Crack Closure in Cementitious Infrastructure Elements under Self Healing Materials and Damage Accumulation
Keywords:
Self-Healing Concrete, Damage Accumulation, Crack Closure, Cementitious Materials, Self Healing MaterialsAbstract
The degradation of cementitious infrastructure elements presents a monumental challenge to global civil engineering, necessitating continuous maintenance and immense financial expenditure. Central to this degradation is the accumulation of damage over time, which manifests primarily as microcracking under the influence of structural loads and environmental stressors. This paper investigates the intricate mechanisms of damage accumulation and the subsequent processes of crack closure facilitated by self-healing materials. By integrating both autogenous and autonomous self-healing paradigms, the study elucidates how intrinsic chemical reactions and engineered biological or polymeric interventions mitigate crack propagation. The analysis encompasses the microstructural degradation pathways that initiate failure, followed by a comprehensive review of the methodologies utilized to evaluate self-healing efficacy, including non-destructive imaging and mechanical recovery testing. Results synthesize current data on crack closure ratios, demonstrating that while autogenous healing is limited to narrow crack widths, autonomous mechanisms, particularly those utilizing encapsulated bacterial agents, offer substantial improvements in closing wider fissures and restoring structural integrity. Ultimately, this research provides a holistic understanding of the interplay between damage progression and autonomic repair, highlighting pathways for transitioning these advanced smart materials from laboratory settings to full-scale infrastructural applications, thereby significantly extending the service life of concrete structures.References
1. World Economic Forum (WEF). Global Risks Report; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2025; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2025/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).
2. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). An Eco-Wakening: Measuring Global Awareness, Engagement, and Action for Nature; The Economist Intelligence Unit: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/ecosystems-resources/an-eco-wakening-measuring-global-awareness-engagement-and-action-for-nature (accessed on 5 November 2025).
3. Chausson, A.; Welden, E.A.; Melanidis, M.S.; Gray, E.; Hirons, M.; Seddon, N. Going beyond market-based mechanisms to finance nature-based solutions and foster sustainable futures. PLoS Clim. 2023, 2, e0000169.
4. Barbier, E.B. The Water Paradox: Overcoming the Global Crisis in Water Management; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 2019; Available online: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300224436/water-paradox (accessed on 5 November 2025).
5. Belton, B.; Baldiga, L.; Justice, S.; Minten, B.; Narayanan, S.; Reardon, T. Can the global drone revolution make agriculture more sustainable? Science 2025, 389, 972–976.
6. Drupp, M.A.; Hänsel, M.C.; Fenichel, E.P.; Freeman, M.; Gollier, C.; Groom, B.; Heal, G.M.; Howard, P.H.; Millner, A.; Moore, F.C.; et al. Accounting for the increasing benefits from scarce ecosystems. Science 2024, 383, 1062–1064.
7. Lapworth, D.J.; Baran, N.; Stuart, M.E.; Ward, R.S. Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: A review of sources, fate and occurrence. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 163, 287–303.
8. Barbier, E.B. Water and Economic Growth in Developed and Developing Countries. Water Econ. Policy 2024, 10, 243002.
9. Zhou, S.; Chen, W.; Liu, Y. Can the digital transformation of service trade alleviate global warming? An analysis from the perspective of developing economies. Energy Econ. 2025, 148, 108619.
10. Zeqiri, A.; Ben Youssef, A.; Maherzi Zahar, T. The Role of Digital Tourism Platforms in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals in the Industry 4.0 Era. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3482.
11. Climate Focus. The Voluntary Carbon Market: 2024 Review; Climate Focus: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2025; Available online: https://climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Voluntary-Carbon-Market-2024-Review.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2025).
12. World Economic Forum (WEF) and McKinsey & Company. Finance Solutions for Nature: Pathways to Returns and Outcomes; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/finance-solutions-for-nature-pathways-to-returns-and-outcomes/ (accessed on 9 October 2025).
13. Dowling, R. Global geotourism—An emerging form of sustainable tourism. Czech. J. Tour. 2013, 2, 59–79.
14. Antweiler, W.; Copeland, B.R.; Taylor, M.S. Is free trade good for the environment? Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 877–908.
15. Zhang, L.L.; Pan, A.; Feng, S.S.; Qin, Y.Y. Digital Economy, Technological Progress, And City Export Trade. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269314.
16. Arcega-Cabrera, F.; Sickman, J.O.; Fargher, L.; Herrera-Silveira, J.; Lucero, D.; Oceguera-Vargas, I.; Lamas-Cosío, E.; Robledo-Ardila, P.A. Groundwater quality in the Yucatan Peninsula: Insights from stable isotope and metals analysis. Groundwater 2021, 59, 878–891.
17. Yasmeen, R.; Tian, T.; Yan, H.; Shah, W.U.H. A Simultaneous Impact of Digital Economy, Environment Technology, Business Activity on Environment and Economic Growth in G7: Moderating Role of Institutions. Heliyon 2024, 10, e32932.
18. Lucero, L.J.; Gunn, J.D.; Scarborough, V.L. Climate change and Classic Maya water management. Water 2011, 3, 479–494.
19. Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Economics of Water Scarcity and Efficiency. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8550.
20. Bresciani, S.; Ferraris, A.; Del Giudice, M. The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018, 136, 331–338.
21. Wen, H.W.; Chen, W.J.; Zhou, F.X. Does Digital Service Trade Boost Technological Innovation?: International Evidence. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2023, 88, 101647.
22. Gozgor, G. Does trade matter for carbon emissions in OECD countries? Evidence from a new trade openness measure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 27813–27821.
23. Davenport, T.H.; Guha, A.; Grewal, D.; Bressgott, T. How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 24–42.
24. Trove Research. The Role of “Reduction” and “Removal” Projects in the Voluntary Carbon Market—An Economic Analysis; Trove Research: London, UK, 2023; Available online: https://www.msci.com/www/research-report/the-role-of-reduction-and/04832433783 (accessed on 5 November 2025).
25. Rosegrant, M.W.; Sulser, T.B.; Wiebe, K. Global investment gap in agricultural research and innovation to meet Sustainable Development Goals for hunger and Paris Agreement climate change mitigation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 965767.
26. Hall, C.M. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first- and second-order to third-order change? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 649–671.
27. Buera, F.J.; Kaboski, J.P. The rise of the service economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 2012, 102, 2540–2569.
28. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The Marine Stewardship Council Annual Report 2020–2021; Marine Stewardship Council: London, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.msc.org/about-the-msc/reports-and-brochures (accessed on 5 November 2025).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.