biological deterioration of concrete in subsea tunnels symposium, 6th –8th september 2017,...
TRANSCRIPT
Biological deterioration of concrete in subsea tunnels
Prof. Britt-Marie Wilén (WET), Chalmers
Associate Prof. Frank Persson (WET), Chalmers
Senior Engineer Per Hagelia at NPRA
Sabina Karačić
Degradation of subsea sprayed concrete
Rock mass condition
Spray tickness
The annual cost of repair work on concrete:
$5 billion in Western Europe alone!Knudsen A, Jensen FM, Klinghoffer O, Skovsgaard T: Cost-effective enhancement of durability of concrete structures by intelligent use of stainless steel reinforcement. In: Proceedings, conference oncorrosion and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures, Florida, 15
Biotic FactorsAbiotic Factors
Humidity
Fibers
BacteriaAlgae Fungi
Oslofjörd subsea tunnelResearch in the Oslofjord subsea tunnel has shownsignificant degradation of the sprayed concrete matrix,acidification and destructive corrosion of steel fibers inassociation with biofilms. Observation: from 2004 until now
Degradation was characterized by crumbling and material loss, locally up to 40 mm after 4-5 years!
Aims
Does the method work?
Who is there?
Where are they located?
What is the local environment?
Abiotic attack Oslofjördsubsea tunnel
Infiltration of:
MagnesiumChlorideSulfateBicarbonate
Leaching of Ca Popcorn calcite deposition Mg-substitution into C-S-H Brucite deposition Thaumasite attack
Oslofjördsubsea tunnel
Biofilm: A structured community of bacterial, algal,fungi or other types of cells enclosed in a self-producedmatrix and adherent to an inert or living surface
SEM images Oslofjörd tunnel biofilm
The biotic attack
Microbial attack
two different types of biofilm:
1) reddish-brown rich in Fe-microbes,
2) dark/black rich in Mn-microbes
A uniform reddish-brown biofilm
Mixed reddish-brown and dark/black biofilms
The biotic attack
BIOMINERALS:
• Na-buserite
• Todorokite
• Ferrihydrite (Fe(OH)3)
Calcite stalactites covered by Mn-Fe biofilm were mainly very friable in contrast to stalactites without biofilm
Lack of knowledge regarding the microbialcommunities and the impact of theirmetabolism, and lack of answers on importantquestions such as “who is doing what?” information of these biodeteriorating biofilms.
Sampling
Sampling procedures to capture the biofilm. From left to right: Sampling of thin biofilm with a scalpel; Core sampling of thick biofilm; and hole after core sampling showing the concrete beneath.
• 10 times• 90 samples
Localities Age of concrete Exposure Class(NS EN 206)
Concrete mix(NS EN 206)
Test site 5.5 years XC2-XC3, XS3 M45, B45 M40, B45(steel + PP fiber)
Main tunnel 16 years XC2-XC3, XS3 M40, B45Pump station 16 years XC2-XC3, XS3 M40, B45
From left to right: Test site; Main tunnel; and Pump station
Localities
DNA extraction
Who is there?
PCR amplification: 16S rDNA V4 region using the primers 515′F-806Rto cover both bacteria and archaea with dual-index labeling
Sequencing: Illumina MiSeq using the MiSeq Reagent Kit v2
Amplify
16S rRNA genes
Sequencing Identification
High throughput sequencing (MiSeq) result in >5000000 sequences in one run
DNA
Microsensor measurments of pH and oxygen
What is the local environment?
Results
Water chemical characteristicsParameter Unit Groundwater Water
interacting with concrete and
biofilmpH 7.60-7.93 5.5-7.7
Alkalinity (HCO3-) mmol/l 2.3-2.5 2.0-2.6
DOC mg/l 0.38-0.92 0.4-1
Cl- g/l 15.0-19.0 17.8-19.3
SO42- g/l 2.20-2.70 2.41-2.72
Ca2+ mg/l 421-460 473-1360
Mg2+ g/l 1.10-1.24 1.21-1.34
Mn2+ mg/l 1.2-1.6 0.77-1.69
Fe2+ µg/l 3-38 3-38
NH4+ µg/l 1.0-1.1 0.006-2210
NO3- µg/l <0.1-6 450-1535
Effects of DNA extraction comparing two methods
Ordination by PCA of microbial community data obtained by the two DNA extraction kits
tested, FastDNA spin kit for soil (FastDNA) and Zymo ZR-Duet (Zymo). Three different
samples of biofilm (SA1, SA2 and SA3) were split and separately extracted by the two
extraction methods, followed by PCR and high throughput amplicon sequencing
Does the method work?
Microbial community composition
Heat map showing the top 20 major genus in the biofilms. Numbers
show median percentage abundances.
Who is there?
Major roles of the microorganisms
Biofilm community composition showing the 25 most abundant OTUs at genus level. The thick middle markers show median, the upper and lower bounds of boxes designate the 25th and 75th
percentiles, the lines designate the maximum and minimum values, the dots show outliers. Numbers show median percentage abundances. Colors of the boxplot: Blue: Nitrogen
converting bacteria, Red: Iron oxidizing bacteria, Yellow: Proposed Sulfur converting bacteria, Grey: Proposed Heterotrophs converting bacteria.
NMDS plotHow are they distributed?
Microsensor profiling
Conclusion
Does the method work?
Yes ( both Fast and Zymo DNA extraction kits)
Who is there?
High abundance of Fe-oxidizing bacteria, nitrogen converting bacteria, sulfate oxidizing and reducing bacteria
How are they distributed?
Difference between tunnel sites.
What is the local environment?
Microsensor measurments showed aerobic gradientwith relatively stable pH around 7-8.
• Conference (oral presentation + poster session):
Microorganisms-Cementitious Materials Interactions, TU Delft, 23/24.06.2016
The 17th International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation Symposium, 6th – 8th September 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
• Paper published in proceedings:Microbial attack on subsea sprayed concrete. Sabina Karačić, Per Hagelia, Frank Persson, Britt-Marie Wilén.RILEM Conference on Microorganisms-Cementitious Materials Interactions p. 63-75. (2016) , RILEM Publications SARL.[Conference paper - peer reviewed]
Member of TC 253 RILEM Microorganisms-cementitious materials interactions
Member of IBBS International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation Society
Chalmers Fouling/Antifouling Group
Further research questions in my PhD
Analyse microbial metabolism and their impact on concrete
Analyse microbial distribution in depth
Establish links between microbial community structure and biomineralisation
Biofilm time course development
Thank you for your attention!