Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 75:1311 | Cite as

Comparative modelling of laboratory experiments for the hydro-mechanical behaviour of a compacted bentonite–sand mixture

  • A. Millard
  • N. Mokni
  • J. D. Barnichon
  • K. E. Thatcher
  • A. E. Bond
  • A. Fraser-Harris
  • C. Mc Dermott
  • R. Blaheta
  • Z. Michalec
  • M. Hasal
  • T. S. Nguyen
  • O. Nasir
  • R. Fedors
  • H. Yi
  • O. Kolditz
Thematic Issue
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. DECOVALEX 2015

Abstract

A comparative modelling exercise involving several independent teams from the DECOVALEX-2015 project is presented in this paper. The exercise is based on various laboratory experiments that have been carried out in the framework of a French research programme called SEALEX and conducted by the IRSN. The programme focuses on the long-term performance of swelling clay-based sealing systems that provide an important contribution to the safety of underground nuclear waste disposal facilities. A number of materials are being considered in the sealing systems; the current work focuses on a 70/30 MX80 bentonite–sand mixture compacted at dry densities between 1.67 and 1.97 Mg/m3. The improved understanding of the full set of hydro-mechanical processes affecting the behaviour of an in situ sealing system requires both experiments ranging from small-scale laboratory tests to full-scale field emplacement studies and coupled hydro-mechanical models that are able to explain the observations in the experiments. The approach was to build models of increasing complexity starting for the simplest laboratory experiments and building towards the full-scale in situ experiments. Following this approach, two sets of small-scale laboratory experiments have been performed and modelled. The first set of experiments involves characterizing the hydro-mechanical behaviour of the bentonite–sand mixture by means of (1) water retention tests under both constant volume and free swell conditions, (2) infiltration test under constant volume condition, and (3) swelling and compression tests under suction control conditions. The second, more complex, experiment is a 1/10th scale mock-up of a larger-scale in situ experiment. Modelling of the full-scale experiment is described in a companion paper. A number of independent teams have worked towards modelling these experiments using different conceptual models, codes, and input parameters. Their results are compared and discussed. This exercise has enabled an improved modelling of the bentonite–sand mixture behaviour, in particular accounting for the dependence of its retention curve on the dry density. Moreover, it has shown the importance of the technological voids on the short-term behaviour of the sealing system.

Keywords

Hydro-mechanical (hm) coupling Numerical modelling Sealing systems Compacted bentonite–sand mixture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was conducted within the context of the international DECOVALEX project. The authors are grateful to the funding organizations who supported the work. The views expressed in the paper are, however, those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the funding organizations. Nor do the views expressed herein necessarily reflect the views or regulatory positions of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and do not constitute a final judgment or determination of the matters addressed or of the acceptability of any licensing action that may be under consideration at the USNRC.

References

  1. Alonso EE, Gens A, Josa A (1990) A constitutive model for partially saturated soils. Géotechnique 40(3):405–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnichon JD, Deleruyelle F (2009) Sealing experiments at the Tournemire URL: the SEALEX Project. EurosafeGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnichon JD, Dick P, Bauer C (2012) The SEALEX in situ experiments: performance tests of repository seals. In: Qian Q, Zhou Y (eds) Harmonising rock engineering and the environment © 2012. Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-80444-8, pp 1391–1394Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner P (2006) Generic thermal–mechanical–hydraulic (THM) data for sealing materials: volume 1: soil–water relationships. Report No: 06819-REP-01300-10122-R00. Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond AE, Benbow SJ (2009) QPAC multi-phase flow module functional specification and architectural design. Quintessa report QRS-QPAC-HYD-2 v1.0Google Scholar
  6. COMSOL 2012 COMSOL Multiphysics version 3.5 User’s GuideGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon DA, Priyanto DG, Martino JB, De Combarieu M, Johansson R, Korkeakoski P, Villagran J (2014) Enhances sealing project (ESP): evolution of a full-sized bentonite and concrete shaft seal. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ. doi: 10.1144/SP400.33 Google Scholar
  8. Dueck A (2004) Hydro-mechanical properties of a water unsaturated sodium bentonite. Laboratory study and theoretical interpretation. Doctoral thesis ISBN 91-973723-6-6Google Scholar
  9. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen J, Holt E, Palmu M (2013) Full-scale demonstration of plugs and seals. In: Euradwaste’13–8th EC conference on the management of radioactive waste, community policy and research on disposal, VilniusGoogle Scholar
  11. Huertas F, Fuentes-Santillana JL, Jullien F, Rivas P, Linares J, Fariña P, Ghoreychi M, Jockwer N, Kickmaier W, Martínez MA, Samper J, Alonso E, Elorza FJ (2000) Full-scale engineered barriers experiment for a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste in crystalline host rock. EC Final report EUR 19147Google Scholar
  12. Itasca Consulting Group (2011) FLAC V 7.0, fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, user’s guide. Minneapolis, Itasca Consulting GroupGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolditz O, Bauer S, Bilke L, Böttcher N, Delfs JO, Fischer T, Park CH (2012) OpenGeoSys: an open-source initiative for numerical simulation of thermo-hydro-mechanical/chemical (THM/C) processes in porous media. Environ Earth Sci 67(2):589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu L, Neretneiks I, Moreno L (2011) Permeability and expansibility of natural bentonite MX-80 in distilled water. Phys Chem Earth 36:1783–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Man A, Martino JB (2009) Thermal, hydraulic and mechanical properties of sealing materials. NWMO TR-2009-20. Toronto: Nuclear Waste Management OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  16. Martino JB, Dixon D, Stroes-Gascoyne S, Guo R, Kozak ET, Gascoyne M, Fujita T, Vignal B, Sugita Y, Masumoto K, Saskura T, Bourbon X, Gingras-Genois A, Collins D (2008) The tunnel sealing experiment: 10 year summary. atomic energy of Canada Ltd., URL-12150-REPT-001, Chalk RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Maul P (2013) QPAC: Quintessa’s general-purpose modelling software. Quintessa report QRS-QPAC-11. www.quintessa.org
  18. Millard A, Mokni N, Barnichon JD, Thatcher KE, Bond AE, Fraser-Harris A, Mc Dermott C, Blaheta R, Michalec Z, Hasal M, Nguyen TS, Nasir O, Yi H, Kolditz O (2016) Comparative modelling approaches of hydro-mechanical processes in sealing experiments at the Tournemire URL. Environ Earth Sci (submitted)Google Scholar
  19. Nasir O, Nguyen TS, Barnichon JD, Millard A (2016) Simulation of the hydro-mechanical behaviour of bentonite seals for the containment of radioactive wastes. Can Geotech J (submitted)Google Scholar
  20. Navarro V, Asensio L., Yustres A, Pintado X (2015) Characterisation of the volumetric behaviour of MX-80 aggregates using water retention data: abstract. In: Clays in natural and engineered barriers for radioactive waste confinement, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. Olivella S, Carrera J, Gens A, Alonso EE (1994) Non isothermal multiphase flow of brine and gas through saline media. Transp Porous Media 15:271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olivella S, Gens A, Carrera J, Alonso EE (1995) Numerical formulation for a simulator (CODE_BRIGHT) for the coupled analysis of saline media. Eng Comput 13:87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quintessa (2013) QPAC: Quintessa’s general-purpose modelling software QRS-QPAC-11. http://www.quintessa.org/qpac-overview-report.pdf
  24. Richards LA (1931) Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums. J Appl Phys 1(5):318–333Google Scholar
  25. Saba S (2014) Comportement hydromécanique différé des barrières ouvragées argileuses gonflantes. PhD thesis, Université Paris Est, France (in French)Google Scholar
  26. Thatcher KE, Bond AE, Robinson P, McDermott C, Fraser Harris AP, Norris S (2016) A new hydro-mechanical model for bentonite resaturation applied to the SEALEX experiments. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-016-5741-z Google Scholar
  27. van Geet M, Bastiaens W, Volckaert G, Weetjens E, Sillen X, Gens A, Villar MV, Imbert C, Filippi M, Plas F (2007) Installation and evaluation of a large-scale in situ shaft seal experiment in Boom clay: the RESEAL project. In: International conference on clays in natural and engineered barriers for radioactive waste confinement, LilleGoogle Scholar
  28. van Genuchten MTh (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am 44(5):892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Villar MV, Campos R, Gutiérrez-Nebot L (2014) EB experiment Laboratory post-mortem analyses report CIEMAT technical report CIEMAT/DMA/2G210/01/2014Google Scholar
  30. Wang Q, Tang AM, Cui YJ, Delage P, Gatmiri B (2012) Experimental study on the swelling behaviour of bentonite/claystone mixture. Eng Geol 124:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Q, Tang AM, Cui YJ, Barnichon JD, Saba S, Ye WM (2013a) Hydraulic conductivity and microstructure changes of compacted bentonite–sand mixture during hydration. Eng Geol 164:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang Q, Tang AM, Cui YJ, Delage P, Barnichon JD, Ye WM (2013b) The effects of technological voids on the hydro-mechanical behaviour of compacted bentonite–sand mixture. Soils Found 53(2):232–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Millard
    • 1
  • N. Mokni
    • 2
  • J. D. Barnichon
    • 2
  • K. E. Thatcher
    • 3
  • A. E. Bond
    • 3
  • A. Fraser-Harris
    • 4
  • C. Mc Dermott
    • 4
  • R. Blaheta
    • 5
  • Z. Michalec
    • 5
  • M. Hasal
    • 5
  • T. S. Nguyen
    • 6
  • O. Nasir
    • 7
  • R. Fedors
    • 8
  • H. Yi
    • 9
  • O. Kolditz
    • 9
  1. 1.Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternativesSaclayFrance
  2. 2.Institut de Radioprotection et de Sureté NucléaireFontenay aux rosesFrance
  3. 3.QuintessaWarringtonUK
  4. 4.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.Institue of Geonic CASOstravaCzech Republic
  6. 6.Canadian Nuclear Safety CommissionOttawaCanada
  7. 7.GeofirmaOttawaCanada
  8. 8.Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRockvilleUSA
  9. 9.UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations