Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
4721238 | Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C | 2011 | 7 Pages |
Smectite gel formed at the outer part of a bentonite buffer in granitic rock could expand into rock fractures with seeping water. Such a gel can release colloids into low ionic strength waters. In addition the gel/sol can itself slowly flow downstream when it has reached a low particle concentration sufficient to decrease the viscosity to allow flow. The erosion due to the combined effects of particle diffusion and gel/sol flow is modelled for a thin fracture into which the gel expands influenced by various forces between and on particles. Some of the forces such as the electrical double layer force and viscous force are strongly influenced by the ionic strength of the pore water. Changes in the ionic strength due to diffusion and dilution of ions in the expanding clay are modelled simultaneously with the gel expansion, flow of gel and colloid release to the seeping water. The model includes description of flow of the seeping fluid, which gradually turns from pure water to sol to more dense gel as the smectite source is approached. The model also describes expansion of the gel/sol and colloid release and flow and diffusion of ions in the system. The coupled models are solved using a numerical code. The results show that the gel will flow with a non-negligible flowrate when its volume fraction is below 1%, but that the erosion and loss of smectite is not much influenced by the concentration of sodium in the clay or in the approaching seeping water, if they are kept below the Critical Coagulation Concentration, CCC.
► Model comprises fluid flow in fracture, dynamic force balance for colloidal expansion, and ion transport in pore water. ► A non-negligible flow rate is only found when smectite volume fraction is below 1%. ► Release of smectite into the seeping water increases with water velocity with an exponent of approximately 0.4. ► Release of smectite in downward facing fractures is larger than what the model predicts; the reasons are not understood.