Comparative Evaluation Of Acid Resistance In Chemical And Bacterial Concrete: Strength, Durability, And Resilience Under Aggressive Environments

Authors

  • Archana Shome Author
  • Bhagyashree Deshpande Author
  • Prashant Mundeja Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64252/cr7mt588

Abstract

This study investigates the durability and acid resistance of bacterial and conventional concrete under prolonged exposure to acidic environments. Concrete specimens were subjected to immersion in 5% HSO and 5% HCl solutions for a period of 105 days, during which weight loss, compressive strength loss, Acid Durability Factor (ADF), and Acid Attack Factor (AAF) were evaluated. Bacterial concrete demonstrated superior performance compared to conventional concrete, showing significantly reduced weight loss and compressive strength degradation in both acid solutions.For ordinary grade concrete in HSO, bacterial concrete exhibited 12.55% less weight loss and 6.22% less strength loss than conventional concrete. Similarly, in standard grade concrete, bacterial concrete showed 18.57% less weight loss and 42.12% less strength loss. When immersed in HCl, bacterial concrete displayed a 22.5% reduction in weight loss and a 14.5% decrease in compressive strength loss compared to conventional concrete. The ADF and AAF values further confirmed bacterial concrete's enhanced resistance to acid attack, maintaining higher durability and lower corner damage over the exposure period.The findings underscore bacterial concrete's potential for applications in harsh acidic environments, providing improved durability, sustainability, and reduced maintenance costs. This study establishes bacterial concrete as a promising material for infrastructure in chemically aggressive conditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-15

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Comparative Evaluation Of Acid Resistance In Chemical And Bacterial Concrete: Strength, Durability, And Resilience Under Aggressive Environments. (2025). International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11(10s), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.64252/cr7mt588