Advertisement

Coupled Membrane and Diffusion Testing of Active Clays for Barrier Applications

  • Charles D. ShackelfordEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)

Abstract

Highly active clays, such as sodium bentonites, are known to behave as solute restricting, semipermeable membranes under specific physical and chemical conditions. This behavior has important implications for practical applications, including a reduction in solute mass flux due to diffusion. After description of a method for simultaneously measuring membrane behavior and solute diffusion of active clays, the results of experimental studies using the method to test bentonite-based barriers are presented. The effects of effective stress and/or void ratio (dry density) of the specimen, and deviations from anticipated coupled membrane and diffusion behavior resulting from extending the evaluation to the limit where membrane behavior becomes nil are illustrated. The presentation should be of interest to those evaluating the use of bentonite-based barriers for waste containment applications, such as dense bentonite-buffers for high level radioactive waste disposal.

Keywords

Diffusion Behavior Solute Diffusion Solute Restriction Sodium Bentonite Tortuosity Factor 
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. Bohnhoff G, Sample-Lord K, Shackelford C (2016) Advances in membrane behavior of bentonite-based barriers, geo-Chicago 2016. ASCE, RestonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohnhoff G, Shackelford C (2013) Improving membrane performance via bentonite polymer nanocomposite. Appl Clay Sci 86:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bohnhoff G, Shackelford C (2015) Salt diffusion through a bentonite-polymer composite. Clay Clay Miner 63:172–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterji P, Morgenstern N (1990) A modified shear strength formulation for swelling clay soils. In: Hoddinott K, Lamb R (eds) EdsPhysico-chemical aspects of soil and related materials. ASTM, Philadelphia, p 118–135Google Scholar
  5. Fritz S (1986) Ideality of clay membranes in osmotic processes: a review. Clay Clay Miner 34:214–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kang J, Shackelford C (2009) Clay membrane testing using a flexible-wall cell under closed-system boundary conditions. Appl Clay Sci 44:43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kang J, Shackelford C (2010) Consolidation of a geosynthetic clay liner under isotropic states of stress. J Geotech Geoenviron 136:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kang J, Shackelford C (2011) Consolidation enhanced membrane behavior of a geosynthetic clay liner. Geotext Geomembr 29:544–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malusis M, Kang J, Shackelford C (2015) Restricted salt diffusion in a geosynthetic clay liner. Environ Geotech 2:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malusis M, Shackelford C (2002a) Chemico-osmotic efficiency of a geosynthetic clay liner. J Geotech Geoenviron 128:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Malusis M, Shackelford C (2002b) Coupling effects during steady-state solute diffusion through a semipermeable clay membrane. Environ Sci Tech 36:1312–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malusis M, Shackelford C, Olsen H (2001) A laboratory apparatus to measure chemico-osmotic efficiency coefficients for clay soils. Geotech Test J 24:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Manassero M, Dominijanni A (2003) Modelling the osmosis effect on solute migration through porous media. Géotechnique 53:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier A, Sample-Lord K, Castelbaum D, Kallase S, Moran B, Ray T, Shackelford C (2014) Persistence of semipermeable membrane behavior for a geosynthetic clay liner. Proceedings of 7th international conference environment Geotech, Melbourne, Australia (ISBN 978-1-922107-23-7), p 496–503Google Scholar
  15. Mitchell J, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd edn. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Olsen H (1969) Simultaneous fluxes of liquid and charge in saturated kaolinite. Soil Sci Soc Am Pro 33:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sample-Lord K, Shackelford C (2014) Membrane behavior of unsaturated bentonite barriers. Geo-congress 2014: geo-characterization and modeling for sustainability, GSP 234, ASCE, Reston, p 1900–1909Google Scholar
  18. Shackelford C (1991) Laboratory diffusion testing for waste disposal – a review. J Contam Hydrol 7:177–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shackelford C (2013) Membrane behavior in engineered bentonite-based containment barriers: state of the art. In: Proceedings of coupled phenomena environment geotechnics (CPEG), Torino, Italy, CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 1–3 July, pp 45–60Google Scholar
  20. Shackelford C (2014) The ISSMGE Kerry Rowe lecture: the role of diffusion in environmental geotechnics. Can Geotech J 51:1219–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shackelford C, Meier A, Sample-Lord K (2016) Limiting membrane and diffusion behavior of a geosynthetic clay liner. Geotext Geomembr 44:707–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shackelford C, Moore S (2013) Fickian diffusion of radionuclides for engineered containment barriers: diffusion coefficients, porosities, and complicating issues. Eng Geol 152:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shackelford C, Scalia J (2016) Semipermeable membrane behavior in bentonite-based barriers: past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of GeoVancouver 2016, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2–5 Oct 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations