cement waste matrix evaluation and modelling of the long-term stability of cementitious waste...
TRANSCRIPT
Cement waste matrix evaluation and modelling of the long-term stability of cementitious waste
matrices
Thermodynamic modelling 2
Lisa Almkvist and Börje Torstenfelt
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB)
Peter Cronstrand
Vattenfall Power Consultant (VPC)
Thermodynamic modelling
Thermodynamic modelling 3
Cement waste matrix development(presented at the RCM in Moskow)
Solidification of operational intermediate-level waste– Ion exchange resins– Evaporator concentrates
Laboratory test programs studying:– Waste load– Water-to-cement ratio– Type of cement– Additives (liquid, solid)– Type of storage (dry, wet (deionised, salt or chalk
water))
Thermodynamic modelling 4
A 1D cell-divided representation of a nuclear repository
The state of the engineered barriers is simulated through multi-component diffusive transport followed by thermo-dynamical calculations of relevant mineral species for each transport step.
Integrity of the repository concrete structure; short-term and long-term (presented at the RCM in Moskow)
Computational model
Cement encapsu-lated waste
Cl-
SO42-
CO32-
Na+
bentonite
Shotcrete Concrete wall
Ambient water with time-dependent ionic composition
Thermodynamic modelling 5
Reactive-transport modelling - uncertainties
Transport:•Diffusion, (Ficks law or MCD)
•Advection
Thermodynamic database
Rates
Representation of CSH, (variable log k vs. solid solution)
Composition of the cement paste
Composition of infiltrating water
Reaction:• Thermodynamic equilibrium
• Kinetics
Transport
Reaction
Uncertainties
Flows
Diffusivities
Porosity evolution
Porosity-diffusivity-relation
Thermodynamic modelling 6
Uncertainty assessment
• Uncertainties can initially be characterized in simplified leaching models before entering the full scale degradation scenario.
+ Easy to visualize the result
+ Easy to identify and isolate the influence of a specific input parameter
+ Easy to compare with experiments
• Degradation indicators:
• Dissolution of Ca(OH)2
• Decalcification of CSH
Thermodynamic modelling 7
Leaching models
Reactive properties
• Thermodynamic database
• Log k vs. solid solution
• Water composition
Performed on crushed cement
Transport properties
• Porosity-diffusivity relations
• Flows
• Diffusivities
• Porosity evolution
Performed on solid samples
Thermodynamic modelling 8
Database
Portlandite dissolution
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E-01
3.00E-01
4.00E-01
5.00E-01
6.00E-01
7.00E-01
8.00E-01
9.00E-01
0 20 40 60 80 100
Leaching step
M C
a(O
H)2
PCHatches-17
Minteq
Llnl
Wateq
Nagra/PSI
Thermoddem
Thermodynamic modelling 9
Log k vs. Solid solution
Portlandite dissolution
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 20 40 60 80
Leaching step
M (
Ca(
OH
)2)
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12
12.2
12.4
12.6
pH
Portlandite (ss, Walker2003)
Portlandite (stepwise log k)
pH (ss, Walker 2003)
pH (stepwise log k)
Thermodynamic modelling 10
Water intrusionPortlandite dissolution
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Leaching step
M (
Ca(
OH
)2)
Brine
Glacial
Litorina
Biogenic
Rain
Ramlösa
Evian
SFR-mean
Distilled water
Thermodynamic modelling 11
Porosity-diffusion relation
Portlandite dissolution, porosity evolution
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15
Year
M C
a(O
H)2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Po
rosi
ty
Portlandite, m=0
Portlandite, m=1
Portlandite, m=2
Portlandite, m=3
Porosity, m=0
Porosity, m=1
Porosity, m=2
Porosity, m=3
me dd 0Archies law:
Thermodynamic modelling 12
Recipe for a conservative - yet realistic- estimate
• Databases yielding high dissolution rates (PCHatches or Thermoddem)
• Log k approach can reproduce the result obtained by a solid solution approach.
• Water: Low calcium, high NaCl. Carbonates have a non-trivial and twofold effect; enhance dissolution rates, but the precipitation of calcite reduces the porosity.
• Porosity-diffusion relation: Case-dependent (although a conservative estimate can always be achieved by choosing a sufficiently high diffusivity)
Thermodynamic modelling 13
Full scale scenario - the Silo at SFR: initial state
Silo Year 0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
Vo
lum
e (
cc
)
BiotiteK-feldsparAlbiteQuartzSaponite-hSaponite-mgSaponite-caSaponite-kSaponite-naMordenite-naMagnetiteKatoiteIlliteClinoptil-kPhillipsite-naPhillipsite-kMontmor-mgMontmor-caMontmor-kMontmor-naHydroxyapatiteHydrotalciteHydrogarnetBruciteMonocarboaluminateFriedelsaltEttringiteMonosulphateCalcitePortlanditeCSH_0.8CSH_1.1CSH_1.8
Bentonite Silowall ILW&LLW
Shotcrete Grout
Thermodynamic modelling 14
Full scale scenario - the Silo at SFR: 100 000 years
E. Silo year 100 000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
Vo
lum
e (
cc
)
BiotiteK-feldsparAlbiteQuartzSaponite-hSaponite-mgSaponite-caSaponite-kSaponite-naMordenite-naMagnetiteKatoiteIlliteClinoptil-kPhillipsite-naPhillipsite-kMontmor-mgMontmor-caMontmor-kMontmor-naHydroxyapatiteHydrotalciteHydrogarnetBruciteMonocarboaluminateFriedelsaltEttringiteMonosulphateCalcitePortlanditeCSH_0.8CSH_1.1CSH_1.8
Bentonite Silowall ILW&LLWShotcrete Grout
Thermodynamic modelling 15
Full scale scenario - monitoring some parameters
Notation Diffusivity Water composition
Temperature
A Fixed Fixed Fixed
B Fixed Fixed Varying
C Fixed Varying Fixed
D Varying Fixed Fixed
E Varying Varying Varying
Thermodynamic modelling 16
Full scale scenario - porosity distribution
Silo Year 100 000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
Po
ros
ity
A
B
C
D
E
Bentonite Silowall ILW&LLWShotcrete Grout
Thermodynamic modelling 17
Full scale scenario - pH distributionSilo Year 100 000
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 1 2 3 4
Distance (m)
pH
A
B
C
D
E
Bentonite Silowall ILW&LLWShotcrete Grout
Thermodynamic modelling 18
Some remaining uncertainties - clogging
• Introduces both a mesh-and time-step-dependency
• Is there a residual diffusivity (through the gel-pores) even in perfectly clogged material?
• Can remaining non-hydrated clinker materials lead to fractures?
• Are there types of waste that can accelerate the degradation process?
Thermodynamic modelling 19
Some remaining uncertainties - fractures
The effect within the fracture
Pure advection Advection and diffusion to adjacent pores
Dual porosity approachOnly evaluates degradation in the fracture itself
The effect on the overall sample.