | [ | |
| Regain of stiffness and strength | [ | ||
| Impact loading on slab | [ | ||
| Column/frame deformation | |||
| Frequency analysis | Capsule containing healing agent breaks | [ | |
Figure 6Self-healing mechanisms: (a) autogenous, (b) autonomous bacteria-based, and (c) autonomous capsule-based (Adapted with permission from IOP [139]).
Figure 7Closure of a 100 μm crack in an OPC M (0.45) sample cyclically exposed to 33 g/L NaCl (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [145]).
Development in autogenous self-healing of concretes with the addition of mineral additives.
| Mineral Additives | Ratio of Mineral Additives | Curing Condition | Type of Damage | Performance of Healing Crack Width in Time | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crystalline additive (CA), alcium sulfoa- | 1.5% CA and OPC with 10% CSA | Water | Sp. Tensile test | -100–400 μm in 56 d | [ |
| MgO | 5% as cement | Water | Applied load corresponding to 80% of the ultimate compressive strength for 7 days | -FTIR spectra analysis | [ |
| CSA | 4.4%, 15.2% of cement | Flow water | Tension force | 100 µm less flow | [ |
| Superabsorbent polymers (SAPs) | 0.5, 1% | 90% RH and at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C | Four-point bending test | -Cracks smaller than 150 µm almost completely healed | [ |
| CSA, Mont. | Up to 10% (concrete) | Water | 3PB, mechanical | -160–220 µm in 33 d Calcite, CASH | [ |
| FA | 15–20% with cement | Water | Shrinkage micro-cracks | -Meso-macro pores at 91, 182, and 364 d | [ |
| FA, CA, SF | OPC + 10%SF, OPC + 1%CA OPC + 30%FA | Water | Splitting tensile test | -50 μm in 12 d, larger cracks heal proficiently with SF | [ |
| Combination of | (5%SF + 5%MgO) | Water | Applied load corresponding to 80% of the ultimate compressive strength for 7 days | FTIR spectra analysis | [ |
| Bentonite silica, Ca, CEA, | 8% + up to 14% | Water, air, wet–dry, freeze–thaw | Compression, sp. Tensile | 220 μm in 14 days | [ |
| Slag, FA | 30–40% of mortar | Water | Shrinkage | -Upgrade in strength | [ |
| BFS | 50% BFS + OPC | Water | Mechanical | It was 3 times quicker for cement | [ |
| FA | 5–155 of sand | Water | Freeze–thaw | -Increased damage by 90% in 1 day | [ |
| Slag, FA, L | 85% slag and 30, 50% FA; 50, 75 | Water | 3PB, mechanical | 200 μm in 42 d | [ |
| Bentonite, L, slag | 2% PVA by vol. Dia = 40 μm Length = 8 mm | Water, wet–dry cycle, air | 4 PB | -Naloclay advances the reloading bending capacity | [ |
| Blast-furnace slag | 66% as cement replacement | Saturated Ca(OH)2 solution | Micro-cracks | In 240 h of healing time, cracks of 10 and 30μm in width were healed by around 60% and 30%, respectively. | [ |
| Bentonite | Nanoclay as internal water reservoir | Water | Mechanical | -Enhanced hydration for self-healing | [ |
| MgO | 4–12% of cement | Water | Drying shrinkage, 3PB | <500 μm in 28 d | [ |
| CSA | PVA, up to 10% of mortar, 1:3 | Water | 3PB | 100–200 μm-14 d,<100 μm-11 d, | [ |
| Clay lwas | Sodium mono fluorophosphate (Na-MFP) and PC-coated (Mortar) | Water | Mechanical | -Absorption decrease phosphorous, sodium, and fluoride, CH | [ |
| CSA | Aggregates | -Water | Several CSA were broken into halves and pieced together | -The effective healing area reaches up to 1/3 of the fracture area after 3 months | [ |
| Slag | 66% of cement | Ca(OH)2 solution | Sliced, mechanical | 60% of 10 μm in 10 days | [ |
| CA: microsilica + sand + cement | 1–2% of cement | Water, open air | 4PB | 60% cracks sealed at ambient temperature | [ |
| FA, quicklime | 3% of cement | Water | Mechanical | Improved SiO2 solubility | [ |
Annotations: (H) Hauyne, (A) Anhydrite, (DME) Dynamic modulus of elasticity, (L) Lime/limestone powder, (CEA) Chemical expansive agent, (CSA) Carbonated steel slag, (FTIR) Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.
Figure 8Schematic diagram illustrating the proposed healing mechanism: (a) in the event of cracking and water ingress; (b) the bacteria-based beads incorporated in the composite will swell, this swelling will clog the cracks, and concomitantly “free up” the bacteria, yeast extract and magnesium acetate contained in the beads; (c) the magnesium will precipitate as magnesium-based minerals, the spores will germinate as a result of being exposed to the solubilized yeast extract, and metabolize the acetate, inducing calcium-based mineral precipitation in and on the surface of the beads, healing the crack. (Adapted with permission from MDPI [161]).
Some of the bacteria encapsulated for SHC.
| Type of Bacteria | Formation of Self-Healing | Main Findings | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| C6H10CaO6 | - Bacteria remain active for a half-year. | [ |
| - Seals larger cracks. | |||
|
| C6H10CaO6 | - Improves healing action. | [ |
|
| Alteration of origin of Ca to carbonate | - Bacteria continue to be active for 120 days. | [ |
| - Origin of Ca affects healing percentage. | |||
|
| Ureolytic precipitation of Ca(NO3)2 | - Increases strength. | [ |
| - Increases self-healing phenomenon. | |||
| - Decreases permeability. | |||
| - Improves healing ratio. | [ | ||
| - Condenses in permeability. | [ | ||
| - Diminishes water absorption. | |||
| - Lessens permeability. | [ | ||
|
| Ureolytic activity | - Check deeper part of the crack. | [ |
| - Heals the crack width. | |||
| - Enhances the concrete matrices. | |||
|
| Urea–2 CaCl2 curing | - Increases the compressive strength. | [ |
| - Increases the porosity. | |||
| - Enhances the permeability and water absorption. | |||
|
| Ureolytic precipitation of Ca(NO3)2, 4H2O | - Reduces the water absorption. | [ |
| - Reduces the crack width. | |||
| - Increases strength. | |||
|
| Urea yeast extract, CaCO3 | - Heals the crack width. | [ |
| - Increases strength. | |||
| - Decreases permeability. | |||
|
| Ureolytic precipitation of Ca(NO3)2, 4H2O | - Improves self-healing efficiency. | [ |
| - Fills larger cracks. | |||
| - Reduces permeability. | |||
|
| Urea caco3 crystals, yeast extracts, NaCl | - Achieves higher strength recovery. | [ |
| - Increases strength. | |||
| - Heals the crack width. | |||
|
| Urea, calcium nitrate, urea (CO(NH2)2) | - Reduces permeability. | [ |
| - Optimizes the dosage of the microcapsules. | |||
| - Improves healing ratio. | |||
|
| Urea Ca2+ ion, CaCl2 usage | - Increases the mortar properties. | [ |
| - Reduces porosity and permeability. | |||
| - Increases strength. |
Figure 9Capsule-based self-healing systems: (A) single capsules, (B) capsule (green)/dispersed catalyst (orange), (C) phase-separated droplet/capsules (green), (D) double-capsule (blue capsules with hardener, red capsules with healing agent) and (E) all-in-one microcapsules (multiple shell walls depicted with different colors) (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [170]).
Details of encapsulation techniques based on previous studies.
| Encapsulation Techniques | Rate of Sub-Stitution (%) | Material of Encapsulated | Major Findings: (√) Improved Property, and (-) Unknown | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fracture Energy | Strengths and Elastic Modulus | Stiffness and Chloride Resistance | Condenses Index of Damage | Capillary Absorption and Permeability | Sorptivity Coefficient | Crack Width | Porosity and Surface Resistivity | Refs. | ||||
| Poly styrene-divinylbenzene | 0–2 | Epoxy | √ | - | √ | - | √ | - | √ | - | [ | |
| Poly ureaf-ormaldehyde | 1–4 | Epoxy | - | √ | - | √ | - | - | √ | - | [ | |
| Urea formaldehyde | 0.25–2 | Ca(NO3)2 | √ | √ | - | - | - | - | √ | √ | [ | |
| 0–9 | Epoxy | - | √ | √ | - | √ | √ | |||||
| Urea formaldehyde | 0.5–5 | Sodium silicate | √ | √ | √ | - | [ | |||||
| Alginate | 10 | Ag+ | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | - | ||||
| Poly-urea | 0.8 | Sodium silicate | - | - | - | - | √ | - | [ | |||
| Polyurethane | 2.5–5 | Sodium silicate | √ | - | - | - | √ | √ | - | [ | ||
| Melamine urea–formaldehyde | 1–4 | Epoxy | - | √ | √ | √ | - | - | √ | - | [ | |
| Polyvinyl alcohol | 10 | Calcium aluminate | - | - | √ | √ | - | - | √ | - | [ | |
| Silica | 5–10 | Epoxy | √ | - | - | - | √ | √ | √ | √ | [ | |
| Microcapsules | 1–5 | Bacterial spores | - | √ | - | √ | - | √ | - | [ | ||
| Poly-urea | 0.25 | Dicyclopenta-diene | - | √ | - | - | - | √ | - | [ | ||
| Content | Type of material | Øo | Length | Øi | Mixed | Thickness | ||||||
| Capsule-based approach | Spherical | Cac6h10o6 | Expanded clay | 1000–4000 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||
| Bacteria | 1000–4000 | – | – | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Na2FPO3 | 4000 | – | – | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Tung oil | Gelatin | 50 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | 50 | – | – | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Acrylic resin | 125–297 | – | – | – | – | [ | ||||||
| Ca(OH)2 | 50 | – | – | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Water | Paraffin | 900 | – | – | – | – | [ | |||||
| Retarder agent | Wax | 120 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | UF | 120 | – | – | √ | 4 | [ | |||||
| Na2SiO3 | PU | 40–800 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | UF | 20–70 | – | – | – | – | [ | |||||
| Na2SiO3 | Silica | 5000 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Teb | Silica gel | 4.15 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Cylindrical | Ca | Glass | 1000 | 100 | 800 | √ | 100 | [ | ||||
| Epoxy | 7000 | – | 4000 | – | – | [ | ||||||
| Pu | Ceramics | 3000–4000 | 15–50 | 2500–3500 | √ | 250 | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | Glass | 5000 | 250 | 3000 | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | 6000 | 250 | 4000 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Ca | – | 75 | 800 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Bacteria | 2200–3350 | 20–80 | 2000–3000 | √ | 100 | [ | ||||||
| Ca | 2200–3350 | 20–80 | 2000–3000 | √ | 100 | [ | ||||||
| Ca | 4000 | 200 | 3200 | √ | 400 | [ | ||||||
| Poly-acrylate | 2200–3350 | 20–80 | 2000–3000 | √ | 100 | [ | ||||||
| Ca | – | 100 | 3000 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Ca | Glass | 4000 | 200 | 3200 | √ | 400 | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | 2200–3350 | 20–80 | 2000–3000 | √ | 100 | [ | ||||||
| Vascular-based approach | Tubular and cementitious capsules | Epoxy | Glass | – | – | 1500 | √ | – | [ | |||
| Foam | – | – | 1500 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Ca | 4000 | – | 3000 | √ | 500 | [ | ||||||
| Epoxy | Porous | 25,000–35,000 | – | – | √ | – | [ | |||||
| Ca | Glass | 4000 | – | 3200 | √ | 400 | [ | |||||
| Epoxy | 2000 | – | 800 | √ | 600 | [ | ||||||
| Alkali silica | 2000 | – | 800 | √ | 600 | [ | ||||||
| Epoxy | 6000 | – | 4800 | √ | 600 | [ | ||||||
| Ca | – | – | 1500 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
| Silicon | – | – | 1500 | √ | – | [ | ||||||
Influence of microbial agents on permeability, compressive strength, and water absorption.
| Type of Microbial Agent | Influence on | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive Strength | Durability | Refs. | |||
| Time (Day) | Influence | Water Absorption | Permeability | ||
|
| 28 | √ | – | √ | [ |
| 7 | √ | ||||
| 7 | √ | √ | – | [ | |
| 3 | √ | ||||
| 21 | √ | ||||
| – | – | – | √ | [ | |
| 90 | x | – | √ | [ | |
| 28 | x | ||||
| – | – | – | √ | [ | |
| – | – | √ | – | [ | |
|
| 3 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | ||||
| 28 | √ | √ | [ | ||
|
| 7 | √ | – | – | |
| 14 | √ | – | – | [ | |
| 28 | √ | – | – | ||
|
| 7 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 28 | √ | ||||
| 28 | √ | √ | – | ||
|
| 7 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 56 | √ | ||||
| 28 | √ | ||||
|
| 3 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | - | |||
| 28 | √ | √ | |||
|
| 3 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | – | – | ||
| 28 | √ | √ | √ | ||
|
| 28 | √ | √ | √ | [ |
| 90 | √ | √ | √ | ||
|
| 28 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | ||||
|
| – | √ | – | – | [ |
| 28 | √ | – | – | ||
|
| 28 | √ | – | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | ||||
| 3 | √ | ||||
|
| 1 | √ | √ | – | [ |
| 7 | √ | √ | – | ||
| 28 | √ | √ | – | ||
Figure 10Techniques for measuring self-healing performance in concrete.
Figure 11A 3D depiction of the healing products’ distribution in the control specimen (R) (brown color), the specimen with hydrogel bacterial spores (m-HS), and the specimen with pure hydrogel (m-H), after the process of self-healing. Left: surface of specimens in addition to the deposition; middle: dispersal of the deposits inside (Adapted with improvement from Wang [221]).
Figure 12Onset of debonding: transition in the mode of initiation of the interfacial crack (color scale: maximum principal stress, in Pa) (Adapted with permission from MDPI [235]). Annotations: Rc = radius of half-length of the plate, tc = the capsule wall thickness, and tc/Rc = geometrical ratio.
Figure 13SEM micrograph of crack before and after the application of pulsed electric current (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [236]).
Summary of the healing agents based on previous studies.
| Agent | Expansion | Components Number | Time of Curing | Curing Method | Strength (MPa) | Viscosity (mPas) | Refs. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | 1 | Less than 2 | ||||||
| Silicone | √ | – | √ | – | – | Air | – | – | [ |
| Epoxy | √ | – | √ | – | – | Moisture, air | 25 | – | [ |
| √ | – | √ | – | 60 °C, <100 min | Moisture, air, heat | – | – | [ | |
| Tung oil | √ | – | √ | – | – | Air | – | – | [ |
| Epoxy | √ | – | – | √ | 30 min | Contact component | 5.1 | 150 | [ |
| PU and bacterial solution | – | √ | – | √ | – | – | 600 | [ | |
| Epoxy | √ | – | – | √ | ±1 h | – | – | [ | |
| √ | – | – | √ | 40 min | 45 | 360 | [ | ||
| √ | – | – | √ | 30 min | 4.2 | 80 | [ | ||
| Na2SiO3 solution | √ | – | √ | – | – | Ca(OH)2 matrix | – | – | [ |
| Epoxy | √ | – | √ | – | – | Moist, air | 22 | 250–500 | [ |
| Alkali silica | √ | – | √ | – | – | Air | – | – | [ |
| Methyl methacrylate (MMA) | √ | – | – | √ | – | Contact component | – | ±1 | [ |
| √ | – | – | √ | 30 min | Contact component | 50–75 | ±1 | ||
| √ | – | √ | – | – | Heat | – | – | [ | |
| √ | – | – | √ | 1 h | 50 | 34 | [ | ||
| PU | - | √ | √ | – | 40–180 min | Moist | – | 7200 | [ |
| √ | – | √ | 50–300 s | Contact component | – | 600 | [ | ||
| √ | – | √ | – | 100 days | Water and O2 | – | – | [ | |
| Polyacrylate | √ | – | – | √ | 40 s | Contact component | – | 7 | [ |
| Ca(OH)2 solution | √ | – | √ | – | – | CO2 in air | – | – | [ |
| √ | – | √ | – | – | Matrix | – | – | [ | |
| Bacterial solution | √ | – | – | √ | – | Water | – | – | [ |
| Epoxy | √ | – | – | √ | – | Contact component | – | – | [ |
| √ | – | – | √ | – | Contact component | 17.6 | 200 | [ | |
| Foam | - | √ | √ | – | – | – | – | – | [ |
| Na2FPO3 solution | √ | – | √ | – | 28 days | Carbonation products | – | – | [ |
Figure 14SEM images showing the crack propagation and deflection pattern around the microcapsules (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [256]).
Details of self-healing methods (Adapted with improvements from [257]).
| Method | Scale | Type of Technology | Action of Healing | Requirements of Construction | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Micro | Nutrient sources and bacterial spores are spread in a random pattern throughout the cementitious matrix. | In favorable conditions, spores are exposed to water and a nutrient source (i.e., on crack surface). Bacteria deposit CaCO3 on the surface of the crack. | As a normal component of the concrete mix, nutrients and bacterial spores are included. | [ |
| Encapsulation | Micro | Direct mixing with water | Autogenous healing happens due the precipitation of calcium carbonate CaCO3 from decomposed urea into carbonate ions and calcium carbonate by bacteria in the presence of Ca2+present in atmosphere/hydrogel. | Melamine microcapsules/hydrogel containing cells of | [ |
| Flow networks | All altogether | In a cementitious matrix, a small diameter hollow network is produced. Tubes containing a healing agent. | Concrete cracks will rupture the flow network, allowing the healing agent to enter the crack plane. The network supports recurrent damage/healing actions. | Prior to casting, the network is embedded in concrete, and the network forming tubes are removed 1 day later. | [ |
| Nanomaterial additives | Nano | Direct mix | Refine micro-cracks by filling effect and pozzolanic reaction with Ca(OH)2. | Good distribution to prevent agglomeration. | [ |
| Shape memory polymers | Meso | PET strands in tendon form are anchored in the matrix. Post-tensioning strands are analogous in nature. An electric current is used to activate heat. PET shrinking results in a post-tensioning effect. | Cracks are repaired to the point where either natural autogenic healing or one of the numerous nano or micro scale healing techniques can take place. | Concrete placed into molds in a comparable way to a post-tensioning mechanism. | [ |
| Coating method | Based on coating type | The coatings respond to changes in the pH of the solution or to the change in temperature and air, achieving an immediate response. | Chemical reaction/polymerization to form a tough, corrosion-resistant film | Based on coating type | [ |
| Microcapsules | Nano | Microcapsules are dispersed at random throughout the cementitious matrix. | A break propagates across the microcapsule, causing it to rupture. Healing agent is released into the crack plane. | Microcapsules will be included as a normal element of the mix of concrete. | [ |
Figure 15Applications for which SHC could have particular appeal (Adapted with permission from Elsevier [257]).