Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T01:10:37.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

HotBENT experiment on quality control of bentonites used for granular bentonite material backfilling and block production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2024

Stephan Kaufhold*
Affiliation:
BGR, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany
Reiner Dohrmann
Affiliation:
BGR, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany LBEG, State Authority of Mining, Energy and Geology, Hannover, Germany
Kristian Ufer
Affiliation:
BGR, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany
Jens Gröger-Trampe
Affiliation:
BGR, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany LBEG, State Authority of Mining, Energy and Geology, Hannover, Germany
Florian Kober
Affiliation:
Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland
Raphael Schneeberger
Affiliation:
Nagra, Wettingen, Switzerland
Christian Weber
Affiliation:
BGR, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Stephan Kaufhold; Email: s.kaufhold@bgr.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The maximum temperature that a geotechnical bentonite barrier in a deep geological repository for radioactive waste can withstand while maintaining its integrity and meeting safety requirements is still an open question. Therefore, an international consortium set up an in situ heater test (HotBENT experiment) at the Grimsel Test Site (GTS) in Switzerland at relevant scales and gradients with temperatures ranging from 175°C to 200°C at the heater/canister surface. After dismantling (5 and 20 years, respectively), the identification of bentonite alteration processes of (clay) minerals has to be based on the comparison of data with reference values determined before the heating started. The experiment was set up using ~150 tons of two different clays (Wyoming and BCV from the Czech Republic) provided in different batches. The bentonites were used both as compacted bentonite blocks and as granular bentonite material (GBM). The determination of representative mineralogical and geochemical bentonite reference values must be based on a significant number of samples taken from all parts of the experiment, which is presented here. Most of the compositional variability was close to the accuracy of the methods used. However, chemical, mineralogical and exchangeable cation analyses showed that different raw materials were used to produce the BCV top blocks. The Wyoming bentonite used is similar to MX80 bentonite in that it is dominated by Na-rich smectite, but the HotBENT material contains slightly more feldspar and zeolite and slightly less smectite. Overall, 55 samples were analysed from different parts of the experiment, providing a statistical basis for post-excavation investigations.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Mineralogical Society of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Figure 0

Figure 1. Sketch showing the experimental setup of the HotBENT experiment (Kober et al., 2023) ©Nagra.

Figure 1

Table 1. GBM samples used for backfilling.

Figure 2

Table 2. List of samples taken from the blocks (both top and ordinary blocks).

Figure 3

Figure 2. All split block samples sent to BGR (left), sampling technique (centre) and water contents determined after drying at 60°C for each block (right). Water contents determined at 105°C are given in Table 6.

Figure 4

Figure 3. LOI values of all samples (green = BCV; blue = Wyoming).

Figure 5

Figure 4. Distribution of SiO2 contents of all samples (LOI-free; green = BCV; blue = Wyoming).

Figure 6

Figure 5. Na2O contents of all samples (LOI-free; green = BCV; blue = Wyoming).

Figure 7

Figure 6. Organic carbon contents of all samples, possibly including inorganic carbon from siderite (LOI-free; green = BCV; blue = Wyoming).

Figure 8

Table 3. Statistical assessment of the XRF and C/S analyser (LECO) data of all samples (without LOI, normalized to sum of element oxides = 100 mass%). Averages calculated as $\bar{x} = {1 \over n}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^n x_i$ and standard deviations as $s = \sqrt {{1 \over {1-n\;}}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^n {( {x_i-\bar{x}} ) }^2}$, where n is the number of samples.

Figure 9

Figure 7. CEC results for all GBM samples (Cu-trien after Meier & Kahr, 1999; green = BCV; blue = Wyoming).

Figure 10

Table 4. Statistical assessment of all CEC values of the GBM samples using the traditional Cu-trien method after Meier & Kahr (1999). Precision of the method = ±0.4 meq 100 g–1 (n = 186; 1σ).

Figure 11

Table 5. Mineralogical composition of selected bentonite samples determined by Rietveld refinement (‘0’ = <1 mass% but present) and data derived from the literature. Cristobalite, opal-CT and opal-A (amorphous silica) were grouped together because they cannot be distinguished using XRD. Clinoptilolite, heulandite and analcime were grouped together because their differentiation was difficult in the analysed samples using XRD. In the following, this group is referred to as ‘zeolite’. Values were partly rounded.

Figure 12

Figure 8. SEM images of rounded mica particles of samples (a) NAG 43 and (b) NAG 21.

Figure 13

Figure 9. Differences of BCV top and ordinary blocks (green line = average values of GBM samples) determined by XRF and LECO; y-axis = mass%.

Figure 14

Table 6. EC population, CEC and water loss up to 105°C (mass%) of the BCV ordinary and top block samples using Cu-trien5xcalcite and Cu-trien5x after Dohrmann & Kaufhold (2009). For water loss analysis up to 105 °C, samples previously dried at 60°C were used.

Figure 15

Figure 10. MS CO2 curve of simultaneous thermal analysis of both BCV block type samples (green = top blocks; blue = ordinary blocks).

Figure 16

Figure 11. Qualitative test for suspension stability of ordinary (left) and top (right) BCV blocks.

Figure 17

Table 7. Results of N analysis and alkalinity, pH, electrical conductivity and chemical analyses obtained using IC and ICP of aqueous extracts.

Figure 18

Figure 12. XRD analysis of oriented mounts of the <2 μm fractions of (a) BCV top block BTB3 and (b) BCV ordinary block OB1, both air-dried (AD; black) and after EG solvation (red).

Figure 19

Figure 13. Comparison of the CEC values of the BCV GBM samples with (a) the Fe2O3 content and (b) the inorganic carbon content.

Figure 20

Figure 14. Comparison of CEC values (meq 100 g–1) using the traditional Cu-trien method after Meier & Kahr (1999) with different chemical features (mass%), proving that the CEC does reflect different smectite contents being caused by compositional variability (Kaufhold et al., 2002; Kaufhold & Dohrmann, 2003).

Figure 21

Figure 15. SEM image of the >20 μm fraction of intensely powdered Wyoming top block sample 1.

Supplementary material: File

Kaufhold et al. supplementary material 1

Kaufhold et al. supplementary material
Download Kaufhold et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 43.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kaufhold et al. supplementary material 2

Kaufhold et al. supplementary material
Download Kaufhold et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 44.3 KB