catsius clay project

189 Pages·2004·3.63 MB·English

ES0000075
empresa national de residuos radiactivos, s.a.
CATSIUS CLAY PROJECT
CALCULATION AND TESTING OF BEHAVIOUR
OF UNSATURATED CLAY AS BARRIER
IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORIES
STAGE 2: VALIDATION EXERCISES
AT LABORATORY SCALE
7
PUBLICACION TECNICA NUM. 11/99
CATSIUS CLAY PROJECT
CALCULATION AND TESTING OF BEHAVIOUR
OF UNSATURATED CLAY AS BARRIER
IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORIES
STAGE 2: VALIDATION EXERCISES
AT LABORATORY SCALE
Compiled by
E.E. Alonso and J. Alcoverro
International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE, ES)
Participating organisations:
ANDRA (ER), ClAYT. (SE), ISMES (IT), SCK-CEN (BE), UPC (ES), ULg (BE), UWCC (GB)
The CAJSIUS CLAY Project was performed under contract EI4WCJ950003
with the European Commission in the framework of its programme
on Nuclear Eission Safety (1994-1998)
m
CATSIUS CLAY PROJECT
CALCULATION AND TESTING OF BEHAVIOUR
OF UNSATURATED CLAY AS BARRIER
IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORIES
STAGE 2: VALIDATION EXERCISES
AT LABORATORY SCALE
This report has been drawn up on behalf of ENRESA.
It represents the opinion of the contractor wich need not necessarily
coincide with that of ENRESA in every respect.

Index
RESUMEN 1
ABSTRACT 5
1. THE CATSIUS CLAY PROJECT 9
7.1 Objectives and scope 77
1.2 Project coordination and partners involved 77
7.5 Work programme 77
2. INTRODUCTION TO STAGE 2 OF THE CATSIUS CLAY PROJECT 13
3. BENCHMARK 2.1 "OEDOMETER SUCTION CONTROLLED TESTS ON SAMPLES OF COMPACTED BOOM CLAY" 17
3.1 Part A: "Volumetric deformations upon wetting-drying cycles". 19
3.1.1 Case definition 19
3.1.1.1 Introduction 19
3.1.1.2 Jest description 21
3.1.1.3 Required results 21
3.1.1.4 Finalremarks 21
3.1.2 Results 23
3.1.2.1 AHO (CLEO) 23
3.1.2.1.1 Mel description 23
3.1.2.1.2 Determination of model parameters 28
3.1.2.1.3 Computed results 28
3.1.2.2 CIA (ABAQUS) 31
3.1.2.2.1 Model description 37
3.1.2.2.2 determination of model parameters 32
3.1.2.2.3 Computed results 32
3.1.2.3 ISM (ABAQUS) 32
3.1.2.3.1 Model description 32
CATS IU S CLAY Project. Stage 2: Validation exercises at laboratory scale
3.1.2.3.2 Determination of model parameters 35
3.1.2.3.3 Computed results 35
3.1.2.4 UPC (CODE BRI6HI) 39
3.1.2.4.1 Model description 39
3.1.2.4.2 Determination of model parameters 40
3.1.2.4.3 Computed results 41
3.1.2.5 UOL (IAGAMINE) 41
3.1.2.5.1 Model description 41
3.1.2.5.2 Determination of model parameters 46
3.1.2.5.3 Computed results 49
3.1.2.6 UWC (COMPASS) 52
3.1.2.6.1 Model definition 52
3.1.2.6.2 Determination of model parameters 53
3.1.2.6.3 Computed results 54
3.1.3 Discussion 58
3.2 PartB: "Swellingpressure test" 65
3.2.1 Case definition 65
3.2.1.1 Introduction 65
3.2.1.2 Jest description 66
3.2.1.2.1 Sample preparation 66
3.2.1.2.2 Jest description 68
3.2.1.3 Required results 68
3.2.2 Results 72
3.2.2.1 AND (CLEO) 72
3.2.2.2 CIA (ABAQUS) 73
3.2.2.3 ISM (ABAQUS) 73
3.2.2.4 UPC (CODEBRIGHJ) 73
3.2.2.5 UOL (IAGAMIHE) 74
3.2.2.6 UWC (COMPASS) 76
3.2.3 Discussion 76
4. BENCHMARK 2.2 "SMALL SCALE WETTING-HEATING TEST ON COMPACTED BENTONITE" 79
4.1 Case definition 81
4.1.1 Introduction 81
4.1.2 Jest description 81
4.1.2.1 The thermohydraulic cell 81
Index
4.1.2.2 Sample preparation : 81
4.1.2.3 Jest description 81
4.1.3 Data obtained during and after the experience 82
4.1.3.1 Data obtained during the experience 82
4.1.3.2 Data obtained after the experience 82
4.1.4 Characteristics of the s2 bentonite 83
4.1.4.1 Waterflow 83
4.1.4.2 Heat transport 83
4.1.4.3 Mechanical properties 83
4.1.5 Required results 84
4.2 Results 84
4.2.1 AND (CLEO) 86
4.2.1.1 Model description 86
4.2.1.2 Determination of model parameters 87
4.2.1.3 Computed results 87
4.2.2 CIA (ABAQUS) 88
4.2.2.1 Model description 88
4.2.2.2 Determination of model parameters 90
4.2.2.3 Computed results 94
4.2.3 ISM (ABAQUS) 94
4.2.3.1 Model description 94
4.2.3.2 Determination of model parameters 95
4.2.3.3 Computed results 98
4.2.4 UPC (CODE BRIGHT) 98
4.2.4.1 Model description 98
4.2.4.2 Determination of model parameters 101
4.2.4.3 Computed results 707
4.2.5 ML (IAGAMINE) 104
4.2.5.1 Model description 104
4.2.5.2 Determination of model parameters 108
4.2.5.3 Computed results 7/3
4.2.6 UWC (COMPASS) 114
4.2.6.1 Model description 114
4.2.6.2 Determination of model parameters 119
4.2.6.3 Computed results 120
4.3 Discussion 139
V
CATS!US CLAY Project. Stage 2: Validation exercises at laboratory scale
5. CONCLUSIONS 143
6. REFERENCES 147
APPENDIX 1. FIGURES AND TABLES FOR BENCHMARK 2.1 151
All Suction Controlled Jests Under Constant Vertical Stress 153
A1.2 Retention Curves For Boom Clay (Wetting-drying paths) 157
A1.3 Net stress path during sample preparation for the blind swelling pressure test 159
A1.4 Assembly used to perform the blind swelling pressure test 161
APPENDIX 2. FIGURES AND TABLES FOR BENCHMARK 2.2 163
A2.1 Scheme of the thermohydraulic cell (CIEMAJ) 165
A2.2 Water intake during the experience (CIEMAJ) 166
A2.3 Pressure evolution during the experience (CIEMAJ) 167
A2.4 Temperatures measured during the experience (CIEMAJ) 168
A2.5 Final physical properties of the clay (CIEMAJ) 169
A2.6 Hydraulic saturated conductivity (CIEMAJ) 170
A2.7 Water retention curves (CIEMAJ) 171
A2.8 Water retention curves (UPC) 175
A2.9 Thermal conductivity (CIEMAJ) 178
A2.10 Thermal expansion (UPC) 179
A2.11 Suction controlled oedometric tests (CIEMAJ) 180
APPENDIX 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMS USED BY PARTNERS 189
A3.1 CLEO(ANO) 191
A3.2 ABAQUS (CIA, ISM) 191
A3.3 CODE BRIGHT (UK) 192
A3.4 IA6AMINE (UOU 193
A3.5 COMPASS (UWO 193
VI
Index
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 a) Sample before testing b) Wetted sample 19
Figure 3-2 Microphotographs of Compacted Boom clay. 20
Figure 3-3 Jesting pah for sample of Benchmark 2.1. Dots indicate suction values actually applied to samples 22
Figure 3-4 Results of oedometer suction controlled tests on samples of compacted Boom Clay 22
Figure 3-5 Activation of the yield surfaces for a higblyoverconsolidated material 26
Figure 3-6 Activation of the yield surfaces for a normally consolidated material 27
Figure 3-7 Activation of the yield surface for a slightly overconsolidated material 28
Figure 3-8 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Cloy. Case A 29
Figure 3-9 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseB 29
Figure 3-10 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseC 30
Figure 3-11 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Cased 30
Figure 3-12 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Cose E 31
Figure 3-13 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case A 32
Figure 3-14 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case B 33
Figure 3-15 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Cose C 33
Figure 3-16 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case D 34
Figure 3-17 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Cose E 34
Figure 3-18 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case A 36
Figure 3-19 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case B 37
Figure 3-20 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case C 37
Figure 3-21 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case D 38
Figure 3-22 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseE 38
Figure 3-23 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case A 42
Figure 3-24 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseB 42
Figure 3-25 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case C 43
Figure 3-26 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case D 43
Figure 3-27 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case E 44
Figure 3-28 Calibration of the elastic index upon suction os a function of the net mean stress 47
Figure 3-29 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case A 49
Figure 3-30 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case B 50
Figure 3-31 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Cloy. Case C 50
Figure 3-32 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Cased 5/
Figure 3-33 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseE 5/
CATSIUS CLAY Project. Stage 2: Validation exercises at laboratory scale
Figure 3-34 Oedometer Suction Controlled Jests on Samples ofCompacted Boom Clay. Case A 55
Figure 3-35 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case B 56
Figure 3-36 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. CaseC 56
Figure 3-37 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case D 57
Figure 3-38 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case F 57
Figure 3-39 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case A 62
Figure 3-40 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case B 62
Figure 3-41 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case C 63
Figure 3-42 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case D 63
Figure 3-43 Oedometer Suction Controlled Tests on Samples of Compacted Boom Clay. Case F 64
Figure 3-44 LC curves plotted in the In (p) - In (s) space 64
Figure 3-45 LC curves plotted in the p - In (s) space 65
Figure 3-46 Swelling pressure (qualitative) plotted in the (a - Pa, s) plane. Also indicated are the wetting drying paths at constant vertical
v
stress considered in Benchmark 2.1, Part A 66
Figure 3-47 Water retention curves for compacted Boom Clay powder at y</ = 13.7 kN/m 67
Figure 3-48 Vertical and horizontal stresses measured during the swelling pressure test 67
Figure 3-49 Suction controlled oedometer cell 69
Figure 3-50 Suction controlled oedometric cell. Whole setup 70
Figure3-51 Results ofswelling pressure test for benchmark 2.1, Part B 71
Figure 3-52 Results of an additional swelling pressure test carried out in Boom clay powder in connection with Benchmark 2.1, Part B 71
Figure 3-53 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay 72
Figure 3-54 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay 73
Figure 3-55 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay 74
Figure 3-56 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay 75
Figure 3-57 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay (first calibration) 75
Figure 3-58 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay (second calibration) 76
Figure 3-59 Blind Suction Controlled Swelling Pressure Test on a Sample of Compacted Boom Clay 77
Figure 4-1 Swelling volumetric strain as a function of the degree of saturation 96
Figure 4-2 Retention curve considered in the analysis 102
Figure 4-3 Saturated hydraulic conductivity considered in the analysis 102
Figure 4-4 Comparison between measured thermal conductivity and thermal conductivity computed by geometric mean for various degrees
of saturation 703
Figure 4-5 Comparison between experimental and backanalised results of swelling tests 703
Figure 4-6 Thermal expansion coefficient consiedered in the analysis 705
Figure4-7 Elastic stiffness parameter for changes in net mean stresses in function of suction 70?
Figure 4-8 Plastic stiffness parameters for changes in net mean stresses in function of suction 110