Journal Search Engine

View PDF Download PDF Export Citation Korean Bibliography PMC Previewer
ISSN : 1738-1894(Print)
ISSN : 2288-5471(Online)
Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology Vol.22 No.1 pp.17-25
DOI : https://doi.org/10.7733/jnfcwt.2024.009

Thermal Influence on Hydraulic Conductivity in Compacted Bentonite: Predictive Modeling Based on the Dry Density-Hydraulic Conductivity
Relationship

Gi-Jun Lee1, Seok Yoon1*, Won-Jin Cho2
1Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 111, Daedeok-daero 989beon-gil, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34057, Republic of Korea
2Korean Radioactive Waste Society, 111, Daedeok-daero 989beon-gil, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34057, Republic of Korea
* Corresponding Author. Seok Yoon, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, E-mail: syoon@kaeri.re.kr, Tel: +82-42-868-2946

December 7, 2023 ; January 22, 2024 ; February 21, 2024

Abstract


Hydraulic conductivity is a critical design parameter for buffers in high-level radioactive waste repositories. Most employed prediction models for hydraulic conductivity are limited to various types of bentonites, the main material of the buffer, and the associated temperature conditions. This study proposes the utilization of a novel integrated prediction model. The model is derived through theoretical and regression analyses and is applied to all types of compacted bentonites when the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and dry density for each compacted bentonite is known. The proposed model incorporates parameters such as permeability ratio, dynamic viscosity, and temperature coefficient to enable accurate prediction of hydraulic conductivity with temperature. Based on the results obtained, the values are in good agreement with the measured values for the selected bentonites, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed model. These results contribute to the analysis of the hydraulic behavior of the buffer with temperature during periods of high-level radioactive waste deposition.



초록


    1. Introduction

    The buffer surrounding a canister containing spent fuels in a high-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository is affected by the decay heat from the canister; therefore, to design the buffer, the temperature of the buffer must be considered. Hydraulic conductivity is a design parameter of buffers for HLW repositories [1, 2]. The hydraulic conductivity of the buffer must be less than that of the ground, such as in the near-field rock, where an HLW repository is positioned to prevent the inflow of groundwater to the canister because nuclides leak from the canister and are transferred by the groundwater [1, 2]. Therefore, predicting the hydraulic conductivity of a buffer based on its conditions is important. The hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite, which is used as a buffer, is affected mostly by the dry density and temperature [3]. Therefore, many studies have been conducted to predict the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite using these parameters [4-6]. However, it is difficult to apply a prediction model for hydraulic conductivity to various compacted bentonites because the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite differs from that of bentonite [4-6]. There are various prediction models for hydraulic conductivity with different types of bentonite. Furthermore, various studies have shown that the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite differs, even under the same conditions [3, 5].

    In addition, the measured hydraulic conductivities did not coincide with the model values. Considering that the hydraulic conductivity of the buffer material should be lower than that of the near-field rock, ~10−12 m·s−1 [1], differences of the order of two or three times are not likely to have a significant impact when accounting for hydraulic conductivity variations. The determination coefficient of most prediction models for the normal hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite is significantly low to be considered as having no relationship or a weak relationship because the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite is significantly low. Therefore, most prediction models for hydraulic conductivity use the logarithmic hydraulic conductivity to enhance the determination coefficient [4, 5]. However, logarithmic hydraulic conductivity is relatively counterintuitive compared to normal hydraulic conductivity.

    Thus, an intuitive and integrated prediction model for hydraulic conductivity is necessary for effective research and development of HLW repository buffers. In this study, a prediction model for hydraulic conductivity according to temperature, which was applied to all types of compacted bentonite, was proposed to predict the reasonable hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite using the relationship between dry density and hydraulic conductivity based on theoretical and regression analyses.

    2. Data Collection

    Data from literature were used to develop and validate a prediction model for the hydraulic conductivity (K) of compacted bentonite. The data of hydraulic conductivities with dry density (γd) and Celsius temperature (T) for KJ-Ⅱ, GMZ01, MX-80, and KJ-Ⅰ bentonites were collected by extracting data from the graphs and excerpting data from tables in the literature [5, 7-11]. The data for KJ-II and GMZ01 were used to derive the prediction model, whereas the data for MX-80 and KJ-I were used to validate the derived prediction model. The hydraulic conductivity was calculated using Darcy’s law as follows:

    K = Q L Δ h A
    (1)

    where Q is the injection flow rate, L is the sample thickness, Δh is the hydraulic head difference, and A is the crosssectional area of the sample to the direction in which water flows. The basic properties of KJ-Ⅱ, GMZ01, MX-80, and KJ-Ⅰ are listed in Table 1 [10, 12-15].

    Table 1

    Basic properties of the samples

    Sample Specific gravity Liquid limit (%) Plastic limit (%) Plasticity index USCS Montmorillonite (%) Main exchanged cation Reference

    KJ-Ⅱ 2.71 146.7 28.4 118.3 CH 61.9 Ca2+ [12]
    GMZ01 2.66 276 37 239 CH 75.4 Na+ [13, 14]
    MX-80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75 Na+ [10]
    KJ-Ⅰ 2.74 244.5 46.1 198.4 CH 63.2 Ca,sup>2+ [15]

    3. Hydraulic Conductivity Relationships

    KJ-Ⅱ and GMZ01 have relationships between hydraulic conductivity and dry density as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The increase in dry density implies a decrease in void ratio. Thus, the hydraulic conductivity of the sample decreases with an increase in dry density. Furthermore, in the case of bentonite, it expands upon contact with water, causing a reduction in pore volume. Therefore, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, at approximately the same room temperature (~25°C), the hydraulic conductivities of KJ-Ⅱ and GMZ01 exponentially decrease with increasing dry density.

    Fig. 1

    Hydraulic conductivity with dry density for KJ-Ⅱ.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F1.gif
    Fig. 2

    Hydraulic conductivity with dry density for GMZ01.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F2.gif

    4. Derivation of Hydraulic Conductivity Model

    Hydraulic conductivity (K) has a relationship to permeability (k) as follows:

    K = k ρ w g μ w
    (2)

    where ρw is the density of water, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and μw is the dynamic viscosity. To obtain the hydraulic conductivity according to the temperature in Eq. (2), the hydraulic conductivity can be derived using the hydraulic conductivity ratio according to the temperature (T) change from the initial temperature (To) as follows:

    K ( T ) = K ( T o ) k ( T ) k ( T o ) μ w ( T o ) μ w ( T ) ρ w ( T ) ρ w ( T o )
    (3)

    In Eq. (3), the water density term is negligible because the change in the density of water depending on the temperature is not sufficiently large to affect K(T). Therefore, K(T) can be expressed as follows:

    K ( T ) = K ( T o ) k ( T ) k ( T o ) μ w ( T o ) μ w ( T )
    (4)

    K(To) can be expressed as follows through the intercorrelation between dry density (γd) and hydraulic conductivity (K), as shown in Fig. 1:

    K ( T o ) = A 1 e x p ( A 2 γ d )
    (5)

    where A1 and A2 are constants that vary depending on the relationship between K and γd. Based on the temperature coefficient (αk), the permeability ratio (k(T)/k(To)) is derived as follows:

    k ( T ) k ( T o ) = 1 + α k ( T T o )
    (6)

    The dynamic viscosity of water with respect to temperature can be expressed as follows [16]:

    μ w ( T ) = b 1 e x p ( b 2 T )
    (7)

    where b1 and b2 are 5.091712 × 10−3 and 2.545425 × 10−2, respectively [16]. Hence, K(T) considering the dynamic viscosity ratio of water can be expressed as follows:

    K ( T ) = A 1 e x p ( A 2 γ d ) ( 1 + α k ( T T o ) ) μ w ( T o ) b 1 exp ( b 2 T )
    (8)

    Eq. (8) can be summarized as follows:

    K ( T ) = A 1 e x p ( A 2 γ d ) a 1 + a 2 T b 1 exp ( b 2 T )
    (9)

    where a1 and a2 are constants. K(T) is represented by replacing “a1+a2T ” with B as follows:

    K ( T ) = A 1 e x p ( A 2 γ d ) B b 1 exp ( b 2 T )
    (10)

    The independent variable B is calculated for each dry density and temperature condition of KJ-II and GMZ01, as shown in Table 2. Since B varies with dry density and temperature, it is expressed as a function of known variables.

    Table 2

    Independent variable B for each dry density and temperature condition of KJ-Ⅱ and GMZ01

    Sample A2 γd T B

    KJ-Ⅱ [7] 2.945 1.3 30 0.0013253
    2.945 1.3 60 0.00082451
    2.945 1.3 90 0.00057227
    2.945 1.4 30 0.00057389
    2.945 1.4 60 0.00049712
    2.945 1.4 90 0.00038758
    2.945 1.5 30 0.00011922
    2.945 1.5 60 0.00016852
    2.945 1.5 90 0.00044238
    2.945 1.6 30 0.00014104
    2.945 1.6 60 0.0001323
    2.945 1.6 90 0.000093252
    2.945 1.74 30 0.000084471
    2.945 1.74 60 0.000076873
    2.945 1.74 90 0.000063568

    GMZ01 [9] 4.887 1.7 20 0.0019213
    4.887 1.7 40 0.0020456
    4.887 1.7 50 0.0019728
    4.887 1.7 60 0.0019469

    As A1 has a significantly low value, almost 0 (~10−10– 10−9), a function for the variable B with A2, γd, and T as independent variables was derived through multiple regression analysis. The independence of the residuals was recognized to some extent because the Durbin–Watson value was 1.051. The determination coefficient (R2) for function B was 0.943.

    B = ( 9.89 × 10 4 A 2 ) + ( 1.829 × 10 3 γ d ) + ( 2.028 × 10 6 T ) + 3.35 × 10 4
    (11)

    Finally, the prediction model of K(T) is as follows:

    K ( T ) = A 1 e x p ( A 2 γ d ) ( 9.89 × 10 4 A 2 ) + ( 1.829 × 10 3 γ d ) + ( 2.208 × 10 6 T ) + 3.35 × 10 4 b 1 e x p ( b 2 T )
    (12)

    This model exhibited a strong relationship with the measured hydraulic conductivities of KJ-II and GMZ01, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. Fig. 3 shows that the prediction values for KJ-II based on temperature at a dry density above 1.7 g·cm−3 align very well with the measured values, similar to the results for GMZ01 in Fig. 4.

    Fig. 3

    Comparison of predicted and measured hydraulic conductivities according to temperature and dry density for KJ-Ⅱ.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F3.gif
    Fig. 4

    Comparison of predicted and measured hydraulic conductivities according to temperature for GMZ01 at a dry density of 1.7 g·cm−3.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F4.gif

    5. Validation of the Prediction Model

    A prediction model for hydraulic conductivity was applied to MX-80 and KJ-I to validate the prediction model. The MX-80 and KJ-I data from previous literature were not used to derive the prediction model for the hydraulic conductivity. The relationships between hydraulic conductivity and dry density for MX-80 and KJ-I are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. For both MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ, the predicted hydraulic conductivity exhibited a strong relationship with the measured hydraulic conductivity (Fig. 7). The prediction model for both MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ was evaluated using the root mean squared error (RMSE) among the evaluation indices as follows:

    RMSE = i = 1 n ( Y i Y ^ i ) 2 n
    (13)

    Fig. 5

    Hydraulic conductivity with dry density for MX-80.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F5.gif
    Fig. 6

    Hydraulic conductivity with dry density for KJ-Ⅰ.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F6.gif
    Fig. 7

    Validation of the prediction model by comparison of the predicted hydraulic conductivity to the measured hydraulic conductivity with temperature for MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F7.gif

    where n is the number of measured values, Y is the measured, and Ŷ is the predicted values, respectively. The RMSE was significantly small when considering the measured hydraulic conductivity for each dry density, which was 7.9 × 10−13 m·s−1 and 4.3 × 10−14 m·s−1 for MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ, respectively. In addition, the prediction model newly proposed by this research showed the highest overall accuracy compared with other prediction models [3, 5] for the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite with temperature (Fig. 8). In the case of other models, the difference between the predicted and measured values for MX-80 was larger than that for KJ-Ⅰ, unlike the discrepancy for the MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ samples exhibited by the newly proposed model in this study. The above existing models have a limitation in that they cannot be applied to compacted bentonite of the KJ type. However, it was confirmed that the new model predicted the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite with high accuracy, even though the bentonite types were different.

    Fig. 8

    Comparison of the prediction model with other prediction models with temperature for MX-80 and KJ-Ⅰ.

    JNFCWT-22-1-17_F8.gif

    6. Conclusions

    In this study, an integrated prediction model for hydraulic conductivity based on the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and dry density, which can be applied to all types of compacted bentonite, was presented.

    • 1) A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite with respect to temperature was derived using theoretical and regression analyses.

    • 2) The new model predicts that the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite depends on the temperature when the relationship between dry density and hydraulic conductivity is known.

    • 3) The new model for the hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonite with temperature predicts the hydraulic conductivity with higher accuracy than existing prediction models.

    • 4) Through the relationship between dry density and hydraulic conductivity, it is possible to predict hydraulic conductivity according to temperature, thereby reducing the time and cost required to measure hydraulic conductivity according to temperature.

    Therefore, it is believed that the results of this study will be useful for modeling the hydraulic characteristics according to temperature in an HLW repository, enhancing the predictive capability for a more precise assessment of hydraulic conductivity variations at real disposal sites, irrespective of the bentonite type.

    Acknowledgements

    This research was supported by the Nuclear Research and Development Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (2021M2E3A2041351) and Institute for Korea Spent Nuclear Fuel and National Research Foundation of Korea (2021M2E1A1085193).

    Conflict of Interest

    No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

    Figures

    Tables

    References

    1. Posiva Oy & Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB. Safety Function, Performance Targets and Technical Design Requirements for a KBS-3V Repository. Conclusions and Recommendations From a Joint SKB and Posiva Working Group, Posiva SKB Report 01 (2017).
    2. Posiva Oy. Safety Case for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel at Olkiluoto-Description of the Disposal System 2012, Posiva Oy Report, POSIVA 2012-05 (2012).
    3. G.J. Lee, S. Yoon, and B.J. Kim, “Prediction Model for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Bentonite Buffer Materials for an Engineered-Barrier System in a High- Level Radioactive Waste Repository”, J. Nucl. Fuel Cycle Waste Technol., 21(2), 225-234 (2023).
    4. W.J. Cho, J.O. Lee, and K.S. Chun, “The Temperature Effects on Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted Bentonite”, Appl. Clay Sci., 14(1-3), 47-58 (1999).
    5. S. Park, S. Yoon, S. Kwon, and G.Y. Kim, “A Prediction of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity for Compacted Bentonite Buffer in a High-level Radioactive Waste Disposal System”, J. Nucl. Fuel Cycle Waste Technol., 18(2), 133-141 (2020).
    6. M.V. Villar and A. Lloret, “Influence of Temperature on the Hydro-Mechanical Behaviour of a Compacted Bentonite”, Appl. Clay Sci., 26(1-4), 337-350 (2004).
    7. S. Park, S. Yoon, S. Kwon, M.S. Lee, and G.Y. Kim, “Temperature Effect on the Thermal and Hydraulic Conductivity of Korean Bentonite Buffer Material”, Prog. Nucl. Energy, 137, 103759 (2021).
    8. Y.G. Chen, Y.Q. Cai, K. Pan, W.M. Ye, and Q. Wang, “Influence of Dry Density and Water Salinity on the Swelling Pressure and Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted GMZ01 Bentonite–Sand Mixtures”, Acta Geotech., 17(5), 1879-1896 (2022).
    9. W.M. Ye, M. Wan, B. Chen, Y.G. Chen, Y.J. Cui, and J. Wang, “Temperature Effects on the Swelling Pressure and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of the Compacted GMZ01 Bentonite”, Environ. Earth Sci., 68(1), 281- 288 (2013).
    10. R. Pusch. The Buffer and Backfill Handbook. Part 2: Materials and Techniques, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Report, SKB TR-02-12 (2001).
    11. W.J. Cho, K.S. Kim, S. Yoon, and G.Y. Kim. Estimation of the Hydraulic Conductivity in Compacted Bentonite at Elevated Temperature, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Technical Report, KAERI/ TR-7269/2018 (2018).
    12. G.J. Lee, S. Yoon, T. Kim, and S. Chang, “Investigation of the Various Properties of Several Candidate Additives as Buffer Materials”, Nucl. Eng. Technol., 55(3), 1191-1198 (2023).
    13. Z.J. Wen, “Physical Property of China’s Buffer Material for High-level Radioactive Waste Repositories”, Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng., 25(4), 794-800 (2006).
    14. C.M. Zhu, W.M. Ye, Y.G. Chen, B. Chen, and Y.J. Cui, “Influence of Salt Solutions on the Swelling Pressure and Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted GMZ01 Bentonite”, Eng. Geol., 166, 74-80 (2013).
    15. S. Yoon, W.H. Cho, C. Lee, and G.Y. Kim, “Thermal Conductivity of Korean Compacted Bentonite Buffer Materials for a Nuclear Waste Repository”, Energies, 11(9), 2269 (2018).
    16. M.J. Holmes, N.G. Parker, and M.J.W. Povey, “Temperature Dependence of Bulk Viscosity in Water Using Acoustic Spectroscopy”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 269(1), 012011 (2011).

    Editorial Office
    Contact Information

    - Tel: +82-42-861-5851, 866-4157
    - Fax: +82-42-861-5852
    - E-mail: krs@krs.or.kr

    SCImago Journal & Country Rank