OR/13/004 Introduction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<ol start="2"> | <ol start="2"> | ||
<li>Four flow experiments with gaseous, supercritical and dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> were undertaken, and were aimed at providing information on changing permeability upon reaction. A detailed description of these experiments, and the results from them, is given in Purser et al. (2013a, b)<ref name="Purser 2013a">PURSER, G, MILODOWSKI, A E, HARRINGTON, J F, ROCHELLE, C A, BUTCHER, A, and | <li>Four flow experiments with gaseous, supercritical and dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> were undertaken, and were aimed at providing information on changing permeability upon reaction. A detailed description of these experiments, and the results from them, is given in Purser et al. (2013a, b)<ref name="Purser 2013a">PURSER, G, MILODOWSKI, A E, HARRINGTON, J F, ROCHELLE, C A, BUTCHER, A, and WAGNER, D. (2013). Modification to the flow properties of repository cement as a result of carbonation. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 7, 701–704.</ref>. These experiments involved samples confined within Teflon™ jackets, and held within a uniform confining pressure. Free-phase or dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> was pumped through the samples, with input/output flow rates and pressures used to derive permeability data.</li> | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
Within a repository setting buffer/backfill cement has at least two key notable functions; to maintain highly alkaline conditions and hence reduce radionuclide solubility, and to allow controlled escape of gas away from waste canisters. As a consequence of the need for the latter of these functions, the cement is relatively permeable compared to some other cements (e.g. such as those used for borehole sealing). Some gases generated within the repository (such as hydrogen) may undergo very limited chemical reactions once formed, and hence their migration will be largely controlled by transport processes. CO<sub>2</sub> on the other hand, is highly reactive towards cement minerals, and so its migration will be controlled by a complex interplay between transport processes and chemical reactions. | Within a repository setting buffer/backfill cement has at least two key notable functions; to maintain highly alkaline conditions and hence reduce radionuclide solubility, and to allow controlled escape of gas away from waste canisters. As a consequence of the need for the latter of these functions, the cement is relatively permeable compared to some other cements (e.g. such as those used for borehole sealing). Some gases generated within the repository (such as hydrogen) may undergo very limited chemical reactions once formed, and hence their migration will be largely controlled by transport processes. CO<sub>2</sub> on the other hand, is highly reactive towards cement minerals, and so its migration will be controlled by a complex interplay between transport processes and chemical reactions. | ||
The cement composition used was the Nirex reference vault backfill (NRVB) cement (Francis et al., 1997<ref name="Francis 1997">FRANCIS, A J, CATHER, R, and CROSSLAND, I G. (1997). Development of the Nirex reference vault backfill; report on current status in 1994. Nirex Science Report S/97/014, United Kingdon Nirex Limited, 57p.</ref>). It consisted of approximately: 26% Portland cement, 28.6% limestone powder, 9.8% lime, and 35.6% water. The mixture was cast into cylindrical blocks of approximate size 12 cm diameter by 30 cm long, and was cured for at least 40 days prior to subsampling for use in the experiments — see Rochelle and Purser (2010)<ref name="Rochelle 2010">ROCHELLE, C A, and PURSER, G. (2010). Towards D3.6: results of the tests on concrete (part 1). Laboratory experiments at the BGS. FORGE project technical report. 16pp.</ref> for more details. Use of this cement allows the present study to be comparable with measured parameters/datasets from earlier studies. It is acknowledged however, that the compositions of backfill cements used in any future repository may well be different to that used in this study, but it is considered that many of the reaction processes we observed are likely to be common to a wide-range of cements. | The cement composition used was the Nirex reference vault backfill (NRVB) cement (Francis et al., 1997<ref name="Francis 1997">FRANCIS, A J, CATHER, R, and CROSSLAND, I G. (1997). Development of the Nirex reference vault backfill; report on current status in 1994. Nirex Science Report S/97/014, United Kingdon Nirex Limited, 57p.</ref>). It consisted of approximately: 26% Portland cement, 28.6% limestone powder, 9.8% lime, and 35.6% water. The mixture was cast into cylindrical blocks of approximate size 12 cm diameter by 30 cm long, and was cured for at least 40 days prior to subsampling for use in the experiments — see Rochelle and Purser (2010)<ref name="Rochelle 2010">ROCHELLE, C A, and PURSER, G. (2010). Towards D3.6: results of the tests on concrete (part 1). Laboratory experiments at the BGS. FORGE project technical report. 16pp.</ref>. Towards D3.6: results of the tests on concrete (part 1). Laboratory experiments at the BGS. FORGE project technical report. 16pp.</ref> for more details. Use of this cement allows the present study to be comparable with measured parameters/datasets from earlier studies. It is acknowledged however, that the compositions of backfill cements used in any future repository may well be different to that used in this study, but it is considered that many of the reaction processes we observed are likely to be common to a wide-range of cements. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<References/> | <References/> | ||
[[Category: OR/13/004 CO2 migration and reaction in cementitious repositories: A summary of work conducted as part of the FORGE project | 03]] | [[Category: OR/13/004 CO2 migration and reaction in cementitious repositories: A summary of work conducted as part of the FORGE project | 03]] |
Latest revision as of 11:13, 6 August 2021
Rochelle, C A, Purser, G, Milodowski, A E, Noy, D J, Wagner, D, Butcher, A, and Harrington, J F. 2013. CO2 migration and reaction in cementitious repositories: A summary of work conducted as part of the FORGE project. British Geological Survey Internal Report, OR/13/004. |
Some repository concepts envisage the use of large quantities of cementitious materials — both for repository construction and as a buffer/backfill. Key aspects of these materials are their good mechanical properties and their ability to buffer pH to alkaline conditions. Such high pH conditions are important as they greatly limit metallic corrosion and radionuclide solubility — and as a consequence, radionuclide migration. Some wastes placed within a subsurface repository will contain a significant amount of organic material (e.g. ion-exchange resins, contaminated clothing etc). Over time, these may degrade to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), which will react rapidly with cement buffer/backfill to produce carbonate minerals such as calcite. This may be beneficial in terms of immobilisation of 14C as a carbonate if it were present. Carbonation reactions occurring on the inside of the repository cement will be quite separate to those occurring on the outside of the repository cement (through interaction with surrounding carbonate groundwaters), though they may share very similar reaction mechanisms.
The conversion of cement minerals to carbonates will reduce the ability of the buffer/backfill to maintain highly alkaline conditions and as a consequence its ability to limit the migration of certain radionuclides. However, the reaction may also alter the physical properties of the buffer/backfill, possibly changing its permeability and strength. Although carbonation reactions might improve some properties, it is currently unclear whether the overall changes due to carbonation will be beneficial to long-term radionuclide immobilisation, or deleterious.
This study investigated the effects of cement carbonation processes via laboratory experiments conducted at a range of likely future in-situ repository conditions, including those expected over glacial timescales, which might influence the form of the carbon dioxide. Thus the experiments were run under conditions representative of those that might be found currently within a deep repository or potentially in the future, with temperatures between 20–40°C and pressures between 40–80 bar (equivalent hydrostatic heads of approximately 400–800 m) (Figure 1). Within this range of conditions, the phase behaviour of CO2 is such that it can exist in gaseous, liquid, or supercritical states, as well as dissolved in water in contact with these states. The results of the experiments will serve as examples with which to test predictive modelling codes that incorporate reaction kinetics, and coupling between geochemical reaction, porosity changes and fluid flow.

Two types of experiments were conducted within the BGS Fluid Processes Laboratories:
- Numerous batch experiments to provide information on changing mineralogy and porosity upon reaction with free phase and dissolved gaseous, liquid and supercritical CO2. A detailed description of these experiments is given in Rochelle and Purser (2010)[1], Rochelle et al. (2014)[2] and Milodowski et al. (2013)[3]. These experiments involved samples that were unconfined, with reactions controlled by diffusion of free-phase or dissolved CO2 into the cement. Three cement pore fluids were utilised with compositions based on previous calculations of those anticipated in the vicinity of a cementitious waste repository (Bond et al., 1995a[4], b[5]):
- A young pore fluid of high pH and with a significant component of NaOH and KOH (‘young near field porewater’ — YNFP).
- A slightly lower pH pore fluid with a significant proportion of Na, K and Cl, and some Ca and OH (‘YNFP + Cl’).
- An evolved pore fluid representing equilibration of groundwater with cement, and having lower pH and a chemistry dominated by Ca(OH)2 (‘evolved near field groundwater’ — YNFG).
- Four flow experiments with gaseous, supercritical and dissolved CO2 were undertaken, and were aimed at providing information on changing permeability upon reaction. A detailed description of these experiments, and the results from them, is given in Purser et al. (2013a, b)[6]. These experiments involved samples confined within Teflon™ jackets, and held within a uniform confining pressure. Free-phase or dissolved CO2 was pumped through the samples, with input/output flow rates and pressures used to derive permeability data.
Within a repository setting buffer/backfill cement has at least two key notable functions; to maintain highly alkaline conditions and hence reduce radionuclide solubility, and to allow controlled escape of gas away from waste canisters. As a consequence of the need for the latter of these functions, the cement is relatively permeable compared to some other cements (e.g. such as those used for borehole sealing). Some gases generated within the repository (such as hydrogen) may undergo very limited chemical reactions once formed, and hence their migration will be largely controlled by transport processes. CO2 on the other hand, is highly reactive towards cement minerals, and so its migration will be controlled by a complex interplay between transport processes and chemical reactions.
The cement composition used was the Nirex reference vault backfill (NRVB) cement (Francis et al., 1997[7]). It consisted of approximately: 26% Portland cement, 28.6% limestone powder, 9.8% lime, and 35.6% water. The mixture was cast into cylindrical blocks of approximate size 12 cm diameter by 30 cm long, and was cured for at least 40 days prior to subsampling for use in the experiments — see Rochelle and Purser (2010)[1]. Towards D3.6: results of the tests on concrete (part 1). Laboratory experiments at the BGS. FORGE project technical report. 16pp.</ref> for more details. Use of this cement allows the present study to be comparable with measured parameters/datasets from earlier studies. It is acknowledged however, that the compositions of backfill cements used in any future repository may well be different to that used in this study, but it is considered that many of the reaction processes we observed are likely to be common to a wide-range of cements.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 ROCHELLE, C A, and PURSER, G. (2010). Towards D3.6: results of the tests on concrete (part 1). Laboratory experiments at the BGS. FORGE project technical report. 16pp.
- ↑ ROCHELLE, C A, PURSER, G, MILODOWSKI, A E, and WAGNER, D. (2014). Results of carbonation tests on cement: Laboratory experiments at the BGS. British Geological Survey Report.
- ↑ MILODOWSKI, A E, ROCHELLE, C A, and PURSER, G. (2013). Uptake and retardation of Cl during cement carbonation. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 7, 594–597.
- ↑ BOND, K A, MORETON, A D, and TWEED, C J. (1995). Water compositions of relevance to a deep cementitious-based repository at Sellafield: Evaluation using thermodynamic modelling, Nirex Report NSS/R310, 25p.
- ↑ BOND, K A, and TWEED, C J. (1995). Groundwater compositions for the Borrowdale Volcanic Group, Boreholes 2, 4 and RCF3, Sellafield, evaluated using thermodynamic modelling, Nirex Report NSS/R397, 34p.
- ↑ PURSER, G, MILODOWSKI, A E, HARRINGTON, J F, ROCHELLE, C A, BUTCHER, A, and WAGNER, D. (2013). Modification to the flow properties of repository cement as a result of carbonation. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 7, 701–704.
- ↑ FRANCIS, A J, CATHER, R, and CROSSLAND, I G. (1997). Development of the Nirex reference vault backfill; report on current status in 1994. Nirex Science Report S/97/014, United Kingdon Nirex Limited, 57p.