See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273312074

Gas permeability of a compacted bentonite-sand mixture: Coupled effects of

water content, dry density, and confining pressure

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 2015

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2014-0371

CITATIONS READS

28 233

3 authors, including:

JiangFeng Liu Jean Talandier

École Centrale de Lille Andra
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,694 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   832 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

quicksand View project

Hydromechanical behaviour of bentonite pellet-powder mixtures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by JiangFeng Liu on 03 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1159

ARTICLE
Gas permeability of a compacted bentonite–sand mixture:
coupled effects of water content, dry density, and confining
pressure
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16

Jiang-Feng Liu, Frédéric Skoczylas, and Jean Talandier

Abstract: The gas-tightness of compacted bentonite–sand mixtures is important to the total sealing efficiency of geological
repositories. The initial aim of this work was to determine whether the combination of a high confining pressure (Pc) and
incomplete saturation could cause a bentonite–sand mixture to become gas-tight. The results show that the physical character-
istics of the materials (degree of saturation, Sr; porosity, ␾; and dry density, ␳d) are very sensitive to changes in the applied
confining pressures and their own swelling deformation (or shrinkage). The combination of these changes affects the sample’s
effective gas permeability (Keff). For materials prepared at a relative humidity (RH) of 98%, Keff decreased from 10−16 to 10−20 m2
when Pc increased from 1 to 7 MPa. This means that gas-tightness can be obtained for a compacted bentonite–sand mixture when
the materials experience a series of changes (e.g., w, Sr, ␾, and ␳d). In addition, larger irreversible deformation (or hysteresis) was
observed during the loading–unloading cycle for the sample with higher water content. This phenomenon may be attributed to
larger interactions between the macrostructural and microstructural deformations and the decrease of preconsolidation pres-
sure during hydration.

Key words: gas-tightness, bentonite–sand mixture, effective gas permeability, confining stress, irreversible deformation.
For personal use only.

Résumé : L’imperméabilité aux gaz des mélanges compactés de bentonite et de sable est essentielle pour garantir la bonne
étanchéité globale des aires de stockage géologique. Le but initial de la présente étude a été de déterminer si la combinaison
d’une pression de confinement élevée (Pc) et d’une saturation incomplète pouvait rendre le mélange bentonite–sable impermé-
able aux gaz. Les résultats obtenus ont montré que les caractéristiques physiques des matériaux (le degré de saturation, Sr, la
porosité, ␾ et la densité sèche, ␳d) étaient très sensibles aux variations de la pression de confinement appliquée et de la
déformation (dilatation ou contraction) de ces matériaux. La combinaison de ces variations influe sur la perméabilité effective
aux gaz de l’échantillon étudié (Keff). Dans le cas de matériaux fabriqués à une humidité relative (HR) de 98 %, Keff diminue,
passant de 10–16 à 10–20 m2, lorsque Pc augmente et passe de 1 à 7 MPa. Cela signifie que l’étanchéité aux gaz d’un mélange
bentonite–sable compacté peut être obtenue lorsque les matériaux subissent une série de variations (de w, Sr, ␾ et ␳d, p. ex.). En
outre, une plus grande déformation irréversible (ou hystérésis) est observée durant le cycle chargement–déchargement dans le
cas d’un échantillon à la teneur en eau plus élevée. Ce phénomène est attribuable aux plus grandes interactions qui existent
entre les déformations macrostructurales et microstructurales et à la diminution de la pression de préconsolidation durant
l’hydratation. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : étanchéité aux gaz, mélange bentonite–sable, perméabilité effective aux gaz, contrainte de confinement, déformation
irreversible.

Introduction
In the design of high-level radioactive waste repositories at great
depths, bentonite or bentonite-based materials (a bentonite–sand
mixture was used in this study) are generally chosen as buffer
materials to separate the radioactive waste canisters from the
host rock or as backfill material to plug the access tunnels of
disposal pits (Cui et al. 2008; Dueck 2008; Komine 2010; Ye et al.
2012). Saturated bentonite and bentonite-based materials have
low permeabilities, good swelling capabilities, and high radio-
nuclide retardation capacities, which are useful for hindering
the transport of nuclides into the host rock (Yong et al. 1986;
Jedináková-Křižová 1998; Cho et al. 1999). In France, the French
National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA) has
developed an underground research laboratory (URL) at the Bure
site in the Eastern Paris Basin (Delay et al. 2008). This site was
constructed in a geological layer of COx argillite at a depth of
500 m. This allows in situ tests to be carried out, which have
shown that some bentonite–sand blocks can be made gas-tight
even though they are not completely water-saturated (De La
Vaissière 2013). The material comprising these blocks is a mixture
of 70% MX80 bentonite and 30% siliceous sand. A plausible expla-
nation for the gas-tightness may be a coupling effect between the
“mechanical stress and saturation” (see Fig. 1).
Once these blocks are placed in the galleries, they are progres-
sively hydrated by pore water infiltration from the host rock for-
mation (King et al. 2001; Wang et al. 2013). These blocks begin to
swell as soon as they come into contact with the water (Davy et al.
2009; Liu et al. 2014). The swollen bentonite or bentonite-based

Received 29 August 2014. Accepted 8 January 2015.

J.-F. Liu. Laboratoire de Méchanique de Lille (LML) and École Centrale de Lille, BP 48, F-59651 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France; State Key Laboratory for
GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China.
F. Skoczylas. Laboratoire de Méchanique de Lille (LML) and École Centrale de Lille, BP 48, F-59651 Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, France.
J. Talandier. ANDRA, 1-7 rue Jean Monnet, 92298 Châtenay-Malabry Cedex, France.
Corresponding author: Jiang-Feng Liu (e-mail: jeafliu@hotmail.com).

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1159–1167 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0371 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 14 January 2015.
 1160
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the in situ coupling effects between water saturation and radial stress (modified after ANDRA 2005).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
materials fill up all potential voids (the ones between the benton-
ite blocks or between the blocks and host rock) that appear during
the construction process (Komine and Ogata 1996; Komine 2004;
Villar and Lloret 2008; Wang et al. 2012). This function, known as
“self-sealing”, is important to the overall safety of the disposal pit
(Komine 2004, 2009). With respect to the confinement conditions,
the bentonite or bentonite-based materials first experience free-
For personal use only.
swelling (prior to filling the voids) before being confined by the
host rock. As contact is made with the host rock, a swelling pres-
sure is developed. In the massive plug, a significant water satura-
tion gradient is present between the core and external surface,
itself in contact with the host rock and underground water. As a
result, owing to a high water content, the external part of the
massive barrier swells in contact with a stiff host rock (e.g., COx
argillite), so that it applies pressure to the partially water-saturated
core (see Fig. 1). In addition, the convergence of the gallery wall
due to creeping of of host rock (COx argillite) can also compress
the barriers and lead to the decrease of their porosities, further
affecting their effective gas permeabilities. The total in situ stress
is 12 MPa and the pore water pressure is 5 MPa, which correspond
to an in situ depth of 500 m. As designed by ANDRA, the target
swelling pressure of the clay is 7 MPa, which approaches an equi-
librium state after water saturation to maintain a long-term bal-
ance between the host rock (COx argillite) and swelling clay.
It has been generally established that anaerobic conditions are
reached in the repository after sealing. Under these conditions,
gas (mainly hydrogen) is produced within the repository tunnels
due to humid corrosion, organic matter degradation, and water
radiolysis (Ortiz et al. 2002; Birgersson et al. 2008). Over time, gas
and radionuclides may leak from the repository. In this context,
the main objective of this study was to determine whether, for a
high water content, this in situ compression (between the exter-
nal and central part of the barrier or due to the convergence of the
host rock) could produce a hydraulic cutoff in the direction of the
gas flow.
Material preparation and experimental methodology
Materials and sample preparation
Based on preliminary studies performed by ANDRA (Bosgiraud
2004), a single bentonite–sand mixture was chosen to be used
throughout this study. The powder material, supplied directly by
the French Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat à l’énergie
atomique-CEA), was a mixture of 30% (by mass) of pure siliceous
sand and a conventional, so-called MX80 bentonite. The MX80
bentonite contained large quantities of montmorillonite (75%–90%),
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
with a solid density of 2.74 g/cm3. The siliceous sand was made of
99.0% SiO2 (quartz), with a unit density of 2.65 g/cm3. The particle-
size distributions of the bentonite powder and sand used in the
present tests are presented in Table 1 (Gatabin 2005). The powder
was pre-conditioned in an environmental test chamber at 85%
relative humidity (RH) and 25 °C until a constant mass (w = 15.2%)
was reached. More details on the mixture characteristics are given
by Gatabin (2005).
The samples were obtained by compaction under a 12 MPa axial
pressure in a steel cylindrical mould. The resulting diameter was
37 ± 0.5 mm and the height was 12.5 ± 1 mm. The desired proper-
ties were a water content equal to 15.2% and a dry density equal to
1.77 g/cm3. These properties are important because the compacted
mix is intended to target a given swelling pressure of 7 MPa after
full water saturation (Gatabin 2005). As shown by the results pre-
sented hereafter, these properties were generally achieved to within
a small variation.
Experimental method
This study was initially designed to simply evaluate the sealing
properties of an unsaturated but highly compacted bentonite–
sand mixture. After compaction, an initial gas permeability test
campaign was performed up to 5 MPa confining pressure (with
an exception of sample S2-2, which went up to 12 MPa), which is
considered a moderate pressure. The samples were then placed at
a controlled level of relative humidity (RH: 75%, 85%, 92%, and 98%)
until their mass became stable. These samples were subsequently
taken out to test their gas permeabilities again up to a confining
pressure of 12 MPa. The entire experimental campaign is shown in
Fig. 2. Loading–unloading cycles allowed certain irreversible prop-
erties of the material to be visualized. The volumes were measured
regularly during these steps using digital calipers that are accurate
to within 1 ␮m. Two methods were generally used to determine
the effective gas permeability (Keff) depending on its magnitude:
the steady state, and transient methods (Billiotte et al. 2008). As
indicated by some researchers, the steady state method is conve-
nient and precise for permeabilities higher than 10−19 m2 (Billiotte
et al. 2008; Davy et al. 2007). When the permeability is below
10−19 m2, the steady state method usually requires an extremely
long time. In such cases, the pulse-test technique was used (Brace
et al. 1968). In this study, the pulse-test method was only used for
sample S2-3 after stabilization at RH = 98% and confining pressure
Pc = 5⬃12 MPa.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al. 1161

Table 1. Particle-size distributions of bentonite (5) ⌬P1,2(t) ⫽ ⌬P1 exp(⫺cPf t)

powder and sand obtained by dry sieving.
Material Size (mm) Amount (%) with
Sand (silicon) 1.25 0.49
0.8
0.63
14.9
40.7
(6) c⫽ 冉
Keff A 1
␮g h V1
⫹
1
V2 冊
0.5 16.45
0.315 23.16
0.2 2.72 where the parameter c is a function of reservoir volumes, fluid
<0.2 1.57 compressibility, sample accumulation coefficient, and external
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16

Bentonite powder 0.2–2.1 98 factors such as room temperature variations; V1 and V2 are the
>2.2 <1 volume of two reservoirs, and Pf is the final gas pressure, which
<0.212 <2 can be calculated from

Steady state method
As shown in Fig. 3, a circular cylindrical sample was jacketed
inside a protective Viton membrane and placed into a triaxial cell.
A confining pressure (Pc) was applied and controlled by an oil
pump. A buffer reservoir was installed between the gas source and
sample. Gas was injected from the upstream side at a pressure P1
(1.0 MPa) while the other side was maintained at atmospheric
pressure (P0). The gas (argon) flowed through the sample (along
the x-axis) due to the pressure gradient. After a period (⌬t), the gas
flow led to a pressure drop (⌬P) in the buffer reservoir. This pres-
sure drop (⌬P) was much lower than the injection pressure (P1).
Therefore, it was assumed that the gas flow was at a steady flow
over the period (⌬t). According to Darcy’s law, the gas flow rate
For personal use only.
⌬P1V1
(7) Pf ⫽ P1 ⫹
V1 ⫹ V2
The gas was assumed to be ideal and all tests were conducted in
an air-conditioned room at constant temperature. The pressure
difference ⌬P1,2 was measured by a pressure manometer and per-
meability Keff was determined using eqs. (5) and (6).
More information related to the two methods can also be found
in previous publications by the authors: Meziani and Skoczylas
(1999) (steady state method), Loosveldt et al. (2002) (steady state
method), Davy et al. (2007) (steady state and pulse-test methods),
Dana and Skoczylas (1999) (pulse-test method), Chen et al. (2012)
(pulse-test method), and Duan et al. (2014) (pulse-test method). For
the purposes of this study, the confining pressure was between

(Q mean) is expressed by 7 and 12 MPa.

⫺Keff A ⭸P Results and analysis

(1) Q mean ⫽
␮g ⭸x
where ␮g is the viscosity of argon and A is the cross-sectional area
of sample. The variable Q mean is obtained from the law of conser-
vation of mass (the mass of gas output from the reservoir buffer is
equal to the mass of the gas passing through the sample)
V0 ⌬P
(2) Q mean ⫽
Pmean ⌬t
where Pmean = P1 – ⌬P/2 is the average gas pressure and V0 is the
volume of buffer reservoir. The variable P1 in eq. (1) is the inner gas
pressure in the sample and is assumed to be a function of coordi-
nate x and time t (Dana and Skoczylas 1999)
Characteristics of the samples after compacting and
wetting
Figures 4a–4d show the main characteristics of the samples in
the experiment. Significant variations in w, degree of saturation
(Sr), porosity (␾), and dry density (␳d) were observed from the
initial compacted state, after stabilization at a given RH and also
after drying. Due to variation of the volume at different stages, ␳d
was calculated with the different volume, ␳d = md/VTi, where md is
the dry mass (at 105 °C oven-drying) and VTi is the corresponding
volume measured at different stages. The water content after
compaction was on average 15.3% ± 0.6, which compares very well
to the target value of 15.2%. The dry densities (after compaction)
of the five samples are almost the same as the target value of
1.77 g/cm3.
Following the initial permeability measurements, samples S2-3,
S2-4, S2-5, and S2-8 were held at specific relative humidity and

(3) P(x, t) ⫽ 冑P(0, t) 共1 ⫺ hx 兲 ⫹ P(h, t) hx

2 2
where h is the sample height, P(0, t) = Pmean, and P(h, t) = P0. Using
eqs. (1)–(3), the gas permeability may be obtained from
␮gQ mean 2hPmean
(4) Keff ⫽
A 共P2 ⫺ P2兲
mean 0
Pulse-test method
Gas pressure P1 (2 MPa) was applied initially to both sides of the
sample from two reservoirs R1 and R2 (see Fig. 3). Then, a slight
excess pressure (⌬P, 0.2 MPa) was applied to reservoir R2 to form a
pressure difference between both sides of the sample. Gas flowed
from reservoir R2 to reservoir R1 through the sample due to the
pressure gradient. According to Dana and Skoczylas (1999), the
pressure difference (⌬P1,2) between both ends of the sample may
be fitted by
free-swelling conditions (RH = 75%⬃98%). The results in Fig. 5
show the variations in w, Sr, ␾, and ␳d with respect to those mea-
sured after the initial gas permeability test. At first, the variation
in w is very large at higher values of RH (up to 64.5% at RH = 98%),
whereas the change in Sr is limited and independent of the change
in RH. This phenomenon is explained by addressing the change in
porosity (e.g., 35.7% at RH = 98%) or dry density (e.g., 18.3% at RH =
98%). This means that there exists a competition between an in-
crease in water content and an increase in porosity, which leads to
a limited change in the degree of saturation. The combinations of
these changes are the main factors that lead to the variations in
Keff of the samples, which are analyzed later.
The swelling behavior of the compacted bentonite–sand mix-
ture is mainly due to the swelling of bentonite, which contains the
swelling clay mineral (Na-montmorillonite). During the hydration
process, water molecules are absorbed into the interlayers of
the crystal lattice, causing it to expand. The hydration of the ex-
changeable cations largely governs this adsorption and that of the
resulting increase in the interlayer spacing. With increases in the

Published by NRC Research Press

 1162
Fig. 2. Experimental procedure for test series S2.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
RH, this behavior becomes more active and the distance between
the layers will continue to increase until it stabilizes. As a result,
the sample’s volume will increase during the wetting process.
Initial gas permeability after compaction
To provide an accurate comparison of the changes in gas per-
For personal use only.
meability, an initial gas permeability measurement campaign just
after compaction was carried out and this was selected as a refer-
ence (phase T2, see Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 4d, the porosities
obtained after confinement (␾T2) are systematically lower than
those after compaction (␾T0) even though the compaction was
carried out under greater pressures. This is a consequence of the
fact that when the material is removed from the compaction
mold, it expands immediately, and re-compaction at 5 MPa leads
to an additional irreversible reduction in volume. It must also be
noted that the effect of the pressure applied during compaction is
slightly different than that applied for confinement: (i) the com-
paction pressure is uniaxial and the confining pressure is isotropic
and (ii) the compaction takes less time than for a gas permeability
test (usually several hours for a single loading–unloading cycle).
All of the initial Keff values at Pc = 1 MPa lie in the range from
10−16 to 10−15 m2. In the case of sample S2-2, which was placed
under a pressure of up to 12 MPa, an irreversible reduction in Keff
of one order of magnitude was observed (see Fig. 6) when the
confining pressure was reduced to its initial value of 1 MPa. The
reduction in Keff of two orders of magnitude was observed when
the confining pressure was increased to between 1 and 12 MPa.
At this stage, Keff can already be considered to be very low.
Therefore, a confining pressure leading to a decrease in porosity
(or an increase in dry density) has a very strong impact on the
material’s Keff.
Permeability values obtained after equilibrium under
humid conditions
After the specimens were stabilized under different relative
humidities, new gas permeability measurements were performed
(phase T4, see Fig. 2). As stabilization took place under free-
volume conditions, both the water content and dry density of the
samples changed. The values reached are those shown in Fig. 4 for
phase T3. Figures 7–10 show the influence of humidity associated
with the confining pressure on Keff. The confining pressure was
applied in a single loading–unloading cycle from 1 to 12 MPa. The
same representation is used in all of the figures: points 0 and 1 are
related to the measurements carried out after compaction
(0 corresponds to the first data point and 1 to the data point after
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
unloading; see Fig. 6). Point 2 corresponds to the material, which
was kept at a controlled humidity, and is the starting point of the
loading–unloading cycle under the confining pressure. Point 3 is
obtained after unloading at a confining pressure of 1 MPa. A proper
comparison uses points 1 and 2, rather than 0 and 2, because the
sample only experienced free swelling (or shrinkage) during this
period without any other operation. The permeabilities corre-
sponding to points 1, 2, and 3 are denoted as Kg1, Kg2, and Kg3,
respectively.
Sample S2-8 (RH = 75%)
The effective gas permeability of sample S2-8 (RH = 75%) is shown
in Fig. 7. The water content of this sample increased slightly (from
13.55% to 14.60%; see Fig. 4a) during the water retention test. From
the perspective of the water content, Kg2 should be smaller than
Kg1. However, Fig. 7 indicates the opposite phenomenon. This
difference is completely justified in view of the changes in poros-
ity (because Sr essentially stayed the same: from 0.70 to 0.71), and
in particular with the comparison between ␾T2 and ␾T3, which
reveals a slight increase (approximately 4.5%; see Fig. 5) between
points 1 and 2. This porosity increase is a result of wetting of the
material as well as the influence of various unavoidable manipu-
lations required during the tests. The increase (of one order of
magnitude) in Keff indicates that the change in porosity plays a
dominant role with respect to the change in water content. For
this sample, the impact of the volume (porosity) difference is
present over a wide range of confining pressures, so much so that
the latter was increased to 7 MPa for the initial Keff, which was
measured at 5 MPa, to ensure recovery. When the values of Keff at
5 MPa (during a loading cycle) are compared, the increase in water
content does not lead to a reduction in Keff. However, loading to
12 MPa induced additional compression in the material, which
was clearly irreversible because the data point Kg3 was much lower
than Kg2 (and Kg1). This phenomenon will be discussed further
later.
Sample S2-5 (RH = 85%)
The behavior of sample S2-5 (RH = 85%) is shown in Fig. 8.
Between points 1 and 2, the 85% RH led to a 10.6% increase in the
water content and a 0.8% increase in the degree of saturation (see
Fig. 5). In sample S2-8, the value of Kg2 was considerably greater
than Kg1. This phenomenon can be explained by the difference of
approximately 6.2% between the porosities ␾T2 and ␾T3 (see Fig. 5).
However, the influence of the confining pressure is more sensitive in
this second case, because at Pc = 5 MPa Kg–RH = 85% (gas permeability
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of experimental set-up (triaxial cell and gas panel): (a) steady state method; (b) pulse-test method.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
For personal use only.
measured after stabilization at RH = 85%) is lower than Kg–ini (gas
permeability measured at initial state), which is different than the
previous case (sample S2-8 RH = 75%). Generally, the volume
changes due to wetting lead to corresponding changes in the ma-
terial strength and stiffness. Because sample S2-5 (at RH = 85%)
absorbed more water and swelled more, it was more compressible
than sample S2-8 (at RH = 75%), which led to a greater sensitivity to
the confining pressure for this case.
At a confining pressure of 12 MPa, the permeability decreased
by (nearly) three orders of magnitude. This decrease appears to be
attributed mainly to compression resulting from the confinement
pressure, which causes the pores (or cavities) in which the gas
flows to start collapsing. The return to 1 MPa (point 3) shows a
hysteresis of one order of magnitude of the permeability. If this is
compared with the previous sample, comparable phenomena are
found for points 1, 2, and 3, with a greater sensitivity to the con-
fining pressure for the case of the sample with a slightly greater
porosity (more compressible). Additionally, the hysteresis is not
1163
pronounced for a confining pressure of 1 MPa; the reason for this
hysteresis will be explained in the next case.
Sample S2-4 (RH = 92%)
Figure 9 shows the behavior of sample S2-4 (RH = 92%). There
was a 27.3% increase in the water content and a 4.5% increase in
the degree of saturation between points 1 and 2. Although the
relative differences in permeability between these two points were
smaller than in the previous two cases, the logic that a higher
water content leads to a lower gas permeability does not apply.
This result is attributed to the observed 13.3% change in porosity
(see Fig. 5). However, the confining pressure had an immediate
effect. As soon as the pressure reached 2 MPa, the permeability of
point 1 was attained. At 5 MPa, the permeability at point B was
more than one order of magnitude smaller than at point A. It is
difficult to distinguish between the factors governing this phe-
nomenon, which may result from the combination of a greater
Published by NRC Research Press
 1164 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 4. (a) Water content, (b) degree of saturation, (c) dry density, and (d) porosity of test series S2 during experimental process. T0, after
compaction; T1, before gas permeability test; T2, after gas permeability test: initial state; T3, stable at a given RH, S2-8: 75%, S2-5: 85%,
S2-4: 92%, and S2-3: 98%; T4, after gas permeability test: RH; T5, 60 °C oven-drying; T6, after gas permeability test: 60 °C oven-drying.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
For personal use only.

Fig. 5. Changes in dry density, porosity, degree of saturation, and Fig. 6. Effective gas permeability, K (referred to as Keff in the text),
water content due to increasing RH levels (T3) using values of test series S2 after initial compaction.
measured after initial gas permeability tests as a reference (T2).

level of saturation and a higher deformability. In practice, the
confining pressure has a very strong influence on the permeabil-
ity because at 7 MPa, the order of magnitude of the permeability
was only 10−18 m2 and at 12 MPa, the permeability dropped to
10−20 m2. At this stage, although it was not fully saturated (before
testing), the material became virtually impermeable to gas.
Evidence of deformability greater than seen in the preceding
cases was found in the hysteresis when the confining pressure
returned to 1 MPa, at which point the permeability was character-
ized by a difference of more than two orders of magnitude (points
2 and 3). Many researchers have indicated that the swelling defor-
mation is caused by both macrostructural and microstructural

Published by NRC Research Press

 Liu et al.
Fig. 7. Effective gas permeability of sample S2-8 after initial
compaction (Kini) and after stabilization at RH = 75% (KRH = 75%) as a
function of confinement (upon loading and unloading).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
Fig. 8. Effective gas permeability of sample S2-5 after initial
compaction and after stabilization at RH = 85% as a function of
confinement (upon loading and unloading).
For personal use only.
deformation (Gens and Alonso 1992; Alonso et al. 1999; Sánchez
et al. 2005). The former depends on the proximity of the applied
pressure to the apparent preconsolidation pressure, and the latter
depends on the applied pressure and the suction change (Lloret
et al. 2003). There is also an interaction (a coupling) between the
two structural levels (Gens and Alonso 1992). The microstructural
expansion due to hydration gives rise to a reorganization of the
macrostructure, which becomes more porous, causing irrevers-
ible deformation to occur (Villar Galicia 2002; Lloret et al. 2003).
The magnitude of the interaction (coupling) is higher for the sam-
ple with larger macrostructural porosity (e.g., sample S2-4), which
leads to larger macrostructural volume variations that cannot be
recovered upon any subsequent loading–unloading. In addition,
there is a decrease in the preconsolidation pressure during the
hydration process. This will increase the size of the plastic
domain, which also contributes to the high deformability and
irreversibility phenomena.
1165
Fig. 9. Effective gas permeability of sample S2-4 after initial
compaction and after stabilization at RH = 92% as a function of
confinement (upon loading and unloading).
Fig. 10. Effective gas permeability of sample S2-3 after initial
compaction and after stabilization at RH = 98% as a function of
confinement (upon loading and unloading).
Sample S2-3 (RH = 98%)
Sample S2-3 was exposed to the highest level of relative humid-
ity: RH = 98%. The results of the tests with this sample are shown
in Fig. 10. At equilibrium, the increase in water content was 64.5%,
whereas the degree of saturation decreased by 0.9% (see Fig. 5).
Despite this high water content, Fig. 10 shows that permeabilities
Kg1 and Kg2 were almost the same, with Kg2 being slightly higher
than Kg1. At the same time, the material’s porosity increased by
35.7%. The swelling is thus sufficient (at Pc = 1 MPa) to counterbal-
ance the effect of saturation.
A similar phenomenon was again seen where the sample was
more sensitive to the confining pressure than the previous cases.
At Pc = 5 MPa, the permeability (point A) decreased by more than
two orders of magnitude with respect to the initial conditions
(point B). Between 7 and 8 MPa, the material could be considered
to be gas-tight, and unloading to 1 MPa produced a permeability
three orders of magnitude weaker than at the beginning of the
cycle. Thus, there is an extremely strong coupling between the
two structural levels in the material, which contributes to this
hysteretic phenomenon. In this case, the disruption of the mac-
Published by NRC Research Press
 1166
Fig. 11. Effective gas permeability of test series S2: after 60 °C
oven-drying.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
rostructure is more severe due to larger swelling deformation that
developed during hydration, consisting of larger irreversible mac-
rostructural deformation that cannot be recovered upon subse-
For personal use only.
quent loading–unloading (Lloret et al. 2003). This irreversible
macrostructural deformation also contributes to the increase of
the degree of saturation (e.g., Sr = 0.92 at step T4; see Fig. 4b) when
compared with the corresponding value prior to the test (0.73 at
step T3).
Permeabilities obtained in the “dry” state
To conduct this last phase of permeability measurements, the
samples were partially dried in a drying oven at 60 °C and tested
for gas permeability (phase T6; see Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 4d, the
␾T5 porosities (60 °C oven-drying) were from 2.41% to 8.84% smaller
than the ␾T0 initial porosities. Thus, there is a simultaneous loss of
mass due to drying and shrinkage due to desiccation. These two
effects had opposite influences on Keff, as shown in Fig. 11. The
drying effect dominates, with an increase in permeability of two
to three orders of magnitude with respect to the initial value
obtained after compaction. There is a real “confining pressure
effect” because as the pressure is increased to 12 MPa, a decrease
in the permeability is observed, although the effect is not greater
than an order of magnitude. The material becomes more rigid
because of the increase in the dry density and a priori, the confin-
ing pressure only led to very limited compression of the porous
space. There is a stronger hysteresis for the case of the initially
more saturated material (due to lower dry densities) when the
samples were returned to the initial confining pressure of 1 MPa.
In addition, microcracking was observed after drying in the oven.
That is, there are three factors that can influence the effective gas
permeability at this stage: microcracking, changes in water con-
tent, and porosity.
After the samples were saturated in a desiccator with RH = 100%
they were again oven-dried at 60 °C, and finally dried at 105 °C to
verify their initial water content values. The m60 °C masses were
from 0.25% to 0.42% higher than the m105 °C masses. These differ-
ences are less than that of the pure MX80 bentonite, which is
within the range of 2.44%⬃3.46% (Liu and Skoczylas 2014). These
results mean that oven-drying at 60 °C can remove most of the
water in the pores of the bentonite–sand mixture (70/30), which is
not the case for the pure MX80 bentonite.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Conclusions
The initial aim of this study was to determine whether in the
case of a compacted mixture of MX80 bentonite and fine siliceous
sand, coupling between high hydrostatic stress and incomplete
saturation could cause this mixture to become gas-tight. The re-
sults show that wetting under free-swelling condition leads to
swelling of the compacted bentonite–sand mixture, and the de-
gree of swelling depends mainly on the ambient RH, as all the
samples had the same initial dry density. In the laboratory, vari-
ous confining pressures were applied to investigate these effects.
It was determined that the gas-tightness (Keff at 10−20 m2) could be
obtained when the sample was first saturated at RH = 98% and
then subjected to a confining pressure of 7 MPa, which was close
to the swelling pressure of the compacted bentonite–sand mixture.
Additionally, irreversible deformation (or hysteresis) was observed
during the loading–unloading cycle. This phenomenon is due
mainly to interactions between the macrostructural and micro-
structural deformations. Swelling of the microstructure causes an
irreversible macrostructural deformation that cannot be recov-
ered upon subsequent loading–unloading. This irreversible defor-
mation is higher for the sample with a higher water content
because the coupling between the two structural levels is larger at
higher RH. With the increase of RH, the sample absorbed more
water, swelled more, and became more compressible. Meanwhile,
the preconsolidation pressure decreased during the wetting pro-
cess. Therefore, the sample’s Keff is more sensitive to the confining
pressure at higher RH.
In situ, the bentonite or bentonite-based materials swell (due to
wetting) and fill the initial voids (those between the blocks, and
the voids between the swelling clay and host rock). As a result, the
physical characteristics (w, Sr, ␾, and ␳d) of the materials are
changed. These changes affect Keff directly. Increases (or decreases) in
Sr and ␾ have an opposite effect on Keff and are the predominant
factors that govern the changes in Keff. After filling the initial
voids, the swelling is confined by the host rock. As a result, a
swelling pressure is developed due to the “swelling” property of
the material and the confined condition. Due to the existence of a
significant water saturation gradient in the barrier, the external
surface of the massive barrier swells in contact with COx argillite
and compresses the partially saturated core. This compression
leads to a decrease in the porosity, ␾, causing an increase in Sr. As
a result, gas-tightness may be obtained due to their coupling ef-
fects.
To summarize, for expansive materials, wetting (or drying) un-
der free-swelling conditions leads to changes in ␾ and w (Sr may
not be changed). The loading causes variations in ␾ and Sr (w may
not be changed). Among these parameters, ␾ and Sr are the main
factors affecting Keff. Therefore, special attention should be given
to these variations when researching the gas-tightness of the ex-
pansive materials.
Acknowledgements
Research leading to these results has received funding from the
European Atomic Energy Community’s Seventh Framework Pro-
gramme (FP7/2007-2011) under Grant Agreement No. 230357, the
FORGE project. Support from the State Key Laboratory for
GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China Uni-
versity of Mining & Technology (SKLGDUEK1201) is also greatly
acknowledged.
References
Alonso, E.E., Vaunat, J., and Gens, A. 1999. Modelling the mechanical behaviour
of expansive clays. Engineering Geology, 54(1–2): 173–183. doi:10.1016/S0013-
7952(99)00079-4.
ANDRA. 2005. Dossier 2005 Argile: Tome architecture and management of a
geological repository. Technical report.
Billiotte, J., Yang, D., and Su, K. 2008. Experimental study on gas permeability of
mudstones. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33: S231–S236.
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.10.040.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Liu et al.
Birgersson, M., Åkesson, M., and Hökmark, H. 2008. Gas intrusion in saturated
bentonite – a thermo dynamic approach. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
Parts A/B/C, 33: S248–S251. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.10.039.
Bosgiraud, J. 2004. Scope of work. design, fabrication, assembly, handling and
packaging of buffer rings. ANDRA. Tech. Rep. C CC ASTE 04-0520/B.
Brace, W.F., Walsh, J.B., and Frangos, W.T. 1968. Permeability of granite under
high pressure. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73(6): 2225–2236. doi:10.1029/
JB073i006p02225.
Chen, W., Liu, J., Brue, F., Skoczylas, F., Davy, C.A., Bourbon, X., and Talandier, J.
2012. Water retention and gas relative permeability of two industrial con-
cretes. Cement and Concrete Research, 42(7): 1001–1013. doi:10.1016/j.
cemconres.2012.04.003.
Cho, W.J., Lee, J.O., and Chun, K.S. 1999. The temperature effects on hydraulic
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Mining Technology on 07/04/16
conductivity of compacted bentonite. Applied Clay Science, 14(1–3): 47–58.
doi:10.1016/S0169-1317(98)00047-7.
Cui, Y.J., Tang, A.M., Loiseau, C., and Delage, P. 2008. Determining the unsatu-
rated hydraulic conductivity of a compacted sand–bentonite mixture under
constant-volume and free-swell conditions. Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33: S462–S471. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.10.017.
Dana, E., and Skoczylas, F. 1999. Gas relative permeability and pore structure of
sandstones. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
36(5): 613–625. doi:10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00037-6.
Davy, C.A., Skoczylas, F., Barnichon, J.-D., and Lebon, P. 2007. Permeability of
macro-cracked argillite under confinement: gas and water testing. Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32(8–14): 667–680. doi:10.1016/j.pce.
2006.02.055.
Davy, C.A., Skoczylas, F., Lebon, P., and Dubois, T. 2009. Gas migration proper-
ties through a bentonite/argillite interface. Applied Clay Science, 42(3–4):
639–648. doi:10.1016/j.clay.2008.05.005.
De La Vaissière, R. 2013. Hydration versus gas percolation in bentonite. In-situ
experiment PGZ2. Experimental borehole results. FORGE Report D3.17-
D3.18.
Delay, J., Lesavre, A., and Wileveau, Y. 2008. The French underground research
laboratory in Bure as a precursor for deep geological repositories. Reviews in
Engineering Geology, 19: 97–111. doi:10.1130/2008.4119(10).
For personal use only.
Duan, Z., Davy, C.A., Agostini, F., Jeannin, L., Troadec, D., and Skoczylas, F. 2014.
Gas recovery potential of sandstones from tight gas reservoirs. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 65: 75–85. doi:10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2013.11.011.
Dueck, A. 2008. Laboratory results from hydro-mechanical tests on a water
unsaturated bentonite. Engineering Geology, 97(1–2): 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2007.11.001.
Gatabin, C. 2005. Selection and THM characterization of the buffer material.
ANDRA. Tech. Rep. RT DPC/SCCME 05-704-B.
Gens, A., and Alonso, E.E. 1992. A framework for the behaviour of unsaturated
expansive clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(6): 1013–1032. doi:10.1139/
t92-120.
Jedináková-Křižová,V. 1998. Migration of radionuclides in the enviroment. Jour-
nal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 229(1–2): 13–18. doi:10.1007/
BF02389439.
King, F., Ahonen, L., Taxén, C., Vuorinen, U., and Werme, L. 2001. Copper corro-
sion under expected conditions in a deep geologic repository. Vol. 1. Svensk
Kärnbränslehantering AB.
Komine, H. 2004. Simplified evaluation for swelling characteristics of benton-
View publication stats
1167
ites. Engineering Geology, 71(3–4): 265–279. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(03)
00140-6.
Komine, H. 2009. Self-sealing capability of some bentonite buffers in artificial
seawater. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ICSMGE 2009), Alexandria, Egypt.
pp. 2495–2498.
Komine, H. 2010. Predicting hydraulic conductivity of sand–bentonite mixture
backfill before and after swelling deformation for underground disposal
of radioactive wastes. Engineering Geology, 114(3–4): 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2010.04.009.
Komine, H., and Ogata, N. 1996. Prediction for swelling characteristics of com-
pacted bentonite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(1): 11–22. doi:10.1139/
t96-021.
Liu, J.F., and Skoczylas, F. 2014. Etude expérimentale sur Bentonite issue du
démantèlement d’un ouvrage souterrain à Mont Terri – Suisse. ANDRA.
Liu, J.F., Davy, C.A., Talandier, J., and Skoczylas, F. 2014. Effect of gas pressure on
the sealing efficiency of compacted bentonite-sand plugs. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, 170: 10–27. doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.09.006.
PMID:25305640.
Lloret, A., Villar, M.V., Sanchez, M., Gens, A., Pintado, X., and Alonso, E.E. (2003).
Mechanical behaviour of heavily compacted bentonite under high suction
changes. Géotechnique, 53(1): 27–40. doi:10.1680/geot.2003.53.1.27.
Loosveldt, H., Lafhaj, Z., and Skoczylas, F. 2002. Experimental study of gas and
liquid permeability of a mortar. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(9): 1357–
1363. doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00793-7.
Meziani, H., and Skoczylas, F. 1999. An experimental study of the mechanical
behaviour of a mortar and of its permeability under deviatoric loading. Ma-
terials and Structures, 32(6): 403–409. doi:10.1007/BF02482711.
Ortiz, L., Volckaert, G., and Mallants, D. 2002. Gas generation and migration in
Boom Clay, a potential host rock formation for nuclear waste storage. Engi-
neering Geology, 64(2–3): 287–296. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00107-7.
Sánchez, M., Gens, A., do Nascimento Guimarães, L., and Olivella, S. 2005. A
double structure generalized plasticity model for expansive materials. Inter-
national Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
29(8): 751–787. doi:10.1002/nag.434.
Villar Galicia, M.V. 2002. Thermo-hydro-mechanical characterisation of a ben-
tonite from Cabo de Gata: a study applied to the use of bentonite as sealing
material in high level radioactive waste repositories. Publicaciónes técnicas
(Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos). Vol. 4, pp. 15–258.
Villar, M., and Lloret, A. 2008. Influence of dry density and water content on the
swelling of a compacted bentonite. Applied Clay Science, 39(1–2): 38–49.
doi:10.1016/j.clay.2007.04.007.
Wang, Q., Tang, A.M., Cui, Y.-J., Delage, P., and Gatmiri, B. 2012. Experimental
study on the swelling behaviour of bentonite/claystone mixture. Engineering
Geology, 124: 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.003.
Wang, Q., Minh Tang, A., Cui, Y.-J., Delage, P., Barnichon, J.D., and Ye, W.M. 2013.
The effects of technological voids on the hydro-mechanical behaviour of
compacted bentonite–sand mixture. Soils and Foundations, 53(2): 232–245.
doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2013.02.004.
Ye, W.M., Wan, M., Chen, B., Chen, Y.G., Cui, Y.-J., and Wang, J. 2012. Tempera-
ture effects on the unsaturated permeability of the densely compacted
GMZ01 bentonite under confined conditions. Engineering Geology, 126: 1–7.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.011.
Yong, R.N., Boonsinsuk, P., and Wong, G. 1986. Formulation of backfill material
for a nuclear fuel waste disposal vault. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23(2):
216–228. doi:10.1139/t86-031.
Published by NRC Research Press