Advertisement

Study of Physical, Mechanical, Flow, and Solute Transfer Properties of Clay Formations with Respect to the Design of Underground Storage Facilities for RW Disposal

  • Vyacheslav G. RumyninEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media book series (TATP, volume 25)

Abstract

Clay formations are widespread in the Northwestern part of Russian Federation. In St. Petersburg region southeast of the Gulf of Finland and Ladoga Lake, they occur close to the surface (Fig. 22.1). The sediments are represented by two formations, which formed in Vendian and Cambrian geological periods ( ∼ 650-500 Ma). The degree of the clayey sediment consolidation is rather high and therefore they can be also referred to the mudstone lithological type of rock (Arnould 2006). In the northwestern Russian Federation, Vendian and Cambrian clays have local names, Kothlin (associated with a geological suite) and Blue (associated with the characteristic color), respectively.

Keywords

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Effective Diffusion Coefficient Diffusion Experiment Clay Sample Radioactive Waste 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aertsens M, Van Gompel M, De Cannire P (2008) Vertical distribution of H14CO3– transport parameters in Boom Clay in the Mol-1 borehole (Mol, Belgium). Phys Chem Earth 33:S61–S66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnould M (2006) Discontinuity networks in mudstones: a geological approach: implications for radioactive wastes isolation in deep geological formation in Belgium, France, and Switzerland. Bull Eng Geol Envir 65:413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock H, Blümling P, Konietzky H (2006) Study of the micro-mechanical behaviour of the Opalinus Clay: an example of co-operation across the ground engineering disciplines. Bull. Eng Geol Envir 65:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cormenzana JL, García-Gutiérrez M, Missana T (2008) Modeling large-scale laboratory HTO and strontium diffusion experiments in Mont Terri and Bure clay rocks. Phys Chem Earth 33:949–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crank J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion. 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. García-Gutiérrez M, Cormenzana JL, Missana T et al (2006) Large-scale laboratory diffusion experiments in clay rocks. Phys Chem Earth 31:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. García-Gutiérrez M, Cormenzana JL, Missana T (2008) Diffusion experiments in Callovo-Oxfordian clay from the Meuse/Haute-Marne URL, France. Experimental setup and data analyses. Phys Chem Earth 33: S125–S130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giu G, Barbour L, Si BC (2009) Unified multilayer diffusion model and application to diffusion experiment in porous media by method of chambers. Environ Sci Technol 43:2412–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huysmans M, Dassargues A (2006) Stochastic analysis of the effect of spatial variability of diffusion parameters on radionuclide transport in a low permeability clay layer. Hydrogeol J 14:1094–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maes N, Aertsens M, Salah S et al (2009) Cs, Sr and Am retention on argillaceous host rocks: comparison of data from batch sorption tests and diffusion experiments. Updated version of the PID1.2.18 delivered to the FUNMIG project. External Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK ∙ CEN-ER-98 09/NMa/P-108Google Scholar
  11. Moridis GJ (1999) Semianalytical solutions for parameter estimation in diffusion cell experiments. Water Resour Res 35:1729–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ogata A, Banks RB (1961) A solution of the differential equation of longitudinal dispersion in porous media. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 411-AGoogle Scholar
  13. Palut J-M, Montarnal Ph, Gautschi A et al (2003) Characterisation of HTO diffusion properties by an in-situ tracer experiment in Opalinus clay at Mont Terri. J Contam Hydrol 61:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rumynin VG, Pankina EB, Volckaert G et al (2009) Geotechnical, flow and transport properties of Kotlin (Vendian age) and Blue (Cambrian age) clays with respect to design of underground storage facilities for radioactive waste disposal in the north-west region of Russia. In: Proceedings of the IV international nuclear forum 2009. St. Petersburg, pp 195–210Google Scholar
  15. Samper J, Yang C, Naves A et al (2006) A fully 3-D anisotropic numerical model of the DI-B in situ diffusion experiment in the Opalinus clay formation. Phys Chem Earth 31:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Samper J, Dewonck S, Zheng L et al (2008) Normalized sensitivities and parameter identifiability of in situ diffusion experiments on Callovo–Oxfordian clay at Bure site. Phys Chem Earth 33:1000–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soe AKK, Osada M, Takahashi M, Sasaki T (2009) Characterization of drying-induced deformation behaviour of Opalinus Clay and tuff in no-stress regime. Environ Geol 58:1215–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soler JM, Samper J Yllera A et al (2008) The DI-B in situ diffusion experiment at Mont Terri: Results and modeling. Phys Chem Earth 33:S196–S207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Loon LR, Soler JM, Jakob A et al (2003) Effect of confining pressure on the diffusion of HTO, 36Cl– and 125I– in a layered argillaceous rock (Opalinus Clay): diffusion perpendicular to the fabric. Appl Geochem 18:1653–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Loon LR, Baeyens B, Bradbury MH (2005) Diffusion and retention of sodium and strontium in Opalinus clay: comparison of sorption data from diffusion and batch sorption measurements, and geochemical calculations. Appl Geochem 20:2351–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Rees KCJ, Sudicky EA, Rae PSC et al (1991) Evaluation of laboratory techniques for measuring diffusion coefficients in sediments. Environ Sci Technol 25:1605–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Verstricht J, Blümling P, Merceron T (2003) Repository concepts for nuclear waste disposal in clay formations. In: Myrvoll F (ed.) Field measurements in geomechanics. Proceedings of the 6th international symposium, Oslo, 15–18 September 2003. Swets & Zeilinger, The Lisse, pp 387–392Google Scholar
  23. Wersin P, Soler JM, Van Loon L (2008) Diffusion of HTO, \(\mathrm{Br}-,\ \mathrm{I}-,\ \mathrm{Cs}+,\ \mathrm{85Sr2}+\) and 60Co2 + in a clay formation: Results and modelling from an in situ experiment in Opalinus Clay. Appl Geochem 23:678–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wileveau Y, Bernier F (2008) Similarities in the hydromechanical response of Callovo-Oxfordian clay and Boom Clay during gallery excavation. Phys Chem Earth 33: S343–S349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yllera A, Hernández A, Mingarro M (2004) DI-B experiment: planning, design and performance of an in situ diffusion experiment in the Opalinus Clay formation. Appl Clay Sci 26:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geological DepartmentThe Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Environmental Geology Saint Petersburg Division Saint Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations