Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T11:14:30.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Matrix Diffusion Measurements – Through Diffusion versus Electrical Conductivity Measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Y. Ohlsson
Affiliation:
Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
I. Neretnieks
Affiliation:
Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Get access

Abstract

Matrix diffusion laboratory experiments in dense porous rock are generally very time consuming and one is limited to rather short diffusion lengths, as well as to a small amount of samples. The large heterogeneity of rock, on the other hand, demands a large quantity of samples that are large enough to exclude effects from e.g. increases in interconnected porosity compared to that of the pristine rock.

Electrical conductivity measurements are very fast and larger samples can be used than is practical in ordinary diffusion experiments. The effective diffusivity of a non-charged molecule is readily evaluated from the measurements, and influences from surface conductivity on diffusion of cations can be studied.

In this study traditional through diffusion experiments as well as electrical conductivity measurements are carried out on the same rock samples. The formation factor is determined by both methods, and the methods are compared and discussed.

The surface conductivity is studied by exchanging the surface sites with Na+, Sr2+ and Cs+. After leaching out the free pore ions the surface conductivity is measured.

With the electrical conductivity method the formation factor is determined directly, whereas it has to be calculated using the bulk liquid diffusion coefficient in the diffusion experiments. This causes some uncertainties in the comparison between the experiments. In estimating the bulk liquid diffusivity, the value for infinitely diluted solutions and in pure water environment is commonly used. The calculated formation factor may therefore be somewhat underestimated.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ohlsson, Y., Neretnieks, I., Löfgren, M. Rock matrix diffusivity determinations by in-situ electrical conductivity measurements. Accepted for publication in Journal of Contaminated Hydrology Jan 2000.Google Scholar
2. Skagius, K. Diffusion of dissolved species in the matrix of some Swedish crystalline rocks. 1986. PhD. Thesis. Dept. of Chem. Eng. Royal Inst. of Techn., Sweden.Google Scholar
3. Kumpulainen, H., Uusheimo, K. Diffusivity and electrical resistivity measurements in rock matrix around fractures. Nuclear waste commission of Finnish power companies. Report YJT- 89-19. December 1989.Google Scholar
4. Crank, J. The mathematics of diffusion. 2nd edition. Oxford university press, 1975.Google Scholar
5. Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C. Conduction of heat in solids. 2:nd edition. Oxford university press, 1959.Google Scholar
6. Rhen, I., Stanfors, R., Wikberg, P., Forsmark, T. Comparative study between cored test borehole KA3191F and the first 200 m extension of the TBM tunnel. SKB PR 25-95-09. May 1995.Google Scholar
7. Rasilainen, K., Hellmuth, K-H., Kivekä, L., Melamed, A., Ruskeeniemi, T., Siitari-Kauppi, M., Timonen, J., Valkiainen, M. An interlaboratory comparison of methods for measuring rock matrix porosity. VTT Research notes 1776. Espoo 1996.Google Scholar
8. Mazurek, M., Bossart, P., Eliasson, T. Classification and characterization of water-conducting features at Äspö: Results of investigations on the outcrop scale. SKB Technical Report TR-97-01. December 1996.Google Scholar
9. Keller, G. V., Frichknecht, F.C. Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon press. 1966.Google Scholar