WSRC-STI-2006-00198, Rev. 0, 'Hydraulic Property Data ...HYDRAULIC PROPERTY DATA PACKAGE FOR THE E-AREA AND Z-AREA SOILS, CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS, AND WASTE ZONES SEPTEMBER 2006 Prepared

WSRC-STI-2006-00198 REVISION 0

Key Words: Soil Concrete Infiltration Retention: Permanent

HYDRAULIC PROPERTY DATA PACKAGE FOR THE E-AREA AND Z-AREA SOILS, CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS,

AND WASTE ZONES

SEPTEMBER 2006 Prepared By: M. A. Phifer M. R. Millings G. P. Flach Washington Savannah River Company

Washington Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500


DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared for the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-96SR18500 and is an account of work performed under that contract. Neither the United States Department of Energy, nor WSRC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, or product or process disclosed herein or represents that its use will not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, name, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring of same by Washington Savannah River Company or by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Printed in the United States of America

Prepared For

U.S. Department of Energy


Key Words: Soil Concrete Infiltration Retention: Permanent

HYDRAULIC PROPERTY DATA PACKAGE FOR THE E-AREA AND Z-AREA SOILS, CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS,

AND WASTE ZONES

SEPTEMBER 2006 Prepared By: M. A. Phifer M. R. Millings G. P. Flach Washington Savannah River Company

Washington Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500


This page intentionally left blank.


iii

REVIEWS AND APPROVALS Authors


iv



v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... xv

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1

2.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................... 3

3.0 APPROACH TO DATA SELECTION .................................................................... 5

4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................... 7 4.1 GENERAL SAVANNAH RIVER SITE DESCRIPTION................................... 7 4.2 E-AREA LOW-LEVEL WASTE FACILITY (LLWF) GENERAL

DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Z-AREA SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY (SDF) GENERAL

DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 12 4.4 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY....................................................................... 14 4.5 E-AREA LLWF DISPOSAL UNIT TYPES ....................................................... 18

4.5.1 Slit Trenches .................................................................................................... 18 4.5.2 Engineered Trenches....................................................................................... 22 4.5.3 Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches .......................................................... 25 4.5.4 Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vault ................................................................. 31 4.5.5 Intermediate Level (IL) Vault........................................................................ 36 4.5.6 Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas................................................... 42

4.6 Z-AREA SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY (SDF) VAULTS................... 45 4.6.1 Vault 1 .............................................................................................................. 45 4.6.2 Vault 4 .............................................................................................................. 49 4.6.3 Vault 2 .............................................................................................................. 54 4.6.4 Saltstone Vault Operation and Closure ........................................................ 57

5.0 SOILS DATA ............................................................................................................ 63 5.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 63

5.1.1 Goal................................................................................................................... 63 5.1.2 Data Used in Evaluation ................................................................................. 63

5.2 UNDISTURBED VADOSE ZONE SOIL............................................................ 68 5.2.1 Grain Size......................................................................................................... 68 5.2.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................ 70 5.2.3 Water Retention .............................................................................................. 93 5.2.4 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density ..................................................... 106 5.2.5 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient (De) ........................................... 106

5.3 CONTROLLED COMPACTED BACKFILL.................................................. 111 5.3.1 Grain Size....................................................................................................... 111


vi

5.3.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................. 111 5.3.3 Water Retention ............................................................................................ 112 5.3.4 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density ..................................................... 113 5.3.5 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient (De)............................................ 113

5.4 OPERATIONAL SOIL COVER ....................................................................... 115 5.4.1 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................. 115 5.4.2 Water Retention ............................................................................................ 118 5.4.3 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density ..................................................... 119 5.4.4 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient (De)............................................ 121

5.5 IL VAULT PERMEABLE BACKFILL & GRAVEL ..................................... 121 5.5.1 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................. 121 5.5.2 Water Retention ............................................................................................ 122 5.5.3 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density ..................................................... 122 5.5.4 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient (De)............................................ 125

5.6 SATURATED ZONE .......................................................................................... 125 5.6.1 Saturated Zone Hydraulic Properties ......................................................... 125 5.6.2 Lower Vadose Zone Versus Saturated Zone Porosity ............................... 128

5.7 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 132 5.8 COMPARISON TO OBSERVED SUCTION LEVELS IN THE FIELD ..... 141 5.9 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 141

6.0 CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL DATA................................................................ 157 6.1 EXTERNAL LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................ 157

6.1.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density.............................................. 157 6.1.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and Saturated Intrinsic Permeability

....................................................................................................................... 164 6.1.3 Characteristic Curves (Suction Head, Saturation, and Relative

Permeability) ............................................................................................... 169 6.1.4 Saturated Effective Diffusivity..................................................................... 176

6.2 INTERNAL LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................. 188 6.2.1 1985 Saltstone Physical and Mechanical Properties (Langton 2005;

Licastro et al. 1985)..................................................................................... 188 6.2.2 1986 and 1987 Saltstone Diffusivity Testing (Langton 1986; Langton 1987)

....................................................................................................................... 190 6.2.3 1993 Physical Properties Measurement Program (Yu et al. 1993) ........... 193 6.2.4 2005 Concrete Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density (Sappington

and Phifer 2005) .......................................................................................... 199 6.2.5 2006 Component-in-Grout (CIG) Grout and Intermediate Level (IL) Vault

Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Testing (Dixon and Phifer 2006) ............................................................................................................. 201

6.3 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL NOMINAL PROPERTY REPRESENTATIONS .............................................................. 207

6.3.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density.............................................. 207 6.3.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................. 213 6.3.3 Characteristic Curves (Suction Head, Saturation, and Relative

Permeability) ............................................................................................... 215 6.3.4 Saturated Effective Diffusivity..................................................................... 231


vii

6.3.5 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Nominal Property Summary....................................................................................................................... 236

6.4 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL UNCERTAINTY REPRESENTATION ....................................................................................... 247

6.4.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density Uncertainty ........................ 247 6.4.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Uncertainty ......................................... 254 6.4.3 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Uncertainty .............................. 258

6.5 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CRACKED CONCRETE REPRESENTATION... 261

7.0 WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION.................................................................. 263 7.1 SLIT AND ENGINEERED TRENCH WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION

............................................................................................................................. 263 7.1.1 Trenches prior to Dynamic Compaction..................................................... 263 7.1.2 Trenches after Dynamic Compaction.......................................................... 264

7.2 COMPONENT-IN-GROUT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION ............. 265 7.2.1 CIG Structurally and Hydraulically Intact Conditions............................. 265 7.2.2 CIG Structurally Intact but Hydraulically Degraded Conditions............ 266 7.2.3 CIG Structurally and Hydraulically Degraded Conditions ...................... 266

7.3 LAW VAULT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION..................................... 267 7.3.1 Prior to LAW Vault Collapse....................................................................... 267 7.3.2 After LAW Vault Collapse ........................................................................... 267

7.4 IL VAULT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION .......................................... 268 7.4.1 Prior to IL Vault Collapse ............................................................................ 268 7.4.2 After IL Vault Collapse ................................................................................ 268

7.5 E-AREA DISPOSAL UNIT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 269

8.0 INFILTRATION ESTIMATES ............................................................................ 271

9.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 283 9.1 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 283 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 285

10.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 287

APPENDIX A: Detailed Data and Calculations – 1986 and 1987 Saltstone Diffusivity Testing (Langton 1986; Langton 1987) .................................. 303

APPENDIX B: Detailed Data and Calculations – 1993 Physical Properties Measurement Program (Yu et al. 1993).................................................... 315


viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1. Location of Savannah River Site and Adjacent Areas............................. 8 Figure 4-2. Physiographic Location of Savannah River Site ...................................... 9 Figure 4-3. Location of the General Separations Area.............................................. 11 Figure 4-4. Location of Facilities within the E-Area LLWF..................................... 12 Figure 4-5. Location of Facilities within the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility

(SDF).......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-6. Regional NW to SE cross section depicting generalized lithology and

depositional environments for the SRS (figure from Wyatt and Harris, 2004) . 15 Figure 4-7. Comparison of lithostratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic units at SRS

.................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-8. Subdivision of the UAZ by previous studies for the central SRS ......... 17 Figure 4-9. Operational Slit Trench Photographs ..................................................... 20 Figure 4-10. Slit and Engineered Trench Closure Cap Configuration.................... 21 Figure 4-11. Operational Engineered Trench Photographs ..................................... 24 Figure 4-12. CIG Trench Closure Cap Configuration .............................................. 27 Figure 4-13. CIG Trench Closure Cap Cross-Section............................................... 27 Figure 4-14. CIG-1 Segment 6 Placement Sequence.................................................. 30 Figure 4-15. LAW Vault Photographs ........................................................................ 32 Figure 4-16. LAW Vault Cross-sectional view (A-A′) ............................................... 33 Figure 4-17. LAW Vault Closure Cap Configuration ............................................... 35 Figure 4-18. IL Vault Exterior View........................................................................... 37 Figure 4-19. IL Vault Interior Views .......................................................................... 38 Figure 4-20. E-Area IL Vault Plan View .................................................................... 39 Figure 4-21. E-Area IL Vault ILV Section A-A......................................................... 40 Figure 4-22. IL Vault Closure Cap Configuration .................................................... 43 Figure 4-23. Operational Naval Reactor Component Disposal Area Photograph.. 44 Figure 4-24. Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vaults 1 and 4 Photograph (12-1-02)

.................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4-25. Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vault 1 Plan View........................... 47 Figure 4-26. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 1 Section A-A................................... 48 Figure 4-27. SDF Vault 4 Plan View ........................................................................... 51 Figure 4-28. SDF Vault 4 Section A-A ........................................................................ 52 Figure 4-29. SDF Vault 2 Cross-Section ..................................................................... 55 Figure 4-30. SDF Vault 2 Details ................................................................................. 56 Figure 4-31. Generic SDF Top Slope Closure Cap Configuration........................... 59 Figure 4-32. Generic SDF Side Slope Closure Cap Configuration .......................... 59 Figure 4-33. Vault 1 and 4 Side Vertical and Vault Base Drainage Layers ............ 60 Figure 5-1. Map of E-Area Soils Data Set Locations................................................. 65 Figure 5-2. Map of Z-Area Soils Data Set Locations................................................. 66 Figure 5-3. Textural Triangle for E-Area and Z-Area Vadose Zone Soils.............. 69 Figure 5-4. Original Sample Bulk Density versus Bulk Density of Hydraulic

Conductivity Samples .............................................................................................. 71 Figure 5-5. Percent Mud vs Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity.................................. 72


ix

Figure 5-6. Distribution of Percent Mud for All E-Area Grain Size Analyses vs Samples Used in Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation........................................... 74

Figure 5-7. Distribution of Percent Mud for All Z-Area Grain Size Analyses and for Samples Used in Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation .................................... 75

Figure 5-8. Methodology Used in Global Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Estimate (based on textural properties and layer thickness at AT-North/Megacptnorth)............................................................................................... 84

Figure 5-9. Upper and Lower Zones for EAVZCPT8............................................... 86 Figure 5-10. E-Area Map Showing Transects for Cross-sections............................. 87 Figure 5-11. Cross-section of Transect 1 in E-Area................................................... 88 Figure 5-12. Cross-section of Transect 2 in E-Area................................................... 89 Figure 5-13. Z-Area Map Showing Transects ............................................................ 90 Figure 5-14. Cross-section of Transect 1 in Z-Area................................................... 91 Figure 5-15. Cross-section of Transect 2 in Z-Area................................................... 92 Figure 5-16. Saturation versus Suction for Textural Categories - Clay and Clay-

Sand ........................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 5-17. Saturation versus Suction for Textural Categories - Sand.................. 96 Figure 5-18. Average Saturation versus Suction for Sand........................................ 96 Figure 5-19. Saturation vs Suction for the Upper and Lower Zones ....................... 99 Figure 5-20. Saturation vs Suction for the Single Zone........................................... 100 Figure 5-21. Comparison of Saturation vs Suction Curves..................................... 100 Figure 5-22. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Textural Categories -

Clay and Clay-Sand ............................................................................................... 101 Figure 5-23. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Textural Categories -

Sand ......................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 5-24. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for the Upper and Lower

Zones........................................................................................................................ 103 Figure 5-25. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for the Single Zone ..... 104 Figure 5-26. Comparison of Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity Curves104 Figure 5-27. Water Retention Curves for the Textural Categories and Zones..... 105 Figure 5-28. Photomicrographs of Vadose Zone Soils from A-Area...................... 110 Figure 5-29. Textural Triangle for Controlled Compacted Backfill ...................... 112 Figure 5-30. Saturation vs Suction for Controlled Compacted Backfill................ 114 Figure 5-31. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Controlled Compacted

Backfill .................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 5-32. Saturation vs Suction for Operational Soil Cover Prior and After

Dynamic Compaction............................................................................................. 120 Figure 5-33. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Operational Soil

Cover Prior and After Dynamic Compaction ..................................................... 120 Figure 5-34. Saturation vs Suction for IL Vault Permeable Backfill..................... 123 Figure 5-35. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for IL Vault Permeable

Backfill .................................................................................................................... 123 Figure 5-36. Saturation vs Suction for Gravel ......................................................... 124 Figure 5-37. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Gravel .................... 124 Figure 5-38. Effective Flow through a Heterogeneous Layered Porous Medium. 130


x

Figure 5-39. Effective Porosity Assumptions for Three Combinations of Layering and Permeability Contrast .................................................................................... 130

Figure 5-40. Variation in Sand and Clay Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity as a Function of Suction Head ...................................................................................... 131

Figure 5-41. Estimated Effective Porosity for Vadose Zone Simulations.............. 131 Figure 6-1. Porosity of Concrete, Mortar, and Cementitious Paste with WCR.... 163 Figure 6-2. Hanford Concrete and DSSF Grout Characteristic Curves (Rockhold

et al. 1993) ............................................................................................................... 171 Figure 6-3. Savage and Janssen 1997 Characteristic Curves ................................. 172 Figure 6-4. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 Characteristic Curves .............................. 176 Figure 6-5. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient of Concrete and Mortar with

WCR ........................................................................................................................ 187 Figure 6-6. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves............................. 225 Figure 6-7. Nominal and Bounding Hydraulic Conductivity Curves .................... 225 Figure 6-8. E-Area CLSM Characteristic Curves ................................................... 227 Figure 6-9. Selected Literature Concrete Characteristic Curves........................... 228 Figure 6-10. Saltstone and Hanford DSSF Grout Characteristic Curves ............. 231


xi

LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1. E-Area LLWF High Flow Grout Formulation ........................................ 28 Table 4-2. E-Area LLWF Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Formulation

.................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 4-3. E-Area LLWF 3000 psi Concrete Formulations...................................... 29 Table 4-4. E-Area LLWF LAW Vault and IL Vault Concrete Formulation.......... 34 Table 4-5. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 1 Concrete Formulations (Dixon

2005a) ........................................................................................................................ 49 Table 4-6. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 4 Concrete Formulations (Dixon

2005b) ........................................................................................................................ 53 Table 4-7. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 2 Concrete Formulation (Class 3

Sulfate Resistant Concrete) (WSRC 2006a; Chiappetto 2006) ............................ 57 Table 4-8. Saltstone Waste Form (WSRC 1992) ........................................................ 60 Table 4-9. Saltstone Disposal Facility Clean Grout Cap Formulation (Langton et

al. 2005) ..................................................................................................................... 60 Table 4-10. Current Vaults 1 Disposal Status (as of July 2006) ............................... 61 Table 4-11. Current Vaults 4 Disposal Status (as of July 2006) ............................... 61 Table 5-1. Test Methods Used in Analyses ................................................................. 64 Table 5-2. Datasets for E-Area and Z-Area Undisturbed Vadose Zone Soil .......... 65 Table 5-3. Datasets for E-Area and Z-Area Controlled Compacted Soil ................ 66 Table 5-4. Vadose Zone Soils Categorized by USCS ................................................. 70 Table 5-5. Distribution of Mud Fraction in E-Area and Z-Area vs the Hydraulic

Conductivity Dataset................................................................................................ 73 Table 5-6. Upscaling Parameters for Hydraulic Conductivity ................................. 82 Table 5-7. Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity...................................... 83 Table 5-8. Pump Test Results from the Water Table Aquifer at TNX and D-Area93 Table 5-9. Summary Bulk Properties for Vadose Zone Soils & Controlled

Compacted Backfill ................................................................................................ 107 Table 5-10. Literature Values for Molecular Diffusion Coefficient (Dm) .............. 108 Table 5-11. Tortuosity Values from Literature and this Evaluation ..................... 109 Table 5-12. Calculated Effective Diffusion Coefficients.......................................... 111 Table 5-13. Ksat from Lamb and Whitman (1969) and calculated Ksat for the

Operational Soil Cover Prior to DC ..................................................................... 116 Table 5-14. Saturated Zone Soils Hydraulic Properties.......................................... 128 Table 5-15. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Total Porosity, Dry Bulk

Density, and Particle Density ................................................................................ 134 Table 5-16. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity............................................................................................................ 137 Table 5-17. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Effective

Diffusion Coefficient .............................................................................................. 140 Table 5-18. Summary of Recommended Soil Properties......................................... 142 Table 5-19. Characteristic Curve Values for the Upper, Lower & Single Vadose

Zone ......................................................................................................................... 144 Table 5-20. Characteristic Curve Values for Textural Categories......................... 147


xii

Table 5-21. Characteristic Curve Values for the Operational Soil Cover & Controlled Compacted Backfill ............................................................................ 150

Table 5-22. Characteristic Curve Values for Gravel & IL Vault Permeable Backfill.................................................................................................................................. 153

Table 6-1. Porosity of Concrete (i.e., contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water) ............................................................................................................... 160

Table 6-2. Porosity of Mortars (i.e., contains cementitious material, fine aggregate, and water) ............................................................................................................... 161

Table 6-3. Porosity of Cementitious Pastes (i.e., contains cementitious material and water)....................................................................................................................... 162

Table 6-4. Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .................. 168 Table 6-5. Hanford Concrete and DSSF Grout Hydraulic Properties .................. 170 Table 6-6. Savage and Janssen 1997 WCR, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, and

van Genuchten Curve Fitting Parameters........................................................... 172 Table 6-7. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 Concrete Mixes .......................................... 173 Table 6-8. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 and Corresponding RETC Parameters and

Parameter Values ................................................................................................... 175 Table 6-9. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concretes (contains

cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water).................................................... 182 Table 6-10. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Mortars (contains cement,

fine aggregate, and water) ..................................................................................... 184 Table 6-11. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Cementitious Pastes

(contains cementitious materials and water) ....................................................... 185 Table 6-12. Diffusion Coefficients for two Hanford Grouted Low-Level Salt

Solutions (Serne et al. 1992) .................................................................................. 187 Table 6-13. Comparison of PSU Mix No. 84-45 to the Reference Saltstone

Composition ............................................................................................................ 188 Table 6-14. Selected physical properties of PSU Mix No. 84-45 (from Table 9

Licastro et al. 1985) ................................................................................................ 190 Table 6-15. Saltstone Formulations Utilized for Diffusivity Testing...................... 191 Table 6-16. Saltstone Diffusivity and Wet Bulk Density Data ................................ 191 Table 6-17. Calculated Effective Diffusion Coefficient ........................................... 192 Table 6-18. Summary E-Area Vault Concrete Properties from Core Laboratories

Testing (Yu et al. 1993) .......................................................................................... 195 Table 6-19. Summary Saltstone Vault Concrete Properties from Core Laboratories

Testing (Yu et al. 1993) .......................................................................................... 196 Table 6-20. Summary Saltstone Waste Form Properties from Core Laboratories

Testing (Yu et al. 1993) .......................................................................................... 197 Table 6-21. Unsaturated Intrinsic Permeability from Core Laboratories Testing

(Yu et al. 1993)........................................................................................................ 198 Table 6-22. Concrete Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density (Sappington and

Phifer 2005)............................................................................................................. 200 Table 6-23. Grout and CLSM Compressive Strength ............................................. 201 Table 6-24. Grout Hydraulic and Physical Properties ............................................ 202 Table 6-25. Grout Water Retention Properties as Measured by GeoTesting

Express, Inc............................................................................................................. 204


xiii

Table 6-26. Grout Water Retention Properties as Measured by Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................................................................. 204

Table 6-27. CLSM Hydraulic and Physical Properties ........................................... 205 Table 6-28. CLSM Water Retention Properties as Measured by GeoTesting

Express, Inc............................................................................................................. 206 Table 6-29. CLSM Water Retention Properties as Measured by Idaho National

Laboratory .............................................................................................................. 206 Table 6-30. Site-Specific Porosity and Bulk Density Laboratory Data.................. 208 Table 6-31. Particle Density Calculated from Site-Specific Porosity and Bulk

Density Laboratory Data....................................................................................... 208 Table 6-32. Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs and Roof Porosity Calculations . 209 Table 6-33. Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs and Roof Particle Density

Calculations ............................................................................................................ 211 Table 6-34. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Porosity, Bulk Density, and

Particle Density Representation Summary.......................................................... 212 Table 6-35. Site-Specific Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Laboratory Data.... 213 Table 6-36. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Representation Summary............................................................... 215 Table 6-37. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material to Represent CIG

Grout Micro- and Macro-Porosity ....................................................................... 218 Table 6-38. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material Characteristic

Curve Data.............................................................................................................. 219 Table 6-39. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves ............................ 222 Table 6-40. E-Area CLSM van Genuchten Parameters.......................................... 226 Table 6-41. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Characteristic Curve

Representation........................................................................................................ 229 Table 6-42. Hanford DSSF Grout, Z-Area Saltstone, and Z-Area Clean Grout Cap

Comparison............................................................................................................. 230 Table 6-43. Hanford DSSF Grout and Saltstone Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivities and Porosities Utilized for Leverett Scaling............................... 230 Table 6-44. Cementitious Material Categories for Assignment of Representative

Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient ............................................................ 233 Table 6-45. E-Area and Z-Area Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient

Representation Summary...................................................................................... 234 Table 6-46. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Saturated Effective

Diffusion Coefficient Representation Summary ................................................. 235 Table 6-47. E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Nominal Cementitious Material

Hydraulic Property Values.................................................................................... 237 Table 6-48. E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Cementitious Material

Characteristic Curves ............................................................................................ 238 Table 6-49. Site-Specific Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density Nominal

Value and Standard Deviation of Mean............................................................... 249 Table 6-50. Concrete Material Categorization......................................................... 250 Table 6-51. Low, Ordinary, and High Quality Concrete Assigned Standard

Deviation of Mean for Effective Porosity, Dry Bulk Density, and Particle Density..................................................................................................................... 250


xiv

Table 6-52. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Effective Porosity (%) ..................................................................... 251

Table 6-53. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3) ................................................................ 252

Table 6-54. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Particle Density (g/cm3) ................................................................... 253

Table 6-55. Site-Specific Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Nominal Value and Standard Deviation of Mean ................................................................................. 256

Table 6-56. Low, Ordinary, and High Quality Concrete Assigned Ratio of Standard Deviation of Mean to Nominal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Value........................................................................................................................ 256

Table 6-57. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity................................................. 257

Table 6-58. Log Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Standard Deviation for Concretes................................................................................................................. 259

Table 6-59. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient ...................................... 260

Table 7-1. E-Area Disposal Unit Waste Zone Representation Summary.............. 270 Table 8-1. E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration without

Subsidence (Phifer 2003; Phifer 2004a) ............................................................... 273 Table 8-2. E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration with

Subsidence (Hang et al. 2005 and Swingle and Phifer 2006).............................. 274 Table 8-3. E-Area CIG Trench Segments 1 through 8 Infiltration........................ 275 Table 8-4. E-Area CIG Trench Future Segments Infiltration................................ 276 Table 8-5. E-Area LAW Vault Infiltration (Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft)) ......... 277 Table 8-6. E-Area IL Vault Infiltration (Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft)) .............. 278 Table 8-7. E-Area NRCDAs Infiltration (Phifer 2003; Phifer 2004a).................... 279 Table 8-8. Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vaults Infiltration (Phifer

2003; Phifer 2005) .................................................................................................. 280


xv

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS ALARA as low as reasonably achievable bls below land surface CA Composite Analysis CIG components-in-grout CPT cone penetration test CSRA Central Savannah River Area DC dynamic compaction DWS drinking water standard EDE effective dose equivalent EMOP E-Area Monitoring Program ET engineered trenches FY fiscal year HLW high-level waste IL Intermediate Level ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection ILNT intermediate-level non-tritium JCW job control waste LAW low-activity waste LLWF Low-Level Waste Facility MC Monte Carlo MCL maximum contaminant level MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements NQA Nuclear Quality Assurance OSR operations/safety requirement ORWBGCF Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground Common Fill Layer ORWBGLPL Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground Low Permeability Layer PA Performance Assessment QA quality assurance SAR Safety Analysis Report SRS Savannah River Site ST slit trenches TRU transuranic USCS Unified Soil Classification System USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey


xvi

ABBREVIATIONS cm centimeter ρb dry bulk density ρp particle density De saturated effective diffusion coefficient Dm molecular diffusion coefficient ft foot (or feet) g gram(s) hr hour K hydraulic conductivity Ksat saturated hydraulic conductivity Kh horizontal hydraulic conductivity Kr relative hydraulic conductivity Kv vertical hydraulic conductivity kg kilogram km kilometer L liter m meter mL milliliter mrem millirem n or η Porosity pCi picocurie psi pounds per square inch s or sec second Sv Sievert yr year


1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hydraulic property estimates for the soils, the cementitious materials, and the waste zones associated with the E-Area and Z-Area low-level radioactive waste disposal units have been provided to support the Performance Assessments (PA) for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (LLWF) and the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Nominal or “best estimate” hydraulic property values for use in the deterministic modeling are provided along with representations of the hydraulic property value uncertainty for use in sensitivity and uncertainty modeling. The hydraulic properties provided for each of the E-Area and Z-Area materials include porosity (η), dry bulk density (ρb), particle density (ρp), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient (De). A representation of the uncertainty associated with each property, except for the characteristic curves, is provided for each material, except for the E-Area waste zones. These nominal parameter values and parameter uncertainty representations for each of the E-Area and Z-Area soils, cementitious materials, and waste zones are based upon the following in order of priority: • Site-specific field data, • Site-specific laboratory data, • Similarity to material with site-specific field or laboratory data, and • Literature data. Additionally a methodology to represent cracked concrete is provided and recommended infiltration estimates for each disposal unit type are provided. Finally, since much of the nominal hydraulic property values and uncertainty representations for the E-Area and Z-Area soils, cementitious materials, and waste zones are based on similarity to other materials or literature data, a methodology to prioritize additional work to better define these values and representations is outlined. Prioritization should be based on the importance of the material and/or property to the results of deterministic, sensitivity, and uncertainty modeling. This prioritization should be established through a process of sensitivity modeling.


2



3

2.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The primary objective of this report is to provide hydraulic property estimates for the soils, the cementitious materials, and the waste zones associated with the E-Area and Z-Area low-level radioactive waste disposal units. These hydraulic property estimates will be utilized as input to deterministic, sensitivity, and uncertainty modeling conducted to support the Performance Assessments (PA) for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (LLWF) and the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). The hydraulic properties provided for each of the E-Area and Z-Area materials include porosity (η), dry bulk density (ρb), particle density (ρp), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient (De). Nominal or “best estimate” values are provided for use in the deterministic modeling, and representations of the value uncertainty are provided for use in sensitivity and uncertainty modeling efforts. In addition recommended infiltration estimates for each of the disposal unit type, are provided for use in the deterministic modeling efforts. This report does not provide hydraulic property estimates for the final closure cap to be installed over the disposal units nor for the aquifers (i.e., saturated zone). The final closure caps are described in detail and estimated material properties are provided, along with associated infiltration estimates, elsewhere. Minimal aquifer (i.e., saturated zone) estimated material properties are provided herein, since the aquifers and their properties are described in detail elsewhere.


4



5

3.0 APPROACH TO DATA SELECTION The property values assigned for the porosity (η), dry bulk density (ρb), particle density (ρp), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient (De) for each of the E-Area and Z-Area soils, cementitious materials, and waste zones are based upon the following in order of priority:

• Site-specific field data, • Site-specific laboratory data, • Similarity to material with site-specific field or laboratory data, and • Literature data.


6



7

4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4.1 GENERAL SAVANNAH RIVER SITE DESCRIPTION The SRS occupies about 300 square miles (780 km2) in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties on the Upper Atlantic Coastal Plain of southwestern South Carolina (Figure 4-1). The center of the SRS is approximately 22 miles (36 km) southeast of Augusta, GA; 20 miles (32 km) south of Aiken, SC; 100 miles (160 km) from the Atlantic Coast; and is bounded on the southwest by the Savannah River for about 17 miles (28 km). The Fall Line, which separates the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province from the Piedmont physiographic province, is approximately (50 km) northwest of the central SRS (Figure 4-2).

The elevation of the SRS ranges from 80 ft above mean sea level (msl) (24 m msl) at the Savannah River to about 400 ft-msl (122 m msl) in the upper northwest portion of the site (USGS, 1987). The Pleistocene Coastal terraces and the Aiken Plateau form two distinct physiographic subregions at the SRS (McAllister et al, 1996). The Pleistocene Coastal terraces are below 270 ft-msl (82 m msl) in elevation, with the lowest terrace constituting the present flood plain along the Savannah River and the higher terraces characterized by gently rolling terrain. The relatively flat Aiken Plateau occurs above 270 ft-msl (82 m msl) and is dissected by local streams.


8

Charleston, SC

Savannah, GA

Aiken

Augusta

Savannah

River

Atlantic Ocean

0 25 50 Kilometers

0 15 30 Miles

Allendale

Bamberg

HamptonJenkinsScreven

Burke

Aiken

Edgefield

Saluda

Barnwell

Orangeburg

Lexington

Richmond

Columbia

N

Figure 4-1. Location of Savannah River Site and Adjacent Areas


9

0 50 100 Kilometers

GEORGIA

NORTHCAROLINA

Coastal Plain

PiedmontFall Line

SRS

0 30 60 Miles

N

Figure 4-2. Physiographic Location of Savannah River Site


10

4.2 E-AREA LOW-LEVEL WASTE FACILITY (LLWF) GENERAL DESCRIPTION The E-Area Low Level Waste Facility (LLWF) is located in the central region of the SRS known as the General Separations Area (GSA) (Figure 4-3). Radiological operations at the E-Area LLWF began in 1994. The current E-Area LLWF area developed for disposal consists of approximately 100 acres (0.4 km2). It is an elbow-shaped, cleared area, which curves to the northwest, situated immediately north of the Mixed Waste Management Facility (MWMF) (Figure 4-3). The E-Area LLWF is located on an interfluvial plateau, which is drained by several perennial streams (Figure 4-3). The natural topography of the site slopes from an elevation of about 290 ft-msl (88 m-msl) in the southernmost corner to an elevation of 250 ft-msl (76 m-msl) in the northernmost corner. The site is bordered by three streams with several intermittent streams present within the area boundary. Runoff is to the north toward Upper Three Runs Creek, to the east toward Crouch Branch, and to the west toward an unnamed branch. Upper Three Runs is approximately 2,500 ft (760 m) north of the facility boundary. The nearest perennial stream is approximately 1,200 (370 m) northeast of the boundary. Disposal units within the footprint of the LLWF include the Slit Trenches, Engineered Trenches, Component-In-Grout (CIG) Trenches, the Low Activity Waste (LAW) Vault, the Intermediate Level (IL) Vault, and the Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs) (Figure 4-4).


11

GSA

ORWBG

MWMF

LLWF

F Area H Area

S Area

Z Area

E Area

Upper Three Runs

Fourmile Branch

McQueen Branch

LegendRoadsPerennial StreamIntermittent StreamFacility Areas

LLWF = Low Level Waste FacilityMWMF = Mixed Waste Management FacilityORWBG = Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground

0 500 1,000 Meters

0 1,500 3,000 Feet

N

Figure 4-3. Location of the General Separations Area


12

Figure 4-4. Location of Facilities within the E-Area LLWF

4.3 Z-AREA SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY (SDF) GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) is located in the central region of the SRS known as the General Separations Area (GSA) (Figure 4-3). Radiological operations at the SDF began in 1990. Z-Area is an approximately 160 acres (0.65 km2) rectangular shaped area situated north of S-Area (Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF)). The Z-Area SDF is located on the edge of an interfluvial plateau, which is drained by several perennial streams (Figure 4-3). The natural topography of the site slopes from an elevation of about 300 ft-msl (91 m-msl) in the southernmost corner to an elevation of 240 ft-msl (73 m-msl) in the easternmost corner, to 258 ft-msl (79 m-msl) in the northernmost corner, and to 270 ft-msl (82 m-msl) in the westernmost corner . The site is bordered by McQueen Branch in the northeast and Upper Three Runs in the northwest. McQueen Branch is a tributary of Upper Three Runs. Runoff proceeds radially off the site. Runoff proceeds northeast toward McQueen Branch and northwest toward Upper Three Runs. Upper Three Runs is approximately 4000 ft (1,200 m) from the northwest corner of Z-Area, and McQueen Branch is approximately 500 ft (150 m) from northeast corner. There are currently two existing Saltstone Vaults (Vaults 1 and 4) and one vault currently under design (Vault 2) within the SDF as shown on Figure 4-5. Future vaults are planned similar to Vault 2 and their currently proposed locations are also shown on Figure 4-5.


13

Figure 4-5. Location of Facilities within the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) (Future vaults shown in blue and green.)

Vault 1Vault 4

Vault 2


14

4.4 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY The Atlantic Coastal Plain consists of a southeast-dipping wedge of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated sediment, which extends from its contact with the Piedmont Province at the Fall Line to the continental shelf edge. Sediments range in geologic age from Late Cretaceous to Recent and include sands, clays, limestones and gravels. This sedimentary sequence ranges in thickness from essentially zero at the Fall Line to more than 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) at the Atlantic Coast (Siple, 1967). Figure 4-6 shows a generalized cross section of the sedimentary strata and their corresponding depositional environments for the Upper Coastal Plain down-dip through the SRS into the Lower Coastal Plain. At the SRS, coastal plain sediments thicken from about 690 ft (210 m) at the northwestern border of the site to about 1,400 ft (430 m) at the southeastern border of the site (Fallaw and Price, 1995). More detailed descriptions of the geology of the SRS and GSA can be found in several historical and recent reports (Siple, 1967; Colquhoun et al, 1983; Dennehy et al, 1989; Logan and Euler, 1989; Aadland et al, 1991; Aadland et al, 1995; Fallaw et al, 1990; Fallaw and Price, 1995; Wyatt and Harris, 2004). This report focuses on the Tertiary age sediments and in particular, the sediments of the Upland Unit and the Tobacco Road Sand. These sediments are part of the Upper Aquifer Zone (UAZ) of the Upper Three Runs Aquifer. Figure 4-7 shows the regional lithologic units and their corresponding hydrostratigraphic units. The UAZ includes the Upland Unit, the Tobacco Road Sand and part of the Dry Branch Formation. Massive beds of sand and clayey sand with minor clay interbeds typically characterize the UAZ. The Upland unit commonly consists of very dense, clayey sediments and gravely sands. The top of the UAZ is defined by the present day water table. The water table typically mimics topography, but with subdued relief relative to topography. In past studies the UAZ for the central SRS has been subdivided into hydrostratigraphic intervals based on characteristic piezocone penetration test (CPT) logs (Flach et al, 1999; Flach et al, 2005). The vadose zone sediments evaluated in the present report are interpreted as being correlative to the “A” and “uu” intervals identified and described in these past studies (Figure 4-8). These studies described the “A” interval as correlative with the upper parts of the Tobacco Road Sand. This section is characterized by a relatively stable and low friction ratio curve, which is indicative of a more massively bedded unit with somewhat higher permeability than the units above and below it. The uppermost subdivision, “uu”, corresponds to the fluvial sediments of the Upland Unit, recent alluvial material deposited by active streams, and any local soil horizons that have formed in-situ from the lithostratigraphic units. This unit is characterized by a higher and more irregular friction ratio curve (Flach et al, 1999).


15

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

-450

Paleozoic Basement

Paleozoic Basement

Triassic

Dunbarton

Basin

Savannah River Site

Cretaceous

Paleocene

Eocene

Miocene

Upper & LowerDelta Plain

Nearshore to Open Marine

Deltaic to Shallow Shel

NearshoreMarine

Fluvial

Generalized Depositional Environments

Piedmont

CoastalPlain

FallLine

A

B

0 50 100Miles

A B150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

-450

Paleozoic Basement

Paleozoic Basement

Triassic

Dunbarton

Basin

Savannah River Site

Cretaceous

Paleocene

Eocene

Miocene




NearshoreMarine

Fluvial


Piedmont

CoastalPlain

FallLine

A

B

0 50 100Miles

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

150

50

-50

-150

-250

-350

ElevationMeters

-450

Paleozoic Basement

Paleozoic Basement

Triassic

Dunbarton

Basin

Savannah River Site

Cretaceous

Paleocene

Eocene

Miocene




NearshoreMarine

Fluvial





NearshoreMarine

Fluvial


Piedmont

CoastalPlain

FallLine

A

B

0 50 100Miles

A B

Figure 4-6. Regional NW to SE cross section depicting generalized lithology and

depositional environments for the SRS (figure from Wyatt and Harris, 2004)


16

CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS

UNITS (Modified from Fallaw and Price, 1995) (Modified from Aadland et al., 1995)

Era System Series Group Formation

Miocene(?) "upland" unit

Tobacco Road Sand

Twiggs Clay Member

Upper Griffins Landing Member

Irwinton Sand Member

Eocene

Middle Warley Hill Formation

Congaree Formation

Lower Fourmile Branch Formation

Upper Snapp Formation

Paleocene Lang Syne FormationLower Sawdust Landing Formation

Dry Branch Formation

Clinchfield Formation

Santee Formation

Black Mingo Group

Barnwell Group

Orangeburg Group

Upper Three R

uns Aquifer

Southeastern Coastal Plain H

ydrogeologic Province

Gordon Aquifer

CE

NO

ZO

IC

Upper Aquifer Zone (UAZ)

Floridan aquifer systemT

ertia

ry

Lower Aquifer Zone (LAZ)

Meyers Branch Confining Unit

Gordon Confining Unit

Tan Clay Confining Zone (TCCZ)

Figure 4-7. Comparison of lithostratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic units at SRS


17

Figure 4-8. Subdivision of the UAZ by previous studies for the central SRS Figure 4-8 is modified from Figure 2-22 from Flach et al, 1999 (WSRC-TR-99-000248 Rev. 0); sleeve stress, tip stress and ratio are from CPT (piezocone penetration test) measurements that reflect the physical properties of sediment and can be used to infer sediment type; gamma ray is a logging tool that measures the natural radioactivity in sediments and can be used to infer sediment type; elevation in feet from mean sea level (msl); sleeve stress and tip stress in tons per square feet; ratio incorporates sleeve stress/tip stress, in %; gamma ray in API units (American Petroleum Institute); UAZ = Upper Aquifer Zone; TCCZ=Tan Clay Confining Zone.


18

4.5 E-AREA LLWF DISPOSAL UNIT TYPES As discussed in Section 4.2 and shown on Figure 4-4, the E-Area LLWF contains the following six types of disposal units including Slit Trenches, Engineered Trenches, Component-In-Grout (CIG) Trenches, the Low Activity Waste (LAW) Vault, the Intermediate Level (IL) Vault, and the Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). The following sections (4.5.1 through 4.5.6) provide a description of each type of disposal unit. The information was primarily extracted from McDowell-Boyer et al. 2000 and Cook et al. 2004. References in addition to these are noted in the applicable sections.

4.5.1 Slit Trenches Slit Trenches are below-grade earthen disposal units with essentially vertical side slopes. The excavated soil is stockpiled for later placement over disposed waste. Slit Trenches are generally 20 feet (6.1 m) deep, 20 feet (6.1 m) wide, and 656 feet (200 m) long. Ten feet (3 m) to 14 feet (4.3 m) of undisturbed soil separates each trench. A set of five, 20-foot (6.1 m) wide Slit Trenches, are grouped together within a 157-foot (47.8 m) wide by 656-foot (200 m) long footprint. Seven such footprints, designated Slit 1 through 7, have been currently sited and waste has been placed within all seven units. Fourteen additional Slit Trench footprints have been designated for future disposals. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the seven existing and fourteen future Slit Trench footprints relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types. During the 25-year operational period, low-level waste consisting of soil, debris, rubble, wood, concrete, equipment, and job control waste is disposed within the Slit Trenches. Job control waste consists of potentially contaminated protective clothing (plastic suits, shoe covers, lab coats, etc.), plastic sheeting, etc. The waste may be disposed as bulk waste or contained within B-25 boxes, B-12 boxes, 55-gallon drums, SeaLand containers, and other metal containers. Trench excavation begins at one end of the trench and only proceeds as needed toward the other end of the trench in order to minimize the area of open trench and the time the trench section is open. Waste placement in turn begins at one end of the trench and proceeds toward the other end. Bulk waste is pushed into the trench from one end. Containerized waste and large equipment are typically placed in one end of the trench with a crane. Figure 4-9 provides operational photographs of Slit Trenches. Eventually containerized waste areas of the trench are filled in with either bulk waste or clean soil to fill the voids between adjacent containers and the trench wall. Slit trenches are typically filled to within four feet below the top of the trench with waste and daily cover, if required. Operational closure of the Slit Trenches will be conducted in stages. Once a section of the Slit Trench is filled, the stockpiled clean soil is bulldozed in a single lift over that section of trench to produce a minimum 4-foot (1.2 m) thick clean soil layer over the waste (i.e., operational soil cover). The operational soil cover is graded to provide positive drainage off and away from the disposal operation. Subsequent trench sections are filled with waste, covered with an operational soil cover, and graded to promote positive drainage until the entire trench is filled and covered.


19

The only mechanical compaction that the soil and waste in the trench receive is from the bulldozer and other heavy equipment moving over the top of a completely backfilled trench. Once a set of five Slit Trenches (i.e., the 157-foot (47.8 m) wide by 656-foot (200 m) long footprint) is filled, completely covered with the 4-foot (1.2 m) soil cover, and a vegetative cover of shallow rooted grass is established, it is considered operationally closed. After operational closure the subsidence potential of Slit Trenches is highly variable due to waste variability. The subsidence potential could range from zero for bulk waste to 13.5 feet for B-25 boxes containing low-density waste. Additionally in order to minimize future subsidence of the final closure cap, limits on the disposal of containers with significant void space that are considered non-crushable (i.e., containers that will not be stabilized by dynamic compaction) have been imposed. (Hang et al. 2005 and Swingle and Phifer 2006) At the end of the operational period, an interim runoff cover will be installed and maintained during the 100-year institutional control period (i.e., interim closure). The interim runoff cover will involve the placement of up to an additional 2-foot of soil over the Slit Trenches, that is graded to promote even greater drainage off the trenches. The interim runoff cover will consist of the surface application of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane or geotextile fabric with spray on asphalt emulsion or some other appropriate material. It will extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the edge of all sides of the trenches. Final closure of the Slit Trenches will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Static surcharging and/or dynamic compaction of the Slit Trenches will be conducted at the end of the 100-year institutional control period, when the efficiency of the subsidence treatment will be greater due to container corrosion and subsequent strength loss. Dynamic compaction will not be carried out over any Slit Trench (such as those containing M-Area glass and ETP Carbon Columns) that has been designated not to undergo dynamic compaction. It is assumed that this subsidence treatment essentially eliminates future subsidence potential except in those areas designated not to undergo dynamic compaction or containing non-crushable containers with significant void space. Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system. Figure 4-10 provides the anticipated Slit Trench closure cap configuration. (Phifer 2004a)


20

Figure 4-9. Operational Slit Trench Photographs


21

3 to 5 Percent Slope6 in (0.1524 m) Topsoil

30 in (0.7620 m) Controlled Compacted Backfill

0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric12 in (0.3048 m) Gravel Drainage Layer0.2 in (0.0051 m) Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)

40 in (1.0160 m) Controlled Compacted Backfill(minimum)

}

48 in (1.2192 m) Clean Layer

12 in (0.3048 m) Erosion Barrier0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric


}

124.

4 in

(3.1

597

m) (

min

imum

)

Figure 4-10. Slit and Engineered Trench Closure Cap Configuration


22

4.5.2 Engineered Trenches The Engineered Trenches (ETs) are below grade earthen disposal units. The excavated soil is stockpiled for later placement over disposed waste. There are currently two Engineered Trenches in the E-Area LLWF. Engineered Trench #1 is approximately 650 feet (198 m) long by 150 feet (45.7 m) wide (bottom dimensions) and varies in depth from 16 to 25 feet (4.9 to 7.6 m); it is designed to contain approximately 12,000 B-25 boxes of waste. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the two ETs relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types. (Swingle and Phifer 2006) ET #1 consists of the following:

• A berm around the top on the sides where the local terrain slopes toward the trench • Side slopes range from 1.25:1 (horizontal:vertical) to 1.5:1 and are covered with an

erosion control matting and seeded • A vehicle access ramp to the bottom • A bottom consisting of compacted soil, a geotextile filter fabric, and approximately

6 inches of granite crusher run (from bottom to top) sloped to a sump • A sump with 1-to-1 side slopes and a geotextile fabric and a polyethylene geoweb

slope cover, infilled with 4,000-psi concrete covering the sump side slopes and sump bottom

Engineered Trench #2 is approximately 656 feet (200 m) long by 160 feet (48.8 m) wide (bottom dimensions) and varies in depth from 14 to 23 feet (4.3 to 7.0 m); it is also designed to contain approximately 12,000 B-25 boxes of waste. ET #2 is essentially identical to ET #1 except it does not contain a sump. The bottom of ET #2 is sloped to a low point where a 24 inch (0.6 m) steel pipe takes water from ET#2 to the ET #1 sump. (Swingle and Phifer 2006) During the operational period low-level waste contained within B-25 boxes, B-12 boxes, 55-gallon drums, SeaLand containers, components, and/or other metal containers are stacked by forklift or placed by crane within the Engineered Trench. B-25 boxes are the predominant disposal containers utilized. The B-25 boxes are stacked in rows four high (approximately 17 feet high) with a forklift, beginning at the end of the trench opposite the access ramp. The stacks of B-25 boxes are generally placed immediately adjacent to one another with as little void space as possible between the stacks. Figure 4-11 provides operational photographs of ET #1 and ET #2. Operational closure of the Engineered Trenches will be conducted in stages. As a sufficient number of B-25 rows are placed, the stockpiled clean soil is bulldozed in a single lift over some of the completed rows to produce a minimum 4-foot-thick (1.2 m) clean soil layer over them (i.e., operational soil cover). The depth of both ETs at their west ends is less than the height of a stack of 4 B-25 boxes therefore soil is mounded above the original grade to provide adequate operational soil cover. This operational soil cover is only applied to that portion of the completed rows that still allows maintenance of a safe distance from the working face (i.e., where new boxes are placed in the stack) within the trench. The operational soil cover is graded to provide positive drainage off the trench and away from the working face.


23

Placement of the B-25 boxes continues until the trench is filled with boxes. At that point the minimum 4 feet (1.2 m) of operational soil cover is placed over the remaining portion of the trench, the entire area is graded to provide positive drainage off the trench, a vegetative cover of shallow rooted grass is established, and it is considered operationally closed. After operational closure the subsidence potential of Engineered Trenches has been estimated at 13.5 feet due to stacked B-25 boxes containing low-density waste (Phifer and Wilhite 2001). Additionally in order to minimize future subsidence of the final closure cap, limits on the disposal of containers with significant void space that are considered non-crushable (i.e., containers that will not be stabilized by dynamic compaction) have been imposed. (Swingle and Phifer 2006) At the end of the operational period, an interim runoff cover will be installed and maintained during the 100-year institutional control period (i.e., interim closure). The interim runoff cover will involve the placement of up to an additional 2-foot of soil over the Engineered Trenches, that is graded to promote even greater drainage off the trenches. The interim runoff cover will consist of the surface application of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane or geotextile fabric with spray on asphalt emulsion or some other appropriate material. It will extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the edge of all sides of the trenches. Final closure of the Engineered Trenches will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Static surcharging and/or dynamic compaction of the Engineered Trenches will be conducted at the end of the 100-year institutional control period, when the efficiency of the subsidence treatment will be greater due to container corrosion and subsequent strength loss. It is assumed that this subsidence treatment essentially eliminates future subsidence potential except in those areas containing non-crushable containers with significant void space. (Swingle and Phifer 2006) Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system. Figure 4-10 provides the anticipated Engineered Trench closure cap configuration.


24

Engineered Trench #1 Aerial View

Engineered Trench #1 Interior View

Engineered Trench #2 View from Berm

Figure 4-11. Operational Engineered Trench Photographs


25

4.5.3 Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches Component-In-Grout (CIG) disposal units are below-grade earthen trenches with essentially vertical side slopes that contain grout encapsulated waste components. CIG Trenches are contained within 157-foot-wide (47.8 m) by 656-foot-long (200 m) footprints. Two such CIG Trench footprints, designated CIG-1 and CIG- 2, are anticipated. Each CIG footprint is laid out into five, nominally 20-foot-wide (6.1 m) by 650-foot-long (198 m) trenches separated by a nominal 10 feet (3 m) of undisturbed soil. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the two CIG footprints relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types. Components to be disposed within the CIG Trenches consist of large radioactively contaminated equipment and other smaller waste forms such as B-25 boxes to fill in the space around and above the large equipment. Components to date consist of tankers, radioactive sources in a concrete culvert filled with grout, SeaLands, B-25s, B-12s, flat bed trailers, tanks, high integrity containers, columns, etc. During the 25-year operational period, trench excavation is conducted on an as needed basis and only to that depth, width, and length (i.e., trench segment) required for disposal of a particular component(s) to minimize the area of open trench, the time the trench section is open, and to minimize grout costs. That is the depth and width of each segment can vary greatly depending upon the size of the component(s) being disposed. The segments within a CIG Trench footprint are numbered in order of placement. The excavated soil is stockpiled for later use. A nominal 6 feet (1.8 m) of undisturbed soil separates each segment within an individual trench The bottom of a segment is filled with high flow grout to a minimum one-foot thickness, and the grout is allowed to solidify. The component(s) are then placed on the one-foot base grout layer with a crane and the grout is poured around, between, and over the component(s) in order to encapsulate the component(s). Additional layers of component(s) and grout may be placed on top of previous layers until a trench segment height of approximately 16 feet (4.9 m) is filled up with component(s) and grout. The operation is conducted so that a minimum one-foot of grout is between the component(s) and the surrounding soil at the bottom and sides of the trench segment and so that a minimum one foot of grout is over the top of the upper most component(s). In order to ensure structural integrity for 300 years after disposal, components are filled with grout or controlled low strength material (CLSM), determined to be in and of themselves structurally sound for 300 years after burial, or overlaid with an 20-inch steel-reinforced 3000 psi concrete mat with controlled low strength material (CLSM) between the top of the grout and bottom of the concrete mat. A 20-inch thick concrete mat is capable of supporting a 12.5-foot soil overburden from the final closure cap. Due to these stabilization options and component variability, the subsidence potential of CIG trench segments is highly variable. The subsidence potential ranges from zero for segments containing component(s) filled with grout or CLSM to an estimated maximum of 10 feet for segments containing component(s) that are not filled or containing predominately B-25 boxes with low density waste. (Jones et al. 2004; Phifer 2004b; Peregoy 2006b)


26

After the top grout has solidified, a 4-foot-thick clean layer of material is placed over the grout encapsulated waste components. The 4-foot-thick clean layer includes an overlying soil, which is graded to provide positive drainage off and away from the CIG Trenches. This process continues until the entire trench is filled and completely covered with 4 feet of clean material. The 4-foot-thick clean layer consists of one of the following: • A minimum 4-foot layer of clean soil from the excavation stockpile placed in a single lift

with a bulldozer (i.e., operational soil cover), or • A combination from bottom to top of a nominal 1.33-foot layer of CLSM, a minimum

20-inch thick concrete mat, and a nominal 1-foot layer of clean soil from the excavation stockpile is placed over the grout encapsulated waste components for a minimum 4-foot thickness. The reinforced concrete mat utilizes minimum 3000 psi concrete, is a minimum 20-inch thick, extends 1-foot beyond the aerial dimensions of the grout on all sides, includes #8 rebar at 6-inch spacing across the width of the trench and #4 rebar at 6-inch spacing along the length of the trench tied to the #8 rebar, and the rebar is placed at the bottom of the mat and has a minimum concrete cover of 3 inches. (Peregoy 2006b)

In addition an interim runoff cover will be installed within 3 months after each CIG Segment has been emplaced. The interim runoff cover will be maintained during both the 25-year operational period and the following 100-year institutional control period. The interim runoff cover will involve the placement of up to an additional 2-foot of soil over the CIG Segments, that is graded to promote even greater drainage off the Segment. The interim runoff cover will consist of the surface application of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane or geotextile fabric with spray on asphalt emulsion or some other appropriate material. It will extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the edge of all sides of each segment. Final closure of the CIG Trenches will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Dynamic compaction of the CIG Trenches will not be conducted. Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system. Figure 4-12 provides the anticipated CIG Trench closure cap configuration and Figure 4-13 provides a cross-section of the closure cap over a 157-foot-wide CIG Trench footprint.


27

3 to 5 Percent Slope

6 in (0.1524 m) Topsoil




}

48 in (1 .2192 m) Clean Layer(CLSM, Concrete Slab, and/or Soil)

12 in (0 .3048 m) Erosion Barrier0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric


}

120.

4 in

(3.0

6 m

) (m

inim

um)

12 in (0 .3048 m) Grout (minimum)

Figure 4-12. CIG Trench Closure Cap Configuration

10’ typ. 20’ typ.10’

16’ t

yp.

70’

~6’ (continuous) 2’

4 ’

CIGComponent(s)

Minimum 20” Thick Concrete Slab

Controlled Compacted Backfill

3 to 5% Slope

Closure Cap Layers4.1’ to 5.5’

11.1’ to 12.5’

1’ MinimumGroutThickness All Around

157-foot-wide CIG Trench Footprint

Minimum 1’-4”CLSM Layer

Rip Rap Lined Ditch

8.5’

Segments 1-8Representation

Future SegmentsRepresentation

1’ Slab Overhang, typical (Minimum)

1’ Soil

Figure 4-13. CIG Trench Closure Cap Cross-Section


28

Currently waste has been placed within CIG Trench footprint CIG-1 within Segments 1 through 8. The following provides information on these existing segments: • CIG-1 Segments 1 through 3: The interiors of the components within segments 1 through

3 were filled with grout or CLSM; therefore there is essentially no significant void space within these segments. These segments are covered with an interim runoff cover.

• CIG-1 Segments 4 through 7: Many of the components and other wastes within segments 4, 5, 6, and 7 consist of low strength containers such as B-25 boxes, Tankers, and SeaLands with significant interior void space. These segments are covered with an interim runoff cover. Installation of a reinforced concrete mat over these segments is planned prior to installation of the E-Area LLWF final closure cap, which will occur at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. The timing of the reinforced concrete mat installation is yet to be determined.

• CIG-1 Segment 8: This segment has been overlaid with CLSM, an 18-inch thick reinforced concrete mat, and clean soil. This 18-inch thick concrete mat is capable of supporting an 11.4-foot soil overburden from the final closure cap. This segment is covered with an interim runoff cover.

Formulation of the existing high flow grout (used for Segments 1 through 8), CLSM, and 3000 psi concrete are provided in Table 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3 respectively. A new grout with a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-08 cm/s will be formulated, tested, and utilized for all future CIG Trench Segments. Figure 4-14 provides photographs of the placement sequence for existing CIG-1 Segment 6.

Table 4-1. E-Area LLWF High Flow Grout Formulation

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 618 No 10. sand (ASTM C 33) 2,283 Water (maximum) 592 (71 gal/cu yd) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.96 Minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi at 28 days Notes to Table 4-1: • Specification C-SPS-G-00085 Revision 5 Mix Identifier A2000-X-0-0-AB (WSRC 2004) • The high flow grout is simply poured into the trench with no consolidation or curing

requirements


29

Table 4-2. E-Area LLWF Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Formulation

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 50 Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 600 No 10. sand (ASTM C 33) 2,515 Water (maximum) 550 (66 gal/cu yd) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.85 Compressive strength between 30 and 150 psi at 28 days Notes to Table 4-2: • Specification C-SPS-G-00085 Revision 5 Mix Identifier EXE-X-P-O-X (WSRC 2004) • The CLSM is simply poured into the trench or IL Vault with no consolidation or curing

requirements

Table 4-3. E-Area LLWF 3000 psi Concrete Formulations

CIG-1 Segment 8 Reinforced Concrete Mat (Specification C-SPS-G-00085 Revision 5 Mix Identifier B-3000-6-0-2-A (WSRC 2004)):

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 400 Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 70 No 10. sand (ASTM C 33) 1,149 No. 67 aggregate (maximum ¾ in) (ASTM C 33) 1,900 Water (maximum) 292 (35 gal/cu yd) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.62 Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi at 28 days Future CIG Segments Reinforced Concrete Mat (Specification C-SPS-G-00085 Revision 6 Mix Identifier B-3000-6-0-2-A+ (WSRC 2006b)):

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 520 No 10. sand (ASTM C 33) 1,172 No. 67 aggregate (maximum ¾ in) (ASTM C 33) 1,850 Water (maximum) 296 (35.5 gal/cu yd) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.57 Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi at 28 days Notes to Table 4-3: • The concrete mats are placed with standard field construction practices and are not built

to the same level of quality control as major projects.


30

Emplacement of Bottom Foot of Grout

Component Emplacement

Grouting Sides of Segment

Initial Waste Layer Encapsulated

Top of Grout

4-Foot of Clean Soil Cover

Figure 4-14. CIG-1 Segment 6 Placement Sequence


31

4.5.4 Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vault The Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vault is an above-grade, reinforced concrete vault. It is approximately 643 feet (196 m) long, 145 feet (44.2 m) wide, and 27 feet (8.2 m) high at the roof crest. It is divided into 3 modules along its length, which are approximately 214 feet (65 m) long and contain 4 cells each. The modules share a common footer but have a 2 inch gap between their adjacent walls. The 12 cell total is designed to contain more than 12,000 B-25 boxes of waste. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the LAW Vault relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types. Figure 4-15 provides photographs of the LAW Vault and Figure 4-16 provides a cross-sectional view (A-A′). The LAW Vault consists of the following:

• Controlled compacted backfill soil base • Geotextile Filter Fabric • 1-foot 3-inch (0.38 m) graded stone sub-drainage system to collect water from under

and around the vault and route it to manhole drains • Crusher run stone base • 30-inch (0.76 m) continuous footer under all interior and exterior walls • 1-foot (0.3 m) thick, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete floor slab sloped to an interior

collection trench, which drains to an external sump • 2-foot (0.6 m) thick, cast-in-place, reinforced, interior and exterior concrete walls that

are structurally mated to the footer (the exterior end walls of modules 1 and 3 are 2-foot 6-inches thick (0.76 m))

• Exterior and interior personnel openings with doors, 36 inch (0.9 m) square exterior fan openings, and exterior forklift access openings

• AASHTO Type IV bridge beams to support the concrete roof • 3-½ inch (9 cm) thick precast deck panels overlain by 12-½ inch (31.7 cm) thick cast-

in-place, reinforced concrete slab for a total 16 inch (40.6 cm) thick concrete roof. • A bonded-in-place layer of fiberboard insulation and a layer of waterproof membrane

roofing on top of the roof slab • A gutter/downspout system to drain the roof

The formulation of the concrete utilized in the LAW vault is provided in Table 4-4. This concrete formulation was utilized for the continuous footer, floor slab, interior and exterior walls, and the cast-in-place roof slab. This formulation was not utilized for the AASHTO Type IV bridge beams and precast deck panels. During the 25-year operational period low-activity waste contained within metal boxes (predominately B-25 boxes and B-12 boxes), drums and/or concrete containers are stacked by forklift within the vault. B-25 (approximately 4-foot high by 6-foot long by 4-foot wide) and/or equivalent pairs of B-12 (approximately 2-foot high by 6-foot long by 4-foot wide) boxes are stacked four high. The waste within the containers typically includes job control waste, scrap metal, and contaminated soil and rubble. Job control waste consists of potentially contaminated protective clothing (plastic suits, shoe covers, lab coats, etc.), plastic sheeting, etc. The scrap metal consists of contaminated tools, process equipment and piping, and laboratory equipment. Soil and rubble is generated from demolition activities.


32

Exterior View

Interior View

Figure 4-15. LAW Vault Photographs


33

24′6″

Ground Surface

A A′145′

83′ 62′

2% slope

4′6″

2′

4.5% slope

10′

9′8″ (17″ slab thickness)

Roof Concrete (16” total thickness)

12” thick Floor

2% slope

Crusher Run Stone (thickness varies)

Graded Stone (1′3″ thickness)

Geotextile Filter Fabric Collection Trench

Interior Leachate

Sump

AASHTO Type IV

Bridge Beams

4′6″

2′6″ 5′6″

4′6″

Continuous Footer

A

A′

145′

643′ 4″

SRS N

~53′ True N

SRS N

Existing LAW Vault

Figure 4-16. LAW Vault Cross-sectional view (A-A′)


34

Table 4-4. E-Area LLWF LAW Vault and IL Vault Concrete Formulation

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 120 Grade 120 Blast furnace slag (ASTM C 989) 275 Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 135 No 10. sand (ASTM C 33) 1,270 No. 67 aggregate (maximum ¾ in) (ASTM C 33) 1,750 Water (maximum) 240 (28.8 gallons) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.45 Specified minimum dry density = 147 lbs/cu ft Minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi at 28 days Notes to Table 4-4: • Concrete formulation specified in drawing SE5-6-2003319 • Concrete formulation specified in Specification C-SPS-G-00041 Mix Identifier C-4000-

8-S-2-AB (WSRC 1994) • The above mix was utilized for all concrete directly related to the IL vault including

shielding tees and plugs • It is assumed that the above mix was utilized for all concrete directly related to the LAW

vault except for the AASHTO Type IV bridge beams (Purchase Order AA98123C (Module 1) and Purchase Order AA98143C (Modules 2 and 3)) and the 3½ inch precast deck panels

• Very high quality workmanship was implemented for placement of this concrete (WSRC 2005b)

• Drawing SE5-6-2003319 required a very extensive curing procedure which involved the application of curing compound and a minimum 14 day curing using either insulating blankets or a burlap wet cure.

The average waste density within the containers has been estimated at 0.1785 g/cm3 (Phifer and Wilhite 2001), which along with the vault dimensions results in a subsidence potential of approximately 21 feet (Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft)). Operational closure of the LAW Vault will be conducted in stages. Individual cells will be closed as they are filled with stacks of containerized waste (metal and/or concrete containers) and the entire vault will be closed after it is filled. Such operational closure includes filling the interior collection trench and exterior sump with grout and sealing exterior vault openings, including those between modules, with reinforced concrete equivalent to that utilized within the vault floor, walls and roof. The reinforcing steel will be tied into the reinforcing steel of the vault itself, forming a unified structure with continuous walls. No additional closure actions are anticipated beyond that of operational closure for the LAW Vault during the 100-year institutional control period (i.e., interim closure).


35

Final closure of the LAW Vault will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system. Figure 4-17 provides the anticipated LAW Vault closure cap configuration. The apex of the closure cap will extend the length of the vault and be approximately centered over the vault, in order to minimize the overburden loads on the vault and maximize runoff and lateral drainage from the overlying closure cap.

3 to 5 Percent Slope6 in (0.1524 m) Topsoil


0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric12 in (0 .3048 m) Gravel Drainage Layer0.2 in (0.0051 m) Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)


}

12 in (0 .3048 m) Erosion Barrier0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric


}

92 .4 in

(2.3

47 m

) (m

inim

um)

Min imum 2 Percent Vault Roof Slope

16 in (0.4064 m) LAW Vault Concrete Roof

Figure 4-17. LAW Vault Closure Cap Configuration


36

4.5.5 Intermediate Level (IL) Vault The Intermediate Level (IL) Vault is a below-grade, reinforced concrete vault. It consists of two modules, which together encompass a 278.83-foot (85.0 m) by 48.5-foot (14.8 m) area. The Intermediate Level Tritium (ILT) module contains two cells, whose inside dimensions are 25-foot (7.6 m) by 44-foot 6-inches (13.6 m) by 26-foot (7.9 m) deep. ILT Cell #1 contains 144, 20-inch (51 cm) diameter by 20-foot (6.1 m) long vertical silos. The Intermediate Level Non-Tritium (ILNT) module contains seven identical cells, whose inside dimensions are 25-foot (7.6 m) by 44-foot 6-inches (13.6 m) by 28-foot 5-inches (8.7 m) deep. The area between the two modules provides manhole access to the subdrain system. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the IL Vault relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types. Figure 4-18 provides a photograph of the exterior view of the IL Vault, Figure 4-19 shows interior views of the IL Vault, Figure 4-20 provides a plan view of the operational vault, and Figure 4-21 provides a cross-section of the operationally closed vault. The IL Vault consists of the following:

• Controlled compacted backfill soil base • Graded stone sub-drainage system to collect and drain any water under the vault to a

dry well • Crusher Run stone base • 30-inch (0.76 m) thick, reinforced concrete, base slab, which extends 2 feet (0.6 m)

beyond the exterior walls • The floor of each cell slopes to a drain which runs to a sump in the base slab of each

cell, and it is overlain by a minimum 14-inch (0.36 m) graded stone drainage layer • 30-inch (0.76 m) thick, reinforced concrete, exterior end walls and 24-inch (0.61 m)

thick, reinforced concrete, exterior side walls; and 18-inch (0.46 m) thick, reinforced concrete, interior walls; all of which are structurally mated to the base slab and have no horizontal joints

• Exterior wall surfaces are coated with a tar-based waterproofing and interior wall surfaces have a drainage net attached.

• Continuous waterstop seals at all concrete joints • 1.5-foot (0.46 m) thick, reinforced concrete, shielding tees available when necessary

for radiation shielding over all bulk cells (the silo cell utilizes individual shielding plugs for each silo)

• Sloped rain covers, consisting of a roofing membrane on metal deck on steel framing installed over each cell, to direct rainwater onto the ground for runoff (used during operations only and will be replaced with a permanent concrete roof after cessation of operations)

The formulation of the concrete utilized for all concrete in the IL Vault is provided in Table 4-4.


37

Figure 4-18. IL Vault Exterior View


38

Figure 4-19. IL Vault Interior Views


39

ILT Cell #2

ILNT Cell #1

ILNT Cell #2

ILNT Cell #3 ILNT Cell #4 ILNT Cell #5 ILNT Cell #6 ILNT Cell #7

25’ (typ)

44 ’-6”

(typ)

2’-6” (typ)2’ (typ)

25’ (typ)

44 ’-6”

(typ)

2’-6” (typ)2’ (typ)

1’-6” (typ)

56’-6” 33’-4”

Manhole Accessto Subdrain

System

189’

E-Area Intermediate Level Vault (ILV) Plan View

48’-6

” (ty

p)

Plant North

A (typ)

1’-6”

ILT Cell #1144-20” Dia

Crucible Silos

A (typ)

A (typ)

A (typ)

Note:- RC Base Slab, which extends 2 feet beyond the eterior walls all around is not shown- The top of the interior ILT wall is 2’-6” lower than exterior ILT walls - The top of interior INLT walls are 1’-3” lower than exterior INLT walls

ILT Module ILNT Module

Figure 4-20. E-Area IL Vault Plan View


40

49’-6”

6”6”

3’-3” ILNT4’-6” ILT

1’-5” ILNT3’-1” ILT

~7’-8”

8’ (min)

1’-2”

2’-6”

1’-0” 8’-0”

52’-6” 8’-0”

2’-0”

8’-0” 1’-0”

2.02% Slope2’-3” ILNT3’-6” ILT

44’-6”2’-0”

25’-10” ILNT21’-9” ILT

2’-0”

PermeableBackfill

RC Roof Slab

Grout

RC Wall RC Wall

Drainage Net Drainage Net

Graded Stone

Crusher Run Stone

Graded Stone

RC Base Slab

CraneRunway

GroundSurface

Cell ContainsWaste Grouted

In Place

Slope Slope

3.80% Slope

Drain Pipe, Sump,& Riser Pipe

Collection Trench

WaterproofMembranceRoofing

28’-5” ILNT26’ ILT

Controlled CompactedBackfill below Stone Subdrain System

1’-3” ILNT2’-6” ILT

6” ILNT1’-6” ILT

2’-6” ILNT3’-6” ILT

Figure 4-21. E-Area IL Vault ILV Section A-A


41

Notes to Figure 4-21: • ILNT = Intermediate Level Non-Tritium • ILT = Intermediate Level Tritium • Crucible Silos in ILT Cell #1 not shown • Permeable backfill is sand with maximum 10% passing #200 sieve compacted to 90%

minimum • Interior graded stone is ASTM D488-88 No. 57 and it is 1’-2” thick at walls and 1’-5”

thick in cell center at drain; the top 6” of the stone is underlain by a geotextile fabric to prevent intrusion of grout into the bottom 8” of the stone

• RC base slab is 2’-6” at walls and 2’-3” in cell center at drain • Crusher run stone is Georgia 25 • Exterior graded stone is ASTM D488-88 No. 57 or 67 During the 25-year operational period tritium crucibles (or other compatible waste forms) are placed in ILT Cell #1 as follows:

• The waste is placed in individual silos. • A shielding plug is placed over each silo containing waste.

During the 25- year operational period intermediate-activity waste is placed in ILT Cell #2 and ILNT Cells #1 through #7 as follows:

• The first layer of waste is placed within each cell directly on top of the graded stone drainage layer.

• The first layer of waste is encapsulated in grout which forms the surface for the placement of the next layer of waste.

• Subsequent layers of waste are placed directly on top of the previous encapsulated waste, however subsequent layers may be encapsulated with controlled low strength material (CLSM) rather than grout.

The waste placed within ILT Cell #2 and ILNT Cells #1 through #7 typically consists of job control waste, scrap hardware, and contaminated soil and rubble, which is contained within metal or concrete containers. Containers predominately include drums, B-12 boxes, B-25 boxes, other metal containers, and concrete containers. Job control waste primarily consists of highly contaminated protective clothing (plastic suits, shoe covers, lab coats, etc.), plastic sheeting, etc. The scrap hardware consists of reactor hardware, reactor fuel and target fittings, jumpers, and used canyon and tank farm equipment. Soil and rubble is generated from demolition activities. Average waste density within the ILV containers has not been estimated, however with the assumption that the waste has a density similar to that of waste within the LAW Vault (i.e., 0.1785 g/cm3) (Phifer and Wilhite 2001), a maximum subsidence potential of 19 feet is estimated. The grout and CLSM formulations utilized in the IL Vault are provided in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, respectively. The grout formaulation may be revised along with formulation of a new CIG grout (see Section 4.5.3).


42

Operational closure of the IL Vault will be conducted in stages. ILT Cell #1 will be operationally closed by placing a final layer of grout level with the top of the interior vault wall, with installed silo shielding plugs remaining in place within the final grout layer. Unused shielding plugs will no longer be required. ILT Cell #2 and ILNT Cells #1 through #7 will be operationally closed as they are filled with waste by removing any shielding tees and placing a final layer of grout level with the top of the interior vault walls. The final grout layer over the ILT cells will be 3-foot 1-inch (0.94 m) thick, and over the ILNT cells, it will be 1-foot 5-inches (0.43 m) thick. After the entire ILT module has been filled, it will be operationally closed, by installing a 3-foot 6-inch (1.07 m) to 4-foot 6 inch (1.37 m) permanent reinforced concrete roof slab and overlying bonded-in-place fiberboard insulation and waterproof membrane roofing over the entire module. After the entire ILNT module has been filled, it will be operationally closed, by installing a 2-foot 3-inch (0.69 m) to 3-foot 3 inch (0.99 m) permanent reinforced concrete roof slab and overlying bonded-in-place fiberboard insulation and waterproof membrane roofing over the entire module. The rain covers, shielding tees, and shielding plugs will no longer be required after installation of the permanent roof slab. No additional closure actions are anticipated beyond that of operational closure for the IL Vault during the 100-year institutional control period (i.e., interim closure). Final closure of the IL Vaults will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system. Figure 4-22 provides the IL Vault closure cap configuration. The apex of the closure cap will extend the length of the vault and be approximately centered over the vault, in order to minimize the overburden loads on the vault and maximize runoff and lateral drainage from the overlying closure cap.

4.5.6 Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas

Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs) are above grade gravel pads for the disposal of Naval Reactor Waste Shipping/Disposal Casks containing waste naval reactor (NR) components. Two NRCDAs are associated with the E-Area LLWF. The 643-7E NRCDA contains approximately 41 casks, is a trapezoidal area consisting of approximately 0.3 acres (1,200 m2), and is closed to future receipts. It has an interim soil cover in place. The 643-26E NRCDA is currently in operation, is an irregularly shaped area consisting of approximately 1.4 acres (5,700 m2), and is expected to receive up to 100 casks for disposal. Figure 4-4 provides the layout of the two NRCDAs relative to other E-Area LLWF disposal unit types.


43

3 to 5 Percent Slope




24 in (0.6095 m) Controlled Compacted Backfill(Average)

}

27 in (minimum) (0.6858 m) IL Vault Roof Slab

12 in (0.3048 m) Erosion Barrier0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric


}

104

.4 in

(2.6

518

m) (

min

imum

)

17 in (minimum) (0.4318 m) Grout

2 Percent Slope over Full 49.5 ft of Vault Roof Width

Figure 4-22. IL Vault Closure Cap Configuration During the operational period waste naval reactor components contained within casks are placed on the NRCDA. The steel casks have thick walls, are closed with a gasket or welds, and are considered water and air-tight. Figure 4-23 provides an operational photograph of the 643-7E NRCDA that shows the off loading of a cask. No additional operational closure or interim closure beyond simply placing the casks on the NRCDAs is necessitated due to the water and air-tight nature of the casks. However, if radiation shielding is required for personnel protection during the operational or institutional control period, the casks may be surrounded with a structurally suitable material that will be capable of supporting the final closure cap without resulting in differential subsidence at the time the cap is installed. Final closure of the NRCDAs will take place at final closure of the entire E-Area LLWF, at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. Prior to final closure, the space around, between, and over the casks will have to be filled with a structurally suitable material that will be capable of supporting the final closure cap without resulting in differential subsidence. Dynamic compaction of the NRCDAs will not be conducted. Final closure will consist of installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the waste and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the disposal units and a drainage system.


44

Figure 4-23. Operational Naval Reactor Component Disposal Area Photograph


45

4.6 Z-AREA SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY (SDF) VAULTS As discussed in Section 4.3 and shown on Figure 4-5, the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) will contain multiple vaults. There are currently two existing Saltstone Vaults (Vaults 1 and 4) and one vault currently under design (Vault 2) within the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Future vaults are planned similar to Vault 2. The following information provides a description of Vaults 1, 4, and 2. The information was primarily extracted from WSRC 1992, WSRC 2002, Cook et al. 2005, WSRC 2005a and WSRC 2005b. References in addition to these are noted as applicable.

4.6.1 Vault 1 Vault 1 is an above grade, rectangular shaped, reinforced concrete vault. It is approximately 600 feet (183 m) long, 100 feet (30.5 m) wide, and 25 feet (7.6 m) high. It is divided into 6 approximately 100-foot (30.5 m) by 100-foot (30.5 m) cells. Figure 4-24 provides an exterior photograph of Vault 1, Figure 4-25 provides a plan view of the vault, and Figure 4-26 provides a cross-section of the vault (including the Saltstone and clean grout cap). The metal roofs shown over Vault 1 Cells D and E in Figure 4-24 have been removed from the vault. A Vault 1 cell filled with Saltstone consists of the following:

• Controlled compacted backfill soil base • 4-inch (0.1 m) thick, concrete work slab • 2-foot (0.61 m) thick, reinforced concrete, floor slab • 18-inch (0.46 m) thick, reinforced concrete walls • Continuous waterstop seals at all concrete joints • 24-feet (7.3 m) of Saltstone or other cementitious waste forms poured into the cell

from above • Minimum 6-inch (0.15 m) thick clean grout cap • Poured-in-place concrete roof with an approximately 2% slope (the roof is poured-in-

place after the vault has been filled with waste and the clean grout cap) • 60 mil polyester-reinforced EPDM roof membrane

The formulation of the concrete utilized for Vault 1 is provided in Table 4-5.


46

Figure 4-24. Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vaults 1 and 4 Photograph (12-1-02) Note: The metal roofs shown over Vault 1 Cells D and E have been removed from the vault.

Vault 4 Vault 1

Metal Roofs Removed


47

A

A

Cell A Cell B Cell C Cell D Cell E Cell F

Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 1 Plan View

Notes:- 6 Cells with inside dimensions of 98’-6” by 98’-6”- All walls are 18” thick- 3” space between adjacent walls of Cell C and Cell D that extends through the floor slab

Plant North Roof Ridges

101’-6”

603’-3”

Figure 4-25. Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vault 1 Plan View


48

100’

25’

4’’

2’

18” Exterior Concrete Walls

Work Slab

Vault 1 Roof Concrete

Floor Slab

Vault 1 Floor Slab and Wall ConcreteVault 1 Work Slab Concrete

Saltstone

Vault 1 Clean Grout

24’

6” min

6” min2.08% Slope

ITP/ETF Saltstone and Clean Grout testmaterial in Cells A, B, and C

Grout encapsulated equipment andmaterials in Cells D, E, and F (future)

Clean Grout

Roof Concrete

~1’

Cell A

60 mil Polyester-ReinforcedEPDM Roof Membrane

Figure 4-26. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 1 Section A-A


49

Table 4-5. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 1 Concrete Formulations (Dixon 2005a)

Ingredient Work Slab Quantity

(lbs/cu yd)

Floor Slab and Walls

Quantity (lbs/cu yd)

Roof Quantity

(lbs/cu yd)

Type II cement (ASTM C 150)

413 419 400

Grade 120 Blast furnace slag (ASTM C 989)

0 278 0

Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618)

73 0 70

Sand (ASTM C 33) 1356 1133 1149 No. 67 aggregate (maximum ¾ in) (ASTM C 33)

1698 1798 1900

Water (maximum) 272 (32.6 gal/cu yd)

268 (32.1 gal/cu yd)

292 (35 gal/cu yd)

Water to cementitious material ratio

0.56 0.385 0.62

Minimum compressive strength at 28 days

2000 psi 4000 psi 3000 psi

Notes to Table 4-5: • Vault 1 was built under a project conducted with significant quality control; however the

workmanship and curing were less rigorous than used for Vault 4 and particularly the E-Area vaults (i.e., LAW Vault and IL Vault) (WSRC 2005b)

4.6.2 Vault 4

Vault 4 is an above-grade, rectangular shaped, reinforced concrete vault. It is approximately 600 feet (183 m) long, 200 feet (61 m) wide, and 26 feet (7.9 m) high. It is divided into 12 approximately 100-foot (30.5 m) by 100-foot (30.5 m) cells. Figure 4-24 provides an exterior photograph of Vault 4, Figure 4-27 provides a plan view of the vault, and Figure 4-28 provides a cross-section of the vault (the Saltstone and clean grout cap are not shown).


50

Vault 4 filled with Saltstone consists of the following:

• Controlled compacted backfill soil base • 4-inch (0.1 m) thick, concrete work slab • 2-foot (0.61 m) thick, reinforced concrete, floor slab • 18-inch (0.46 m) thick, exterior and interior reinforced concrete walls • As shown in Figure 4-27 Cells B, D, E, F, H, J, K, and L have sheet drains

(polystyrene sheet with 7/16 inch dimples covered on one side with a non-woven, needle-punched polypropylene filter fabric) installed on the walls to limit the build up of hydrostatic head on the walls by removing Saltstone bleed water and condensate from the cells

• Each Vault 4 cell contains two to three 1-inch (0.025 m) diameter through-wall drain lines in the bottom of an exterior wall. It also contains a 2-inch (0.051 m) diameter, through-wall, schedule 40, stainless steel pipe through an exterior wall of Cells B, D, E, F, H, J, K, and L, in order to drain collected liquids from inside the cell. Additionally each pair of cells (i.e., A/G, B/H, C/I, D/J, E/K, and F/L) are connected by a 4-inch (0.102 m) diameter, schedule 40 pipe at the based of their shared interior wall. Finally partial penetrations exist in Vault 4 exterior walls from anchor bolts used for ladders, pipe supports, etc.

• Continuous waterstop seals at all concrete joints • Maximum 24.75-feet (7.5 m) of Saltstone or other cementitious waste form poured

into each cell through a 6-inch diameter pipe sleeve located in the roof in the center of each cell (see Figure 4-28)

• Minimum 15-inch (0.15 m) thick clean grout cap poured into each cell through a series of 50 3-inch diameter pipe sleeves located in the roof of each cell (Figure 4-28)

• Roof at an approximately 2% slope, consisting of 4 to 6-inch (0.1 to 0.15 m) thick poured-in-place, reinforced concrete over 20 gauge corrugated metal, supported by steel joists and 10-inch (0.25) diameter standard pipe columns filled with lean concrete (the pipe columns are bolted to the floor with anchor bolts) (the roof is in place prior to the Saltstone pour except for Cell A)

• Vault 4 contains the following through-wall penetrations in the roof of each cell, except for cell A whose roof contains no penetrations:

- Fifty 3-inch (0.076 m) diameter pipe sleeves per cell for the clean cap pour (only 49 in cell G)

- Two 12-inch (0.3 m) diameter pipe sleeves per cell for venting - One 6-inch (0.15 m) diameter pipe sleeve per cell for pouring Saltstone - One 3-foot by 3-foot (0.91 m) personnel/camera access opening per cell - One 1-inch (0.03 m) diameter pipe sleeve per cell for radiological monitoring

• Additionally the roof contains partial penetrations from anchor bolts used for handrails, ladders, pipe supports, etc.

The formulation of the concrete utilized for Vault 4 is provided in Table 4-6.


51

A

A

Cell A Cell B Cell C Cell D Cell E Cell F

Cell G Cell H Cell I Cell J Cell K Cell L

Notes:- 12 Cells with inside cell dimensions of 98’-6” by 98’-6”- All walls are 18” thick- 3” space between adjacent walls of Cell C / Cell I and Cell D / Cell J that extends through the floor slab - Cell A has no access opening, pipe sleeves, or structural steel (i.e. pipe columns, joists, or joist girders). Cell A was filled with 10,000 55-gallon drums of Naval Fuels waste encapsulated in grout and a clean grout cap prior to construction of the permanent concrete roof.- 3 walls of Cells B and H and 2 walls of Cells D, E, F, J, K, and L have sheet drains over the full face from the floor to 24’ above the floor. The other walls of these Cells have three 4’ wide strips of sheet drains from the floor to 24’ above the floor.

Plant North

201’-6”

603’-3”

SheetDrains

Figure 4-27. SDF Vault 4 Plan View


52

100’

25’

1’-6”

100’

1’-10 3/8”

4’’

2’

1.86% Slope

Joists JoistGirders

3” Dia Pipe Sleevefor Clean Cap

(50 per Cell)

6” Dia Pipe Sleevefor Saltstone Pour

(1 per Cell)

3’ by 3’ Personnel Access Opening(1 per Cell)

18” Concrete Walls between Cells

18” Exterior Concrete Walls

Work Slab

Vault 4 Roof Concrete

Floor Slab

Vault 4 Floor Slab and Wall ConcreteVault 4 Work Slab Concrete

~4” to 6” Thick Poured-in-Place Concrete Roof over 20 gauge Corrugated Metal Decking

Cell BCell H

25’ 25’ 25’ 25’

10” DiaStandard Pipe

Columns Filledwith LeanConcrete

(9 per Cell on25” Centers)

24’

SheetDrain

12” Dia Pipe Sleevefor Cell Vents

(2 per Cell)

Figure 4-28. SDF Vault 4 Section A-A


53

Table 4-6. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 4 Concrete Formulations (Dixon 2005b)

Ingredient Work Slab Quantity

(lbs/cu yd)

Floor Slab and Walls to 25 ft


Walls above 25 ft and Roof Quantity

(lbs/cu yd) Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 413 419 466 Grade 120 Blast furnace slag (ASTM C 989)

0 278 0

Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 73 0 62 Sand (ASTM C 33) 1356 1133 1190 No. 67 aggregate (maximum ¾ in) (ASTM C 33)

1698 1798 1800

Water (maximum) 273 (32.7 gallons)

254 (30.4 gallons)

296 (35.5 gallons)

Water to cementitious material ratio

0.56 0.36 0.56

Minimum compressive strength at 28 days

2000 psi 4000 psi 4000 psi

Notes to Table 4-6: • Vault 4 was built under a project conducted with significant quality control, and the

workmanship and curing requirements were more rigorous than used for Vault 1 (WSRC 2005b)

• Drawing W828922 required a 7-day cure for all Vault 4 concrete and drawing C-CC-Z-0011 required that forms be left in place for 14 days for all slag containing concrete


54

4.6.3 Vault 2 Vault 2 is currently under design. It consists of two, approximately 150 feet (45.7 m) in diameter by 22 feet (6.7 m) high, below grade (to the roof), cylindrical, reinforced concrete tanks. Figure 4-29 provides a typical cross-section of a Vault 2 tank (the Saltstone and clean grout cap are not shown), and Figure 4-30 provides details. Vault 2 tanks filled with Saltstone consist of the following (WSRC 2006a):

• Controlled compacted backfill soil base • 6-inch (0.15 m) thick, mudmat • Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) consisting of a minimum 0.75 lbs/ft2 sodium

bentonite • 100-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane • 4-inch (0.1 m) thick mudmat • Minimum 8 inch (0.3 m) thick cast-in-place reinforced concrete floor slab • Minimum 8 inch (0.2 m) thick reinforced concrete walls • The exterior side of the walls will be covered with a 100-mil HDPE geomembrane • Maximum 20-feet (6.7 m) of Saltstone or other cementitious waste form poured into

the tank through a roof penetration • Minimum 2-foot (0.61 m) clean grout cap to fill between the Saltstone and roof

poured into the tank through roof penetrations • Minimum 8 inch (0.2 m) thick reinforced concrete roof at a minimum 2% slope (the

roof is in place prior to the Saltstone pour) • Roof penetrations will exist to pour Saltstone, to pour the clean grout cap, for

ventilation, for monitoring (temperature and cameras), personnel access, etc. The formulation of the concrete utilized for Vault 2 is provided in Table 4-7.


55

Saltstone Vault 2(cylindrical reinforced concrete tank)

Detail B

150’ ID

22’ (minimum)

Detail A

Minimum 2% Slope

Notes:- Vault 2 is currently under design- Vault 2 will be backfilled to the roof upon installation- Prior to closure penetrations through the roof will exist to pour Saltstone,pour the clean grout cap, for ventilation, for monitoring (temperature and cameras),personnel access, etc.- The GCL and HDPE over the roof will not be installed until closure cap installation

Figure 4-29. SDF Vault 2 Cross-Section


56

~0.2 inches Sodium Bentonite(minimum 0.75 lbs/ft 2 (oven dried)) (not on vertical portion of wall)

100-mil HDPE perGRI Std Spec GM13, Rev. 6

Lean Concrete (2500 psi)

Minimum 8 inch thick cast-in-place,reinforced concrete floor slab

(circular)Minimum 4 inch thick mudmat

(made of same concrete as floorslab) (circular)

~6 inch thick mudmat(lean concrete (2500 psi)per ASTM C94) (circular)

Detail A

Minimum 8 inch thick pre-castconcrete panels or poured-in-place,

reinforced concrete walls

Notes:- Styrofoam liner guard may be placed between the HDPE and native soil backfill for protection

~0.2 inches Sodium Bentonite(minimum 0.75 lbs/ft 2 (oven dried))

100-mil HDPE perGRI Std Spec GM13, Rev. 6

Minimum 8 inch thick pre-castpanels or poured-in-place,

reinforced concrete roof Lean Concrete(2500 psi)

Minimum 2% Slope

Detail B

Minimum 8 inch thick pre-castconcrete panels or poured-in-place,

reinforced concrete walls

Notes:- The bentonite and HDPE over the concrete roof will not be installed until the final closure cap is installed

Figure 4-30. SDF Vault 2 Details


57

Table 4-7. Saltstone Disposal Facility Vault 2 Concrete Formulation (Class 3 Sulfate Resistant Concrete) (WSRC 2006a; Chiappetto 2006)

Ingredient Quantity (lbs/cu yd)

Type V or Type II cement (ASTM C 150) or Type HS (ASTM C 1157)

180 to 225

Grade 100 Blast furnace slag (ASTM C 989) 240 to 300 Silica Fume (ASTM C 1240) 40 to 50 Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 140 to 175 sand (ASTM C 33) 911 or greater aggregate (ASTM C 33) 1850 Water (maximum) 225 to 284 (27 to 34 gallons) Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.38 Minimum compressive strength of 5000 psi at 28 days Maximum permeability = 1E-10 cm/s Class 3 sulfate resistance (ACI 201.2R) Very low chloride ion penetrability per ASTM C 1202 (<1000 coulombs) Notes to Table 4-7: • Vault 2 is being designed and built under a project conducted with significant quality

control, including workmanship and curing requirements. In addition significant concrete formulation testing is being conducted to ensure that it meets requirements.

4.6.4 Saltstone Vault Operation and Closure During the 30-year operational period, it is anticipated that in addition to Vaults 1 and 4, a total of sixty-four Vault 2 type cylindrical tanks will be required for Saltstone disposal (see Figure 4-5). During this period Saltstone grout will be prepared within the Saltstone Processing Facility (SPF), pumped to the vaults, and poured into the cells or tanks from their roof in nominal 12-inch self-leveling lifts that set a minimum of 12 hours between pours. After Saltstone or another cementitious waste form has been poured to the desired height within Vault 1 cells and solidified, a clean grout cap is poured and a poured-in-place concrete roof is then constructed. After Saltstone or another cementitious waste form has been poured to the desired height within Vault 4 cells or Vault 2 type tanks and solidified, a clean grout cap is poured to fill the gap between the Saltstone and roof. In addition after a Vault 4 cell is filled all through-wall penetrations will be cut, filled with non-shrink grout, and capped. After a Vault 4 cell or Vault 2 type tank is filled all through-roof penetrations will be filled with clean grout and capped.


58

The formulation of the Saltstone waste form is provided in Table 4-8 and that of the clean grout cap is provided in Table 4-9. As shown in Table 4-8, Saltstone is a mixture of salt solution, blast furnace slag, fly ash, and cement or lime. The salt solutions are expected to contain 15-32% (by weight) soluble salts, with an expected average of about 28% (by weight). The primary soluble salts present within the salt solution include in descending order: sodium nitrate, sodium hydroxide, sodium nitrite, sodium aluminum hydroxide (NaAl(OH)4), sodium carbonate, and sodium sulfate. The solid components of Saltstone consist primarily of the following in descending order: silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, and iron (III) oxide. Saltstone results from the mixture of the solid components with the salt solution and the subsequent hydration and other chemical reactions between the two. The resulting solidified Saltstone is best described as a dense, alkaline, reducing, micro-porous, monolithic, cementitious matrix, consisting of solids such as calcium aluminosilicate and containing a solution of salts within its pore structure (Saltstone pore fluid). The pore fluid consists predominately of sodium, nitrate, and nitrite. Final closure of the SDF is not anticipated until near or at the end of the assumed 30-year operational period, after all the vaults have been filled. Prior to final closure an evaluation will be conducted of the effects of the grouted and capped penetrations on the long-term performance of the vaults. If it is determined that the roof penetrations cause unacceptable vault performance, the penetrations will be removed and the openings patched using standard industrial practices for concrete repair or an alternate method that achieves appropriate performance objectives will be used such as encasing the penetrations in additional concrete. Final closure will consist of the installation of an integrated closure system designed to minimize moisture contact with the Saltstone and to provide an intruder deterrent. The integrated closure system will consist of one or more closure caps installed over all the vaults and a drainage system. Figure 4-31 and Figure 4-32 provide the generic SDF closure cap configuration for the top and side slopes, respectively. As shown in Figure 4-30 Detail B, the closure cap over Vault 2 type tanks includes a HDPE geomembrane on top of the vault in addition to the lower GCL shown in Figure 4-31. Figure 4-33 shows the side vertical and vault base drainage layers applicable to Vaults 1 and 4. Currently waste has been placed within Vaults 1 and 4 as outlined within Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 respectively. It is anticipated that future disposal within Vault 1 (i.e., Cells D, E, and F) will consist of equipment and materials encapsulated within grout. It is anticipated that future disposal within Vault 4 will consist of Saltstone.


59

1.5 Percent Slope


Minimum 30 in (0.7620 m) Upper Backfill

0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric12 in (0.3048 m) Gravel Drainage Layer0.2 in (0.0051 m) Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)}

12 in (0.3048 m) Erosion Control Barrier:2-inch to 6-inch rock with CLSM filling voids0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric

12 in (0.3048 m) Middle Backfill

}

Vault Roof Slab: Minimum 2 Percent Slope

Minimum 58.65 in (1.49 m) Lower Backfill

24 in (0.6096 m) Gravel Drainage Layer

0.1 in (0.0025 m) Geotextile Filter Fabric

0.2 in (0.0051 m) Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)

3 Percent Slope

Figure 4-31. Generic SDF Top Slope Closure Cap Configuration

Erosion Control Barrier: 1-foot thick, well-graded, 2-inch to 6-inch rock with a D 50

of 4 inches and with CLSM filling voids

Stone Bedding Layer: 6-inch thick,well-graded, crushed stone

Side Slope: 2-foot thick, well-graded, 5-inch to 15-inch rock

with a D50 of 10 inches

Toe: 3-foot thick, well-graded,5-inch to 15-inch rock

with a D50 of 10 inches

Maximum 3H:1V Side Slope

10-footmin imum

20-footmin imum

Vegetative Soil Cover: 3-foot thickon a maximum 1.5% top slope

Figure 4-32. Generic SDF Side Slope Closure Cap Configuration


60

Concrete Vault and Saltstone

Lower Drainage Layer

Side

Ver

tical

Dra

inag

e La

yer

Vault Base Drainage Layer

Backfill

TopsoilBackfillErosion BarrierBackfillUpper Drainage LayerUpper GCL

}Lower GCL and Vault Roof

Figure 4-33. Vault 1 and 4 Side Vertical and Vault Base Drainage Layers

Table 4-8. Saltstone Waste Form (WSRC 1992)

Ingredient Nominal Quantity (wt%)

Salt solution (average 28% by weight salts) 47 Blast furnace slag (grade 100 or 120) 25 Fly ash (Class F) 25 Cement (ASTM C 150 Type II) or lime 3

Table 4-9. Saltstone Disposal Facility Clean Grout Cap Formulation (Langton et al. 2005)

Ingredient Quantity (wt%)


Type II cement (ASTM C 150) 6.250 168 to 179 Grade 120 Blast furnace slag (ASTM C 989)

28.125 759 to 805

Type F Fly ash (ASTM C 618) 28.125 759 to 805 Water (maximum) 37.5 1012 to 1073 Maximum water to cementitious material ratio = 0.60 Specific Gravity = 1.6 to 1.7 (100 to 106 lbs/cu ft) (includes both hydrated and free water)


61

Table 4-10. Current Vaults 1 Disposal Status (as of July 2006)

Vault Cell Disposal Status A Full; 24 feet of material consisting of clean grout test material, Saltstone

made with In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) process wastewater and ETF wastewater concentrate, and clean grout cap to roof; permanent roof covering the cell (see Figure 4-26)

B Full; 24 feet of material consisting of clean grout test material, Saltstone made with In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) process wastewater and ETF wastewater concentrate, and clean grout cap to roof; permanent roof covering the cell (see Figure 4-26)

C Full; 24 feet of material consisting of clean grout test material, Saltstone made with In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) process wastewater and ETF wastewater concentrate, and clean grout cap to roof; permanent roof covering the cell (see Figure 4-26)

D Empty; no roof covering the cell E Empty; no roof covering the cell F Empty; no roof covering the cell

Table 4-11. Current Vaults 4 Disposal Status (as of July 2006)

Vault Cell Disposal Status A Full; 10,000 55-gallon drums of Naval Fuels waste encapsulated in grout;

clean grout cap to permanent concrete roof (unlike other Vault 4 cells the Cell A permanent concrete roof was poured-in-place after the cell had been fill with waste and clean cap)

B Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell C 15.5 feet of Saltstone made with solids from cleaning Tank 49;

permanent concrete roof covering the cell D Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell E 1 foot of Saltstone made with ETF wastewater concentrate; permanent

concrete roof covering the cell F Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell G 21.5 feet of Saltstone made with ETF wastewater concentrate; permanent

concrete roof covering the cell H Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell I 13.2 feet of Saltstone made with solids from cleaning Tank 49;

permanent concrete roof covering the cell J Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell K Empty; permanent concrete roof covering the cell L 1 foot of Saltstone made with ETF wastewater concentrate; permanent

concrete roof covering the cell


62



63

5.0 SOILS DATA

5.1 BACKGROUND

5.1.1 Goal

The purpose of this soils evaluation is to provide estimates of porosity ( n ), dry bulk density ( bρ ), particle density ( pρ ), saturated hydraulic conductivity ( satK ), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient ( eD ) for input to E-Area and Z-Area Performance Assessment models. Estimates are provided for the following materials:

• undisturbed vadose zone soils • controlled compacted backfill • 4-ft operational soil cover (before and after dynamic compaction) • permeable backfill for the Intermediate Level Vault • a generic “gravel”

5.1.2 Data Used in Evaluation Existing soils data from the General Separations Area were gathered from databases, SRS documents, and laboratory reports. The primary types of soils data for this evaluation included:

• grain size (sieve analyses) • hydraulic property datasets (laboratory measurements of vertical hydraulic

conductivity and water retention) • bulk property measurements (bulk density and porosity) • piezocone penetration test or CPT (cone penetration test) logs • continuous core descriptions/geophysical logs

5.1.2.1 Grain Size, Hydraulic Property, Bulk Property Datasets Undisturbed vadose zone samples have been collected using Shelby tubes for grain size, hydraulic property, and bulk property measurement. Sampling was conducted during various projects in E-Area and Z-Area from the mid-1980s through May 2005. Sampling protocols used by the various labs in conducting these analyses are provided in Table 5-1. Laboratory reports for grain size, hydraulic property and bulk property analyses are provided on a CD accompanying this report. This CD also includes a summary table of grain size data for undisturbed vadose zone soil samples collected from 60 ft or less in depth in E-Area and Z-Area.


64

Table 5-1. Test Methods Used in Analyses

Parameter Test Method

Grain Size ASTM D422/D1140, D2217

Bulk Density ASTM D4531

Porosity EM1110-2-1906

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity ASTM D5084

Water Retention ASTM D2325

5.1.2.2 Piezocone Penetration Test (CPT) Logs Cone penetration tests (CPT) provide subsurface vertical profiles that can be indicative of soil types. Because it is considered a low-cost and reliable characterization tool, numerous CPT locations have been completed across E-Area and Z-Area. As the tool is pushed into the subsurface, measurements are compiled relating to the resistance and pore pressure of the sediments. Friction ratio is a measurement that represents the tool’s sleeve resistance divided by tip resistance. As sleeve resistance increases, the fines content typically increases (Lunne, et al, 1997). CPT logs have been regarded as predictions of soil behavior rather than exact soil type. Some studies have produced methodologies for calibrating CPT measurements in order to predict mud content (Syms et al, 2001). However, for this evaluation, the CPT data were used qualitatively in conjunction with grain size data and continuous core descriptions to define soil type.

5.1.2.3 Continuous Core Descriptions/Geophysical Logs Core descriptions and geophysical logs are available for several locations in E-Area and Z-Area. These borings and wells were completed primarily in the 1980s using mud rotary and split spoon sampling techniques. Geophysical logs include gamma ray, spontaneous potential, and resistivity. Foot-by-foot core descriptions in addition to field log descriptions are available for several of the locations. The usefulness of these descriptions for evaluating the upper vadose zone is limited since the upper 10 ft of the holes were typically drilled out (resulting in no core to describe).

5.1.2.4 Vadose Zone Soil

Table 5-2 provides the approximate number of each data type for E-Area and Z-Area undisturbed vadose zone soils. Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show locations of the various data types in E-Area and Z-Area. The number of samples and locations identified for hydraulic property datasets in Table 5-2 reflect the data that were collected. Samples may not have been included in this evaluation if the samples were suspected to be of poor quality (or non-representative). Data quality for hydraulic properties will be further discussed in Section 5.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity for undisturbed vadose zone soil.


65

Table 5-2. Datasets for E-Area and Z-Area Undisturbed Vadose Zone Soil

Data Type E-Area Z-Area Grain Size Analyses 92 samples (25 locations) 373 samples (39 locations)

Hydraulic & bulk property 64 samples (11 locations) 4 samples (2 locations)

CPT logs 90 locations in vicinity of

future and existing disposal units

31 locations in vicinity of future and existing vaults

Continuous core descriptions/geophysical logs

8 locations in vicinity of future and existing disposal

units

7 locations in vicinity of future and existing disposal

units

Figure 5-1. Map of E-Area Soils Data Set Locations


66

Figure 5-2. Map of Z-Area Soils Data Set Locations

5.1.2.5 Controlled Compacted Backfill Since the disposal units have not been closed and the controlled compacted backfill does not yet exist, no analytical data for this material are available. Samples from the Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground and compacted composite samples from Z-Area were used in this evaluation to represent the controlled compacted backfill soil. Table 5-3 provides an approximate number of each data type.

Table 5-3. Datasets for E-Area and Z-Area Controlled Compacted Soil

Data Type E-Area Z-Area Grain Size Analyses 41 samples (27 locations) 2 samples (2 locations)

Hydraulic & bulk property 14 samples (14 locations) 8 samples (2 locations)


67

Samples from the Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground consisted of borrow pit material that had been placed on top of the Burial Ground to increase runoff. The tested material consisted primarily of sandy clay soils and was typical of controlled compacted backfill material. Sampling and analysis took place in 2001. Z-Area samples were collected in May 2005 from the upper 12 feet of vadose zone soil in Z-Area. More specifically, samples were collected from two locations at 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 feet. For each location, the soil from the various depths was mixed together to form a composite. Samples were remolded in the laboratory and prepared at different moisture contents (allowing moisture to vary 1.5% above and below the optimum moisture content). Additionally, samples were compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density (modified proctor). The number of samples and locations identified for hydraulic property datasets in Table 5-3 reflect the data that were collected. Samples may not have been included in this evaluation if the samples were suspected to be of poor quality (or non-representative). Data quality for hydraulic properties will be further discussed in Section 5.3.2 Hydraulic Conductivity for controlled compacted backfill.

5.1.2.6 4-ft Operational Soil Cover No samples have been collected and analyzed for the 4-ft operational soil cover. Soil property estimates provided in this report are based on the properties of the undisturbed vadose zone samples. Further information regarding the estimates for the operational soil cover is provided in Section 5.4.0 Operational Soil Cover.

5.1.2.7 Permeable Backfill for the Intermediate Level (IL) Vault According to engineered drawings for the IL Vault, the vault was constructed using a permeable backfill with <15% mud. The backfill likely came from local borrow pits and therefore vadose zone soils data were used to estimate the properties of the backfill. Two samples (VL-1, 44-46’ bls and VL-1, 13-14’ bls from E-Area) were used in this evaluation.

5.1.2.8 Generic Gravel Soil properties were estimated for a generic “gravel” layer based on literature and reported laboratory results for gravel utilized in the construction of some of the vaults in the area. The reported data includes water retention and relative permeability for two gravel samples (GL-1 and GL-2) (Yu et al., 1993).


68

5.2 UNDISTURBED VADOSE ZONE SOIL

5.2.1 Grain Size Soil texture can be classified using an agricultural approach developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or by an engineering methodology known as the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USDA system defines 12 basic textural groups, which can be shown in graphical form on a textural triangle. Only soil with grains less than 2 mm (passing through No. 10 sieve) is considered in this classification system. Sand represents particles between 0.05 and 2.0 mm in size; silt consists of particles 0.002 and 0.05 mm; and clay comprises particles smaller than 0.002 mm in size. The USCS classifies soils based on how soils would behave as engineering construction material. Unlike the USDA system, the USCS includes all particle sizes. Moreover, it defines sand as particles between 0.074 mm (No. 200 sieve) and 4.76 mm (No. 4 sieve), and silts and clays particles less than 0.074 mm. Classification under this system also involves measurements of liquid limit and plastic limit (Atterberg Limits). The liquid limit represents the moisture content above which the soil flows as a viscous liquid and below which it is plastic. The plastic limit is the moisture at which the soil will start to crumble when rolled in the palm of the hand. The plasticity index relates these two limits and is defined as the difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit. There is no easy method for correlating between the two soil classification systems. For this evaluation, both were used to the extent possible to describe the soils. Much of the recent laboratory grain size analyses were performed according to the USCS methodology; however some analyses vary slightly in the particle size limits for sand, silt and clay and not all analyses include the Atterberg Limits (liquid and plasticity limits). A textural triangle based on the USDA system is provided in Figure 5-3. Available E-Area (n = 44) and Z-Area (n = 29) data are plotted for comparison. Because much of the laboratory data did not use the USDA particle size designations, the location of data points may vary from their actual USDA classification (had the grain size analyses been performed using the USDA particle size limits). All of the grain size data plotted in Figure 5-3 come from the LAW, AT&E, or GTE laboratories, which used similar particle size bounds for sand, silt, and clay. The data may be biased toward the sand textural class since for these analyses, sand included particle sizes up to 4.75 mm. Silt included 0.074 mm to 0.005 mm (as opposed to the USDA limits of 0.05 mm to 0.002 mm) and clay consisted of particles less than 0.005 mm (USDA label of less than 0.002 mm). Despite these differences in particle size limits, the figure does provide a general view of soil texture (the relative amounts of % sand, % silt, and % clay) for comparison of samples. E-Area and Z-Area samples tend to be very similar in terms of percent sand, silt and clay. E-Area samples also include samples with significant amounts of clay.


69

Textural Triangle

% SILT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% CLAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% SAND

0102030405060708090100

E-Area SamplesZ-Area Samples

SILT LOAM

SILT

SILTY CLAY LOAM

SILTY CLAY

CLAY

CLAY LOAM

LOAM

SANDY LOAM

SANDY CLAY

SANDY CLAY LOAM

LOAMY SAND SAND

Figure 5-3. Textural Triangle for E-Area and Z-Area Vadose Zone Soils Out of the E-Area and Z-Area samples that have been classified using the USCS, most were designated as “SC” (clayey sands or sand-clay mixture). Table 5-4 provides a list of USCS classifications and the number of samples from E-Area and Z-Area classified in each category. In addition to describing the soils according to the USDA and USCS classifications systems, grain size data were further used to help evaluate hydraulic conductivity data (see Section 5.2.2.1, Review of Data Quality).


70

Table 5-4. Vadose Zone Soils Categorized by USCS

# of Samples2 Symbol Classification Description1

E-Area Z-Area

CH >50% of material is

smaller than #200 sieve (0.074 mm)

Inorganic clays of high plasticity; fat clays 2 0

SC >50% of material is

LARGER than #200 sieve (0.074 mm)

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures; more than ½ of coarse fraction is smaller

than #4 sieve size

10 3

SM >50% of material is


Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures; more than ½ of coarse fraction is smaller

than #4 sieve size

1 0

SP-SM >50% of material is


SP = poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no

fines; more than ½ of coarse fraction is smaller than #4

sieve size

0 1

1 from AGI Data Sheets (Dutro et al, 1989) 2 includes only laboratory data where USCS classification was specified

5.2.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

5.2.2.1 Review of Data Quality In the laboratory sub-samples are typically collected from the original Shelby tube sample for vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements. This process of sub-sampling can disturb the sample resulting in a hydraulic conductivity measurement unrepresentative of the original sample collected from the field. For this evaluation, bulk density measurements from the hydraulic conductivity samples were compared to the bulk density measurements of the original sample to validate that the sub-sample used in the laboratory test was similar to the original field sample. Hydraulic conductivity samples that had a bulk density within 5% of the original sample’s bulk density were considered the most reliable. Figure 5-4 shows a comparison of the bulk density measurements with middle line representing a one-to-one relationship (measurements are the same) and the dashed outer lines representing 5% boundary. Four data points fall on or outside the 5% boundary (indicated by orange circles on the graph). Three of the four data points were removed from the dataset. The one Z-Area sample that had a suspect bulk density measurement was retained since few samples exist from Z-Area.


71

80

90

100

110

120

130

80 90 100 110 120 130Initial Conditions Bulk Density (pcf)

Hydr

aulic

Con

duct

ivity

Bul

k Den

sity (

pcf)

Z-Area SampleZV2B1U ST3

Figure 5-4. Original Sample Bulk Density versus Bulk Density of Hydraulic

Conductivity Samples The percent saturation and effective stress were also noted where the laboratory had provided data. Samples analyzed at saturations less than 90% were removed from the dataset. Because of the scarcity of data, samples in which the laboratory reports did not specify saturation were assumed to have been analyzed near or at saturation. The effective stress exerted on these laboratory samples during the hydraulic conductivity testing ideally would be low in order to represent typical field conditions. Since the samples come from the vadose in E- and Z-Area, there would be little overburden (or low effective stress). The BGST samples were measured at higher effective stresses than other samples in the dataset and higher than the stresses most likely to be encountered in the field. However, the BGST samples were included in this evaluation because of the scarcity of data and since their hydraulic conductivity measurements fell within the range of measurements for the other samples.


72

Since the grain size analyses are more widespread and numerous than the hydraulic property datasets and percent mud is typically considered to have a controlling effect on hydraulic conductivity, the statistical distribution of percent mud was used to aid in determining whether samples analyzed for hydraulic properties were representative of area soils. Percent mud reflects the clay and silt size fraction from grain size analyses and includes the sediment fraction less than 0.074 mm in size (or 0.062 mm for a few of the labs). As shown in Figure 5-5, a relationship is evident between percent mud and vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity for the samples used in this evaluation. As percent mud increases, the vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity decreases. Logarithmic or arithmetic probability graphs have often been used in earth sciences to depict statistical distributions of various types of data (Sinclair, 1989). The probability plots in this report show the number of standard deviations across the top axis with “0” corresponding to the mean value of the graphed population. The cumulative percentage is given at the bottom of the graphs. The “y” axis provides the data (in this case, percent mud) on a logarithmic scale. On a probability plot with an arithmetic “y” axis, a normal population will plot as a straight line. On a probability plot with a logarithmic “y” axis, a log-normal population will plot as a straight line.

y = 0.0009e-0.122x

R2 = 0.5772

1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

% mud (silt + clay)

Ver

tical

Hyd

raul

ic

Con

duct

ivity

(cm

/s)

Figure 5-5. Percent Mud vs Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity


73

In general, the sample populations of percent mud in this study are log-normal. Figure 5-6 shows the cumulative distribution for percent mud for all of the samples in E-Area versus the percent mud in the samples analyzed for hydraulic conductivity. From the available data, the hydraulic conductivity samples appear to be representative of all E-Area grain size samples. However, it is important to note that most of the additional grain size data (samples collected where no hydraulic properties data were measured) predominately come from the engineered trenches and slit trenches rather than being distributed throughout E-Area. Figure 5-7 shows the cumulative distribution for percent mud (clay and silt size fraction) for all of the samples in Z-Area versus the percent mud in the samples analyzed for hydraulic conductivity. From the available data, the hydraulic conductivity samples appear to be finer-grained than all of the Z-Area samples, which suggests that the hydraulic conductivity samples may be biased toward low hydraulic conductivities. Because there are only four hydraulic conductivity data points for Z-Area, however it is difficult to verify this bias based on the statistical distribution of hydraulic conductivity measurements. Table 5-5 provides percentages of the mud fraction for E- and Z-Area sample populations in relation to the samples used in this evaluation for hydraulic conductivity. Since only four hydraulic conductivity measurements are available for Z-Area, these measurements were included with the E-Area dataset. Although the distribution of percent mud indicates there may be a difference in the grain sizes in E-Area versus Z-Area, there is currently not enough hydraulic conductivity data to differentiate hydraulic properties of the two areas.

Table 5-5. Distribution of Mud Fraction in E-Area and Z-Area vs the Hydraulic Conductivity Dataset

Mud fraction All E-Area Data

All Z-Area Data

Hydraulic Conductivity Dataset

> 50% mud 14% 1% 17% 25-50% mud 47% 37% 46% < 25% mud 39% 62% 37%


74

1

10

100-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

z score

%M

UD

%mud all E-Area grain size analyses

%mud for hydraulic conductivity datapoints

Series1

0.1 10 20 301 50 99.9970 99.990 99

cumulative probability

0.01 80

less than 25% mud

more than 50% mud

Figure 5-6. Distribution of Percent Mud for All E-Area Grain Size Analyses vs

Samples Used in Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation


75

1

10

100-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

z score

%M

UD

%mud all Z-Area grain size analyses

%mud for hydraulic conductivity datapoints

Series1

0.1 10 20 301 50 99.9970 99.990 99

cumulative probability

0.01 80

less than 25% mud

more than 50% mud

Figure 5-7. Distribution of Percent Mud for All Z-Area Grain Size Analyses and for

Samples Used in Hydraulic Conductivity Evaluation


76

5.2.2.2 Upscaling Methods Atlantic Coastal Plain sediment deposits are naturally heterogeneous at multiple scales, and characterization data are invariably sparse. Adequately accounting for spatial variability in permeability is a challenge, and several modeling approaches have been developed. A common method is to generate upscaled conductivities for the horizontal and vertical directions based on stochastic methods, and use these values to define a homogeneous, but anisotropic, hydraulic conductivity field in numerical flow and transport modeling (Gelhar 1993; Dagan and Neuman 1997; Zhang 2002). The goal of this approach is to reproduce the average flow behavior of the heterogeneous system. The effect of heterogeneity on solute transport, specifically field-scale dispersion, is captured through appropriate dispersivity settings in a Fickian dispersion model (Gelhar 1997), or mobile fraction and mass transfer coefficient values in a dual-domain formulation (Harvey and Gorelick 2000; Feehley et al. 2000; Flach et al. 2004). Many concepts of geologic heterogeneity have been presented (Anderson 1997). For the geologic setting at the Savannah River Site, a mixture of discrete and continuous representations of permeability variability is appropriate for dealing with multi-scale heterogeneity. The approach is to capture larger scale heterogeneity in the form of discrete formations and facies, and view conductivity as a distinct continuous statistical distribution within each facies (Brannan and Haselow 1993; Webb and Anderson 1996; Jean et al. 2004). Stochastic analysis can be used to derive upscaled conductivity values within each region of continuous permeability variation.

Upscaling refers to the process of replacing a heterogeneous conductivity field within a particular finite volume with a single, “equivalent”, conductivity value. The equivalent conductivity is defined as the value that reproduces some average behavior of the block, such as mean flow for a given head difference. A closely related problem is that of determining the “effective” conductivity of a heterogeneous media. The distinction is stated by Sanchez-Vila et al. (1995) as, “effective parameters are defined as representative values of the mean behavior through an ensemble of realizations, while equivalent parameters are associated with a certain geometry and defined as spatial averages computed on a single realization. These two definitions should converge to the same value for very large geometries and under the assumption of ergodicity.”

The stochastic approach is based on an assumed statistical distribution of small-scale or “point” values of conductivity ( K ), and a spatial correlation model. Although not without shortcomings, hydraulic conductivity is often assumed to have a stationary log-normal distribution and a single correlation scale, on the basis of supporting characterization data (Freeze and Cherry 1979, p. 30-31) and partly for analytical convenience. Log-normal means that the natural logarithm of conductivity, ( )Kln , has a normal distribution. Stationary means that the statistical properties of the medium (mean, variance, spatial correlation) do not change with location within the region of interest. These assumptions are most reasonable in the context of a single facie, but can be applied to a formation with further approximation. Sarris and Paleologos (2004) have shown that log-normality is preserved as conductivity is upscaled, which supports the assumption regardless of scale of data observation (support scale).


77

Gelhar and Axness (1983) derived analytical expressions for the effective conductivity tensor of an infinite, ergodic, anisotropically-correlated medium with log-normally distributed conductivity, subjected to a uniform mean flow. The three-dimensional anisotropy of the heterogeneous medium is defined in terms an exponential covariance function with distinct correlation scales for each coordinate direction, 1λ , 2λ and 3λ

( )⎥⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛++−=

2/1

23

23

22

22

21

212

321 exp,,λλλ

σrrr

rrrC (1)

where

C ≡ covariance

2σ ≡ variance of the natural logarithm of point conductivities

ir ≡ distance between points in direction i

iλ ≡ integral scale for direction i As explained by Sarris and Paleologos (2004), the integral scale iλ is the “length over which the value of the covariance function decreases by a factor of 1−e in direction i .” When the mean flow is aligned with the bedding plane ( 1λ = 2λ > 3λ ), the non-zero components of the conductivity tensor are:

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −+=== 11

22211 2

11 gKKKK gh σ (2)

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −+== 33

233 2

11 gKKK gv σ (3)

where

hK ≡ effective horizontal conductivity

vK ≡ effective vertical conductivity

gK ≡ geometric mean of point conductivity field = median = )exp(µ , where µ is the mean of )ln(K

2σ ≡ variance of the natural logarithm of point conductivities, )ln(K


78

and g11 and g33 are functions of the correlation scales. For case being considered here, they are defined in terms of the ratio of horizontal to vertical correlation, 1/ >= vh λλρ , as follows:

⎥⎥⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎣

⎡−−

−−= − 1)1(tan

)1(11

21 2/121

2/12

2

211 ρρ

ρρ

g (4)

⎥⎥⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎣

⎡−

−−

−= − 2/121

2/122

2

33 )1(tan)1(

111

ρρρ

ρg (5)

The above analytical results are based on a first-order perturbation analysis, and strictly speaking, only exact in the limit as the variance approaches zero. Accurate results can be expected for small variances. For large variances, the predictions may become increasingly inaccurate, or even nonphysical. For example, vK is negative when ∞→= vh λλρ / and the variance of )ln(K exceeds 2. To remedy such nonphysical results and hopefully extend the range of applicability of effective conductivity predictions, Gelhar and Axness (1983) proposed the following generalization of equations (2) and (3):

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −= 11

221exp gKK gh σ (6)

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −= 33

221exp gKK gv σ (7)

The generalization is motivated by the observation that a Taylor series expansion of equations (6) and (7) contains equations (2) and (3), respectively, as the first two terms. Subsequent comparison of equation (2) to numerical simulations indicates that the exponential generalization is accurate for isotropic systems and variances up to 7, but over predicts effective horizontal conductivity for anisotropic systems (Gelhar, 1997, p. 161; Sarris and Paleologos 2004).

Ababou and Wood (1990) note that equations such as (6) and (7) can alternatively be written in terms of a “p-norm” defined by

( )p

pp

i

pip KK

NK

/1/11

⎟⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡≡ ∑ (8)

because

( )2/exp 2σpKK gp = (9)


79

Comparing equations (6) and (7) with (9), one finds 1121 gph −= (10)

3321 gpv −= (11)

where 1121 gph −= and 3321 gpv −= are the averaging exponents associated with horizontal and vertical effective conductivity. That is, equations (6) and (7) are exactly equivalent to

hp

hph KK

/1⎟⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛= (12)

and

vp

vpv KK

/1⎟⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛= (13)

As explained by Ababou and Wood (1990), the p-norm encompasses the familiar averages of arithmetic ( 1=p ), geometric ( 0→p ), and harmonic ( 1−=p ) as well as any blend in between. In more recent years, numerous authors have developed expressions for effective conductivity based on less restrictive assumptions than those adopted by Gelhar and Axness (1993), such as bounded media with various boundary conditions, gradually varying mean flow, non-stationary conductivity, and radial flow. Frequently the effective conductivity is formulated as a power-average (8) with the power p having been determined from numerical simulations or a combined numerical-analytical approach (Sanchez-Vila et al., 1995).

The ratio of upscaled horizontal to vertical conductivity ( R ) can be computed directly from:

( )( ) ⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛ −==

⎟⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛

⎟⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛

== 22

2

/1

/1

2exp

2exp

2expσ

σ

σ vh

vg

hg

vpvp

hphp

v

h pppK

pK

K

K

KK

R (14)

Note that the final result depends only on power-averaging exponents and the variance of point conductivity.


80

The related problem of determining “equivalent” block conductivities has received less attention in literature, but is of great practical importance because "effective" conductivity estimates are strictly valid only for regions that span at least 10 or 100 times the integral correlation scale (Kitanidis, 1997). Frequently model blocks, and even the entire model domain, are not significantly larger than the scale of heterogeneity. This observation is especially supported by recent research that suggests variability exists at all scales without bound and motivates the use of fractal models. However, the concern can be alleviated by confining the continuous statistical model of permeability to a single facies (Anderson 1991). Sanchez-Vila et al. (1995) summarize and compare upscaling approaches proposed to-date. Two out of the four approaches reviewed by Sanchez-Vila et al. (1995) are practical in that a mechanism for computing block conductivity from point values was provided by the author(s). Of these approaches, Desbarats (1992) is particularly appealing because of its simplicity. Desbarats (1992) conjectured that equivalent block conductivities can be formulated as a power-average, a reasonable hypothesis considering the successful use of p-norms in defining effective conductivity. Desbarats (1992) empirically determined the appropriate power through numerical experimentation. For cubic blocks and an isotropic conductivity field, the optimal averaging exponent was determined to be 3/1=p . Interestingly, this is the same power as is appropriate for the effective conductivity of an infinite domain, as can be seen from equations (4) and (10). As Desbarats (1992) notes, this observation further supports the empirical result. For an anisotropic media with 10/ =vh λλ and block dimensions of 3// == vvhh LL λλ , the optimal averaging exponents were found through numerical experimentation to be

59.0=hp and 33.0−=vp . Unlike the isotropic case, these results differ from the averaging exponents for effective conductivity of an infinite medium with 10/ =vh λλ . The latter results are 86.0=hp and 72.0−=vp (see equations (4), (5), (10) and (11)). The discrepancy may be a reflection of equation (2) already over predicting hK in infinite anisotropic media for large variances, as previously stated. Desbarats (1992) recommends that numerical calibration experiments be used to define the power exponents for the specific combination of block geometry and correlation scales of interest. However as Desbarats (1992) notes, equations such as (10) and (11) give the correct values for the limiting cases of an isotropic or perfectly stratified medium, and “provide a convenient alternative to tedious numerical experiments”. Sarris and Paleologos (2004) performed a similar numerical investigation as Desbarats (1992) over a larger range of conditions. For an anisotropic media with 10/ =vh λλ and block dimensions of 8// == vvhh LL λλ , the optimal averaging exponents were found to be

40.0=hp and 05.0=vp . Table 5-6 summarizes the power-average exponents estimated from the three studies discussed. Sarris and Paleologos (2004) and Desbarats (1992) considered different block sizes ( λ/L ), which presumably explains the difference between their results.


81

The stochastic analyses described above can be used to interpret small-scale permeability data as follows. For each formation:

Develop a statistical distribution of small-scale or “point” conductivities ( K ) from laboratory measurements of permeability and other information. A log-normal distribution with mean ( µ ) and variance ( 2σ ) for )ln(K is presumed to adequately represent reality.

Estimate the degree of spatial continuity in the horizontal and vertical directions. Spatial correlation is presumed to be adequately defined by an exponential covariance model, where anisotropy is specified by the ratio of horizontal to vertical correlation lengths ( vh λλ / ) for point conductivities.

Calculate upscaled horizontal and vertical conductivities using equation (9) and appropriate power-average exponents ( hp , vp ). Table 5-6 is a likely source for the latter. Anisotropy in upscaled conductivity can be computed from equation (14).

Alternatively, compute upscaled conductivities directly from permeability data using equation (8) and appropriate power-average exponents. In this case, the first step above can be omitted, as the power-average exponents depend only on vh λλ / .

Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments are clearly stratified and imply anisotropic correlation scales, hλ and vλ . Judgment based on knowledge of the depositional environment and visual inspection of outcrops suggests a reasonable ratio is roughly 10/ =vh λλ . Values for this level of anisotropy have been presented in Table 5-6 for regions of varying size ( λ/L ). If upscaled conductivities are desired for the entire thickness and a large horizontal extent of a formation, then λ/L could be considered large within the context of the assumed geostatistical model, which incorporates a single correlation scale. However, a stationary log-normal geostatistical model applied to a formation does not incorporate larger scale heterogeneity or spatial continuity, as stated earlier. This recognition suggests a much lower assumption for λ/L . Gelhar and Axness (1983) provide values for an infinite extent, but these values are biased toward the end members of 1=hp and presumably 1−=vp , when variance is high. As block size decreases, the exponents contract toward 0=p with 8/ =λL , but the trend reverses in going to 3/ =λL . The optimal choice for the present application is not obvious. The values reported by Desbarats (1992) of 59.0+=hp and 33.0−=vp are in the middle of those presented in Table 5-6, and were chosen for this application. Laboratory measurements for vertical hydraulic conductivity were assumed to reflect horizontal hydraulic conductivity for upscaling purposes. This assumption is thought to be valid since the laboratory sample sizes are small and thus the measurements likely reflect a homogeneous hydraulic conductivity. If there is significant preferential deposition or weathering of minerals, this assumption may be slightly biased.


82

Table 5-6. Upscaling Parameters for Hydraulic Conductivity

Values Conductivity K

Method Block Size

λ/L

Anisotropy vh λλ /

Horizontal exponent

hp

Vertical exponent

vp Gelhar and

Axness (1983)

Effective Analytical Infinite 10 +0.86 -0.72

Desbarats (1992)

Equivalent Numerical 3 10 +0.59 -0.33

Sarris and Paleologos

(2004)

Equivalent Numerical 8 10 +0.40 +0.05

Selected for SRS

application

- - - - +0.59 -0.33

5.2.2.3 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Calculations Using the described upscaling method, horizontal (Kh) and vertical (Kv) conductivities were calculated for the undisturbed vadose zone soils. Laboratory data were subdivided according to the following three approaches: 1. Based on textural properties 2. Global estimate based on one-zone (“single vadose zone”) 3. Global estimate based on two-zone (“upper vadose zone” and “lower vadose zone”) Kh, Kv and Kh/Kv for these categories are provided in Table 5-7. 1. Textural Properties: Kh and Kv were evaluated based on textural properties since it is expected that mud content significantly affects hydraulic conductivity. The categories were divided into:

>50% mud (generalized as “clay”)

25-50% mud (generalized as “clay-sand”)

<25% mud (generalized as “sand”) As would be expected, the “clay” category had the lowest calculated Kh and Kv values whereas the “sand” category had the highest values.


83

Table 5-7. Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Material Description

Calculated Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic

Conductivity, Kh (cm/s)

Calculated Saturated Vertical

Hydraulic Conductivity, Kv

(cm/s)

Kh/Kv # samples

used in calculations

Single Vadose Zone1 8.8E-05 4.4E-06 19.9 43

Single Vadose Zone2 1.0E-04 8.1E-06 12.9 10

Upper Vadose Zone (Above 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)1 3.2E-05 1.4E-06 22.4 23

Lower Vadose Zone (Below 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)1 1.8E-04 3.9E-05 4.5 20

Upper Vadose Zone (Above 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)2 2.6E-05 2.6E-06 10.1 3

Lower Vadose Zone (Below 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)2 1.9E-04 2.9E-05 6.4 7

Sand (<25% Mud)3 2.8E-04 6.4E-05 4.4 15

Clay-Sand (25-50% Mud)3 3.5E-05 7.4E-06 4.8 19

Clay (>50% Mud)3 7.2E-07 2.1E-07 3.4 7 1 global estimate using all data 2 global estimate using textural properties and layer thickness at one representative location 3 two samples were not included in the textural categories (sand, clay-sand, clay) because there were no corresponding sieve analyses conducted with the hydraulic conductivity analyses

2. Global estimate based on one-zone (“single vadose zone”): One global Kh and Kv for the vadose zone was calculated using all of the data for E- and Z-Area. As shown on Table 5-7, values for Kh and Kv resemble the “clay-sand” category. Because these overall averages account only for the horizons sampled and does not take into account thickness of various soil types, an alternative method was used to calculate the global estimate. A representative location (AT-North/Megacptnorth) was chosen with existing soil property data and a CPT log. Based on the CPT log and grain size analyses, a vertical profile was generated whereby a textural category (i.e., “sand”, “clay-sand” or “clay”) and thickness could be assigned for the vadose zone. Figure 5-8 depicts the basic approach. These data were then upscaled (using 59.0+=hp and 33.0−=vp ) to generate a global vadose zone estimate that incorporates the thickness of the various soil types (Table 5-7). This methodology was used to perform calculations for two locations (one at the Engineered Trenches and one at the Slit Trenches) and yielded similar results suggesting that there is little difference across E-Area based on this method.


84

Figure 5-8. Methodology Used in Global Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Estimate

(based on textural properties and layer thickness at AT-North/Megacptnorth)


85

3. Global estimate based on two-zones (“upper vadose zone” and “lower vadose zone”): Grain size data, visual core descriptions and CPT logs indicate that the upper and lower vadose zone have different textural properties. Figure 5-9, which shows the CPT logs from a location near the slit trenches, illustrates this difference. Using the CPT logs and grain size analyses, hydraulic laboratory data were lumped into an upper zone and lower zone. These data were then upscaled (using 59.0+=hp and 33.0−=vp ) to generate Kh and Kv for the upper vadose zone and lower vadose zone. Results show that the upper zone has a lower Kh and Kv than the lower zone reflecting the greater abundance of fine-grained sediments and heterogeneity in the upper zone (Table 5-7). An alternative method (similar to the one described for the one-zone estimate) was used to calculate an upper and lower zone based on textural properties and layer thickness in a representative CPT (AT-North/Megacptnorth). The resulting Kh and Kv were similar to the global estimates for an upper and lower zone based on compiling all of the data (without regard to layer thickness). However, the methodology based on thickness and textural properties yielded a much lower ratio of Kh to Kv for the upper zone (Table 5-7). Using available CPT logs, visual core descriptions and grain size analyses, an upper and lower zone can be defined across E-Area and Z-Area. In this manner, changes in the thickness of the upper zone can be captured for incorporation into models. Figure 5-10 provides a map of E-Area with two transects. Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 show the transects in a cross-sectional view. Figure 5-13, Figure 5-14, and Figure 5-15 provide a map and cross-sections for Z-Area. The cross-sections include identification of the CPTs that were used in the determination, a pick for the bottom of the lower zone (pink boxes), and the approximate water table elevation based on water level measurements from nearby wells. It is important to note that in some areas, such as the western end of transect 2 in E-Area, few CPTs exist and the existing sparse data may be questionable. In addition, in parts of Z-Area, the upper zone has been excavated due to normal site operations. Furthermore, because Z-Area is located on a topographical “high”, the upper zone thins and is absent as the topography slopes toward the nearby streams (Upper Three Runs and McQueen Branch). As further characterization is completed in E-Area and Z-Area, the upper zone and lower zone boundaries can be refined. Calculated Kh and Kv values using the described approaches are within the range of Kh and Kv measured from pump tests for the water table aquifer near TNX and D-Area. Although the measurements reflect the saturated zone, the water table aquifer at TNX and D-Area is similar to the vadose zone in E-Area and Z-Area. At TNX and D-Area, the water table aquifer is approximately 40 to 60 ft in thickness and consists of a highly layered system of fine sands, silts and clays. The vadose zone at E-Area and Z-Area has a similar thickness and is likewise comprised of layers of sands, silts and clays. Data from the TNX and D-Area pump tests were used for comparative purposes to confirm that the Kh and Kv calculated in this evaluation are reasonable estimates.


86

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

280

270

260

250

240

230

Elev Depth Ratio Pore Resistivity0 -------------- 10 0 -------------- 15 0 ----------- 12000ft msl ft bls

EAVZCPT8

Upper Zone

Higher friction ratio, dominated by finer-grained sediments

LowerZone

Lower friction ratio, dominated by sandier

sediments

ft msl = feet from mean sea level (elevation); ft bls = feet below land surface (depth); ratio = friction ratio (sleeve resistance/tip resistance; in %); pore = porepressure (psi); electrical resistivity (ohms-meters); tip = tip resistance (tsf)

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

280

270

260

250

240

230


EAVZCPT8

Upper Zone


LowerZone


sediments

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

280

270

260

250

240

230


EAVZCPT8

Upper Zone


LowerZone


sediments

ft msl = feet from mean sea level (elevation); ft bls = feet below land surface (depth); ratio = friction ratio (sleeve resistance/tip resistance; in %); pore = porepressure (psi); electrical resistivity (ohms-meters); tip = tip resistance (tsf)

Figure 5-9. Upper and Lower Zones for EAVZCPT8


87

Figure 5-10. E-Area Map Showing Transects for Cross-sections


88

Figure 5-11. Cross-section of Transect 1 in E-Area


89

Figure 5-12. Cross-section of Transect 2 in E-Area


90

Figure 5-13. Z-Area Map Showing Transects


91

Figure 5-14. Cross-section of Transect 1 in Z-Area


92

Figure 5-15. Cross-section of Transect 2 in Z-Area


93

Table 5-8 provides data from these pumps tests. Kh measurements at TNX and D-Area vary between 5.9E-5 cm/sec (0.17 ft/day) and 1.1E-2 cm/sec (30.6 ft/day). Kv measurements vary between 9.4E-6 cm/sec (0.03 ft/day) and 7.1E-4 cm/sec (2.0 ft/day). Kh/Kv varies between 2 and 42.

Table 5-8. Pump Test Results from the Water Table Aquifer at TNX and D-Area

Well ID Area Kh (cm/s)

Kh (ft/day)

Kv (cm/s)

Kv (ft/day) Kh/Kv Analysis

Method

Aquifer Thickness

(ft) Source

DCB-8 D-Area 4.0E-04 1.1 9.4E-06 0.03 42.1 Neuman 64.0 Phifer et al, 2000

DCP-17 D-Area 5.5E-04 1.6 5.9E-05 0.17 9.3 Neuman 64.0 Phifer et al, 2000

DCB-2A D-Area 8.1E-04 2.3 3.8E-05 0.11 21.4 Quick Neuman 64.5 Phifer et al,

2000

TCM-2 TNX 1.1E-02 30.6 4.6E-04 1.3 23.5 Neuman 42.0 Phifer et al, 1998

TCM-1 TNX 6.6E-03 18.8 7.1E-04 2 9.4 Neuman 42.0 Phifer et al, 1998

TNX-11D TNX 3.2E-03 9.2 2.4E-04 0.67 13.7 Neuman 42.0 Phifer et al, 1998

DCB-24A D-Area 5.9E-05 0.2 2.8E-05 0.08 2.1 Neuman 48.5 Phifer et al, 1996

DCB-24B D-Area 3.4E-04 1.0 3.2E-05 0.09 10.6 Neuman 48.5 Phifer et al, 1996

DCB-24C D-Area 1.1E-03 3.1 9.1E-05 0.26 12.1 Neuman 48.5 Phifer et al, 1996

5.2.3 Water Retention RETC (RETention Curve) (USDA, 1998), a U.S. Salinity Laboratory computer program designed for analyzing the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils, was used to fit observed water retention data. The program’s curve fitting is based on van Genuchten’s equation for soil water content as a function of pressure

[ ]mn

rsr

hh

)(1)(

α

θθθθ

+

−+= 0≤h

sh θθ =)( 0>h where )(hθ is water content at the pressure head h , rθ is residual water content, sθ is the saturated water content, h is pressure head, α is a constant related to the inverse of the air-entry pressure, and n is a measure of the pore-size distribution. The constraint nm 11−= was used as suggested by van Genuchten (van Genuchten, 1980; van Genuchten et al, 1991).


94

All the generated soil moisture curves were based on water retention data only; no unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data were available for the samples. RETC’s (USDA, 1998) van Genuchten nm 11−= retention curve model and Mualem conductivity model were used to estimate curve fitting parameters ( rθ , sθ ,α , n ) for each sample. Initial parameter estimates in the program were based on laboratory grain size data and the program’s soil catalog. The curve fitting parameters ( rθ , sθ ,α , n ) from RETC (USDA, 1998) were used to calculate the effective saturation (or reduced water content), eS , at incremental pressure heads according to

[ ]mnr

re

hSSS

S)(1

11 α+

=−−

= (15)

where rS denotes residual saturation. Using eS , the relative hydraulic conductivity was calculated at incremental pressure heads using the Mualem-van Genuchten type function

( )[ ]2/111 mme

Le SSK −−= , where L is an empirical pore-connectivity parameter and

assumed to 0.5. Saturation ( S ) was calculated at various pressure heads from equation 15 by

( )[ ] ⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

+

−+= mn

rr

h

SSS

α1

1

where residual saturation, rS , is equal to sr θθ (the residual water content divided by the saturated water content). Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17 provide saturation versus suction for each of the textural categories plotted with the raw data. For each textural category, the “average” was calculated by arithmetically averaging the saturation values ( S ) of the individual curves at each suction value. This method was chosen (rather than allowing RETC to generate a curve based on all of the raw data) to create a curve that is a more representative average of the individual curves. Figure 5-18 provides a graph of the “sand” category and shows the difference between the two methods. The difference between the two methods is most apparent with increasing suction for the “sand”.


95

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Data VL1_29-31

Data VL1_1.5-3.5

Data ATN_9-11

ATN_9-11

VL1_1.5-3.5

VL1_29-31

Avg Saturation

"CLAY"

VL1 29-31

VL1 1.5-3.5

ATN 9-11

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Data VL1_21-23

Data ATN2-4

Data ATN_14-16

Data ATN_18-20

Data ATS_14-15

Data ATS_16-17.5

VL1_21-23

ATN_2-4

ATN_14-16

ATN_18-20

ATS_14-15

ATS_16-17.5

Avg Saturation

"CLAY-SAND"

ATN 2-4

ATN 18-20

ATN 14-16

ATS 14-15

ATS 16-17.5

VL1 21-23

Figure 5-16. Saturation versus Suction for Textural Categories - Clay and Clay-Sand


96

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Data AT8_41-43

Data VL1_13-15

Data VL1_31-33

Data VL1_44-46

Data ATN_42-44

Data ZV2B3UST3

AT8_41-43

VL1_13-15

VL1_31-33

VL1_44-46

ATN_42-44

ZV2B3UST3

Avg Saturation

"SAND"

VL1 31-33ZV2B

ATN 42-44

VL1 44-46

AT8 41-43

VL1 13-15

Figure 5-17. Saturation versus Suction for Textural Categories - Sand

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Data AT8_41-43

Data VL1_13-15

Data VL1_31-33

Data VL1_44-46

Data ATN_42-44

Data ZV2B3UST3

AT8_41-43

VL1_13-15

VL1_31-33

VL1_44-46

ATN_42-44

ZV2B3UST3

Avg Saturation

RETC curve (all data)

"SAND"

Figure 5-18. Average Saturation versus Suction for Sand


97

Figure 5-19 depicts saturation versus suction for the upper and lower zones. A methodology similar to the one used for determining hydraulic conductivity was employed to calculate the water retention curves. For a representative location (AT-North/Megacptnorth), data were categorized into an upper zone and lower zone and thicknesses of the representative textural categories (“sand”, “clay-sand” and “clay”) were determined using CPT logs, visual core descriptions and grain size analyses. Using these thicknesses, a proportion (or percentage) of the textural categories was computed for the upper and lower zones. For example, the 21.5-foot thick upper zone consisted of approximately 81% “clay-sand” and 19% “clay”. The soil moisture profiles for the “clay”, “clay-sand” and “sand” were then combined into one curve based on the proportion of each textural category. Note that the representative location for these calculations was the same location used for the hydraulic conductivity calculations. The methodology of using a representative location, textural properties and layer thicknesses appeared to provide curves that were representative of the “average” conditions for the upper and lower zones and less influenced by outlier samples compared to averaging data with no account for thicknesses of the various soil types. Figure 5-20 shows saturation versus suction assuming a single zone (or a global estimate). The soil moisture curves for the single zone reflect the proportion (or percentage) of upper zone and lower zone for the representative location. The upper and lower zone moisture profiles were combined into one single zone curve by applying 43% of the upper zone properties and 57% of the lower zone properties. Figure 5-21 provides a graph for comparison of the average saturation versus suction curves for the textural categories, the upper and lower zones, the single zone, and the assumed “native” soil used in previous performance assessment modeling (McDowell-Boyer et al., 2000). The upper zone curve lies between the “clay” and “clay-sand” curves as would be expected since the upper zone is primarily composed of finer grained sediments. The lower zone lies closer to the “sand” curve as would be expected since the lower zone tends to be dominated by coarser grained sediments. The “native” soil curve was an assumed curve derived from porosity measurements conducted in 1980 using soil near E-Area and laboratory measurements from 1992 of saturated hydraulic conductivity for topsoil and backfill (McDowell-Boyer et al., 2000). The soil moisture profile for the “native” soil is most similar to the “sand” or lower zone curve. The relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) curves for the textural categories are presented in Figure 5-22 and Figure 5-23. For each textural category, the “average” was calculated by arithmetically averaging the rK of the individual curves for each suction value. Figure 5-24 shows rK curves for the upper and lower zones. As with the saturation curves, the rK for the textural categories (“sand”, “clay-sand” and “clay”) were proportioned according to thickness using CPT logs, visual core descriptions and grain size analyses for a representative location.


98

Figure 5-25 provides the rK curves for a single zone. Like the saturation curves, the single zone rK curve reflects a proportion of upper zone properties and lower zone properties at a representative location. Note that the representative location for determining the upper, lower and single zone curves was the same location used for calculating the hydraulic conductivity and saturation curves. Figure 5-26 compares the various rK curves. The “clay-sand” textural category is similar to the upper zone, which is expected since the upper zone is primarily composed of finer grained sediments. The “sand” category is similar to the lower zone as expected since sand-sized grains tend to dominate this zone. The graph also shows that the finest grained sediment (i.e., “clay”) tends to have higher relative hydraulic conductivity than the “sand” and “clay-sand” at higher suction values. The “native” soil curve (McDowell-Boyer et al, 2000), an assumed curve used in earlier modeling efforts, has a higher relative hydraulic conductivity than any of the other soil curves. Figure 5-27 provides saturation plotted against suction and relative hydraulic conductivity for the various categories (e.g., texture, upper and lower zones, single zone, assumed “native” soil).


99

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Upper Zone

CLAY-SAND

CLAY

UPPER ZONE

81% 19%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Lower Zone

CLAY-SAND

SAND

LOWER ZONE

72% 28%

Figure 5-19. Saturation vs Suction for the Upper and Lower Zones


100

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Single Zone

Upper Zone

Lower Zone

SINGLE ZONE

43%57%

Figure 5-20. Saturation vs Suction for the Single Zone

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Lower zone (LZ)

Upper zone (UZ)

AVG "clay" (C)

AVG "clay-sand" (CS)

AVG "sand" (S)

"Native" (N)

Single zone (SZ)

"Native" Soil

S CS CUZLZ SZ

Figure 5-21. Comparison of Saturation vs Suction Curves


101

"CLAY"

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

ATN_9-11

VL1_1.5-3.5

VL1_29-31

AVG CLAY

"CLAY-SAND"

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

vl1_21-23

ATN_2-4

ATN_14-16

ATN_18-20

ATS_14-15

ATS_16-17.5

AVG CLAY-SAND

Figure 5-22. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Textural Categories -

Clay and Clay-Sand


102

"SAND"

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

at8_41-43

vl1_13-15

vl1_31-33

vl1_44-46

ATN_42-44

ZV2B3UST3

AVG SAND

Figure 5-23. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Textural Categories -

Sand


103

UPPER ZONE

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

Upper Zone

CLAY-SAND

CLAY

19% CLAY

81% CLAY-SAND

LOWER ZONE

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

Lower Zone

CLAY-SAND

SAND

72% SAND

28% CLAY-SAND

Figure 5-24. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for the Upper and Lower

Zones


104

SINGLE ZONE

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

Single Zone

Upper Zone

Lower Zone

43% UZ

57% LZ

Figure 5-25. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for the Single Zone

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

"Native"

Upper Zone

Lower Zone

Single Zone

CLAY

CLAY-SAND

SAND

Native

Figure 5-26. Comparison of Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity Curves


105

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00K

r

Suction-Native Suction-Sand Suction-Clay Suction-Clay-Sand

Kr-Native Kr-Sand Kr-Clay Kr-Clay-Sand

TEXTURAL CATEGORIES

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

Kr

Suction-Native Suction-Upper Zone Suction-Lower Zone Suction-Single Zone

Kr-Native Kr-Upper Zone Kr-Lower Zone Kr-Single Zone

Upper Zone, Lower Zone, Single Zone

Figure 5-27. Water Retention Curves for the Textural Categories and Zones


106

5.2.4 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density Porosity values reflect laboratory measurements of the total volume of pore space in the soil samples. Since samples were collected from the vadose zone, where flow primarily occurs in the vertical direction perpendicular to strata, the total porosity was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the effective porosity. Bulk density corresponds to the dry bulk density or the total mass of dry soil per unit volume of material (including pore spaces). Particle density reflects the mass of dry soil particles per unit volume of soil particles (not including pore space). Particle density was calculated using laboratory measurements of porosity and dry bulk density according to:

)1( ηρ

ρ−

= bp

where pρ = particle density, bρ = dry bulk density, and η = porosity (Hillel, 1982). Total porosity, bulk density, and particle density were calculated for the following categories: • Textural categories (“sand”, “clay-sand”, “clay”) • Global estimate assuming single zone • Global estimate assuming two zones (upper and lower) Calculations for these categories entailed arithmetic averaging of laboratory data. Estimates for the textural property categories included all samples for which corresponding grain size data were available. Due to the similarity in values for the textural categories (“sand”, “clay-sand” and “clay”), an average based on textural properties and thickness was not practical or needed (as was used for calculating hydraulic conductivity and water retention properties). Estimates for the single zone consisted of arithmetic averaging all available laboratory data for the samples used in the hydraulic conductivity and water retention evaluation. For the two-zone system, all available laboratory data were categorized into either an upper zone or lower zone using CPT logs and visual core descriptions and arithmetically averaged. Table 5-9 provides ranges of the laboratory data along with the calculated averages. Porosity measurements ranged from 29% to 48%; dry bulk density ranged from 1.37 g/cm3 to 1.90 g/cm3; and particle density varied from 2.61 g/cm3 to 2.81 g/cm3.

5.2.5 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient (De)

For this evaluation, the effective diffusion coefficient ( eD ) is defined as the molecular diffusion coefficient ( mD ) divided by the porous medium tortuosity (τ )

τm

eDD = .

Note that eD does not include the effects of sorption or porosity. mD is the aqueous diffusion coefficient of a chemical species in open or pure water. Since no measured effective diffusion data were available from laboratory data or literature for soils typical of E-Area and Z-Area, generic literature values for mD andτ were used to calculate eD .


107

Table 5-9. Summary Bulk Properties for Vadose Zone Soils & Controlled Compacted Backfill

Porosity % Bulk Density g/cm3 Particle Density1 g/cm3 Material Description

min max avg min max avg min max avg

Single Vadose Zone 29 48 39 1.37 1.9 1.63 2.61 2.81 2.67

Upper Vadose Zone (Above 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)

29 48 39 1.4 1.9 1.65 2.63 2.73 2.7

Lower Vadose Zone (Below 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)

33 48 39 1.37 1.8 1.62 2.61 2.81 2.66

Sand (<25% Mud) 33 43 38 1.5 1.8 1.65 2.63 2.72 2.66

Clay-Sand (25-50% Mud) 29 47 37 1.49 1.9 1.68 2.61 2.81 2.67

Clay (>50% Mud) 36 48 43 1.37 1.72 1.52 2.64 2.73 2.67

Control Compacted Backfill 29 42 35 1.55 1.86 1.71 2.62 2.68 2.63 1 particle density calculated; particle density = dry bulk density/(1-porosity) (from Hillel, 1982)

Table 5-10 provides molecular diffusion coefficient values ( mD ) from the literature for several inorganic compounds and ions. Overall, the mD values range from 8.5E-6 to 2.0E-5 cm2/s (Bruins, 2003; Faure, 1991; Robinson and Stokes, 1955). A mD value of 1.6E-5 cm2/s was used for the eD calculations. This value is based on measurements of sodium chloride (NaCl) in a dilute solution. In high concentration solutions, the movement of the solvent molecules will affect the movement of the solute molecules or ions. However, in dilute solutions, the diffusion coefficients are considered to represent the motion of the solute molecules or ions through a stationary solvent. Tortuosity (τ ) corrects for the geometry of the pore space in the sediments. It is often defined as:

2

⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛=

lleτ

where τ = tortuosity or tortuosity factor, el = the true or effective path length, and l = the shortest distance through a porous medium (or the direct path from higher concentration to lower concentration) (Boving and Grathwohl, 2001; Dykhuizen and Casey, 1989; Maerki et al, 2004; Thibodeaux, 1979).


108

Table 5-10. Literature Values for Molecular Diffusion Coefficient (Dm)

In general, tortuosities range from 2 to 6 for silica gel, alumina, and other porous materials (Perry and Green, 1997; Thibodeau, 1979). Tortuosity has been measured by diffusion or resistivity experiments for various materials and rocks (Boving and Grathwohl, 2001; Dykhuizen and Casey, 1989; Greskovich et al, 1975; Maerki et al, 2004). Studies have also shown the existence of empirical relationships between tortuosity and porosity (Boudreau, 1996; Dykhuizen and Casey, 1989; Maerki et al, 2004). Several factors such as pore size distribution, the number and shape of pore intersections, and the number of dead-end pores affect the tortuosity of a material making it a difficult parameter to determine (Dykhuizen and Casey, 1989). Table 5-11 provides experimental values from the literature and values assumed for this evaluation. Based on theoretical relationships, tortuosity generally decreases as porosity increases but this relationship assumes an idealized system with connectivity among pores.

Compound/Ion Diffusivity in Open Water (cm2/sec) Reference

NaCl 1.61E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 NaCl 1.30E-05 at 20oC, dilute solution Bruins, 2003 NaCl 1.60E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Bruins, 2003 KCl 2.00E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 KCl 1.60E-05 at 20oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003

MgCl 1.10E-05 at 20oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003 MgCl 1.40E-05 at 30oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003

NH4Cl 1.60E-05 at 20oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003 CaCl2 1.34E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 CaCl2 1.10E-05 at 20oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003 KNO3 1.93E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 KNO3 1.54E-05 at 24oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003

NH4NO3 1.93E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 MgSO4 8.49E-06 at 25oC, dilute solution Robinson & Stokes, 1955 K2SO4 9.00E-06 at 20oC, 1 molar solution Bruins, 2003

Br- 2.01E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Faure, 1991 Cl- 2.03E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Faure, 1991

NO3- 1.90E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Faure, 1991

HCO3- 1.18E-05 at 25oC, dilute solution Faure, 1991


109

Table 5-11. Tortuosity Values from Literature and this Evaluation

Material Description Porosity (%) Tortuosity Reference

Sand, unconsolidated, 0.147-0.208 mm (fine sand) 49 1.4 Greskovich et al, 1975

Sand, unconsolidated, 0.208-0.295 mm (fine-medium sand) 51 1.5 Greskovich et al, 1975

Sand, unconsolidated, 0.417-0.589 mm (medium-coarse sand) 51 1.4 Greskovich et al, 1975

Limestone mud, consolidated (chalk) (Ch') 42.6 3.1 Boving and Grathwohl, 2001

Limestone mud, consolidated (chalk) (Ch") 42.7 2.8 Boving and Grathwohl, 2001

Limestone mud, consolidated (chalk) (KL2') 22.9 3.7 Boving and Grathwohl, 2001

Limestone mud, consolidated (chalk) (KL2") 24 6.1 Boving and Grathwohl, 2001

"Sand" 43 2.0 assumed for this evaluation

"Clay-Sand" 47 3.0 assumed for this evaluation

"Clay" 48 4.0 assumed for this evaluation

Upper, Lower, & Single Zone 42 & 39 3.0 assumed for this evaluation

For this evaluation, the average porosities among the soils were fairly similar (near 40% with a range of 29% to 48%). The “clay” and “clay-sand” categories were assumed to have higher tortuosities because of their poor sorting and greater amount of fine-grained matrix. Sorting refers to the range of grain sizes in the samples and poor sorting implies a large range of grain sizes. Note that the textural category names (“clay”, “clay-sand”, and “sand”) reflect the general amount of mud (silt and clay sized particles) in the samples. A greater presence of silt and clay-sized particles was assumed to restrict pore connectivity and increase tortuosity. Figure 5-28 provides several photomicrographs of vadose zone soils from a shallow soil boring in A-Area. The photomicrographs show examples of fine-grained matrix (silt and clay-size fraction) and its relationship to porosity (in blue in the photomicrographs). To make the petrographic thin sections (slides), undisturbed core samples were epoxy impregnated, mounted on a glass slide, ground to 30 microns and polished. Although vacuum impregnation may disturb loosely bound material (e.g. loose sands in the photomicrograph from 24 ft), the porosity of these samples relative to each other is still evident. The fine-grained matrix in these samples is composed of iron oxides and kaolinite, a type of clay, and is typical of vadose zone soils at SRS. Porosity is evident by the blue epoxy. As shown in these photomicrographs, the amount and distribution of the fine-grained matrix can affect the amount of porosity and connectivity among pores.


110

13-15 feet below land surface; blue epoxy = pore space; “Q” = quartz sand grains; dark reddish-brown to black = iron oxides. Note: iron oxides nearly block some pores.

~25 feet below land surface; blue epoxy = pore space; “Q” = quartz sand grains; dark reddish-brown to black = iron oxides; “K” = kaolinite. Note: iron oxides and kaolinite nearly block some pores.

~18 feet below land surface; blue epoxy = pore space; “Q” = quartz sand grains; dark reddish-brown to black = iron oxides; “K” = kaolinite. Note: some pores blocked or restricted by kaolinite and iron oxides

~24 feet below land surface; blue epoxy = pore space; “Q” = quartz sand grains; dark reddish-brown to black = iron oxides. Note: relatively little matrix material (iron oxides and kaolinite)

Q

10 um

K Q

10 um

Q

10 um

Q K

10 um

Figure 5-28. Photomicrographs of Vadose Zone Soils from A-Area


111

Using literature based molecular diffusivity and tortuosity values, eD was calculated for each of the textural categories, the upper and lower zone, and single zone (Table 5-12).

Table 5-12. Calculated Effective Diffusion Coefficients

Material Tortuosity eD

"Sand" 2 8.0E-06 "Clay-Sand" 3 5.3E-06

"Clay" 4 4.0E-06 Upper Zone 3 5.3E-06 Lower Zone 3 5.3E-06 Single Zone 3 5.3E-06

5.3 CONTROLLED COMPACTED BACKFILL

5.3.1 Grain Size

Grain size analyses for the samples used to represent the control compacted backfill are presented on a textural triangle in Figure 5-29. The data include samples from the Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground and compacted composite samples from Z-Area. Samples were analyzed by LAW and GTE laboratories, which have similar particle size limits for sand, silt, and clay. As discussed in Section 5.2.1, Grain Size for undisturbed vadose zone soil, data may be biased toward the sand class since sand included particle sizes up to 4.75 mm. Nevertheless, all the data cluster together in the sandy clay loam category. Samples evaluated according to the USCS were classified as “SC” (clayey sands or sand-clay mixtures) or “SM” (silty sands, sand-silt mixtures).


The criteria used in determining the reliability of the vadose zone soil samples consisted of comparing the bulk density of the initial sample with the sub-sample used in the hydraulic conductivity analyses. These criteria could not be applied to the laboratory samples for the controlled compacted backfill soils because for many of the samples, an initial bulk density was not measured in the laboratory. Out of the 34 hydraulic conductivity samples available from E-Area and Z-Area, 32 samples were used in this evaluation. The results from two samples were not used. These particular samples were duplicates of other samples but were analyzed at a higher effective stress and had significantly lower vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity values. The upscaling methodology used for the vadose zone soil was applied to the data for the controlled compacted soils in order to include heterogeneity and spatial continuity. Using a

59.0+=hp and 33.0−=vp , the calculated horizontal saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kh) was 7.6E-5 cm/sec and the vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kv) was 4.1E-5 cm/sec.


112

Textural Triangle

% SILT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% CLAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% SAND

0102030405060708090100

ORWBG-LPLORWBG-CFZ-Area Composite Samples

SILT LOAM

SILT

SILTY CLAY LOAM

SILTY CLAY

CLAY

CLAY LOAM

LOAM

SANDY LOAM

SANDY CLAY

SANDY CLAY

LOAM

LOAMY SAND SAND

Figure 5-29. Textural Triangle for Controlled Compacted Backfill

5.3.3 Water Retention Soil moisture data for the controlled compacted backfill samples were evaluated using RETC computer program (USDA, 1998) as described in Section 5.2.3 Water Retention section for the undisturbed vadose zone soils. Figure 5-30 shows the saturation versus suction curves based on the laboratory data. For this evaluation, an average of all of the individual curves from E-Area and Z-Area was produced to represent the controlled compacted backfill. Suction versus relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) curves are presented in Figure 5-31. Most of the curves cluster around the average curve, which was calculated by arithmetically averaging all of the samples. However, a few of the Z-Area samples curves (particularly the remolded samples prepared to 1.5% optimum moisture) had curves far below the other rK curves. These samples also correspond to the curves that show a quick loss in saturation with increasing suction (Figure 5-30).


113

The data for these three samples were also evaluated using other retention curve and conductivity models (e.g. van Genuchten with variable m, n retention model and the Burdine conductivity model) in RETC. rK curves similar to the other samples could be produced using other models, however the curve fitting parameters did yield realistic saturation curves. Water retention and relative permeability curves similar to the other samples could be produced using the van Genuchten m=1-1/n retention curve model and Mualem conductivity model by fixing the initial water retention value entered into RETC (at zero suction) to a value slightly above the laboratory measured porosity (and using the initial laboratory measured volumetric content for the RETC input value at 100 cm suction). The samples used in this evaluation are only representative of the controlled compacted backfill (and are not true samples of the future controlled compacted backfill). Therefore soil moisture curves should be considered as rough estimates for the potential properties of the controlled compacted backfill. Initial recommended characteristic curves for the controlled compacted backfill reflect an arithmetic average of all of the data including all of the Z-Area data (without the later modifications to the Z-Area samples). Since the data are only considered rough estimates, the recommended characteristic curves were not changed after modifications were made to the Z-Area samples. The recommended characteristic curves are represented as bold-faced dashed lines in Figure 5-30 and Figure 5-31.

5.3.4 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density Only 19 of the 32 samples used in the hydraulic conductivity evaluation had laboratory measurements of porosity and dry bulk density. Calculations for these categories entailed arithmetic averaging of laboratory data. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the bulk properties. Samples representing the controlled compacted backfill had an average porosity of 35%, an average bulk density of 1.71 g/cm3, and a calculated particle density of 2.63 g/cm3.


No laboratory measurements of eD , mD , or τ are available for the controlled compacted backfill samples. Since the controlled compacted soil will come from the vadose zone, a eD of 5.3E-6 cm2/s was chosen, the same value as assigned to upper vadose zone and lower zone, the single zone, and the “clay-sand” category.


114

Control Compacted

Backfill

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)ORWBGLPL B4 0.5-2

ORWBGCF D4 2-4

ORWBGLPL G3 0.5-2

ORWBGCF H3 2-4

Z-Area TP11+1.5

Z-Area TP12+1.5

Z-Area TP11-1.5

Z-Area TP12-1.5

Z-Area TP21+1.5

Z-Area TP22+1.5

Z-Area TP21-1.5

Z-Area TP22-1.5

AVG Saturation Curves

AVG Saturation revised Z-Area samples

Figure 5-30. Saturation vs Suction for Controlled Compacted Backfill

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

ORWBGLPL B4 0.5-2

ORWBGCF D4 2-4

ORWBGLPL G3 0.5-2

ORWBGCF H3 2-4

Z-Area TP11+1.5

Z-Area TP12+1.5

Z-Area TP11-1.5

Z-Area TP12-1.5

Z-Area TP21+1.5

Z-Area TP22+1.5

Z-Area TP21-1.5

Z-Area TP22-1.5

AVG ALL the DATA

AVG DATA revised Z-Area curves

Figure 5-31. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Controlled Compacted

Backfill


115

5.4 OPERATIONAL SOIL COVER No samples have been collected and analyzed for the operational soil cover. However, because the operational soil cover will be derived from the upper vadose zone soils, properties from the upper vadose zone soils can be used to estimate the operational soil cover properties.


5.4.1.1 Prior to Dynamic Compaction Several methods were employed to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction (DC). These methods included using data from Lamb and Whitman (1969), data from SRS M-Area soils, and the Kozeny-Carman equation. All of these methods were also used in a prior evaluation of the operational soil cover in the “Preliminary Closure Analysis for Slit Trenches #1 and #2” (Flach et al, 2005).

1. Lamb and Whitman (1969) provide Ksat data for various soils versus the void ratio (e) in their Figure 19.5. A void ratio was calculated for the operational soil cover and upper vadose zone soils. Ksat values were read from the graph (Figure 19.5 in Lamb and Whitman, 1969) at these two void ratios (e) for unconsolidated sediments. The fraction of the Ksat values at the two void ratios (e) from Lamb and Whitman together with the upper zone horizontal Ksat (Kh) value was used to estimate a Ksat for the operational soil cover. The calculations are presented below.

Porosity is related to void ratio by way of the following equation (Hillel, 1982):

)1( nne−

=

The porosity of the operational soil cover was estimated based on an assumed bulk density of 90 pcf (1.442 g/cm3) (Phifer and Wilhite, 2001) and a particle density of 2.65 g/cm3 (Hillel, 1982). Porosity ( n ) is related to bulk density ( bρ ) and particle density ( pρ ) by (Hillel, 1982):

)()1(

p

bnρ

ρ−=

The calculated porosity for the operational soil cover equaled 0.456 (or 45.6%). A void ratio (e) of 0.838 was calculated for the operational soil cover based on a computed porosity of 0.456 and a bulk density of 90 pcf. A void ratio (e) of 0.639 was calculated for the upper vadose zone soil based on an average laboratory porosity of 0.39 and an average laboratory bulk density of 102.82 pcf (or 1.65 g/cm3).


116

Table 5-13 provides the satK values from Lamb and Whitman (1969) along with the calculated value for the operational soil cover. This method yielded a high hydraulic conductivity relative to the other methods and higher than what would be expected in the field.

Table 5-13. Ksat from Lamb and Whitman (1969) and calculated Ksat for the Operational Soil Cover Prior to DC

Soil type Ksat at e=0.613 (cm/s)

Ksat at e=0.838 (cm/s)

Ksat with e=0.838/ Ksat with e=0.613

21 Silt - North Carolina 5.5E-07 2.0E-05 36.4

22 Sand - from dike 1.4E-04 4.0E-04 2.9 average 19.61

estimated Ksat 1.2E-03

2. Another method of estimating hydraulic conductivity employed soil samples collected from M-Area. Samples were tested by LAW Engineering (Jackson 2000) at 5 psi and 10 psi. The difference in hydraulic conductivity at 5 psi versus 10 psi was assumed to roughly represent the difference in porosity of the operational soil cover versus the native vadose zone soil. The average ratio (vertical hydraulic conductivity at 5 psi/vertical hydraulic conductivity at 10 psi) for the M-Area soils is 1.94 (Phifer et al, 2005). Therefore, it was estimated that the operational soil cover had a hydraulic conductivity approximately 1.94 times as high as the upper vadose zone (6.2E-5 cm/sec).

satK = 1.94 x 6.2E-5 cm/sec = 1.2E-4 cm/sec

3. The third method of estimating hydraulic conductivity involved the Kozeny-Carman equation as described in Freeze and Cherry (1979). This equation relates satK to mean particle diameter and the shape and packing of grains. Porosity is used to represent the shape and packing of grains.

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−⎟⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=

180)1(

2

2

3m

satd

nngK

µρ

where ρ = fluid density, g = acceleration due to gravity, µ = fluid viscosity, n = porosity, and 2

md = mean particle size squared. It was assumed that the particle size distribution of the operational soil cover and upper vadose zone (native soil) are approximately the same since they are the same soils (with different densities). Therefore, the parameter md remained constant in the equations. Using the laboratory measured porosity and hydraulic conductivity for the upper zone soils and the estimated porosity of the operational soil cover, saturated hydraulic conductivity can be determined for the operation soil cover.


117

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−⎟⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−⎟⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

=−−−

−−−−

180)1(

180)1(2

2

3

2

2

3

cov

m

m

zonevadoseuppersat

beforeDCersoilloperationasat

dn

ng

dn

ng

KK

µρ

µρ

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−⎟⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−⎟⎟

⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛

=−−−

−−−−

180)1(

180)1(2

2

3

2

2

3

cov

m

m

zonevadoseuppersat


dn

ng

dn

ng

KK

µρ

µρ

( )( )

( )( )

01.2

39.0139.0

456.01456.0

)1(

)1(

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

cov =

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

−

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

−=

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−

=−−−

−−−−

nn

nn

KK

zonevadoseuppersat


zonevadoseuppersatbeforeDCersoiloperationsat KK −−−−−−− = *01.2cov

or 2.01 x 6.2E-5 cm/sec = 1.2E-4 cm/sec Methods #2 and #3 suggest that the hydraulic conductivity for the operational soil cover before DC is approximately two times the hydraulic conductivity of the upper vadose zone soils (a ratio of 1.94 for method #2 and a ratio of 2.01 for method #3). For this evaluation, the operational soil cover prior to DC was assumed to be 2.01 times the upper vadose zone horizontal hydraulic conductivity (i.e., 1.2E-4 cm/sec). The vertical hydraulic conductivity for the operational soil cover was assigned the same value as the horizontal hydraulic conductivity. The operational soil cover consists of excavated soil from the upper vadose zone. The soil is stockpiled until later placement over the waste using a bulldozer. These operational techniques are assumed to have grossly homogenized the upper vadose zone soil (i.e. eliminating most large-scale layering), which would create loosely packed soils with similar vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities.


118

5.4.1.2 After Dynamic Compaction Using the Kozeny-Carman equation (described above), a saturated hydraulic conductivity was approximated for the operational soil cover after DC. Porosity was calculated according to:

)()1(

p

bnρ

ρ−=

where ( pρ ) or particle density was assumed to be 2.65 g/cm3 (Hillel, 1982) and bρ or bulk density was estimated at 120 pcf (or 1.92 g/cm3) (Phifer and Wilhite, 2001). Using this equation, the porosity for the operational soil cover after DC was estimated as 0.27 (or 27%). Saturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated according to:

( )( )

( )( )

23.0

39.0139.0

27.0127.0

)1(

)1(

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

cov =

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

−

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡

−=

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−

⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡−

=−−−

−−−−

nn

nn

KK

zonevadoseuppersat

afterDCersoilloperationasat

zonevadoseuppersatafterDCersoiloperationsat KK −−−−−−− = *23.0cov

or 0.23 x 6.2E-5 cm/sec = 1.4E-5 cm/sec

The vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the operational soil cover after DC was assumed to be the same.

5.4.2 Water Retention Estimations of water retention and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curves for the operational soil cover entailed using Leverett scaling and the sample data for the upper zone. Leverett scaling consists of adjusting capillary pressure based on permeability. Leverett observed that for similar unconsolidated sands that for any member ( i ) of a group (Bear, 1972):

( )wi

ic SJnKP

=⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡2/1

σ, where cP is capillary pressure, σ is related to interfacial

tension, K reflects the material’s permeability, n corresponds to porosity, and wS is water saturation.


119

The Leverett function ( J ) is the same for all materials in a class. cP is defined as:

ψσρ

×=gPc , where ρ is fluid density, g is reflects acceleration due to gravity and

ψ reflects the water pressure head. Comparing materials of two similar classes (e.g., upper vadose zone and the operational soil cover) at the same saturation shows that:

2/1

2

22

2/1

1

11 ⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡××=⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡××

nKg

nKg ψ

σρψ

σρ

Rearranging the equation and canceling like variables yields the following for the same saturation value:

1

2/1

12

212 ψψ ×⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡=

nKnK , where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to two different media.

The unknown suction head ( 2ψ ) at a particular saturation in medium 2 can be approximated on the basis of the corresponding (known) suction head ( 1ψ ) at the same saturation in medium 1 and the hydraulic conductivity ( 21 KK ) and porosity ( 12 nn ) ratios. Using this equation along with estimates of hydraulic conductivity and porosity for the operational soil cover, and values for the upper vadose zone soils, the water retention curves for the operational soil cover were estimated. Saturation versus suction curves for the operational soil cover before and after dynamic compaction are shown in Figure 5-32. For a particular suction value, the operational soil cover prior to DC has a lower saturation than the upper vadose zone soil and the operational soil cover after DC. Suction versus relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) curves are presented in Figure 5-33. At a given suction, the relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) for the operational soil cover prior to DC is lower than the rK for the upper vadose zone soil and operational soil after DC.

5.4.3 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density

5.4.3.1 Prior to Dynamic Compaction The porosity of the operational soil cover was estimated based on an assumed bulk density of 90 pcf (1.442 g/cm3) (Phifer and Wilhite, 2001) and a particle density of 2.65 g/cm3 (Hillel, 1982). Using the equation from Hillel (1982), a porosity of 0.456 (or 45.6%) was calculated for the operational soil cover before DC.

5.4.3.2 After Dynamic Compaction

Porosity was calculated using an assumed particle density of 2.65 g/cm3 (Hillel, 1982) and an estimated bulk density of 120 pcf (or 1.92 g/cm3) (Phifer and Wilhite, 2001). Using the relationship between particle density and bulk density given by Hillel (1982), a porosity of 0.27 (or 27%) was computed for the operational soil cover after DC.


120

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)

Prior to Dynamic CompactionAfter Dynamic CompactionUpper Vadose Zone

Operational Soil Cover

Figure 5-32. Saturation vs Suction for Operational Soil Cover Prior and After

Dynamic Compaction


1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

Prior to Dynamic Compaction

After Dynamic Compaction

Upper Vadose Zone

Figure 5-33. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Operational Soil Cover

Prior and After Dynamic Compaction


121


The eD for the operational soil cover before DC was assumed to be similar to the vadose zone soils. Therefore, a eD of 5.3E-6 cm2/s was chosen, the same value as assigned to upper vadose zone and lower zone, the single zone, and the “clay-sand” category. The operational soil cover after DC would likely possess a lower eD than the soil before DC due to decreasing pore space and tighter packing of grains from the dynamic compaction. These changes in pore structure would potentially increase tortuosity. Therefore, the operational soil cover after DC was assigned a eD of 4.0E-6 cm2/s.

5.5 IL VAULT PERMEABLE BACKFILL & GRAVEL According to the engineered drawings for the IL Vault, a permeable backfill was used that had less than 15% mud. Since the backfill likely came from local sources, vadose zone soil sample properties were used to estimate hydraulic conductivity, water retention, and bulk material properties for this evaluation. Only two of the vadose zone soil samples (VL-1, 13-15’ and VL-1, 44-46’) had grain size distributions with <15% mud and hydraulic conductivity measurements that are considered reliable (see section 5.2.2.1, Review of Data Quality). Therefore, these two samples were used to determine the estimates. Data for the generic “gravel” came from came both literature and laboratory results. In particular, laboratory data was used to estimate hydraulic conductivity and water retention properties (Yu et al, 1993). Two samples (GL-1 and GL-2) representing gravel used in the area were collected in 1992 and analyzed by Core Laboratories for a previous evaluation. Porosity and particle density values for this evaluation were based primarily on literature. The gravel properties reported in this evaluation are intended to provide generic gravel properties based on data currently available.


5.5.1.1 IL Vault Permeable Backfill The arithmetic average of the laboratory measured vertical hydraulic conductivity for the two VL-1 samples was 7.6E-4 cm/sec. The backfill was given a Kh to Kv ratio of 1.9, the same as the operational soil cover after dynamic compaction, since it is assumed to have undergone similar handling and operational processes during installation. Using this ratio, the Kh was computed to be 1.4E-3 cm/sec.

5.5.1.2 Gravel The arithmetic average of the laboratory measured saturated hydraulic conductivity for the two gravel samples (GL) was 1.5E-1 cm/sec. The gravel was assumed to have a Kh to Kv ratio of 1.0 and therefore the same hydraulic conductivity for Kh and Kv.


122

5.5.2 Water Retention

5.5.2.1 IL Vault Permeable Backfill

Soil moisture data for the IL Vault permeable backfill samples were evaluated using RETC computer program (USDA, 1998) as described in Section 5.2.3 Water Retention for the vadose zone soils. Figure 5-34 shows the saturation versus suction curve and Figure 5-35 shows suction versus relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) curve based on an average of the laboratory data for VL-1, 13-15’ and VL-1, 44-46’.

5.5.2.2 Gravel

Soil moisture data for two gravel samples (GL-1 and GL-2) were evaluated using RETC computer program (USDA, 1998) as described in Section 5.2.3 Water Retention for the vadose zone soils. Figure 5-36 shows the saturation versus suction curve and Figure 5-37 shows suction versus relative hydraulic conductivity ( rK ) curve based on an average of the laboratory data.

5.5.3 Porosity, Bulk Density, Particle Density

5.5.3.1 IL Vault Permeable Backfill The laboratory measured porosity of the two VL-1 samples averaged 41%. Dry bulk density measured in the laboratory averaged 1.56 g/cm3. A particle density of 2.64 g/cm3 was calculated based on the equation relating porosity ( n ) to particle density ( pρ ) and bulk density ( bρ ) (Hillel, 1982):

)()1(

p

bnρ

ρ−=

5.5.3.2 Gravel Freeze and Cherry (1979) provide a range of porosity values of 25% to 40% for unconsolidated gravel deposits. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) also give a wide range of porosities from 12% to 46% for a well-graded silty sand and gravel mixture. The average porosity of the two gravel samples (GL-1 and GL-2) analyzed by Core Laboratories was 38%. For this evaluation, the generic gravel was assigned a porosity of 30%. Bulk density and particle density were not measured for the two gravel samples (GL-1 and GL-2) submitted in 1992 to Core Laboratories. Granite, which often comprises gravel, has a general particle density ranging from 2.5 to 2.7 g/cm3 (Dutro et al, 1989). For this evaluation, a particle density of 2.6 g/cm3 was chosen for the generic gravel. Using the equation relating porosity ( n ) to particle density ( pρ ) and bulk density ( bρ ) (Hillel, 1982), a bulk density of 1.82 g/cm3 was computed for the gravel.


123

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)Data VL1_13-15

Data VL1_44-46

VL1_13-15

VL1_44-46

Avg Saturation

IL Permeable Backfill

Figure 5-34. Saturation vs Suction for IL Vault Permeable Backfill

IL Permeable Backfill

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

vl1_13-15

vl1_44-46

AVG

Figure 5-35. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for IL Vault Permeable

Backfill


124

Gravel

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0Saturation

Suct

ion

(cm

H2O

)GL-1 WSRC-RP-93-894

GL-2 WSRC-RP-93-894

Avg GL1&GL2

Figure 5-36. Saturation vs Suction for Gravel

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Suction (cm H2O)

Kr

GL-1 WSRC-RP-93-894

GL-2 WSRC-RP-93-894

AVG GL1&GL2

Gravel

Figure 5-37. Suction vs Relative Hydraulic Conductivity for Gravel


125


The same molecular diffusion coefficient ( mD ) value of 1.6E-5 cm2/sec used for the vadose zone soils was applied for the eD calculations for the IL Vault permeable backfill and generic gravel. As with the vadose zone soil evaluation, eD calculations consisted of:

τm

eDD =

The molecular diffusion coefficient ( mD ) and tortuosity (τ ) values are based on literature values. No experimental data for these materials are available.

5.5.4.1 IL Vault Permeable Backfill

The IL Vault permeable backfill was assigned a tortuosity (τ ) value of 2, the same value used for the “sand” category. This particular τ was chosen since the two VL-1 samples representing the IL Vault permeable backfill were categorized as “sand” in the initial vadose zone soils evaluation. With the same mD andτ , the IL Vault permeable backfill had the same eD as the “sand” (8.0E-6 cm2/s).

5.5.4.2 Gravel The gravel is thought to have a lower tortuosity than the values assigned to the vadose zone soils. A tortuosity (τ ) value of 1.7 was chosen based on a hypothetical three-dimensional diffusion path with the pore making a 45o angle with the vertical (y) direction as described by Thibodeaux (1979). This τ value resulted in a calculated eD of 9.4E-6 cm2/s.

5.6 SATURATED ZONE The General Separations Area (GSA) groundwater flow model as described by Flach and Harris (1996) and Flach (2004) forms the basis of the groundwater flow and transport modeling performed for both the E-Area LLWF and the Z-Area SDF Performance Assessments (PA).

5.6.1 Saturated Zone Hydraulic Properties

Of the parameters evaluated herein (i.e. porosity (η), dry bulk density (ρb), particle density (ρp), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient (De)), the GSA groundwater flow model addresses porosity (η), saturated hydraulic conductivity, and characteristic curves for the saturated zone. Relative to porosity Flach and Harris (1996) state the following:


126

“Aadland and others (1995, Tables 3 and 7) estimate the average porosity of the Upper Three Runs and Gordon aquifers to be about 35%. Regions of relatively immobile water, ranging from grain-sized “dead-end” pores to macro-scale clay intervals, do not effectively participate in contaminant transport. Therefore an “effective” porosity value, smaller than the total porosity, is commonly used for transport simulations and particle tracing related to contaminant migration. An effective porosity value of 25% is assumed uniformly in the GSA model for the purpose of computing a pore velocity field that may be used later for particle tracing. The assumed porosity value is consistent with the general recommendation of Looney and others (1987, p. 39).”

Based upon this recommendation by Flach and Harris (1996) an effective porosity of 25% will be assigned to all saturated zone soils. Within the PorFlow model, the effective, total, and diffusive porosities are all set equal to 25%. Flach and Harris (1996) and Flach (2004) discuss the assignment of saturated hydraulic conductivity within the GSA groundwater flow model in detail. The saturated hydraulic conductivity fields developed within the GSA groundwater flow model are incorporated into this effort by reference. For the saturated zone the characteristic curves are not applicable (Flach and Harris 1996), since under saturated conditions both the saturation and relative permeability are equal to one. For the groundwater flow modeling described by Flach and Harris (1996) and Flach (2004) the dry bulk density, particle density, and effective diffusion coefficient of the soil materials are not specifically incorporated in the modeling. However, for combined flow and transport modeling as conducted within the PA, these parameters are required along with the “distribution coefficient”, Kd. The distribution coefficient, Kd, is addressed separately by Kaplan (2006). The Upper Three Runs and Gordon aquifer unit characteristics are similar to the lower vadose zone as described in Section 5.2. As outlined in Section 5.2 the lower vadose zone has an average porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density of 39%, 1.62 g/cm3, and 2.66 g/cm3, respectively. Since an effective porosity of 25% rather than the total porosity of 39% has been assigned to these materials, the lower vadose zone particle density of 2.66 g/cm3 cannot be assigned to these materials. Since porosity is in the denominator of the retardation factor, R, equation, assignment of a particle density of 2.66 g/cm3 would result in an artificially greater contaminant retardation within the model:

T

db KR

ηρ

+= 1 , where R = retardation factor; ρb = dry bulk density; Kd =

distribution coefficient; ηT = total porosity (Freeze and Cherry 1979)

( )Tpb ηρρ −= 1 , where ρp = particle density (Hillel 1982)

T

dTp KR

ηηρ )1(

1−

+=


127

As seen in the above equation, in order to decrease the porosity from a total of 39% to an effective of 25% and still maintain a consistent retardation factor an effective particle density less than the lower vadose zone particle density of 2.66 g/cm3 will be required based upon the above equation. This can be determined using equivalent retardation factors as follows:

21 RR = ( )

e

depe

T

dTpT KKη

ηρη

ηρ )1(1

11

−+=

−+ , where ρpT = particle density based upon total

porosity = 2.66 g/cm3; ηT = total porosity = 0.39; Kd = distribution coefficient (same on both sides of the equation); ρpe = particle density based upon effective porosity; ηe = effective porosity = 0.25

( )e

epe

T

TpT

ηηρ

ηηρ )1(1 −

=−

( )( ) Te

eTpTpe ηη

ηηρρ

−

−=

11

Substitute values into the equation:

( )( ) 39.025.01

25.039.01/66.2 3

×−×−

=cmg

peρ

3/39.1 cmgpe =ρ The dry bulk density (ρbe) associated with effective porosity of 25% can be determined from the following equation:

( )Tpebe ηρρ −= 1 , where ρpe = particle density based upon effective porosity = 1.39 g/cm3; ηe = effective porosity = 0.25 (Hillel 1982)

Substitute values into the equation:

( )25.01/39.1 3 −= cmgbeρ 3/04.1 cmgpe =ρ


128

Within the GSA model (Flach and Harris 1996 and Flach 2004), soils with a saturated hydraulic conductivity greater than 1.0E-07 cm/s are defined as sandy and those with a saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 1.0E-07 cm/s are defined as clay for the purpose of defining transport properties (i.e., Kd and De). For consistency with the vadose zone soils described in Section 5.2, the saturated zone soils within the GSA model that are defined as sandy will be assigned the effective diffusion coefficient of the lower vadose zone (i.e., 5.3E-06 cm2/s) and those defined as clay will be assigned that of the vadose zone clay (i.e., 4.0E-06 cm2/s). Table 5-14 provides a summary of the saturated zone soils hydraulic properties.

Table 5-14. Saturated Zone Soils Hydraulic Properties

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity

Water Retention

Effective Porosity

(%)

Effective Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Effective Particle Density (g/cm3)

Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient 1

(cm2/s)

See Flach and Harris 1996 and Flach 2004

Not applicable

25 1.04 1.39 Sandy: 5.3E-06 Clay: 4.0E-06

1 Sandy and clay as defined within the GSA model (Flach and Harris 1996 and Flach 2004)

5.6.2 Lower Vadose Zone Versus Saturated Zone Porosity As discussed above current PA analyses of aquifer flow and transport (i.e., saturated zone soils) assume an effective porosity of 0.25, which is lower than the total porosity of 0.39 used for the lower vadose zone soil. Use of a lower value than total porosity for saturated flow and transport is common modeling practice (Fetter 1993, Section 2.3) and defines the effective area/volume through which porous-medium flow occurs. In the context of numerical field-scale transport simulations, an effective porosity partially addresses the effects of unresolved physical heterogeneity at the sub-grid scale. In the context of sedimentary geologic systems, a computational block contains strata of varying permeability with essentially no flow occurring in a fraction of strata with sufficiently low permeability. Figure 5-38 illustrates the concept for a layered system comprising two distinct materials. Although the vadose and saturated zones exhibit similar physical heterogeneity, total porosity is currently assumed in vadose zone PA models because of markedly different flow conditions. Vadose zone flow is predominantly perpendicular to strata, rather than parallel to layering in the aquifer. Also, unsaturated conditions in the vadose zone significantly reduce the permeability contrast between coarse- and fine-grained materials, in comparison to saturated conditions in the aquifer. Both phenomena significantly reduce the extent to which flow can effectively bypass portions of the porous medium, as shown schematically in Figure 5-39.


129

The left image is a reproduction of Figure A, which represents typical aquifer heterogeneity and flow orientation to strata and justifies a lower porosity setting in modeling (η = 0.25). Sand and clay properties from Section 5.2 are used to define the conductivity (K) contrast under saturated conditions (Figure 5-40). The extent of horizontal layering is assumed to be consistent with a 10:1 ratio of spatial correlation length (λ). The right images show two end member cases for which porosity should not be reduced from the total (η = 0.39). The upper image depicts a uniform permeability field, that is, when the permeability contrast is zero. The lower image shows perfect layering perpendicular to the hydraulic gradient, forcing flow to go through both materials. In both cases, flow would pass through the entire porous volume rather than bypassing a portion. As the conductivity contrast decreases and/or anisotropy in horizontal to vertical correlation length decreases, the porosity value assumed for transport simulations should increase relative to aquifer conditions and approach total porosity. An appropriate porosity setting for vadose simulations can be estimated through a double interpolation approach summarized in Figure 5-41. PA simulations indicate a typical soil suction level of 100-200 cm in E-area (see Section 5.8). The permeability contrast between sand and clay in this suction range is approximately 1.5 orders of magnitude. Assuming similar layering in the aquifer and vadose zones, but 90 degree different mean flow direction, produces a vadose zone anisotropy ratio of 1:10. Linear interpolation of log K contrast (ratio) between aquifer conditions and the homogeneous end member can be used to estimate effective porosity for the vadose zone, considering only K contrast effects:

07.239.025.0

0)/log(39.0

21 −−

=−

−KK

η

For the assumed vadose properties, the result is η = 0.31. A second interpolation can be used to estimate the added effect of flow orientation to strata:

)3(139.031.0

)3()/log(39.0

21 −−−

=−−

−λλ

η

For the assumed vadose properties, the final result is η = 0.35. This estimate is only 10% lower than the total porosity value, and represents a small perturbation compared to uncertainty in unsaturated soil properties. The latter control the saturation level, which along with porosity, define flow area/volume under unsaturated conditions in the vadose zone. Specifically, pore velocity (v) is computed from Darcy velocity (U) as:

SUv⋅

=η

, where S is saturation.


130

Uncertainty in saturation is significantly larger than uncertainty in (effective) porosity. Given the approximate nature of the preceding analysis and considering uncertainties in various parameters, a total porosity value is appropriate for vadose zone modeling.

Figure 5-38. Effective Flow through a Heterogeneous Layered Porous Medium Note: Little or no flow occurs through the low permeability layers (dark brown). Flow predominantly occurs through higher permeability layers (tan).

x1

x2

x1

x2

θ = 0.25 θ = 0.39

log(λ1/ λ2) = 1

log(λ1/ λ2) = -3

log(K1/ K2) = 2.7

log(K1/ K2) = 0

K contrast

anisotropy in correlation length

Figure 5-39. Effective Porosity Assumptions for Three Combinations of Layering and

Permeability Contrast


131

1.E-10

1.E-09

1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

1 10 100 1000

suction head (cm)

Kv

(cm

/s)

Sand

Clay

saturated conditions:constrast is 2.7 orders

of magnitude

unsaturated conditions:constrast is 1.5 orders

of magnitude

Figure 5-40. Variation in Sand and Clay Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity as a

Function of Suction Head

x1

x2

x1

x2

θ = 0.25 θ = 0.39θ = 0.35

log(λ1/ λ2) = 1

log(λ1/ λ2) = -3

log(λ1/ λ2) = -1

log(K1/ K2) = 2.7

log(K1/ K2) = 0

log(K1/ K2) = 1.5

K contrast

anisotropy in correlation length

Figure 5-41. Estimated Effective Porosity for Vadose Zone Simulations


132

5.7 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS Uncertainty values are defined here for porosity ( n ), dry bulk density ( bρ ), particle density ( pρ ), saturated hydraulic conductivity ( satK ) and effective diffusion coefficient ( eD ), but not for the characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability). Uncertainty in the property values derived through arithmetic averaging was estimated using the well-known expression (e.g., Walpole and Meyers, 1978):

nssmean = , where means is the estimated standard deviation of the (arithmetic)

sample mean, s is the estimated standard deviation of the population, and n is the number of samples.

means is sometimes referred to as the standard error of the mean. This value represents the

uncertainty in the mean soil property values. Summary statistics are provided in Table 5-15 for total porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density. Uncertainty in recommended nominal values derived through non-linear averaging processes ( satK ) or solely from literature based values ( eD ) was estimated using Monte Carlo simulation. In Monte Carlo simulation (MC), numerous realizations are generated by randomly sampling the statistical distributions of input parameters and computing sample statistics from the corresponding output values. In this study, 10,000 realizations were generated in each MC simulation so that the sample statistics would be sufficiently reliable. MC simulations were performed using GoldSim 9.20 (GoldSim Technology Group LLC, Issaquah, WA, www.goldsim.com). Uncertainty in the sample of small-scale conductivity measurements was addressed using a bootstrapping technique (Efron, 1982). In the bootstrap approach, the data sample is used as a surrogate for the true underlying population. Sample realizations are generated by randomly re-sampling the actual sample, with replacement. For effective horizontal and vertical conductivity, uncertain inputs to the analysis are the averaging exponents, hp and

vp , and the sample of small-scale or "point" conductivity measurements. Based on summary Table 5-6, triangular distributions with the following specifications were assigned to hp and

vp : hp vp min 0.34 -0.73 peak 0.59 -0.33 max 0.84 0.07


133

Table 5-16 summarizes the sample statistics derived through MC simulation. Log-normal distributions were observed to be reasonable representations of the MC probability distributions for the saturated effective diffusion coefficient and hydraulic conductivities. The mean values for hydraulic conductivity are very close, if not identical to, the deterministic values in Table 5-7, suggesting that 10,000 MC realizations are sufficient to produce reliable uncertainty statistics. For effective diffusion coefficient, the molecular diffusion coefficient was assumed to be well known and only tortuosity was randomly varied in MC simulations. Uncertainty in each tortuosity was represented by a truncated normal distribution with a mean value defined by Table 5-17, a standard deviation of 0.5, and truncation limits at ±1.5 (3 sigma) about the mean.


134

Table 5-15. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Total Porosity, Dry Bulk Density, and Particle Density

Total Porosity (%)

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone

Single Zone "SAND" "CLAY-

SAND" "CLAY" Operational Soil Cover (prior to DC)1

Operational Soil Cover (after DC)1

Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel2

Type of Distribution Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal

Min (3sigma) 36 36 37 36 34 38 43 24 32 28

Max (3sigma) 42 42 41 40 40 48 49 30 38 32

Variance of Sample Mean

1.07E-04 8.05E-05 4.79E-05 6.15E-05 1.28E-04 2.54E-04 1.07E-04 1.07E-04 7.39E-05 6.15E-05

Standard Deviation of

Sample Mean

1.03E-02 8.97E-03 6.92E-03 7.84E-03 1.13E-02 1.59E-02 1.03E-02 1.03E-02 8.60E-03 7.84E-03

Mean 39 39 39 38 37 43 46 27 35 30

Count 23 21 44 15 19 7 n/a n/a 19 n/a


135

Table 5-15. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Total Porosity, Dry Bulk Density, and Particle Density - continued

Bulk Density

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone




Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel2


Min (3sigma) 1.57 1.55 1.58 1.59 1.60 1.38 1.36 1.84 1.64 1.76

Max (3sigma) 1.73 1.69 1.68 1.71 1.76 1.66 1.52 2.00 1.78 1.88


7.89E-04 4.94E-04 3.33E-04 4.64E-04 7.80E-04 2.12E-03 7.89E-04 7.89E-04 4.96E-04 4.64E-04


Sample Mean

2.81E-02 2.22E-02 1.82E-02 2.15E-02 2.79E-02 4.60E-02 2.81E-02 2.81E-02 2.23E-02 2.15E-02

Mean 1.65 1.62 1.63 1.65 1.68 1.52 1.44 1.92 1.71 1.82

Count 23 21 44 15 19 7 n/a n/a 19 n/a


136

Table 5-15. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Total Porosity, Dry Bulk Density, and Particle Density - continued

Particle Density

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone




Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel2


Min (3sigma) 2.68 2.63 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.62 2.58

Max (3sigma) 2.72 2.69 2.69 2.68 2.70 2.71 2.67 2.67 2.64 2.62


3.21E-05 8.35E-05 2.73E-05 3.71E-05 9.14E-05 1.62E-04 3.21E-05 3.21E-05 1.52E-05 3.71E-05


Sample Mean

5.66E-03 9.14E-03 5.22E-03 6.09E-03 9.56E-03 1.27E-02 5.66E-03 5.66E-03 3.89E-03 6.09E-03

Mean 2.70 2.66 2.67 2.66 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.63 2.60

Count 23 21 44 15 19 7 n/a n/a 19 n/a 1 no data is available for the operational soil cover; assumed to have same standard deviation as upper zone; DC=dynamic compaction 2 little data is available for the gravel; assumed to have same standard deviation as "sand"


137

Table 5-16. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Statistical Results from Bootstrapping Technique (based on sample data)

log Kh1

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone




Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel3

Type of Distribution normal normal normal normal normal normal normal normal normal normal

Min (3sigma) -5.21 -4.13 -4.38 -4.00 -5.08 -6.94 -4.52 -5.45 -4.40 -1.24 Max (3sigma) -4.01 -3.35 -3.60 -3.16 -3.88 -5.44 -3.32 -4.25 -3.86 -0.40 Variance of

Sample Mean 4.00E-02 1.69E-02 1.69E-02 1.96E-02 4.00E-02 6.25E-02 4.00E-02 4.00E-02 7.92E-03 1.96E-02



-4.61 -3.74 -3.99 -3.58 -4.48 -6.19 -3.92 -4.85 -4.13 -0.82 Mean4

2.5E-05 1.8E-04 1.0E-04 2.6E-04 3.3E-05 6.5E-07 1.2E-04 1.4E-05 7.4E-05 1.5E-01 Count 3 7 10 15 19 7 n/a n/a 32 n/a


138

Table 5-16. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity - continued

Statistical Results from Bootstrapping Technique (based on sample data) - continued log Kv

1

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone




Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel3


Min (3sigma) -6.36 -5.24 -5.93 -5.10 -5.78 -7.57 -4.70 -5.63 -4.71 -1.75 Max (3sigma) -4.80 -3.80 -4.25 -3.24 -4.46 -5.71 -3.14 -4.07 -4.05 0.11 Variance of




-5.58 -4.52 -5.09 -4.17 -5.12 -6.64 -3.92 -4.85 -4.38 -0.82 Mean4

2.6E-06 3.0E-05 8.1E-06 6.8E-05 7.6E-06 2.3E-07 1.2E-4 1.4E-5 4.2E-05 1.5E-1 Count 3 7 10 15 19 7 n/a n/a 32 n/a

1 note that Kh and Kv are log normally distributed 2 no data is available for the operational soil cover; hydraulic conductivity estimated based on upper zone properties; assumed to have same standard deviation as upper zone; DC=dynamic compaction 3 little hydraulic conductivity data available; assumed to have same standard deviation as "sand" 4 top number is the log of the mean; bottom number is the mean


139

Table 5-16. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity - continued

Modified Statistics Using Adjusted Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities (based on +2-sigma)

log Kh Material Upper Zone Lower Zone Single Zone "SAND" "CLAY-SAND" "CLAY"

Type of Distribution normal normal normal normal normal normal Min (3sigma) -4.81 -3.87 -4.11 -3.72 -4.68 -6.45 Max (3sigma) -3.61 -3.09 -3.33 -2.88 -3.48 -4.95

Variance of Sample Mean 4.00E-02 1.69E-02 1.69E-02 1.96E-02 4.00E-02 6.25E-02

Standard Deviation of Sample Mean1 2.00E-01 1.30E-01 1.30E-01 1.40E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01

-4.21 -3.48 -3.72 -3.30 -4.08 -5.70 Recommended Value2

6.2E-05 3.3E-04 1.9E-04 5.0E-04 8.3E-05 2.0E-06 Count 3 7 10 15 19 7

log Kv

Material Upper Zone Lower Zone Single Zone "SAND" "CLAY-SAND" "CLAY"

Type of Distribution normal normal normal normal normal normal Min (3sigma) -5.84 -4.76 -5.36 -4.48 -5.34 -6.95 Max (3sigma) -4.28 -3.32 -3.68 -2.62 -4.02 -5.09

Variance of Sample Mean 6.76E-02 5.76E-02 7.84E-02 9.61E-02 4.84E-02 9.61E-02

Standard Deviation of Sample Mean1 2.60E-01 2.40E-01 2.80E-01 3.10E-01 2.20E-01 3.10E-01

-5.06 -4.04 -4.52 -3.55 -4.68 -6.02 Recommended Value2

8.7E-06 9.1E-05 3.0E-05 2.8E-04 2.1E-05 9.5E-07 Count 3 7 10 15 19 7

1 standard deviation of sample mean comes from statistical results from bootstrapping technique (see above tables) 2 top number is the log of the recommended value; bottom number is the recommended value


140

Table 5-17. Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient

log De1

Material Upper Zone

Lower Zone


SAND" "CLAY" Operational Soil Cover (prior to DC)


(after DC)

Control Compacted

Backfill Gravel


Min (3sigma) -5.49 -5.49 -5.49 -5.44 -5.49 -5.55 -5.49 -5.49 -5.49 -5.39

Max (3sigma) -5.05 -5.05 -5.05 -4.72 -5.05 -5.23 -5.05 -5.05 -5.05 -4.67


5.18E-03 5.18E-03 5.18E-03 1.44E-02 5.18E-03 2.81E-03 5.18E-03 5.18E-03 5.18E-03 1.44E-02


Sample Mean

0.072 0.072 0.072 0.12 0.072 0.053 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.12

-5.27 -5.27 -5.27 -5.08 -5.27 -5.39 -5.27 -5.27 -5.27 -5.03 Mean2

5.4E-06 5.4E-06 5.4E-06 8.3E-06 5.4E-06 4.1E-06 5.4E-06 5.4E-06 5.4E-06 9.4E-06 1 note that De was assumed to be log normally distributed; no data available so assumptions were made based on literature values 2 top number is the log of the mean; bottom number is the mean


141

5.8 COMPARISON TO OBSERVED SUCTION LEVELS IN THE FIELD Nichols et al. (2000, Figures 3 - 5) reported field pore pressure readings from the Vadose Zone Monitoring System (VZMS) in E-area at three locations and 4 depths per location over an 8-month period. The field measurements indicate average suction levels in the approximate range of 50 to 200 cm. Water content ranged from roughly 0.15 to 0.30, suggesting saturation levels between 35% and 75%. Infiltration over the local area is estimated to be 30 cm/yr (12 in/yr). These data provide an opportunity to compare simulated pressure head and saturation, using the estimated upper and lower vadose zone properties established in the preceding sections, to field observations. PORFLOW numerical simulations using the mean property values produced suction head and saturation values of 17 cm and 98% in the upper vadose zone, and 100 cm and 78% in the lower vadose zone. In comparison to the field data, these values indicate excessive water holdup in the model simulation. The apparently low unsaturated hydraulic conductivity values could be a result of bias in the saturated conductivity estimate and/or the soil characteristic curves. Because uncertainty has been estimated for saturated hydraulic conductivity, a convenient adjustment can be made by increasing saturated conductivities to the higher end (+2-sigma) of their uncertainty range, while leaving other properties undisturbed. With this modification, PORFLOW numerical simulations produced suction head and saturation values of 83 cm and 91% in the upper vadose zone, and 170 cm and 72% in the lower vadose zone. These values are in better agreement with the field monitoring data. Hence, the recommended values for the undisturbed soils (upper, lower, and single zone) for use in the modeling are based on +2-sigma of the calculated saturated hydraulic conductivity. In addition, saturated hydraulic conductivity values for the textural categories (sand, clay-sand, and clay) were approximated using the +2-sigma adjustment. For uncertainty analysis, we suggest retaining the variance/standard deviation values shown Table 5-16 for association with the adjusted conductivity recommendations. The bottom of Table 5-16 (“Modified Statistics Using Adjusted Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities (based on +2-simga)”) provides the recommended means (which incorporate the increase in saturated conductivities) together with the variance/standard deviation values determined from the bootstrapping technique.

5.9 SUMMARY Table 5-18 provides a summary of the soil properties recommended for the modeling with designations (in a column labeled “source”) to specify from where the data came. Table 5-19 through Table 5-22 provide suction, saturation, and relative conductivity curve data for each of the soil categories evaluated in this report. This report primarily evaluates available soil property data for the vicinity near the E-Area disposal units. In some cases, data from Z-Area were also incorporated into the evaluation. Since little water retention and hydraulic conductivity data exists for Z-Area, the values recommended in this report for E-Area will also be applied to Z-Area.


142

Table 5-18. Summary of Recommended Soil Properties

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Water Retention Bulk Properties

Material Kh (cm/s) Kv

(cm/s) kh/kv Source Data for Curves Source

Saturated Effective Diffusion

Coefficient, De (cm2/s)

Source Total

Porosity (%)

Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Particle Density (g/cm3)

Source

Upper Vadose Zone (Above 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)

6.2E-05 8.7E-06 7.1 a Table 5-19 l 5.3E-06 k 39 1.65 2.70 h

Lower Vadose Zone (Below 264 ft-msl in both E-Area and Z-Area)

3.3E-04 9.1E-05 3.6 a Table 5-19 l 5.3E-06 k 39 1.62 2.66 h

E-Area Operational Soil Cover Prior to Dynamic Compaction

1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.0 d Table 5-21 n 5.3E-06 k 46 1.44 2.65 i

E-Area Operational Soil Cover after Dynamic Compaction

1.4E-05 1.4E-05 1.0 f Table 5-21 n 4.0E-06 k 27 1.92 2.65 i

Control Compacted Backfill 7.6E-05 4.1E-05 1.9 c Table 5-21 m 5.3E-06 k 35 1.71 2.63 h

IL Vault Permeable Backfill 1.4E-03 7.6E-04 1.9 g Table 5-22 m 8.0E-06 k 41 1.56 2.64 g

Single Vadose Zone 1.9E-04 3.0E-05 6.3 a Table 5-19 l 5.3E-06 k 39 1.63 2.67 h

Sand (<25% Mud) 5.0E-04 2.8E-04 1.8 b Table 5-20 m 8.0E-06 k 38 1.65 2.66 h

Clay-Sand (25-50% Mud) 8.3E-05 2.1E-05 4.0 b Table 5-20 m 5.3E-06 k 37 1.68 2.67 h

Clay (>50% Mud) 2.0E-06 9.5E-07 2.1 b Table 5-20 m 4.0E-06 k 43 1.52 2.67 h

Gravel 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.0 e Table 5-22 m 9.4E-06 k 30 1.82 2.60 j

Saturated Zone Soils -- -- -- o n/a n/a Sand: 5.3E-06 Clay: 4.0E-06 p 25 1.04 1.39 p


143

Notes to Table 5-18: a - based on 2 sigma of MegacptN/ATN location and sample; using CPT to define thickness and textural properties; averaging based on textural properties ("clay", "clay-sand", "sand) and thickness and using combination of arithmetic and geometric averaging (pv = -0.33 and ph = 0.59) b - based on 2 sigma; uses "most reliable" data (based on comparing bulk density); averaging uses combination of arithmetic and geometric averaging (pv = -0.33 and ph = 0.59) c - uses all samples from Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground and Z-Area composite samples; averaging uses combination of arithmetic and geometric averaging (pv = -0.33 and ph = 0.59) d - based on Kozeny-Carman equation, Upper Zone porosity and hydraulic conductivity, assumed bulk density of operational soil cover of 90 pcf and bulk density of 2.65 g/cm3 (calculated porosity of 0.456) e - based on straight arithmetic average of two samples (GL-1 and GL-2 from WSRC-RP-93-894) f - based on Kozeny-Carman equation, Upper Zone porosity and hydraulic conductivity, assumed bulk density of operational soil cover of 120 pcf and bulk density of 2.65 g/cm3 (calculated porosity of .27) g - based on straight arithmetic average of two samples (VL-1 44-46 and VL-1 13-15; samples with < 15% mud) with Kh/Kv of 1.9 (based upon control compacted backfill) h - based on straight arithmetic average of all samples (used most reliable from hydraulic conductivity standpoint) i - used WSRC-RP-2001-00613 (Phifer and Wilhite 2001) as reference for bulk denisty of operational cover before (90pcf) and after dynamic compaction (120pcf); particle density is based on Hillel, 1982 j - used Freeze and Cherry (Groundwater) and Dutro, Dietrich and Foose (AGI Data Sheets) to come up with estimate of porosity and particle density (calculated bulk density from these values) k - based on literature values of tortuosity and molecular diffusion coefficients l - used CPT to define thickness and textural properties at MegacptN/ATN location; averaged textural property curves ("clay", "clay-sand", "sand) based on the proportion of each in the upper zone, lower zone, and single zone m - averaging of all reliable samples; samples for the control compacted backfill come from Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground and Z-Area composite samples; gravel samples include GL-1 and GL-2 curves (WSRC-RP-93-894); IL Vault permeable backfill includes VL-1 44-46 and VL-1 13-15 n - used Upper Zone and adjusted suction head based on estimated porosity and estimated hydraulic conductivity (Leverett scaling) o - refer to Flach and Harris (1996) and Flach (2004) p - refer to discussion in Section 5.6 Saturated Zone; porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density values are the “effective” values


144

Table 5-19. Characteristic Curve Values for the Upper, Lower & Single Vadose Zone Upper Vadose Zone Lower Vadose Zone Single Vadose Zone

saturation suction head

relative permeability saturation suction

head relative

permeability saturation suction head

relative permeability

S ψ kr S ψ kr S ψ kr (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

1.00E+00 1.00E-01 8.02E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 7.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 7.72E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 7.95E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 7.44E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 7.66E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 7.89E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 7.38E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 7.60E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 7.82E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 7.32E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 7.54E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 7.75E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 7.26E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 7.47E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 7.68E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 7.19E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 7.40E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 7.60E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 7.12E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 7.33E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 7.53E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 7.05E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 7.26E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 7.45E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 6.98E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 7.18E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 7.36E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 6.91E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 7.11E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 7.28E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 6.83E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 7.03E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 7.19E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 6.76E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 6.94E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 7.10E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 6.68E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 6.86E-01 9.99E-01 6.15E-01 7.00E-01 9.99E-01 6.15E-01 6.59E-01 9.99E-01 6.15E-01 6.77E-01 9.99E-01 7.08E-01 6.91E-01 9.99E-01 7.08E-01 6.50E-01 9.99E-01 7.08E-01 6.68E-01 9.99E-01 8.14E-01 6.81E-01 9.99E-01 8.14E-01 6.41E-01 9.99E-01 8.14E-01 6.58E-01 9.99E-01 9.36E-01 6.70E-01 9.99E-01 9.36E-01 6.32E-01 9.99E-01 9.36E-01 6.49E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 6.60E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 6.22E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 6.38E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 6.48E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 6.12E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 6.28E-01 9.99E-01 1.42E+00 6.37E-01 9.98E-01 1.42E+00 6.01E-01 9.98E-01 1.42E+00 6.17E-01 9.98E-01 1.64E+00 6.25E-01 9.98E-01 1.64E+00 5.90E-01 9.98E-01 1.64E+00 6.05E-01 9.98E-01 1.88E+00 6.13E-01 9.98E-01 1.88E+00 5.79E-01 9.98E-01 1.88E+00 5.93E-01 9.98E-01 2.16E+00 6.01E-01 9.97E-01 2.16E+00 5.66E-01 9.97E-01 2.16E+00 5.81E-01 9.97E-01 2.49E+00 5.88E-01 9.97E-01 2.49E+00 5.53E-01 9.97E-01 2.49E+00 5.68E-01 9.97E-01 2.86E+00 5.74E-01 9.96E-01 2.86E+00 5.40E-01 9.96E-01 2.86E+00 5.54E-01 9.96E-01 3.29E+00 5.61E-01 9.95E-01 3.29E+00 5.25E-01 9.96E-01 3.29E+00 5.40E-01 9.95E-01 3.79E+00 5.46E-01 9.94E-01 3.79E+00 5.10E-01 9.95E-01 3.79E+00 5.25E-01 9.95E-01 4.35E+00 5.32E-01 9.93E-01 4.35E+00 4.93E-01 9.94E-01 4.35E+00 5.10E-01 9.94E-01 5.01E+00 5.17E-01 9.92E-01 5.01E+00 4.76E-01 9.93E-01 5.01E+00 4.94E-01 9.93E-01 5.76E+00 5.01E-01 9.90E-01 5.76E+00 4.58E-01 9.91E-01 5.76E+00 4.76E-01 9.91E-01 6.62E+00 4.86E-01 9.88E-01 6.62E+00 4.38E-01 9.89E-01 6.62E+00 4.59E-01 9.90E-01 7.61E+00 4.69E-01 9.86E-01 7.61E+00 4.17E-01 9.88E-01 7.61E+00 4.40E-01 9.88E-01 8.76E+00 4.52E-01 9.83E-01 8.76E+00 3.96E-01 9.85E-01 8.76E+00 4.20E-01 9.86E-01 1.01E+01 4.35E-01 9.80E-01 1.01E+01 3.73E-01 9.82E-01 1.01E+01 3.99E-01 9.84E-01 1.16E+01 4.17E-01 9.75E-01 1.16E+01 3.48E-01 9.79E-01 1.16E+01 3.78E-01 9.82E-01 1.33E+01 3.99E-01 9.71E-01 1.33E+01 3.23E-01 9.75E-01 1.33E+01 3.56E-01 9.79E-01 1.53E+01 3.79E-01 9.65E-01 1.53E+01 2.97E-01 9.71E-01 1.53E+01 3.33E-01 9.76E-01 1.76E+01 3.60E-01 9.58E-01 1.76E+01 2.71E-01 9.66E-01 1.76E+01 3.09E-01

9.73E-01 2.03E+01 3.39E-01 9.50E-01 2.03E+01 2.44E-01 9.60E-01 2.03E+01 2.85E-01

9.69E-01 2.33E+01 3.18E-01 9.41E-01 2.33E+01 2.18E-01 9.53E-01 2.33E+01 2.61E-01

9.65E-01 2.68E+01 2.96E-01 9.31E-01 2.68E+01 1.92E-01 9.46E-01 2.68E+01 2.37E-01

9.60E-01 3.08E+01 2.73E-01 9.19E-01 3.08E+01 1.67E-01 9.37E-01 3.08E+01 2.13E-01

9.56E-01 3.54E+01 2.50E-01 9.06E-01 3.54E+01 1.44E-01 9.28E-01 3.54E+01 1.90E-01

9.50E-01 4.07E+01 2.26E-01 8.92E-01 4.07E+01 1.22E-01 9.17E-01 4.07E+01 1.67E-01

9.44E-01 4.68E+01 2.03E-01 8.77E-01 4.68E+01 1.03E-01 9.06E-01 4.68E+01 1.46E-01

9.38E-01 5.39E+01 1.79E-01 8.60E-01 5.39E+01 8.50E-02 8.94E-01 5.39E+01 1.25E-01

9.31E-01 6.20E+01 1.55E-01 8.43E-01 6.20E+01 6.95E-02 8.81E-01 6.20E+01 1.06E-01


145

Table 5-19. Characteristic Curve Values for the Upper, Lower & Single Vadose Zone - continued

Upper Vadose Zone Lower Vadose Zone Single Vadose Zone



head relative

permeability saturation suction head relative permeability

S ψ kr S ψ kr S ψ kr (cm) (cm) (cm)

1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

9.23E-01 7.13E+01 1.32E-01 8.25E-01 7.13E+01 5.61E-02 8.68E-01 7.13E+01 8.88E-02

9.15E-01 8.19E+01 1.10E-01 8.08E-01 8.19E+01 4.47E-02 8.54E-01 8.19E+01 7.30E-02

9.06E-01 9.42E+01 9.02E-02 7.90E-01 9.42E+01 3.51E-02 8.40E-01 9.42E+01 5.88E-02

8.96E-01 1.08E+02 7.19E-02 7.72E-01 1.08E+02 2.71E-02 8.25E-01 1.08E+02 4.64E-02

8.85E-01 1.25E+02 5.59E-02 7.54E-01 1.25E+02 2.05E-02 8.11E-01 1.25E+02 3.58E-02

8.74E-01 1.43E+02 4.23E-02 7.37E-01 1.43E+02 1.53E-02 7.96E-01 1.43E+02 2.69E-02

8.62E-01 1.65E+02 3.12E-02 7.21E-01 1.65E+02 1.11E-02 7.82E-01 1.65E+02 1.97E-02

8.50E-01 1.90E+02 2.24E-02 7.05E-01 1.90E+02 7.87E-03 7.68E-01 1.90E+02 1.41E-02

8.37E-01 2.18E+02 1.57E-02 6.90E-01 2.18E+02 5.47E-03 7.54E-01 2.18E+02 9.88E-03

8.25E-01 2.51E+02 1.08E-02 6.76E-01 2.51E+02 3.72E-03 7.40E-01 2.51E+02 6.76E-03

8.12E-01 2.88E+02 7.24E-03 6.62E-01 2.88E+02 2.48E-03 7.27E-01 2.88E+02 4.53E-03

8.00E-01 3.31E+02 4.78E-03 6.50E-01 3.31E+02 1.62E-03 7.14E-01 3.31E+02 2.98E-03

7.88E-01 3.81E+02 3.10E-03 6.37E-01 3.81E+02 1.05E-03 7.02E-01 3.81E+02 1.93E-03

7.76E-01 4.38E+02 1.99E-03 6.26E-01 4.38E+02 6.66E-04 6.90E-01 4.38E+02 1.24E-03

7.65E-01 5.04E+02 1.27E-03 6.15E-01 5.04E+02 4.20E-04 6.79E-01 5.04E+02 7.85E-04

7.54E-01 5.80E+02 8.01E-04 6.04E-01 5.80E+02 2.63E-04 6.69E-01 5.80E+02 4.95E-04

7.44E-01 6.67E+02 5.05E-04 5.95E-01 6.67E+02 1.64E-04 6.59E-01 6.67E+02 3.11E-04

7.34E-01 7.67E+02 3.17E-04 5.86E-01 7.67E+02 1.03E-04 6.50E-01 7.67E+02 1.95E-04

7.25E-01 8.82E+02 2.00E-04 5.77E-01 8.82E+02 6.40E-05 6.41E-01 8.82E+02 1.22E-04

7.17E-01 1.01E+03 1.26E-04 5.69E-01 1.01E+03 4.01E-05 6.32E-01 1.01E+03 7.71E-05

7.09E-01 1.17E+03 8.00E-05 5.61E-01 1.17E+03 2.53E-05 6.25E-01 1.17E+03 4.88E-05

7.02E-01 1.34E+03 5.10E-05 5.53E-01 1.34E+03 1.60E-05 6.17E-01 1.34E+03 3.11E-05

6.95E-01 1.54E+03 3.27E-05 5.46E-01 1.54E+03 1.02E-05 6.10E-01 1.54E+03 1.99E-05

6.88E-01 1.77E+03 2.11E-05 5.40E-01 1.77E+03 6.58E-06 6.03E-01 1.77E+03 1.28E-05

6.82E-01 2.04E+03 1.37E-05 5.33E-01 2.04E+03 4.27E-06 5.97E-01 2.04E+03 8.34E-06

6.76E-01 2.35E+03 8.98E-06 5.27E-01 2.35E+03 2.80E-06 5.91E-01 2.35E+03 5.46E-06

6.71E-01 2.70E+03 5.91E-06 5.21E-01 2.70E+03 1.85E-06 5.86E-01 2.70E+03 3.60E-06


146

Table 5-19. Characteristic Curve Values for the Upper, Lower & Single Vadose Zone - continued

Upper Vadose Zone Lower Vadose Zone Single Vadose Zone

saturation

suction head


head relative

permeability saturatio

n suction head relative permeability


1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

6.66E-01 3.10E+03 3.92E-06 5.16E-01 3.10E+03 1.23E-06 5.80E-01 3.10E+03 2.39E-06

6.61E-01 3.57E+03 2.61E-06 5.10E-01 3.57E+03 8.28E-07 5.75E-01 3.57E+03 1.59E-06

6.56E-01 4.10E+03 1.75E-06 5.05E-01 4.10E+03 5.60E-07 5.70E-01 4.10E+03 1.07E-06

6.52E-01 4.72E+03 1.18E-06 5.00E-01 4.72E+03 3.81E-07 5.66E-01 4.72E+03 7.23E-07

6.48E-01 5.43E+03 7.95E-07 4.96E-01 5.43E+03 2.61E-07 5.61E-01 5.43E+03 4.91E-07

6.44E-01 6.24E+03 5.40E-07 4.91E-01 6.24E+03 1.79E-07 5.57E-01 6.24E+03 3.34E-07

6.40E-01 7.18E+03 3.67E-07 4.87E-01 7.18E+03 1.24E-07 5.53E-01 7.18E+03 2.29E-07

6.37E-01 8.25E+03 2.51E-07 4.82E-01 8.25E+03 8.60E-08 5.49E-01 8.25E+03 1.57E-07

6.34E-01 9.49E+03 1.72E-07 4.78E-01 9.49E+03 5.99E-08 5.45E-01 9.49E+03 1.08E-07

6.30E-01 1.09E+04 1.18E-07 4.74E-01 1.09E+04 4.18E-08 5.41E-01 1.09E+04 7.46E-08

6.27E-01 1.25E+04 8.13E-08 4.70E-01 1.25E+04 2.92E-08 5.38E-01 1.25E+04 5.16E-08

6.25E-01 1.44E+04 5.60E-08 4.67E-01 1.44E+04 2.05E-08 5.35E-01 1.44E+04 3.58E-08

6.22E-01 1.66E+04 3.87E-08 4.63E-01 1.66E+04 1.44E-08 5.31E-01 1.66E+04 2.48E-08

6.19E-01 1.91E+04 2.68E-08 4.60E-01 1.91E+04 1.01E-08 5.28E-01 1.91E+04 1.73E-08

6.17E-01 2.19E+04 1.85E-08 4.56E-01 2.19E+04 7.12E-09 5.25E-01 2.19E+04 1.20E-08

6.14E-01 2.52E+04 1.29E-08 4.53E-01 2.52E+04 5.02E-09 5.22E-01 2.52E+04 8.39E-09

6.12E-01 2.90E+04 8.93E-09 4.50E-01 2.90E+04 3.54E-09 5.20E-01 2.90E+04 5.86E-09

6.10E-01 3.34E+04 6.20E-09 4.47E-01 3.34E+04 2.50E-09 5.17E-01 3.34E+04 4.09E-09

6.08E-01 3.84E+04 4.32E-09 4.44E-01 3.84E+04 1.76E-09 5.14E-01 3.84E+04 2.86E-09

6.06E-01 4.41E+04 3.00E-09 4.41E-01 4.41E+04 1.25E-09 5.12E-01 4.41E+04 2.00E-09

6.04E-01 5.08E+04 2.09E-09 4.38E-01 5.08E+04 8.82E-10 5.09E-01 5.08E+04 1.40E-09

6.02E-01 5.84E+04 1.46E-09 4.36E-01 5.84E+04 6.24E-10 5.07E-01 5.84E+04 9.83E-10

6.00E-01 6.71E+04 1.02E-09 4.33E-01 6.71E+04 4.41E-10 5.05E-01 6.71E+04 6.90E-10

5.98E-01 7.72E+04 7.11E-10 4.30E-01 7.72E+04 3.12E-10 5.03E-01 7.72E+04 4.84E-10

5.97E-01 8.88E+04 4.97E-10 4.28E-01 8.88E+04 2.21E-10 5.00E-01 8.88E+04 3.40E-10

5.95E-01 1.02E+05 3.47E-10 4.26E-01 1.02E+05 1.57E-10 4.98E-01 1.02E+05 2.39E-10


147

Table 5-20. Characteristic Curve Values for Textural Categories

Sand Clay-Sand Clay

saturation suction head relative permeability saturation suction

head relative



1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

1.00E+00 1.00E-01 7.11E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 8.50E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 5.92E-01

1.00E+00 1.15E-01 7.05E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 8.44E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 5.81E-01

1.00E+00 1.32E-01 6.99E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 8.39E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 5.70E-01

1.00E+00 1.52E-01 6.92E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 8.33E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 5.58E-01

1.00E+00 1.75E-01 6.86E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 8.27E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 5.47E-01

1.00E+00 2.01E-01 6.79E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 8.21E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 5.35E-01

1.00E+00 2.31E-01 6.72E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 8.15E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 5.23E-01

1.00E+00 2.66E-01 6.65E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 8.08E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 5.11E-01

1.00E+00 3.06E-01 6.58E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 8.01E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 4.99E-01

1.00E+00 3.52E-01 6.51E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 7.94E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 4.86E-01

1.00E+00 4.05E-01 6.43E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 7.86E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 4.73E-01

1.00E+00 4.65E-01 6.36E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 7.78E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 4.60E-01

9.99E-01 5.35E-01 6.27E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 7.70E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 4.47E-01

9.99E-01 6.15E-01 6.19E-01 9.99E-01 6.15E-01 7.61E-01 1.00E+00 6.15E-01 4.34E-01

9.99E-01 7.08E-01 6.11E-01 9.99E-01 7.08E-01 7.53E-01 1.00E+00 7.08E-01 4.20E-01

9.99E-01 8.14E-01 6.02E-01 9.99E-01 8.14E-01 7.43E-01 9.99E-01 8.14E-01 4.06E-01

9.99E-01 9.36E-01 5.92E-01 9.99E-01 9.36E-01 7.34E-01 9.99E-01 9.36E-01 3.92E-01

9.99E-01 1.08E+00 5.83E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 7.24E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 3.78E-01

9.99E-01 1.24E+00 5.73E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 7.13E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 3.64E-01

9.98E-01 1.42E+00 5.62E-01 9.98E-01 1.42E+00 7.03E-01 9.99E-01 1.42E+00 3.50E-01

9.98E-01 1.64E+00 5.51E-01 9.98E-01 1.64E+00 6.91E-01 9.99E-01 1.64E+00 3.36E-01

9.98E-01 1.88E+00 5.39E-01 9.98E-01 1.88E+00 6.80E-01 9.99E-01 1.88E+00 3.22E-01

9.97E-01 2.16E+00 5.27E-01 9.97E-01 2.16E+00 6.67E-01 9.98E-01 2.16E+00 3.08E-01

9.96E-01 2.49E+00 5.14E-01 9.97E-01 2.49E+00 6.55E-01 9.98E-01 2.49E+00 2.93E-01

9.96E-01 2.86E+00 5.00E-01 9.96E-01 2.86E+00 6.42E-01 9.98E-01 2.86E+00 2.79E-01

9.95E-01 3.29E+00 4.85E-01 9.96E-01 3.29E+00 6.28E-01 9.97E-01 3.29E+00 2.65E-01

9.94E-01 3.79E+00 4.69E-01 9.95E-01 3.79E+00 6.14E-01 9.97E-01 3.79E+00 2.52E-01

9.93E-01 4.35E+00 4.52E-01 9.94E-01 4.35E+00 5.99E-01 9.96E-01 4.35E+00 2.38E-01

9.91E-01 5.01E+00 4.34E-01 9.93E-01 5.01E+00 5.84E-01 9.96E-01 5.01E+00 2.25E-01

9.89E-01 5.76E+00 4.15E-01 9.92E-01 5.76E+00 5.68E-01 9.95E-01 5.76E+00 2.11E-01

9.87E-01 6.62E+00 3.94E-01 9.91E-01 6.62E+00 5.51E-01 9.94E-01 6.62E+00 1.98E-01

9.84E-01 7.61E+00 3.72E-01 9.89E-01 7.61E+00 5.34E-01 9.93E-01 7.61E+00 1.86E-01

9.81E-01 8.76E+00 3.49E-01 9.87E-01 8.76E+00 5.16E-01 9.92E-01 8.76E+00 1.74E-01

9.77E-01 1.01E+01 3.24E-01 9.85E-01 1.01E+01 4.97E-01 9.91E-01 1.01E+01 1.62E-01

9.73E-01 1.16E+01 2.98E-01 9.83E-01 1.16E+01 4.78E-01 9.89E-01 1.16E+01 1.50E-01

9.67E-01 1.33E+01 2.71E-01 9.80E-01 1.33E+01 4.58E-01 9.88E-01 1.33E+01 1.39E-01

9.60E-01 1.53E+01 2.43E-01 9.77E-01 1.53E+01 4.37E-01 9.86E-01 1.53E+01 1.28E-01


148

Table 5-20. Characteristic Curve Values for Textural Categories - continued

Sand Clay-Sand Clay

saturation suction head relative

permeability saturation suction head

relative permeability

saturation suction head relative

permeability


1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

9.52E-01 1.76E+01 2.15E-01 9.74E-01 1.76E+01 4.15E-01 9.84E-01 1.76E+01 1.18E-01

9.43E-01 2.03E+01 1.87E-01 9.71E-01 2.03E+01 3.92E-01 9.82E-01 2.03E+01 1.08E-01

9.32E-01 2.33E+01 1.59E-01 9.67E-01 2.33E+01 3.68E-01 9.80E-01 2.33E+01 9.79E-02

9.19E-01 2.68E+01 1.33E-01 9.62E-01 2.68E+01 3.43E-01 9.77E-01 2.68E+01 8.86E-02

9.05E-01 3.08E+01 1.09E-01 9.57E-01 3.08E+01 3.18E-01 9.75E-01 3.08E+01 7.97E-02

8.89E-01 3.54E+01 8.67E-02 9.52E-01 3.54E+01 2.91E-01 9.72E-01 3.54E+01 7.13E-02

8.71E-01 4.07E+01 6.72E-02 9.46E-01 4.07E+01 2.64E-01 9.69E-01 4.07E+01 6.32E-02

8.52E-01 4.68E+01 5.05E-02 9.40E-01 4.68E+01 2.36E-01 9.65E-01 4.68E+01 5.57E-02

8.32E-01 5.39E+01 3.68E-02 9.33E-01 5.39E+01 2.08E-01 9.62E-01 5.39E+01 4.87E-02

8.11E-01 6.20E+01 2.60E-02 9.25E-01 6.20E+01 1.81E-01 9.58E-01 6.20E+01 4.21E-02

7.90E-01 7.13E+01 1.78E-02 9.16E-01 7.13E+01 1.54E-01 9.53E-01 7.13E+01 3.61E-02

7.69E-01 8.19E+01 1.19E-02 9.07E-01 8.19E+01 1.29E-01 9.49E-01 8.19E+01 3.06E-02

7.48E-01 9.42E+01 7.80E-03 8.97E-01 9.42E+01 1.05E-01 9.44E-01 9.42E+01 2.57E-02

7.27E-01 1.08E+02 5.07E-03 8.86E-01 1.08E+02 8.35E-02 9.39E-01 1.08E+02 2.13E-02

7.08E-01 1.25E+02 3.29E-03 8.74E-01 1.25E+02 6.47E-02 9.34E-01 1.25E+02 1.75E-02

6.89E-01 1.43E+02 2.16E-03 8.62E-01 1.43E+02 4.88E-02 9.28E-01 1.43E+02 1.42E-02

6.71E-01 1.65E+02 1.44E-03 8.49E-01 1.65E+02 3.58E-02 9.22E-01 1.65E+02 1.13E-02

6.55E-01 1.90E+02 9.74E-04 8.35E-01 1.90E+02 2.55E-02 9.15E-01 1.90E+02 8.96E-03

6.39E-01 2.18E+02 6.73E-04 8.21E-01 2.18E+02 1.77E-02 9.09E-01 2.18E+02 7.00E-03

6.25E-01 2.51E+02 4.72E-04 8.07E-01 2.51E+02 1.20E-02 9.02E-01 2.51E+02 5.40E-03

6.11E-01 2.88E+02 3.34E-04 7.93E-01 2.88E+02 7.96E-03 8.95E-01 2.88E+02 4.13E-03

5.99E-01 3.31E+02 2.39E-04 7.80E-01 3.31E+02 5.16E-03 8.88E-01 3.31E+02 3.12E-03

5.87E-01 3.81E+02 1.72E-04 7.66E-01 3.81E+02 3.28E-03 8.80E-01 3.81E+02 2.33E-03

5.76E-01 4.38E+02 1.24E-04 7.54E-01 4.38E+02 2.05E-03 8.73E-01 4.38E+02 1.73E-03

5.65E-01 5.04E+02 8.91E-05 7.42E-01 5.04E+02 1.27E-03 8.65E-01 5.04E+02 1.27E-03

5.55E-01 5.80E+02 6.42E-05 7.30E-01 5.80E+02 7.73E-04 8.57E-01 5.80E+02 9.24E-04

5.46E-01 6.67E+02 4.62E-05 7.20E-01 6.67E+02 4.67E-04 8.50E-01 6.67E+02 6.69E-04

5.37E-01 7.67E+02 3.32E-05 7.10E-01 7.67E+02 2.80E-04 8.42E-01 7.67E+02 4.81E-04

5.28E-01 8.82E+02 2.39E-05 7.01E-01 8.82E+02 1.67E-04 8.34E-01 8.82E+02 3.45E-04

5.20E-01 1.01E+03 1.71E-05 6.92E-01 1.01E+03 9.90E-05 8.27E-01 1.01E+03 2.45E-04

5.13E-01 1.17E+03 1.23E-05 6.84E-01 1.17E+03 5.85E-05 8.19E-01 1.17E+03 1.74E-04

5.05E-01 1.34E+03 8.76E-06 6.77E-01 1.34E+03 3.45E-05 8.12E-01 1.34E+03 1.23E-04

4.98E-01 1.54E+03 6.26E-06 6.70E-01 1.54E+03 2.04E-05 8.05E-01 1.54E+03 8.69E-05

4.91E-01 1.77E+03 4.47E-06 6.63E-01 1.77E+03 1.20E-05 7.97E-01 1.77E+03 6.11E-05

4.85E-01 2.04E+03 3.18E-06 6.57E-01 2.04E+03 7.06E-06 7.90E-01 2.04E+03 4.29E-05

4.78E-01 2.35E+03 2.27E-06 6.52E-01 2.35E+03 4.16E-06 7.84E-01 2.35E+03 3.01E-05

4.72E-01 2.70E+03 1.61E-06 6.47E-01 2.70E+03 2.45E-06 7.77E-01 2.70E+03 2.10E-05


149

Table 5-20. Characteristic Curve Values for Textural Categories - continued

Sand Clay-Sand Clay



head relative



1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

4.66E-01 3.10E+03 1.15E-06 6.42E-01 3.10E+03 1.45E-06 7.70E-01 3.10E+03 1.47E-05

4.61E-01 3.57E+03 8.17E-07 6.37E-01 3.57E+03 8.57E-07 7.64E-01 3.57E+03 1.03E-05

4.55E-01 4.10E+03 5.80E-07 6.33E-01 4.10E+03 5.08E-07 7.57E-01 4.10E+03 7.17E-06

4.50E-01 4.72E+03 4.12E-07 6.29E-01 4.72E+03 3.02E-07 7.51E-01 4.72E+03 5.00E-06

4.45E-01 5.43E+03 2.93E-07 6.26E-01 5.43E+03 1.79E-07 7.45E-01 5.43E+03 3.49E-06

4.40E-01 6.24E+03 2.08E-07 6.22E-01 6.24E+03 1.07E-07 7.39E-01 6.24E+03 2.43E-06

4.35E-01 7.18E+03 1.48E-07 6.19E-01 7.18E+03 6.40E-08 7.34E-01 7.18E+03 1.70E-06

4.30E-01 8.25E+03 1.05E-07 6.16E-01 8.25E+03 3.83E-08 7.28E-01 8.25E+03 1.18E-06

4.25E-01 9.49E+03 7.43E-08 6.13E-01 9.49E+03 2.30E-08 7.23E-01 9.49E+03 8.24E-07

4.21E-01 1.09E+04 5.27E-08 6.11E-01 1.09E+04 1.39E-08 7.17E-01 1.09E+04 5.74E-07

4.17E-01 1.25E+04 3.74E-08 6.08E-01 1.25E+04 8.39E-09 7.12E-01 1.25E+04 4.00E-07

4.13E-01 1.44E+04 2.65E-08 6.06E-01 1.44E+04 5.09E-09 7.07E-01 1.44E+04 2.79E-07

4.08E-01 1.66E+04 1.88E-08 6.03E-01 1.66E+04 3.10E-09 7.02E-01 1.66E+04 1.94E-07

4.04E-01 1.91E+04 1.33E-08 6.01E-01 1.91E+04 1.89E-09 6.97E-01 1.91E+04 1.36E-07

4.01E-01 2.19E+04 9.45E-09 5.99E-01 2.19E+04 1.16E-09 6.93E-01 2.19E+04 9.46E-08

3.97E-01 2.52E+04 6.70E-09 5.97E-01 2.52E+04 7.12E-10 6.88E-01 2.52E+04 6.60E-08

3.93E-01 2.90E+04 4.75E-09 5.96E-01 2.90E+04 4.40E-10 6.84E-01 2.90E+04 4.61E-08

3.90E-01 3.34E+04 3.37E-09 5.94E-01 3.34E+04 2.72E-10 6.80E-01 3.34E+04 3.22E-08

3.86E-01 3.84E+04 2.39E-09 5.92E-01 3.84E+04 1.69E-10 6.75E-01 3.84E+04 2.25E-08

3.83E-01 4.41E+04 1.69E-09 5.91E-01 4.41E+04 1.06E-10 6.71E-01 4.41E+04 1.57E-08

3.79E-01 5.08E+04 1.20E-09 5.89E-01 5.08E+04 6.64E-11 6.67E-01 5.08E+04 1.10E-08

3.76E-01 5.84E+04 8.51E-10 5.88E-01 5.84E+04 4.18E-11 6.63E-01 5.84E+04 7.67E-09

3.73E-01 6.71E+04 6.03E-10 5.86E-01 6.71E+04 2.65E-11 6.60E-01 6.71E+04 5.36E-09

3.70E-01 7.72E+04 4.28E-10 5.85E-01 7.72E+04 1.68E-11 6.56E-01 7.72E+04 3.75E-09

3.67E-01 8.88E+04 3.03E-10 5.84E-01 8.88E+04 1.07E-11 6.52E-01 8.88E+04 2.62E-09

3.64E-01 1.02E+05 2.15E-10 5.83E-01 1.02E+05 6.89E-12 6.49E-01 1.02E+05 1.84E-09 Note to Table 5-20: All saturation and relative permeability values are unique; the number of significant figures provided in the tables was selected for clarity.


150

Table 5-21. Characteristic Curve Values for the Operational Soil Cover & Controlled Compacted Backfill

E-Area Operational Soil Cover Prior to DC E-Area Operational Soil Cover after DC Control Compacted Backfill



head relative



1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1.00E+00 7.77E-02 8.02E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 8.02E-01 9.99E-01 1.00E-01 4.54E-01

1.00E+00 8.94E-02 7.95E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 7.95E-01 9.99E-01 1.15E-01 4.47E-01

1.00E+00 1.03E-01 7.89E-01 1.00E+00 2.32E-01 7.89E-01 9.98E-01 1.32E-01 4.39E-01

1.00E+00 1.18E-01 7.82E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 7.82E-01 9.98E-01 1.52E-01 4.31E-01

1.00E+00 1.36E-01 7.75E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 7.75E-01 9.98E-01 1.75E-01 4.24E-01

1.00E+00 1.56E-01 7.68E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 7.68E-01 9.97E-01 2.01E-01 4.16E-01

1.00E+00 1.80E-01 7.60E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 7.60E-01 9.97E-01 2.31E-01 4.08E-01

1.00E+00 2.07E-01 7.53E-01 1.00E+00 4.66E-01 7.53E-01 9.96E-01 2.66E-01 4.00E-01

1.00E+00 2.38E-01 7.45E-01 1.00E+00 5.36E-01 7.45E-01 9.96E-01 3.06E-01 3.92E-01

1.00E+00 2.73E-01 7.36E-01 1.00E+00 6.16E-01 7.36E-01 9.95E-01 3.52E-01 3.84E-01

1.00E+00 3.14E-01 7.28E-01 1.00E+00 7.08E-01 7.28E-01 9.94E-01 4.05E-01 3.76E-01

1.00E+00 3.62E-01 7.19E-01 1.00E+00 8.15E-01 7.19E-01 9.93E-01 4.65E-01 3.68E-01

1.00E+00 4.16E-01 7.10E-01 1.00E+00 9.37E-01 7.10E-01 9.92E-01 5.35E-01 3.60E-01

9.99E-01 4.78E-01 7.00E-01 9.99E-01 1.08E+00 7.00E-01 9.91E-01 6.15E-01 3.52E-01

9.99E-01 5.50E-01 6.91E-01 9.99E-01 1.24E+00 6.91E-01 9.90E-01 7.08E-01 3.44E-01

9.99E-01 6.32E-01 6.81E-01 9.99E-01 1.42E+00 6.81E-01 9.88E-01 8.14E-01 3.35E-01

9.99E-01 7.27E-01 6.70E-01 9.99E-01 1.64E+00 6.70E-01 9.86E-01 9.36E-01 3.27E-01

9.99E-01 8.36E-01 6.60E-01 9.99E-01 1.88E+00 6.60E-01 9.85E-01 1.08E+00 3.18E-01

9.99E-01 9.62E-01 6.48E-01 9.99E-01 2.17E+00 6.48E-01 9.83E-01 1.24E+00 3.10E-01

9.99E-01 1.11E+00 6.37E-01 9.99E-01 2.49E+00 6.37E-01 9.80E-01 1.42E+00 3.01E-01

9.98E-01 1.27E+00 6.25E-01 9.98E-01 2.87E+00 6.25E-01 9.78E-01 1.64E+00 2.92E-01

9.98E-01 1.46E+00 6.13E-01 9.98E-01 3.30E+00 6.13E-01 9.75E-01 1.88E+00 2.83E-01

9.98E-01 1.68E+00 6.01E-01 9.98E-01 3.79E+00 6.01E-01 9.73E-01 2.16E+00 2.74E-01

9.97E-01 1.93E+00 5.88E-01 9.97E-01 4.36E+00 5.88E-01 9.70E-01 2.49E+00 2.65E-01

9.97E-01 2.22E+00 5.74E-01 9.97E-01 5.01E+00 5.74E-01 9.66E-01 2.86E+00 2.55E-01

9.96E-01 2.56E+00 5.61E-01 9.96E-01 5.76E+00 5.61E-01 9.63E-01 3.29E+00 2.45E-01

9.95E-01 2.94E+00 5.46E-01 9.95E-01 6.63E+00 5.46E-01 9.60E-01 3.79E+00 2.35E-01

9.95E-01 3.38E+00 5.32E-01 9.95E-01 7.62E+00 5.32E-01 9.56E-01 4.35E+00 2.25E-01

9.94E-01 3.89E+00 5.17E-01 9.94E-01 8.77E+00 5.17E-01 9.52E-01 5.01E+00 2.14E-01

9.93E-01 4.47E+00 5.01E-01 9.93E-01 1.01E+01 5.01E-01 9.48E-01 5.76E+00 2.03E-01

9.91E-01 5.15E+00 4.86E-01 9.91E-01 1.16E+01 4.86E-01 9.44E-01 6.62E+00 1.92E-01

9.90E-01 5.92E+00 4.69E-01 9.90E-01 1.33E+01 4.69E-01 9.40E-01 7.61E+00 1.80E-01

9.88E-01 6.81E+00 4.52E-01 9.88E-01 1.53E+01 4.52E-01 9.36E-01 8.76E+00 1.68E-01

9.86E-01 7.83E+00 4.35E-01 9.86E-01 1.76E+01 4.35E-01 9.31E-01 1.01E+01 1.56E-01

9.84E-01 9.00E+00 4.17E-01 9.84E-01 2.03E+01 4.17E-01 9.27E-01 1.16E+01 1.44E-01


151

Table 5-21. Characteristic Curve Values for the Operational Soil Cover & Controlled Compacted Backfill - continued




head relative



1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 9.82E-01 1.04E+01 3.99E-01 9.82E-01 2.33E+01 3.99E-01 9.22E-01 1.33E+01 1.32E-01

9.79E-01 1.19E+01 3.79E-01 9.79E-01 2.68E+01 3.79E-01 9.17E-01 1.53E+01 1.20E-01

9.76E-01 1.37E+01 3.60E-01 9.76E-01 3.08E+01 3.60E-01 9.11E-01 1.76E+01 1.08E-01

9.73E-01 1.57E+01 3.39E-01 9.73E-01 3.55E+01 3.39E-01 9.06E-01 2.03E+01 9.57E-02

9.69E-01 1.81E+01 3.18E-01 9.69E-01 4.08E+01 3.18E-01 9.00E-01 2.33E+01 8.41E-02

9.65E-01 2.08E+01 2.96E-01 9.65E-01 4.69E+01 2.96E-01 8.94E-01 2.68E+01 7.29E-02

9.60E-01 2.39E+01 2.73E-01 9.60E-01 5.39E+01 2.73E-01 8.87E-01 3.08E+01 6.22E-02

9.56E-01 2.75E+01 2.50E-01 9.56E-01 6.20E+01 2.50E-01 8.80E-01 3.54E+01 5.23E-02

9.50E-01 3.17E+01 2.26E-01 9.50E-01 7.13E+01 2.26E-01 8.72E-01 4.07E+01 4.31E-02

9.44E-01 3.64E+01 2.03E-01 9.44E-01 8.20E+01 2.03E-01 8.64E-01 4.68E+01 3.49E-02

9.38E-01 4.19E+01 1.79E-01 9.38E-01 9.43E+01 1.79E-01 8.55E-01 5.39E+01 2.77E-02

9.31E-01 4.82E+01 1.55E-01 9.31E-01 1.08E+02 1.55E-01 8.46E-01 6.20E+01 2.14E-02

9.23E-01 5.54E+01 1.32E-01 9.23E-01 1.25E+02 1.32E-01 8.37E-01 7.13E+01 1.63E-02

9.15E-01 6.37E+01 1.10E-01 9.15E-01 1.43E+02 1.10E-01 8.27E-01 8.19E+01 1.21E-02

9.06E-01 7.32E+01 9.02E-02 9.06E-01 1.65E+02 9.02E-02 8.17E-01 9.42E+01 8.81E-03

8.96E-01 8.42E+01 7.19E-02 8.96E-01 1.90E+02 7.19E-02 8.06E-01 1.08E+02 6.33E-03

8.85E-01 9.69E+01 5.59E-02 8.85E-01 2.18E+02 5.59E-02 7.95E-01 1.25E+02 4.49E-03

8.74E-01 1.11E+02 4.23E-02 8.74E-01 2.51E+02 4.23E-02 7.85E-01 1.43E+02 3.16E-03

8.62E-01 1.28E+02 3.12E-02 8.62E-01 2.89E+02 3.12E-02 7.74E-01 1.65E+02 2.22E-03

8.50E-01 1.47E+02 2.24E-02 8.50E-01 3.32E+02 2.24E-02 7.63E-01 1.90E+02 1.56E-03

8.37E-01 1.69E+02 1.57E-02 8.37E-01 3.82E+02 1.57E-02 7.52E-01 2.18E+02 1.10E-03

8.25E-01 1.95E+02 1.08E-02 8.25E-01 4.39E+02 1.08E-02 7.42E-01 2.51E+02 7.81E-04

8.12E-01 2.24E+02 7.24E-03 8.12E-01 5.05E+02 7.24E-03 7.31E-01 2.88E+02 5.58E-04

8.00E-01 2.58E+02 4.78E-03 8.00E-01 5.80E+02 4.78E-03 7.21E-01 3.31E+02 4.00E-04

7.88E-01 2.96E+02 3.10E-03 7.88E-01 6.68E+02 3.10E-03 7.11E-01 3.81E+02 2.89E-04

7.76E-01 3.41E+02 1.99E-03 7.76E-01 7.68E+02 1.99E-03 7.01E-01 4.38E+02 2.10E-04

7.65E-01 3.92E+02 1.27E-03 7.65E-01 8.83E+02 1.27E-03 6.92E-01 5.04E+02 1.52E-04

7.54E-01 4.51E+02 8.01E-04 7.54E-01 1.02E+03 8.01E-04 6.82E-01 5.80E+02 1.11E-04

7.44E-01 5.18E+02 5.05E-04 7.44E-01 1.17E+03 5.05E-04 6.73E-01 6.67E+02 8.12E-05

7.34E-01 5.96E+02 3.17E-04 7.34E-01 1.34E+03 3.17E-04 6.64E-01 7.67E+02 5.93E-05

7.25E-01 6.85E+02 2.00E-04 7.25E-01 1.54E+03 2.00E-04 6.56E-01 8.82E+02 4.34E-05

7.17E-01 7.88E+02 1.26E-04 7.17E-01 1.78E+03 1.26E-04 6.47E-01 1.01E+03 3.17E-05

7.09E-01 9.06E+02 8.00E-05 7.09E-01 2.04E+03 8.00E-05 6.39E-01 1.17E+03 2.32E-05

7.02E-01 1.04E+03 5.10E-05 7.02E-01 2.35E+03 5.10E-05 6.31E-01 1.34E+03 1.69E-05

6.95E-01 1.20E+03 3.27E-05 6.95E-01 2.70E+03 3.27E-05 6.23E-01 1.54E+03 1.24E-05


152

Table 5-21. Characteristic Curve Values for the Operational Soil Cover & Controlled Compacted Backfill - continued




head relative



1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6.88E-01 1.38E+03 2.11E-05 6.88E-01 3.11E+03 2.11E-05 6.15E-01 1.77E+03 9.03E-06

6.82E-01 1.59E+03 1.37E-05 6.82E-01 3.57E+03 1.37E-05 6.08E-01 2.04E+03 6.59E-06

6.76E-01 1.82E+03 8.98E-06 6.76E-01 4.11E+03 8.98E-06 6.00E-01 2.35E+03 4.80E-06

6.71E-01 2.10E+03 5.91E-06 6.71E-01 4.72E+03 5.91E-06 5.93E-01 2.70E+03 3.50E-06

6.66E-01 2.41E+03 3.92E-06 6.66E-01 5.43E+03 3.92E-06 5.86E-01 3.10E+03 2.55E-06

6.61E-01 2.77E+03 2.61E-06 6.61E-01 6.25E+03 2.61E-06 5.79E-01 3.57E+03 1.86E-06

6.56E-01 3.19E+03 1.75E-06 6.56E-01 7.18E+03 1.75E-06 5.73E-01 4.10E+03 1.35E-06

6.52E-01 3.67E+03 1.18E-06 6.52E-01 8.26E+03 1.18E-06 5.66E-01 4.72E+03 9.85E-07

6.48E-01 4.22E+03 7.95E-07 6.48E-01 9.50E+03 7.95E-07 5.60E-01 5.43E+03 7.17E-07

6.44E-01 4.85E+03 5.40E-07 6.44E-01 1.09E+04 5.40E-07 5.53E-01 6.24E+03 5.22E-07

6.40E-01 5.58E+03 3.67E-07 6.40E-01 1.26E+04 3.67E-07 5.47E-01 7.18E+03 3.80E-07

6.37E-01 6.41E+03 2.51E-07 6.37E-01 1.44E+04 2.51E-07 5.41E-01 8.25E+03 2.76E-07

6.34E-01 7.38E+03 1.72E-07 6.34E-01 1.66E+04 1.72E-07 5.36E-01 9.49E+03 2.01E-07

6.30E-01 8.48E+03 1.18E-07 6.30E-01 1.91E+04 1.18E-07 5.30E-01 1.09E+04 1.46E-07

6.27E-01 9.75E+03 8.13E-08 6.27E-01 2.20E+04 8.13E-08 5.24E-01 1.25E+04 1.06E-07

6.25E-01 1.12E+04 5.60E-08 6.25E-01 2.53E+04 5.60E-08 5.19E-01 1.44E+04 7.73E-08

6.22E-01 1.29E+04 3.87E-08 6.22E-01 2.91E+04 3.87E-08 5.13E-01 1.66E+04 5.62E-08

6.19E-01 1.48E+04 2.68E-08 6.19E-01 3.34E+04 2.68E-08 5.08E-01 1.91E+04 4.09E-08

6.17E-01 1.71E+04 1.85E-08 6.17E-01 3.84E+04 1.85E-08 5.03E-01 2.19E+04 2.97E-08

6.14E-01 1.96E+04 1.29E-08 6.14E-01 4.42E+04 1.29E-08 4.98E-01 2.52E+04 2.16E-08

6.12E-01 2.26E+04 8.93E-09 6.12E-01 5.08E+04 8.93E-09 4.93E-01 2.90E+04 1.57E-08

6.10E-01 2.59E+04 6.20E-09 6.10E-01 5.85E+04 6.20E-09 4.88E-01 3.34E+04 1.14E-08

6.08E-01 2.98E+04 4.32E-09 6.08E-01 6.72E+04 4.32E-09 4.83E-01 3.84E+04 8.32E-09

6.06E-01 3.43E+04 3.00E-09 6.06E-01 7.73E+04 3.00E-09 4.79E-01 4.41E+04 6.05E-09

6.04E-01 3.95E+04 2.09E-09 6.04E-01 8.89E+04 2.09E-09 4.74E-01 5.08E+04 4.40E-09

6.02E-01 4.54E+04 1.46E-09 6.02E-01 1.02E+05 1.46E-09 4.70E-01 5.84E+04 3.20E-09

6.00E-01 5.22E+04 1.02E-09 6.00E-01 1.18E+05 1.02E-09 4.65E-01 6.71E+04 2.33E-09

5.98E-01 6.00E+04 7.11E-10 5.98E-01 1.35E+05 7.11E-10 4.61E-01 7.72E+04 1.69E-09

5.97E-01 6.90E+04 4.97E-10 5.97E-01 1.55E+05 4.97E-10 4.57E-01 8.88E+04 1.23E-09

5.95E-01 7.94E+04 3.47E-10 5.95E-01 1.79E+05 3.47E-10 4.53E-01 1.02E+05 8.97E-10

Note to Table 5-21: All saturation and relative permeability values are unique; the number of significant figures provided in the tables was selected for clarity.


153

Table 5-22. Characteristic Curve Values for Gravel & IL Vault Permeable Backfill

Gravel IL Permeable Backfill



head relative

permeability S ψ kr S ψ kr (cm) (cm) 1 0 1 1 0 1

9.99E-01 1.00E-01 6.94E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 9.98E-01 9.99E-01 1.15E-01 6.79E-01 1.00E+00 1.15E-01 9.98E-01 9.98E-01 1.32E-01 6.64E-01 1.00E+00 1.32E-01 9.98E-01 9.98E-01 1.52E-01 6.48E-01 1.00E+00 1.52E-01 9.97E-01 9.98E-01 1.75E-01 6.31E-01 1.00E+00 1.75E-01 9.97E-01 9.97E-01 2.01E-01 6.14E-01 1.00E+00 2.01E-01 9.96E-01 9.97E-01 2.31E-01 5.95E-01 1.00E+00 2.31E-01 9.96E-01 9.96E-01 2.66E-01 5.77E-01 1.00E+00 2.66E-01 9.95E-01 9.95E-01 3.06E-01 5.57E-01 1.00E+00 3.06E-01 9.94E-01 9.94E-01 3.52E-01 5.37E-01 1.00E+00 3.52E-01 9.93E-01 9.93E-01 4.05E-01 5.16E-01 1.00E+00 4.05E-01 9.92E-01 9.91E-01 4.65E-01 4.95E-01 1.00E+00 4.65E-01 9.90E-01 9.89E-01 5.35E-01 4.73E-01 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 9.89E-01 9.87E-01 6.15E-01 4.51E-01 1.00E+00 6.15E-01 9.87E-01 9.85E-01 7.08E-01 4.28E-01 1.00E+00 7.08E-01 9.84E-01 9.82E-01 8.14E-01 4.04E-01 1.00E+00 8.14E-01 9.82E-01 9.78E-01 9.36E-01 3.80E-01 1.00E+00 9.36E-01 9.79E-01 9.74E-01 1.08E+00 3.56E-01 1.00E+00 1.08E+00 9.75E-01 9.69E-01 1.24E+00 3.32E-01 1.00E+00 1.24E+00 9.70E-01 9.63E-01 1.42E+00 3.07E-01 1.00E+00 1.42E+00 9.65E-01 9.57E-01 1.64E+00 2.83E-01 1.00E+00 1.64E+00 9.59E-01 9.49E-01 1.88E+00 2.59E-01 1.00E+00 1.88E+00 9.52E-01 9.40E-01 2.16E+00 2.35E-01 1.00E+00 2.16E+00 9.44E-01 9.30E-01 2.49E+00 2.11E-01 9.99E-01 2.49E+00 9.35E-01 9.18E-01 2.86E+00 1.88E-01 9.99E-01 2.86E+00 9.24E-01 9.06E-01 3.29E+00 1.65E-01 9.99E-01 3.29E+00 9.11E-01 8.91E-01 3.79E+00 1.44E-01 9.99E-01 3.79E+00 8.96E-01 8.75E-01 4.35E+00 1.23E-01 9.98E-01 4.35E+00 8.78E-01 8.58E-01 5.01E+00 1.04E-01 9.97E-01 5.01E+00 8.58E-01 8.38E-01 5.76E+00 8.62E-02 9.96E-01 5.76E+00 8.35E-01 8.17E-01 6.62E+00 7.02E-02 9.95E-01 6.62E+00 8.08E-01 7.95E-01 7.61E+00 5.60E-02 9.94E-01 7.61E+00 7.77E-01 7.71E-01 8.76E+00 4.38E-02 9.91E-01 8.76E+00 7.42E-01 7.45E-01 1.01E+01 3.35E-02 9.89E-01 1.01E+01 7.03E-01 7.18E-01 1.16E+01 2.50E-02 9.85E-01 1.16E+01 6.59E-01 6.91E-01 1.33E+01 1.83E-02 9.80E-01 1.33E+01 6.10E-01 6.62E-01 1.53E+01 1.31E-02 9.73E-01 1.53E+01 5.57E-01


154

Table 5-22. Characteristic Curve Values for Gravel & IL Vault Permeable Backfill - continued




head relative


6.33E-01 1.76E+01 9.20E-03 9.65E-01 1.76E+01 5.01E-01 6.04E-01 2.03E+01 6.34E-03 9.55E-01 2.03E+01 4.42E-01 5.75E-01 2.33E+01 4.29E-03 9.42E-01 2.33E+01 3.83E-01 5.47E-01 2.68E+01 2.86E-03 9.26E-01 2.68E+01 3.23E-01 5.19E-01 3.08E+01 1.88E-03 9.06E-01 3.08E+01 2.66E-01 4.92E-01 3.54E+01 1.22E-03 8.84E-01 3.54E+01 2.12E-01 4.66E-01 4.07E+01 7.88E-04 8.58E-01 4.07E+01 1.64E-01 4.41E-01 4.68E+01 5.03E-04 8.29E-01 4.68E+01 1.23E-01 4.18E-01 5.39E+01 3.19E-04 7.98E-01 5.39E+01 8.79E-02 3.95E-01 6.20E+01 2.01E-04 7.64E-01 6.20E+01 6.05E-02 3.74E-01 7.13E+01 1.26E-04 7.30E-01 7.13E+01 3.98E-02 3.54E-01 8.19E+01 7.91E-05 6.96E-01 8.19E+01 2.51E-02 3.35E-01 9.42E+01 4.93E-05 6.62E-01 9.42E+01 1.52E-02 3.18E-01 1.08E+02 3.07E-05 6.30E-01 1.08E+02 8.85E-03 3.01E-01 1.25E+02 1.91E-05 6.00E-01 1.25E+02 4.99E-03 2.86E-01 1.43E+02 1.18E-05 5.73E-01 1.43E+02 2.74E-03 2.71E-01 1.65E+02 7.34E-06 5.48E-01 1.65E+02 1.47E-03 2.57E-01 1.90E+02 4.55E-06 5.27E-01 1.90E+02 7.72E-04 2.45E-01 2.18E+02 2.82E-06 5.07E-01 2.18E+02 4.01E-04 2.33E-01 2.51E+02 1.75E-06 4.91E-01 2.51E+02 2.06E-04 2.22E-01 2.88E+02 1.08E-06 4.76E-01 2.88E+02 1.05E-04 2.11E-01 3.31E+02 6.70E-07 4.64E-01 3.31E+02 5.30E-05 2.01E-01 3.81E+02 4.15E-07 4.53E-01 3.81E+02 2.67E-05 1.92E-01 4.38E+02 2.58E-07 4.44E-01 4.38E+02 1.34E-05 1.84E-01 5.04E+02 1.60E-07 4.36E-01 5.04E+02 6.70E-06 1.76E-01 5.80E+02 9.92E-08 4.30E-01 5.80E+02 3.35E-06 1.68E-01 6.67E+02 6.17E-08 4.24E-01 6.67E+02 1.67E-06 1.61E-01 7.67E+02 3.84E-08 4.19E-01 7.67E+02 8.32E-07 1.54E-01 8.82E+02 2.39E-08 4.15E-01 8.82E+02 4.15E-07 1.48E-01 1.01E+03 1.49E-08 4.12E-01 1.01E+03 2.06E-07 1.42E-01 1.17E+03 9.30E-09 4.09E-01 1.17E+03 1.03E-07 1.37E-01 1.34E+03 5.81E-09 4.06E-01 1.34E+03 5.11E-08 1.32E-01 1.54E+03 3.63E-09 4.04E-01 1.54E+03 2.54E-08 1.27E-01 1.77E+03 2.28E-09 4.02E-01 1.77E+03 1.26E-08 1.23E-01 2.04E+03 1.43E-09 4.01E-01 2.04E+03 6.29E-09 1.18E-01 2.35E+03 8.98E-10 4.00E-01 2.35E+03 3.13E-09


155

Table 5-22. Characteristic Curve Values for Gravel & IL Vault Permeable Backfill - continued




head relative


1.14E-01 2.70E+03 5.66E-10 3.99E-01 2.70E+03 1.56E-09 1.11E-01 3.10E+03 3.57E-10 3.98E-01 3.10E+03 7.74E-10 1.07E-01 3.57E+03 2.25E-10 3.97E-01 3.57E+03 3.85E-10 1.04E-01 4.10E+03 1.43E-10 3.96E-01 4.10E+03 1.92E-10 1.01E-01 4.72E+03 9.04E-11 3.96E-01 4.72E+03 9.53E-11 9.80E-02 5.43E+03 5.74E-11 3.95E-01 5.43E+03 4.74E-11 9.53E-02 6.24E+03 3.66E-11 3.95E-01 6.24E+03 2.36E-11 9.28E-02 7.18E+03 2.33E-11 3.94E-01 7.18E+03 1.17E-11 9.03E-02 8.25E+03 1.49E-11 3.94E-01 8.25E+03 5.84E-12 8.81E-02 9.49E+03 9.54E-12 3.94E-01 9.49E+03 2.91E-12 8.59E-02 1.09E+04 6.12E-12 3.94E-01 1.09E+04 1.45E-12 8.39E-02 1.25E+04 3.93E-12 3.93E-01 1.25E+04 7.21E-13 8.20E-02 1.44E+04 2.53E-12 3.93E-01 1.44E+04 3.59E-13 8.02E-02 1.66E+04 1.63E-12 3.93E-01 1.66E+04 1.79E-13 7.85E-02 1.91E+04 1.06E-12 3.93E-01 1.91E+04 8.90E-14 7.69E-02 2.19E+04 6.85E-13 3.93E-01 2.19E+04 4.43E-14 7.54E-02 2.52E+04 4.45E-13 3.93E-01 2.52E+04 2.21E-14 7.40E-02 2.90E+04 2.89E-13 3.93E-01 2.90E+04 1.10E-14 7.27E-02 3.34E+04 1.88E-13 3.93E-01 3.34E+04 5.49E-15 7.14E-02 3.84E+04 1.23E-13 3.93E-01 3.84E+04 2.73E-15 7.02E-02 4.41E+04 8.03E-14 3.93E-01 4.41E+04 1.36E-15 6.91E-02 5.08E+04 5.26E-14 3.93E-01 5.08E+04 6.79E-16 6.81E-02 5.84E+04 3.45E-14 3.93E-01 5.84E+04 3.39E-16 6.70E-02 6.71E+04 2.26E-14 3.93E-01 6.71E+04 1.69E-16 6.61E-02 7.72E+04 1.49E-14 3.93E-01 7.72E+04 8.42E-17 6.52E-02 8.88E+04 9.79E-15 3.93E-01 8.88E+04 4.20E-17 6.44E-02 1.02E+05 6.45E-15 3.93E-01 1.02E+05 2.10E-17

Note to Table 5-22: All saturation and relative permeability values are unique; the number of significant figures provided in the tables was selected for clarity.


156



157

6.0 CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL DATA

6.1 EXTERNAL LITERATURE REVIEW

6.1.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density The porosity of fully hydrated cement paste (i.e., cementitious material and water) can be classified into the following categories (Clifton and Knab 1989: Popovics 1992; Verbeck 1966): • Gel pores: <5E-07 to 1E-05 mm • Capillary pores: 1E-05 to 0.01 mm • Entrained air: 0.025 to 0.050 mm • Air voids due to incomplete consolidation: 0.1 to 2.0 mm Cement paste pore-size distribution is a broad and continuous spectrum of pore sizes with separate peaks representing gel and capillary pores. Gel pores are the small pores formed within the fully hydrated cement paste that constitute about 28 percent of the paste volume. Capillary porosity results when the volume of cement gel is not sufficient to completely fill all the original water filled space in the cement paste. Therefore capillary porosity increases rapidly with an increase in the water-to-cementitious material ratio (WCR). Capillary pores constitute a negligible volume for fully hydrated cement paste with a WCR between 0.35 and 0.40 or less and up to about 30 percent with a WCR of 0.70. A WCR between 0.35 and 0.40 is the minimum WCR for attaining complete hydration of the cementitious materials. In addition increases in the WCR result in an increase in the gel and capillary pore size and greater pore system continuity. Fully hydrated cement paste with a WCR of 0.7 or less may produce a relatively discontinuous capillary pore system, however this does not destroy the continuity of the pore system as a whole, since water flow can occur through the gel pores. (Beaudoin and Marchand 2001; Neville 1973; Popovics 1992; Verbeck 1966) In addition to porosity within the cement paste itself, the porosity of concrete (cementitious material, fine and coarse aggregate, and water) is also influenced by porosity resulting from air voids and those due to the fine and coarse aggregate. Air voids within concrete are produced due to purposeful air entrainment and due to incomplete consolidation of the concrete. Air voids (due to both air entrainment and incomplete consolidation) can make up 1 to 10 percent of the concrete by volume. Concrete is made up of about 75 percent by volume fine and coarse aggregate. Therefore the characteristics of the aggregate greatly influence the porosity of the concrete. Aggregate porosity ranges from nearly 0 to as much as 20 percent by volume (most commonly about 1 to 5 percent). Pores size also varies greatly among different aggregates. In very dense aggregates, such as granite, the aggregate pores are in the intermediate capillary pore size range and frequently they are in the largest capillary pore size range. Additionally the aggregate-paste interface can exhibit separation and microcracking thus adding to the porosity of the cement. (Verbeck 1966; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995)


158

The following are factors that have been found to reduce concrete porosity: • Low WCR (increased unit cementitious material content and reduced unit water content

that can be facilitated by the use of high-range water reducers) (Clifton and Knab 1989; Walton et al. 1990; ACI 2001)

• Use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume as cementitious material replacements for the cement content (Popovics 1992; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 1996; ACI 2001; ACI 2003a; ACI 2003b)

• Proper mix proportioning (i.e., water, cementitious material, fine aggregate, and coarse aggregate proportioning) to produce a dense homogeneous concrete

• Air entrainment (ACI 2001) • Properly placed and well consolidated concrete (minimizes segregation and

honeycombing) (ACI 2001) • Effectively cured concrete (minimizes cracking and maximizes cementitious material

hydration) (Neville 1973; Walton et al. 1990; ACI 2001; Beaudoinand Marchand 2001) As can be seen it is not only the concrete mix properties that influence the porosity of concrete but also its field placement, consolidation, and curing. For properly placed, consolidated and cured concrete the WCR is the most important factor in controlling porosity. (Clifton and Knab 1989) The use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume as cementitious material replacements for the cement content is probably the second most important factor in controlling porosity. Calcium hydroxide and other soluble alkalis are released during Portland cement hydration. The water soluble calcium hydroxide and other alkalis are very easily leached out of the concrete matrix, which increases the concrete porosity and overall size of pores. Blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume react with soluble calcium hydroxide and other alkalis to produce calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), which is much less soluble. Concrete pores, which would have normally contained calcium hydroxide, are, in part, filled with C-S-H instead, thus reducing the porosity and refining the pore structure. (Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 1996; ACI 2003a; ACI 2003b) Effective curing is very important to concrete pore structure, since the cementitious material hydration products (i.e., gel) are approximately 2.1 times the volume of the unhydrated cementitious material. Therefore, with curing, the gel gradually fills some of the original water-filled space. (Neville 1973; Popovics 1992; Beaudoinand Marchand 2001) There are two primary methods of measuring the porosity of concrete: gravimetric and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). The gravimetric method of measuring concrete porosity involves determination of effective porosity (i.e., inter-connected porosity which is available to water flow or water intrudeable porosity) from measurements of the concrete sample saturated weight, concrete sample oven dried weight, and concrete sample volume (ASTM 1997; Flint and Flint 2002a). The mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) of measuring concrete porosity involves determination of effective porosity (i.e., inter-connected porosity which is available to mercury flow or mercury intrudeable porosity) from the measurement of the volume of liquid mercury forced into a concrete sample under incrementally increasing pressures (ASTM 2004a).


159

Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and Table 6-3 provide the measured effective porosities of concrete (i.e., contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water), mortar (i.e., contains cementitious material, fine aggregate, and water), and cementitious paste (i.e., contains cementitious material and water), respectively, obtained from various literature sources that used mercury intrusion porosimetry or gravimetric means to measure the porosity. Total porosity, which also includes dead pores (i.e., those that are not interconnected), is not measured by these two methods. Figure 6-1 provides the effective porosity of concrete, mortar, and cementitious paste with WCR, based upon the data from these literature sources. From these data, the porosity of concrete, mortar, and cementitious paste, that do not contain blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume, is seen to range from 9.6 to 18.4 (Table 6-1), from 7.5 to 20.8 (Table 6-2), and from 8.7 to 22.2 (Table 6-3), respectively. In general it is seen that porosity increases with increasing WCR (Table 6-1). As seen in Table 6-2 the porosity of mortars containing silica fume are significantly less than those that do not. From this data the porosity of cementitious paste that contains silica fume is shown to range from 4.0 to 22.5 (Table 6-2), and it is not clear whether cementitious paste containing silica fume has a porosity different from that of pastes that do not contain silica fume. Figure 6-1 also provides WCR-porosity relationships developed from these data for concrete, mortar, paste, and paste with silica fume. The bulk density of normal weight concrete ranges from 120 to 165 lbs/ft3 (from 1.92 to 2.64 g/cm3). (Helms 1966) The bulk density of concrete is typically determined by the same gravimetric method utilized to determine effective porosity. (ASTM 1997) The particle density of concrete is typically determined by calculation from porosity and bulk density as follows (Hillel 1982; Flint and Fling 2002b):

)1( ηρρ −= b

p , where ρp = particle density; ρb = dry bulk density; η = porosity

The particle density of concrete can also be directly measured as a specific gravity of the concrete solids (USACE 1970).


160

Table 6-1. Porosity of Concrete (i.e., contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water)

WCR Cement Fly Ash BFS SF Sand Aggregate Cure Time

Porosity (%) Method Source

0.38 1 part/dry material

0 0 0 1.1 part/dry material

2.7 part/dry material

27 days 9.6 MIP Kumar and Bhattacharjee 2003









0.5 410 kg/m3 0 0 0 558 kg/m3 1171.8 kg/m3

28 days ~15 G Safiuddin and Hearn 2005









0.6 342 kg/m3 0 0 0 643.5 kg/m3 1171.8 kg/m3

28 days ~18.4 G Safiuddin and Hearn 2005





BFS = blast furnace slag; SF = silica fume; MIP = mercury intrusion porosimetry; G = gravimetric


161

Table 6-2. Porosity of Mortars (i.e., contains cementitious material, fine aggregate, and water)



0.25 100 wt% CM 0 0 0 50 total vol% 0 3 months 7.5 MIP Delagrave et al. 1998

0.3 639 kg/m3 0 0 0 1380 kg/m3 0 28 days 8.0 G Lafhaj et al. 2005 0.35 639 kg/m3 0 0 0 1380 kg/m3 0 28 days 10.2 G Lafhaj et al. 2005 0.40 639 kg/m3 0 0 0 1380 kg/m3 0 28 days 12.0 G Lafhaj et al. 2005 0.45 100 wt% CM 0 0 0 50 total vol% 0 3 months 12.2 MIP Delagrave et al.

1998 0.45 639 kg/m3 0 0 0 1380 kg/m3 0 28 days 12.2 G Lafhaj et al. 2005 0.45 Yes 0 0 0 Yes 0 Unknown 16.0 MIP Hernandez et al.




2000 0.25 94 wt% CM 0 0 6 wt%

CM 50 total vol% 0 3 months 4.6 MIP Delagrave et al.

1998 0.45 94 wt% CM 0 0 6 wt%

CM 50 total vol% 0 3 months 11.7 MIP Delagrave et al.

1998 BFS = blast furnace slag; SF = silica fume; MIP = mercury intrusion porosimetry; G = gravimetric; wt% = weight percent; CM = cementitious materials; Vol% = volume percent


162

Table 6-3. Porosity of Cementitious Pastes (i.e., contains cementitious material and water)



0.25 100 wt% 0 0 0 0 0 3 months 8.7 MIP Delagrave et al. 1998

0.25 100 wt% 0 0 0 0 0 56 days 11.3 MIP Johnson and Wilmont 1992

0.35 100 wt% 0 0 0 0 0 56 days 18.1 MIP Johnson and Wilmont 1992

0.45 100 wt% CM 0 0 0 0 0 3 months 22.2 MIP Delagrave et al. 1998

0.25 94 wt% 0 0 6 wt% 0 0 3 months 4.0 MIP Delagrave et al. 1998

0.25 90 wt% 0 0 10 wt%

0 0 56 days 14.2 MIP Johnson and Wilmont 1992

0.25 85 wt% 0 0 15 wt%


0.35 90 wt% 0 0 10 wt%


0.35 85 wt% 0 0 15 wt%


0.45 94 wt% CM 0 0 6 wt% CM

0 0 3 months 18.6 MIP Delagrave et al. 1998

BFS = blast furnace slag; SF = silica fume; MIP = mercury intrusion porosimetry; wt% = weight percent; CM = cementitious materials


163

y = 15.208x + 5.0941R2 = 0.2654

y = 30.581x - 0.3045R2 = 0.6328

y = 62.818x - 5.3409R2 = 0.9452

y = 54.3x - 1.845R2 = 0.4526

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

WCR

Poro

sity

Concrete

Mortar

Paste

Paste with Silica Fume

Figure 6-1. Porosity of Concrete, Mortar, and Cementitious Paste with WCR


164

6.1.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and Saturated Intrinsic Permeability Saturated hydraulic conductivity, K, is a function of both the porous media and permeating fluid. Based upon Darcy’s Law the hydraulic conductivity is defined as follows (Freeze and Cherry 1979):

hALQK

∆⋅∆⋅

= , where K = length/time (typically cm/s); Q = flow rate (typically

cm3/s); ∆L = flow distance (cm); A = area (typically cm2); ∆h = change in fluid head over flow distance (typically cm of water)

Saturated intrinsic permeability, ki, or just permeability is a function of the porous media alone. Permeability is related to hydraulic conductivity as follows (Freeze and Cherry 1979):

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⋅

=g

uKki ρ, where ki = length2 (typically cm2); K = length/time (typically

cm/s); u = fluid dynamic viscosity (typically cp = 0.01 P = 0.01 g/cm·s); ρ = fluid density (typically g/cm3); g = acceleration of gravity (980.6 cm/s2)

This leads to the following equation for intrinsic permeability (Freeze and Cherry 1979):

ghAuLQki ⋅⋅∆⋅

⋅∆⋅=

ρ, where ki = length2 (typically cm2); Q = flow rate (typically cm3/s);

∆L = flow distance (cm); u = fluid dynamic viscosity (typically cp = 0.01 P = 0.01 g/cm·s); A = area (typically cm2); ∆h = change in fluid head over flow distance (typically cm of water) ; ρ = fluid density (typically g/cm3); g = acceleration of gravity (980.6 cm/s2)

Typically within the literature the term concrete permeability is used to refer to both saturated hydraulic conductivity and saturated intrinsic permeability, and the only way to determine which is actually being referenced is by the units utilized. The typical units of concrete saturated hydraulic conductivity used in the literature are cm/s. The typical units of saturated intrinsic permeability used in the literature are cm2 and darcy. A darcy “is defined as the permeability that will lead to a specific discharge of 1 cm/s for a fluid with a viscosity of 1 cp under a hydraulic gradient that makes the term ρg ∆h/∆L equal to 1 atm/cm (Freeze and Cherry 1979):

satmcmcpdarcy⋅

⋅=

2

; darcy = 9.87E-09 cm2


165

In the following generic discussion of cementitious materials, the term permeability refers to both saturated hydraulic conductivity and saturated intrinsic permeability. The permeability of a cementitious material is a function of its pore structure characteristics (i.e., porosity, pore size distribution, connectivity of pores, and extent of separation and microcracking at aggregate-paste interfaces). The permeability of a cementitious material increases with increases in porosity, greater distribution of larger sized pores, greater pore connectivity, and increased separation and microcracking at the aggregate-paste interface. (Neville 1973; Clifton and Knab 1989; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995) Although gel pores (<5E-07 to 1E-05 mm) of fully hydrated cement paste constitute about 28 percent of the paste volume, the permeability of cement paste with only gel pores is only about 7.0E-14 cm/s. Capillary porosity (1E-05 to 0.01 mm) results when the volume of cement gel is not sufficient to completely fill all the original water filled space in the cement paste. Negligible capillary porosity exists in fully hydrated cement paste with a WCR between 0.35 and 0.40, but it increases rapidly as the WCR increases. For cement paste with a WCR of 0.70, the capillary porosity increases to about 30 percent. Additionally increases in the WCR result in an increase in the gel and capillary pore size and greater pore system connectivity. The permeability of cement paste with significant capillary porosity is 20 to 1000 times that of cement paste with only gel pores. (Verbeck 1966; Neville 1973; Popovics 1992; Beaudoinand and Marchand 2001) Porosity resulting from purposeful air entrainment (0.025 to 0.050 mm) actually decreases the permeability of concrete by producing air filled bubbles within the concrete that do not form part of the interconnected porosity. (Popovics 1992; ACI 2001) However air voids resulting from incomplete consolidation (0.1 to 2.0 mm) typically produce increased interconnected porosity, particularly at the aggregate-paste interface, resulting in increased permeability. (Verbeck 1966; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995) Since concrete is made up of about 75 percent by volume fine and coarse aggregate, the aggregate can influence the permeability of concrete. Aggregate porosity typically ranges from 1 to 5 percent, and in very dense aggregates, such as granite, the aggregate pores are in the intermediate capillary pore size range and frequently they are in the largest capillary pore size range. The permeability of granite has been measured at 1.56E-8 and 5.35E-9 cm/s, and that of quartz has been measured at 8.24E-12 cm/s. The influence of the aggregate on the permeability of well-consolidated concrete, however, is generally small, since the cement paste encases the aggregate, requiring flow through the paste. Under these conditions it is the paste permeability that has the greatest effect on the overall concrete permeability. However, the aggregate can either decrease or increase the permeability of concrete.


166

Low permeability aggregate in well-consolidated concrete decreases the effective area over which flow can occur and provides a more torturous flow path both of which decrease the permeability. High permeability aggregate will increase concrete permeability. Concrete that has not been well-consolidated can result in increased separation and microcracking at the aggregate-paste interface and honeycombing, which can also increase the concrete permeability. (Verbeck 1966; Neville 1973; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995) As indicated, the cementitious material’s pore structure characteristics (i.e., porosity, pore size distribution, connectivity of pores, and extent of separation and microcracking at aggregate-paste interfaces) essentially determine the permeability of the cementitious material. Therefore the same factors which have been shown to reduce concrete porosity also reduce its permeability:

• Low WCR (increased unit cementitious material content and reduced unit water content that can be facilitated by the use of high-range water reducers) (Verbeck 1966; Clifton and Knab 1989; Walton et al. 1990; ACI 2001; Snyder 2003)

• Use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume as cementitious material replacements for the cement content (Clifton and Knab 1989; Popovics 1992; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 1996; ACI 2001; ACI 2003a; ACI 2003b)


• Air entrainment (Popovics 1992; ACI 2001)

• Properly placed and well consolidated (minimizes segregation and honeycombing) (Clifton and Knab 1989; ACI 2001)

• Effectively cured (minimizes cracking and maximizes cementitious material hydration) (Neville 1973; Clifton and Knab 1989; Walton et al. 1990; Popovics 1992; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 2001; Beaudoinand and Marchand 2001)

As can be seen it is not only the concrete mix properties that influence the permeability of concrete but also its field placement, consolidation, and curing. For properly placed, consolidated and cured concrete the WCR is the most important factor in controlling permeability. (Clifton and Knab 1989) However, while the permeability of concrete is a function of WCR, the measured permeability of various concretes at a fixed WCR can still vary over orders of magnitude due to the other factors that influence permeability. (Snyder 2003) The use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume as cementitious material replacements for the cement content is probably the second most important factor in controlling permeability. (Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 1996; ACI 2003a; ACI 2003b) See Section 6.1.1 for additional detail on the impact of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume on decreasing porosity and permeability.


167

The following are other items of note in association with concrete permeability:

• Permeability decreases as hydration continues because the volume of gel is approximately 2.1 times that of unhydrated cement. (Neville 1973; Popovics 1992)

• In general the greater the strength of concrete the lower its permeability. (Neville 1973)

There are two predominant methods of measuring the saturated hydraulic conductivity or saturated intrinsic permeability of cementitious materials: permeameter and centrifuge methods. The permeameter methods basically involve the establishment of a hydraulic gradient across the sample and measuring the volume of fluid passed through the sample with time from which the saturated hydraulic conductivity can be calculated. Typical methods for conducting permeameter tests of cementitious materials are found in USCOE 1992 and ASTM 2003. The centrifuge method basically involves the application of a steady-state centrifugal force and constant water flux to a sample from which the saturated hydraulic conductivity can be calculated. The methods for conducting centrifuge tests of cementitious materials are found in ASTM 2000 and Nimmo et al. 2002. Table 6-4 provides literature values of saturated hydraulic conductivity for various cementitious materials. As seen the saturated hydraulic conductivity of concrete is stated to range from ~1.0E-14 to 1.0E-07 cm/s (but more typically the range is reported as from 1.0E-13 to 1.0E-08 cm/s) with typical concrete in the range of 1.0E-09 to 1.0E-08 cm/s and low WCR concrete (approximately 0.45 and less) less than 1.0E-10 cm/s. A significant fraction of the literature values of saturated hydraulic conductivity for concrete are in the E-11 range. Aged and field concrete have a saturated hydraulic conductivity range of 2.0E-11 to 1.0E-07 cm/s. Cement pastes have a saturated hydraulic conductivity range of 1.0E-13 to 4.0E-08 cm/s. Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) or Flowable Fill has a saturated hydraulic conductivity range of 3.3E-07 to 1.0E-04 cm/s.


168

Table 6-4. Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Sample Description Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s)

Reference

Concrete Ksat ranges from 1.0E-14 to 1.0E-09

Basheer 2001

Concrete Ksat ranges from 1.0E-13 to 1.0E-08

Clifton and Knab 1989

Typical concrete Ksat ranges from ~1.0E-09 to ~1.0E-08

Snyder 2003

Concrete with low WCR <1.0E-10 Walton et al. 1990 12 concretes with WCR from 0.28 to 0.9; a range of aggregate, sand and cementitious ingredients including silica fume and superplasticizers (Lowest w/c not directly related to lowest K measurement.)

Ksat ranges from 2.8E-11 to 6.1E-11

El-Dieb and Hooton 1994

Concrete with WCR = 0.35; Air content = 4.0 vol%; Compressive Strength = 33.1 MPa

3.7E-12 Basheer 2001



Concrete with WCR = 0.45; 3 inch aggregate (Values for concretes with 1.5 inch aggregate are slightly less than for 3 inch aggregate at corresponding WCR)

~ 9.7 E-11 USDOI 1981

Concrete with WCR = 0.5; 3 inch aggregate (Values for concretes with 1.5 inch aggregate are slightly less than for 3 inch aggregate at corresponding WCR)

~ 2.9E-10 USDOI 1981

Concrete cured for about 700 hours with WCR = 0.51

1.0E-11 Hearn et al. 1994



Concrete with WCR = 0.56 Ksat ranges from ~3.0E-12 to ~7.0E-10

Hearn and Figg 2001





Ten concrete cores from structures in the Midlands of England


Osborne 1989

Ten concrete cores from structures in North East England


Osborne 1989

26 year old concrete with WCR = 0.9; porosity = 0.19


Hearn et al. 1994

26 year old concrete with WCR = 0.9 Ksat ranges from 1.0E-10 to 2.2E-10

Hearn 1990

26 year old concrete with WCR = 0.9; dried and re-saturated

Ksat ranges from 2.0E-11 to 2.2 E-10

Hearn 1990

26 year old concrete with WCR = 0.9; oven dried and re-saturated

Ksat ranges from <9.8E-12 to 1.8E-09

Hearn 1990


169

Table 6-4. Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity - continued

Sample Description Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s)

Reference

Hardened cement pastes Ksat ranges from 1.0E-11 to 4.0E-08

Luping and Nilsson 1992

Mature cement paste with w/c ratio of 0.3 1.0E-13 Powers et al. 1954; Powers et al. 1955

Mature cement paste with w/c ration of 0.38 3.0E-13 Powers et al. 1954; Powers et al. 1955

Mature cement past with w/c ratio of 0.7 1.0E-10 Powers et al. 1954; Powers et al. 1955

Controlled low strength material (CLSM) or Flowable fill or Flowable Slurry


Naik et al. 2001

CLSM with a WCR = 0.60; 47 kg/m3 Type I cement, 451 kg/m3 Class F fly ash, 1105 kg/m3 sand

~1.3E-05 Naik et al. 2001


~1.3E-05 Naik et al. 2001


7.5E-05 Naik et al. 2001


6.9E-05 Naik et al. 2001

Note: modified from Table 5-1, WSRC 2005b

6.1.3 Characteristic Curves (Suction Head, Saturation, and Relative Permeability) Rockhold et al. 1993 estimated the hydraulic properties for a concrete and the double-shell slurry feed (DSSF) grout (i.e., grouted waste form) for use within a Performance Assessment (PA) for the disposal of grouted double-shell tank waste at Hanford (WHC 1993). A 7.5-cm-diameter by 15-mm-long concrete cylinder was obtained from the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station and cut into six subsamples for testing. The mix formulation of the concrete is not provided by Rockhold et al. 1993. Core samples were taken from a simulated DSSF grout waste form that was poured in 1988. The simulated DSSF grout consisted of 8-9 pounds of dry cementitious material per gallon of simulated salt waste solution mixed together. The dry cementitious material consisted of 6% type I/II Portland cement, 47% blast furnace slag, and 47% fly ash. The salt waste solution contains about 25 to 27 wt% salts, consisting primarily of sodium, nitrate, nitrite, and hydroxide ions (WHC 1993).


170

Rockhold et al. 1993 determined the dry bulk density, total porosity, particle density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and water retention data for the concrete and DSSF grout. The water retention data was utilized with the RETC program to determine the van Genuchten curve fitting parameters for both the concrete and DSSF grout so that their respective characteristic curves could be produced (i.e., suction head, saturation, and relative permeability). See Section 5.2.3, Water Retention, for a discussion of this methodology. Table 6-5 provides the dry bulk density, total porosity, particle density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the van Genuchten curve fitting parameters for both the concrete and DSSF grout, and Figure 6-2 provides the resulting characteristic curves for the concrete and DSSF grout.

Table 6-5. Hanford Concrete and DSSF Grout Hydraulic Properties

Parameter Hanford Concrete DSSF Grout ρb (g/cm3) 1.99 1.10 η 0.2258 0.5781 ρp (g/cm3) 2.59 2.61 Ksat (cm/s) 3.75E-10 1.47E-08 θr 0.0 0.0 θs 0.2258 0.5781 α (cm-1 of H2O) 1 7.61E-06 1.08E-05 n 1.393 1.650

nm 11−= 0.282 0.394

Savage and Janssen 1997 conducted saturated hydraulic conductivity tests and drainage experiments on four different concrete mixtures. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of two 152-mm-diameter by 89-mm-thick disks for each concrete mixture was determined using low-gradient falling head permeameters (total of eight samples). The one-dimensional drainage in the axial direction of three saturated 152-mm-diameter by 32-mm-thick disks for each concrete mixture was determined within each of four constant relative humidity chambers (total of 48 samples). The drainage was recorded as moisture content with time until equilibrium conditions were reached. Each constant relative humidity chamber was set at different constant relative humidity to include the humidities of 97, 75, 53, and 31 percent. After the samples in the 97% relative humidity chamber had reached equilibrium, equilibrium conditions were determined and they were placed in a 92% relative humidity chamber.


171

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

Hanford Concrete Potential

DSSF Grout Potential

Hanford Concrete Relative Permeability

DSSF Grout Relative Permeability

Figure 6-2. Hanford Concrete and DSSF Grout Characteristic Curves

(Rockhold et al. 1993)

The moisture content at equilibrium for each relative humidity (97, 92, 75, 53, and 31 percent) was converted into suction head versus volumetric moisture content by use of the Schofield equation. This suction head versus volumetric moisture content data was utilized to estimate van Genuchten curve fitting parameters for use in determining the characteristic curves (i.e., suction head, saturation, and relative permeability relationships) for each of the four concrete mixtures (see Section 5.2.3, Water Retention, for a discussion of this methodology). Table 6-6 provides the estimated van Genuchten curve fitting parameters along with the WCR and saturated hydraulic conductivity for each of the concrete mixtures. Figure 6-3 provides the resulting characteristic curves (i.e., suction head, saturation, and relative permeability relationships) for each of the four concrete mixtures. (Savage and Janssen 1997)


172

Table 6-6. Savage and Janssen 1997 WCR, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, and van Genuchten Curve Fitting Parameters

Concrete Mix Parameter M60 M64 M69 M87

WCR 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.40 Ksat (cm/s) 8.5E-10 5.6E-10 3.4E-10 3.8E-10 θr 0.006 0.009 0.000 0.005 θs 0.111 0.122 0.119 0.124 α (cm-1 of H2O) 1

2.470E-06 2.268E-06 2.894E-06 2.364E-06

n 1.723 1.750 1.666 1.739 m 0.420 0.429 0.400 0.425 WCR = water-to-cement ratio; Ksat = saturated hydraulic conductivity; θr = residue volumetric moisture content; θs = saturated volumetric moisture content; α = constant related to air-entry pressure; n = a measure of the pore-size distribution; m = 1-1/n 1 The α exponent was incorrect within Savage and Janssen 1997 Table 3, Moisture-related parameters and variables, as determined by the Savage and Janssen 1997 Figure 3, Moisture characteristic curve. The exponent in meters-1 of H2O should have been E-04 rather than E8, as shown in the table, in order to produce the Savage and Janssen 1997 Figure 3 curve.

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

M60 Concrete PotentialM64 Concrete PotentialM69 Concrete PotentialM87 Concrete PotentialM60 Relative PermeabilityM64 Relative PermeabilityM69 Relative PermeabilityM87 Relative Permeability

Figure 6-3. Savage and Janssen 1997 Characteristic Curves


173

Additionally Savage and Janssen 1997 utilized the saturated hydraulic conductivity and characteristic curves produced from the van Genuchten curve fitting parameters for each of the concrete mixtures to obtain unsaturated hydraulic conductivities. From this information equations (i.e., a model) were developed to quantitatively predict the drainage (moisture content versus time) for each of the concrete mixes. The drainage models produced based upon soil physics principles were able to accurately predict the unsaturated moisture movement within the concrete samples (i.e., the actual measured drainage). In the words of the authors, “the applicability of soil physics principles” (i.e., van Genuchten method) “to unsaturated moisture movement in PPC” (Portland cement concrete) “capillary pores has been clearly established.” Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 conducted water vapor desorption and adsorption experiments (i.e., water content versus relative humidity) on 90-mm-diameter by 3-mm-thick disks of the two concrete mixes described in Table 6-7. The experiments included the measurement of sample diameter and thickness with relative humidity and the moisture content distribution of drying samples by gamma-ray measurements. The data produced from these experiments were utilized to produce water vapor desorption and adsorption isotherms, a model of shrinkage due to drying, and a model of the isothermal drying process.

Table 6-7. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 Concrete Mixes

Mix Property Ordinary Concrete (Mix BO)

High Performance Concrete (Mix BH)

WCR 0.48 0.26 Cement Type I Type I Silica fume/cement ratio 0 0.1 Aggregate/cement ratio 5.48 4.55 Sand/gravel ratio 0.62 0.51 28-day Compressive Strength (MPa) 49.4 115.5


174

As part of the effort to develop a model of the isothermal drying process, Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 determined the total porosity and intrinsic permeability and performed curve fitting to determine the best fit values for parameters a and b of each mix for the following capillary curve equation:

( ) ( ) bbllc SaSp /111 −− −= , where pc(Sl) = capillary pressure in MPa at given liquid

water saturation; Sl = given liquid water saturation The above equation utilized by Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 is a variant of the following RETC equation for effective saturation (or reduced water content), Se:

( )[ ]mneh

Sα+

=1

1 , See Section 5.2.3, Water Retention, for a definition of

terms The following relationships exist between the RETC and Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 parameters:

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⋅

=g

uKk SatSati ρ, where ki = saturated intrinsic permeability (typically m2);

KSat = saturated hydraulic conductivity (typically cm/s); u = fluid dynamic viscosity; ρ = fluid density; g = acceleration of gravity

θs = η, where θs = saturated volumetric moisture content; η = porosity

agρα = , where ρ = density of fluid (water); g = acceleration of

gravity

bn

111

−=

bm 1

= or nm 11−=

Table 6-8 provides the parameters and values developed by Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 and the corresponding RETC values based upon the above relationships. Figure 6-4 provides the resulting characteristic curves (i.e., suction head, saturation, and relative permeability relationships) for each of the concrete mixtures based upon the RETC parameters and use of the Mualem-van Genuchten type function for the relative permeability (See Section 5.2.3, Water Retention, for the equation).


175

Table 6-8. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 and Corresponding RETC Parameters and Parameter Values

Ordinary Concrete (Mix BO) Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 RETC

Parameter Value Parameter Value Ki Sat 3.0E-21 m2 Ksat 2.92E-12 cm/s no corresponding parameter θr 0 (assumed) η 0.122 θs 0.122 a 18.6237 MPa α 5.2562E-06 cm-1 of

H2O b 2.2748 n 1.7844 b 2.2748 m 0.4396

High Performance Concrete (Mix BH) Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 RETC

Parameter Value Parameter Value Ki Sat 5.0E-22 m2 Ksat 4.87E-13 cm/s no corresponding parameter θr 0 (assumed) η 0.082 θs 0.082 a 46.9364 MPa α 2.0856E-06 cm-1 of

H2O b 2.0601 n 1.9433 b 2.0601 m 0.4854 A comparison of all the cementitious characteristic curves produced by Rockhold et al. 1993 (Figure 6-2), Savage and Janssen 1997 (Figure 6-3), and Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 (Figure 6-4) shows that all the curves are very similar. A comparison of these cementitious characteristic curves to the soil characteristic curves (Section 5.2.3, Figure 5-26, and Figure 5-27) shows a substantial difference, particularly in the suction head at which drainage begins.


176

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

BO Potential

BH Concrete Potential

BO Relative Permeability

BH Relative Permeability

Figure 6-4. Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 Characteristic Curves

6.1.4 Saturated Effective Diffusivity

Various methods have been utilized to evaluate the diffusion of ionic species through cementitious materials. The following are some of the more common methods found in the literature (Basheer 2001):

• The rapid chloride permeability test or coulomb test (ASTM 2005; AASHTO 2005) provides a measure of the electrical charge that can be passed through a concrete specimen over a set period of time (typically 6 hours). This electrical charge measurement provides an indirect, qualitative measure of the diffusivity of the concrete specimen and not a direct measurement of the specimen’s diffusion coefficient. Therefore results from these types of tests will not receive further consideration herein.

• The chloride penetration tests (ASTM 2004b; AASHTO 2002) provide a measure of the one-dimensional penetration of chloride into concrete specimens over a set period of time (typically 35 to 90 days). From the measured chloride penetration depth or chloride penetration profile, a diffusion coefficient for the specimen can be determined using Fick’s second law of diffusion. Due to the test conditions, it is assumed that the calculated diffusion coefficient represents that under saturated conditions.


177

• Solidified waste leach tests (ASTM 1995; ANS 2003) provide a measure of the cumulative fraction of a waste constituent leached from a solidified waste form in a water bath over a set period of time (typically 11 to 90 days). From the measure of the cumulative fraction of a waste constituent leached, a diffusion coefficient for the specimen can be determined. Due to the test conditions, it is assumed that the calculated diffusion coefficient represents that under saturated conditions.

• Steady-state natural diffusion tests (Basheer 2001) provide a measure of the steady-state flux of an ionic species through a saturated cementitious material, which is subjected to a constant concentration gradient. It can take weeks to months to reach steady-state conditions. From the measured steady-state flux of an ionic species, a diffusion coefficient for the specimen can be determined using Fick’s first law of diffusion. A standardized test procedure for this method has not been developed.

• Steady-state migration tests (Basheer 2001) provide a measure of the steady-state flux of an ionic species through a saturated cementitious material, which is subjected to both a constant concentration gradient and an applied voltage. Steady-state conditions are achieved much sooner for this test than for the steady-state natural diffusion tests due to the addition of the applied voltage. From the measured steady-state flux of an ionic species, a diffusion coefficient for the specimen can be determined using the Nernst-Plank equation, which can accounts for flux due to diffusion and migration due to applied voltage. A standardized test procedure for this method has not been developed, however the test may be conducted utilizing the applied voltage cell utilized for the rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM 2005; AASHTO 2005).

Diffusion tests which are conducted to steady-state conditions (i.e., steady-state natural diffusion and steady-state migration tests) produce results which have eliminated sorption or binding of the ionic species to the cementitious matrix (i.e., sorption, precipitation, and other such effects that retard the transport of the species prior to reaching steady-state conditions). Tests that are not conducted to steady-state conditions produce results that include the effects of sorption or binding of the ionic species to the cementitious matrix if the ionic species is non-conservative in this respect. Chloride, which is often used in the diffusion tests listed above, is a non-conservative species that sorbs or binds to cementitious materials. Non-steady-state tests that utilize conservative species (i.e., those that do not sorb or bind to cementitious materials) do not include the effects of sorption or binding. (Atkinson 1984; Truc et al. 2000; Basheer 2001; Castellote 2001b)


178

Within the literature, four different types of diffusion coefficients are typically utilized. However the nomenclature utilized within the literature is inconsistent. Therefore the following definitions of diffusion coefficient have been made in order to classify the various values of diffusion coefficient found within the literature (Walton et al. 1990 and Seitz and Walton 1993): • The molecular diffusion coefficient, Dm, is the diffusion coefficient of a species in

open water. “This term assumes saturation and does not include tortuosity or sorption due to a porous media.”

• The effective diffusion coefficient, De, is the diffusion coefficient of a species through a saturated porous medium taken over the pore area of the medium through which diffusion occurs under steady-state conditions. That is, De, includes the effects of tortuosity, but not the effects of sorption and porosity. It is defined as the molecular diffusion coefficient, Dm, divided by the porous medium tortuosity, τ , ( τme DD = ) and can be determined as follows under steady-state conditions:

( )xcA

JDe

∂∂

=η

, where J = flux in mols/s; η = porosity; A = surface area; and

xc

∂∂ = change in concentration with change in distance

The effective diffusion coefficient, De, is the form of the diffusion coefficient used in transport equations such as those utilized by the PORFLOW model.

• The intrinsic diffusion coefficient, Di, is the diffusion coefficient of a species through a saturated porous medium taken over the total surface area of the medium through which diffusion occurs under steady-state conditions. That is Di, includes the effects of tortuosity and porosity, but not sorption. Di is the diffusion coefficient typically determined from steady-state natural diffusion and steady-state migration tests across a thin slice of porous media. It is defined as the porosity, η , times the molecular diffusion coefficient, Dm, divided by the porous medium tortuosity, τ , ( τη mi DD = ) and can be determined as follows under steady-state conditions:

( )xcAJDi

∂∂

= , where J = flux in mols/s; η = porosity; A = surface area; and

xc

∂∂ = change in concentration with change in distance


179

In summary, iEm DDD == ητη , therefore the effective diffusion coefficient, De, can be determined from the intrinsic diffusion coefficient, Di, through the following relationship:

ηi

eDD = , where η = porosity

• The apparent diffusion coefficient, Da, is the diffusion coefficient of a species into or

out of a porous medium taken over the surface area of the medium through which diffusion occurs under potentially non-steady-state conditions. Da, includes the effects of tortuosity, porosity, and sorption or binding (i.e., sorption, precipitation, and other such effects that retard the transport of the species prior to reaching steady-state conditions). Da, is the diffusion coefficient typically determined from chloride penetration tests (ASTM 2004b; AASHTO 2002) and solidified waste leach tests (ASTM 1995; ANS 2003). It is typically assumed that the Da produced from these tests represents saturated conditions due to the testing conditions. For conservative species (i.e., non-sorbing species) the Da produced from these tests is essentially equivalent to the intrinsic diffusion coefficient, Di. Chloride penetration tests (ASTM 2004b; AASHTO 2002) are typically only applied to the diffusion of chloride under non-steady-state conditions. Since chloride is a non-conservative species in cementitious materials under non-steady-state conditions, data from such tests cannot be utilized in order to determine the effective diffusion coefficient, De. Consequently results from these types of tests will not receive further consideration herein.

Based upon this classification of diffusion coefficients found within the literature, the saturated intrinsic diffusion coefficients, Di, produced from steady-state natural diffusion and steady-state migration tests in addition to saturated apparent diffusion coefficients, Da, produced for conservative species from solidified waste leach tests (ASTM 1995; ANS 2003) are considered satisfactory in determining the saturated effective diffusion coefficient, De, for modeling input. Additionally comparative testing of steady-state natural diffusion tests and steady-state migration tests have demonstrated that these tests produce similar saturated intrinsic chloride diffusion coefficients. (Castellote et al. 2001a; Castellote et al. 2001b) As indicated above, the material properties which affect diffusion are the material’s porosity and tortuosity; in other words diffusion is affected by the characteristics of the material’s porosity (i.e., effective porosity and size, distribution, and continuity of pores (i.e., tortuosity)). Therefore the same factors that have been shown to reduce concrete porosity also reduce its diffusion coefficient:

• Low WCR (increased unit cementitious material content and reduced unit water content that can be facilitated by the use of high-range water reducers) (Atkinson et al. 1984; Clifton and Knab 1989; Walton et al. 1990; Delagrave et al. 1998; Ampadu 1999; Leng et al. 2000; ACI 2001)


180

• Use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume as cementitious material replacements for the cement content (Johnston and Wilmont 1992; Popovics 1992; Soroushian and Alhozaimy 1995; ACI 1996; Delagrave et al. 1998; Ampadu 1999; Leng et al. 2000; ACI 2001; Beaudoin and Marchand 2001; ACI 2003a; ACI 2003b; Stanish and Thomas 2003)


• Air entrainment (ACI 2001)

• Properly placed and well consolidated (minimizes segregation and honeycombing) (ACI 2001)

• Effectively cured (minimizes cracking and maximizes cementitious material hydration) (Neville 1973; Walton et al. 1990; Ampadu 1999; ACI 2001; Beaudoinand Marchand 2001; Stanish and Thomas 2003)

Additionally it has been noted that the aggregates within concrete can produce a reduction in the diffusion coefficient over that in cementitious paste alone by increasing the tortuosity of the matrix and reducing area available for diffusion. However the presence of significant porous interfacial transition zones (ITZ) between the aggregate and paste, particularly if they are interconnected, probably facilitates diffusion. (Delagrave et al. 1998) It has also been noted that intrinsic diffusion coefficients of concrete vary directly with permeability as shown by the following results reported by Basheer 2001 for steady state natural diffusion tests of chloride through concretes of various permeabilities:

Concrete Permeability Intrinsic Diffusion Coefficients High >5E-08 cm2/s Average 1 to 5E-08 cm2/s Low <1E-08 cm2/s

Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11 provide the measured saturated intrinsic diffusion coefficients of various species through concrete (i.e., contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water), mortar (i.e., contains cementitious material, fine aggregate, and water), and cementitious paste (i.e., contains cementitious material and water), respectively, obtained from various literature sources. These tables provide the results of tests conducted with chloride (Cl-), nitrite (NO2

-), tritiated water (T3), and oxygen (O2) as the diffusing ion or molecule. Atkinson et al. 1984 state that the intrinsic diffusion coefficient does not appear to be sensitive to the specific diffusing ion or molecule similar to that in free water, and therefore concludes that an intrinsic diffusion coefficient value for any single ion or molecule can fairly well approximate that of another.


181

The intrinsic diffusion coefficients of Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11 have been converted to effective diffusion coefficients by dividing the intrinsic diffusion coefficients by the respective porosities. Where the porosities were not provided in the literature an estimated porosity was determined based upon WCR-porosity relationships developed within Section 6.1.1 (see Figure 6-1). Figure 6-5 provides the saturated effective diffusion coefficients of concrete, concrete with fly ash, concrete with blast furnace slag, mortar, and mortar with silica fume with WCR, based upon the data from these literature sources. The saturated effective diffusion coefficients of cementitious materials from Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11 is seen to range from approximately 1.0E-08 to 5.0E-07 cm2/s. This is a relatively narrow range at just over one order of magnitude, particularly in comparison to the range of saturated hydraulic conductivities for cementitious materials. These data clearly shows that the effective diffusion coefficient decreases with decreasing WCR and with the addition of fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica fume. Serne et al. 1992 determined the intrinsic diffusion coefficients for various grouted low-level salt solutions from Hanford in general conformance to ANSI/ANS-16.1-1986 (ANS 1986). The salt solutions contained “large amounts of dissolved nitrate, sodium, nitrite, aluminum, carbonate, potassium, and sulfate”, similar to the Savannah River Site (SRS) salt solution stabilized within Saltstone. Serne et al. 1992 noted “that the Hanford grout recipes use a more dilute mixture of solids to solution than some other solidification processes such as the Savannah River Saltstone.” The following two grout recipes tested were closest to the SRS Saltstone formulation: • T106-AN grout:

- Solid blend: 5% by weight Type I/II cement; 47.5% by weight Class F fly ash; and 47.5% by weight ground blast furnace slag

- 1080 g solid blend per liter of liquid waste • DSSF grout:

- Solid blend: 6% by weight Type I/II cement; 47% by weight Class F fly ash; and 47% by weight ground blast furnace slag

- 1080 g solid blend per liter of liquid waste While Serne et al. 1992 did not provide porosity data in order to convert from intrinsic diffusion coefficient, Di, to effective diffusion coefficient, De, Rockhold et al. 1993 showed that the measured porosity of the DSSF grout at 0.5781. Table 6-12 provides the diffusion coefficients determined by Serne et al. 1992 for nitrate, sodium, potassium, and iodine, which are considered conservative ionic species.


182

Table 6-9. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concretes (contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water) WCR Cement

(kg/m3) Fly Ash

(kg/m3)

BFS (kg/m3)

Sand (kg/m3)

Aggregate(kg/m3)

Cure Time (days)

Species Intrinsic Diffusion

Coefficient, Di

(cm2/s)

Assumed Porosity,

η 1

(%)

Effective Diffusion

Coefficient, ηie DD =

(cm2/s)

Source

0.26 600 0 0 620 1100 28 Cl- 2.4E-09 9.0 2.67E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 550 0 0 640 1120 28 Cl- 2.6E-09 9.7 2.68E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.32 425 0 0 750 1130 14 Cl- 1.1E-08 6 10.0 1.10E-07 Truc et al. 2000 0.34 500 0 0 640 1150 28 Cl- 5.4E-09 10.3 5.24E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.40 380 0 0 771 1177 28 Cl- 9.4E-09 4 11.2

8.39E-08 Castellote et al. 2001a

0.40 382 0 0 679 967 50 NO2- 4.5E-08 11.2 4.02E-07 Liang et al 2003

0.40 382 0 0 679 967 100 NO2- 2.8E-08 11.2 2.50E-07 Liang et al 2003

0.40 382 0 0 679 967 270 NO2- 1.6E-08 11.2 1.43E-07 Liang et al 2003

0.50 300 0 0 UA UA 90 Cl- 5.0E-08 12.7 3.94E-07

Stanish and Thomas 2003

0.55 550 0 0 708 1062 14 Cl- 2.7E-08 6 13.4 2.01E-07 Truc et al. 2000 0.26 480 120 5 0 620 1100 28 Cl- 2.2E-09 9.0 2.44E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 495 55 5 0 640 1120 28 Cl- 3.8E-09 9.7 3.92E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 440 110 5 0 640 1120 28 Cl- 2.3E-09 9.7 2.37E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 385 165 5 0 640 1120 28 Cl- 3.6E-09 9.7 3.71E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 330 220 5 0 640 1120 28 Cl- 3.2E-09 9.7 3.30E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.34 400 100 5 0 640 1150 28 Cl- 3.1E-09 10.3 3.01E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.40 310 78 5 0 674 986 180 NO2

- 6.4E-09 11.2 5.71E-08 Liang et al 2003 0.5 225 75 2 0 UA UA 90 Cl- 1.1E-08 3 12.7

8.66E-08 Stanish and Thomas 2003

0.5 132 168 2 0 UA UA 90 Cl- 1.0E-08 3 12.7 7.87E-08

Stanish and Thomas 2003


183

Table 6-9. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concretes (contains cement, fine and coarse aggregate, and water) - continued WCR Cement

(kg/m3) Fly Ash

(kg/m3)

BFS (kg/m3)

Sand (kg/m3)

Aggregate(kg/m3)

Cure Time (days)


Coefficient, Di

(cm2/s)

Assumed Porosity,

η 1

(%)

Effective Diffusion


(cm2/s)

Source

0.26 420 0 180 620 1100 28 Cl- 1.3E-09 9.0 1.44E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 495 0 55 640 1120 28 Cl- 4.2E-09 9.7 4.33E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 440 0 110 640 1120 28 Cl- 2.3E-09 9.7 2.37E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 385 0 165 640 1120 28 Cl- 1.5E-09 9.7 1.55E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 330 0 220 640 1120 28 Cl- 1.6E-09 9.7 1.65E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.30 275 0 275 640 1120 28 Cl- 1.4E-09 9.7 1.44E-08 Leng et al. 2000 0.34 350 0 150 640 1150 28 Cl- 2.8E-09 10.3 2.72E-08 Leng et al. 2000 1 ( ) 0941.5208.15 +×= WCRη 2 Class C fly ash 3 Average of four measurements taken over the following durations: 90 to 180 days; 90 to 270 days; 90 to 455 days; 90 to 1550 days 4 Average of four measurements: two obtained with natural diffusion tests and two with migration tests 5 Class F fly ash 6 Average of four measurements WCR = water-cementitious material ratio; BFS = blast furnace slag; UA = unknown amount; Cl- = chloride; NO2

- = nitrite


184

Table 6-10. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Mortars (contains cement, fine aggregate, and water) WCR Cement SF Sand Cure

Time (days)


Coefficient, Di

(cm2/s)

Porosity, η

(%)

Effective Diffusion


(cm2/s)

Source

0.25 100 wt % CM 0 50 vol% 90 T3 3.8E-09 7.5 1 5.07E-08 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.45 100 wt % CM 0 50 vol% 90 T3 4.58E-08 12.2 1 3.75E-07 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.25 94 wt % CM 6 wt % CM 50 vol% 90 T3 1.1E-09 4.6 1 2.39E-08 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.45 94 wt % CM 6 wt % CM 50 vol% 90 T3 7.9E-09 11.7 1 6.75E-08 Delagrave et al. 1998 1 Porosity measured by Delagrave et al. 1998 WCR = water-cementitious material ratio; SF = silica fume; wt% = weight percent; CM = cementitious materials; vol% = volume percent; T3 = tritiated water


185

Table 6-11. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Cementitious Pastes (contains cementitious materials and water) WCR Cement

(wt% of CM)

Fly Ash

(wt% of CM)

BFS (wt%

of CM)

SF (wt%

of CM)

Cure Time (days)


Coefficient, Di

(cm2/s)

Assumed Porosity,

η 1

(%)

Effective Diffusion


(cm2/s)

Source

0.25 100 0 0 0 90 T3 0.63E-08 8.7 2 7.24E-08 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.25 100 0 0 0 56 T3 - 11.3 3 9.12E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.25 100 0 0 0 56 Cl- - 11.3 3 5.18E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 100 0 0 0 56 T3 - 18.1 3 8.43E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 100 0 0 0 56 Cl- - 18.1 3 7.18E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.4 100 0 0 0 28 Cl- 3.7E-08 19.8 1.87E-07 Castellote et al. 2001b 0.4 100 0 0 0 28 O2 9.3E-08 19.8 4.70E-07 Castellote et al. 2001b 0.45 100 0 0 0 90 T3 9.83E-08 22.2 2 4.43E-07 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.45 100 0 0 0 28 Cl- 1.040E-08 22.9 4.54E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.45 100 0 0 0 365 Cl- 2.586E-08 22.9 1.13E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 100 0 0 0 28 Cl- 2.737E-08 29.2 9.37E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 100 0 0 0 365 Cl- 3.703E-08 29.2 1.27E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 100 0 0 0 28 Cl- 3.166E-08 35.5 8.92E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 100 0 0 0 365 Cl- 6.336E-08 35.5 1.78E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.45 80 20 0 0 28 Cl- 2.445E-08 22.9 1.07E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.45 80 20 0 0 365 Cl- 5.073E-09 22.9 2.22E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.45 60 40 0 0 28 Cl- 2.977E-08 22.9 1.30E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.45 60 40 0 0 365 Cl- 4.069E-09 22.9 1.78E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 80 20 0 0 28 Cl- 3.731E-08 29.2 1.28E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 80 20 0 0 365 Cl- 6.462E-09 29.2 2.21E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 60 40 0 0 28 Cl- 4.861E-08 29.2 1.66E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.55 60 40 0 0 365 Cl- 3.695E-09 29.2 1.27E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 80 20 0 0 28 Cl- 4.812E-08 35.5 1.36E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 80 20 0 0 365 Cl- 1.732E-08 35.5 4.88E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 60 40 0 0 28 Cl- 5.848E-08 35.5 1.65E-07 Ampadu et al. 1999 0.65 60 40 0 0 365 Cl- 5.085E-09 35.5 1.43E-08 Ampadu et al. 1999


186

Table 6-11. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Cementitious Pastes (contains cementitious materials and water) - continued WCR Cement

(wt% of CM)

Fly Ash

(wt% of CM)

BFS (wt%

of CM)

SF (wt%

of CM)

Cure Time (days)


Coefficient, Di

(cm2/s)

Assumed Porosity,

η 1

(%)

Effective Diffusion


(cm2/s)

Source

0.25 94 0 0 6 90 T3 0.16E-08 4.0 2 4.00E-08 Delagrave et al. 1998 0.25 90 0 0 10 56 T3 - 0.142 3 5.92E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.25 90 0 0 10 56 Cl- - 0.142 3 1.53E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.25 85 0 0 15 56 T3 - 0.130 3 4.86E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.25 85 0 0 15 56 Cl- - 0.130 3 2.52E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 90 0 0 10 56 T3 - 0.225 3 5.29E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 90 0 0 10 56 Cl- - 0.225 3 3.37E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 85 0 0 15 56 T3 - 0.198 3 4.64E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.35 85 0 0 15 56 Cl- - 0.198 3 1.58E-08 3 Johnson and Wilmot 1992 0.45 94 0 0 6 90 T3 3.79E-08 18.6 2 2.04E-07 Delagrave et al. 1998 1 ( ) 3409.5818.62 −×= WCRη 2 Porosity measured by Delagrave et al. 1998 3 Porosity and Effective Diffusion coefficient determined by Johnson and Wilmot 1992 WCR = water-cementitious material ratio; BFS = blast furnace slag; SF = silica fume; wt% = weight percent; CM = cementitious materials; wt% = weight percent of total; ss = salt solution; unkn = unknown; Cl- = chloride; T3 = tritiated water; NO3

- = nitrate


187

Table 6-12. Diffusion Coefficients for two Hanford Grouted Low-Level Salt Solutions (Serne et al. 1992)

Species T106-AN Intrinsic Diffusion

Coefficient, Di (cm2/s)

DSSF Intrinsic Diffusion

Coefficient, Di (cm2/s)

DSSF Effective Diffusion

Coefficient 1, ηie DD =

(cm2/s) Nitrate 7±0.5E-09 3±3E-08 5.2±5.2E-08 Sodium 6±1E-09 4±2E-08 6.9±3.5E-08 Potassium - 2±1E-08 3.5±1.7E-08 Iodine 5 to 8E-08 2±2E-08 3.5±3.5E-08 1 DSSF grout porosity = 0.5781 (Rockhold et al. 1993)

y = 1.04E-06x - 2.33E-07

y = 2.48E-07x - 4.27E-08

y = 1.59E-07x - 2.56E-08

0.0E+00

5.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.5E-07

2.0E-07

2.5E-07

3.0E-07

3.5E-07

4.0E-07

4.5E-07

5.0E-07

0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

WCR

Satu

rate

d Ef

fect

ive

Diff

usio

n C

oeffi

cien

t (sq

cm

/s)

Concrete

Concrete with Fly Ash

Concrete with BFS

Mortar

Mortar sith SF

y = 1.62E-06x - 3.55E-07

Figure 6-5. Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient of Concrete and Mortar with

WCR


188

6.2 INTERNAL LITERATURE REVIEW

6.2.1 1985 Saltstone Physical and Mechanical Properties (Langton 2005; Licastro et al. 1985)

The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) Materials Research Laboratory (MRL) conducted the following tests on eight different potential Saltstone formulations over a 360 day period (Langton 2005; Licastro et al. 1985): • Compressive strength • Dynamic modulus • Permeability • Porosity • Density • Dimensional change A formulation tested by PSU designated PSU Mix No. 84-45 is the closest mix to the current reference Saltstone composition. A comparison of PSU Mix No. 84-45 to the current reference Saltstone composition (WSRC 1992) is provided in Table 6-13. PSU prepared and stored the samples at 38oC and greater than 95% relative humidity until the tests were conducted.

Table 6-13. Comparison of PSU Mix No. 84-45 to the Reference Saltstone Composition

Mix Reference Saltstone Composition (WSRC 1992)

PSU Mix No. 84-45 (Langton 2005; Licastro et al.

1985) Salt Solution 47 wt% salt solution (28% by

weight salts) 40 wt% salt solution (32 wt% salts) 1

Slag 25 wt% grade 100 or 120 blast furnace slag

7.5 wt%

Class F Fly Ash 25 wt% 45 wt% Cement 3 wt% ASTM C 150 Type II

cement 7.5 wt% ASTM C 150 Type I cement

1 The simulated salt solution utilized by PSU consisted of 69 wt% deionized water, 17.05 wt% NaNO3, 4.26 wt% NaNO2, 4.60 wt% NaOH, 2.74 wt% NaAlO2, 2.08 wt% Na2SO4, 0.13 wt% NaCl, and 0.14 wt% Na3PO4.


189

The following are the primary observations noted by Licastro et al. 1985 in association with Mix No. 84-45: • It “… shows reasonable strength development with time. Minor surface microcracking

appeared at approximately 360 days.” • It showed progressive gains in dynamic modulus indicating the viability of their internal

structure. • It expanded with time. “Basically the same mechanism appears to be operative in all

samples to one degree or other, e.g., alkali-silica reaction due to the presence of reactive silica, alkalis and water. Water in the mix, dosed with alkalis from the waste form, react with silica producing a calcium alkali-silica gel which is hygroscopic, imbibes water and swells, giving way to micro/macro crack development, as a function of time. The time of occurrence and extent of the cracking, being a combined time function of reactivity and strength development within the sample.”

• Its effective porosity (i.e., bulk porosity to water penetration at atmospheric pressure) was determined per ASTM C 642. This provides a bulk porosity which integrates the effects of fractures/cracks which occur within the sample, along with their normally distributed porosity. No clear cut pattern of porosity change was observed.

• Water permeability was determined using one inch diameter by approximately ½ inch long samples. A “low permeability throughout the test period” for Mix No. 84-45 was observed.

• “The SRL formulations encompass a range of permeabilities and show some inconsistencies within replicate samples of the same formulation. This may be attributed to the development of micro cracks within some of the replicates.” “The lowest permeabilities (10-7 – 10-8 Darcy) at any age were exhibited by formulations 84-40, 84-45, and 84-47.

Table 6-14 provides selected physical properties of the PSU Mix No. 84-45 (Langton 2005; Licastro et al. 1985). Bulk porosity was determined per ASTM C 642 (ASTM 1982), and it is assumed that the bulk density measurement was also determined by ASTM C 642 (ASTM 1982). Therefore the bulk density would be a dry bulk density measurement. “Length change of unrestrained Saltstone formulations were monitored as a function of curing time in accordance with ASTM standard C 490” (ASTM 1983) Details on the methodology used to determine the permeability are not provided; however it is stated that the permeability measurements were water permeabilities, which is taken to mean that the samples were permeated with water with a density of approximately 1g/cm3. Due to the significant difference in the PSU Mix No. 84-45 and reference Saltstone mix (see Table 6-13), the PSU Mix No. 84-45 data will not be used to represent Saltstone unless no other representative data is available.


190

Table 6-14. Selected physical properties of PSU Mix No. 84-45 (from Table 9 Licastro et al. 1985)

Curing Time (days)

Bulk Density 1 (g/cm3)

Bulk Porosity

(%)

Length Change ∆L/L (%)

Permeability (Darcy)

Hydraulic Conductivity 2

(cm/s)

7 1.33 40 0.000 2.46E-03 5.30E-07

2.38E-06 5.12E-10

28 1.33 43 0.200 <1.0E-08 <9.66E-12 56 1.41 34 0.230 <1.0E-08

1.60E-06 <9.66E-12 1.55E-09

90 1.31 43 0.240 1.49E-05 1.44E-08 180 1.29 44 0.244 6.42E-08

3.28E-06 6.20E-11 3.17E-09

360 1.30 45 0.250 2.4E-05 2.32E-08 Average 1.33 42 NA 1.36E-06 3 1.31E-09 3

1 While the bulk density determination method is not specified, it is assumed that bulk density was determined along with bulk porosity utilizing ASTM C 642. If so the bulk density should be the dry bulk density.

2 Hydraulic Conductivity in cm/s = Permeability in darcy × 9.66E-04 cm/s / darcy (assuming water as the permeant)

3 Log10 Average NA = not applicable

6.2.2 1986 and 1987 Saltstone Diffusivity Testing (Langton 1986; Langton 1987) Langton (1986 and 1987) performed nitrate leach tests in order to determine Saltstone diffusion coefficients. Simulated Saltstone samples were prepared by mixing the ingredients in a laboratory blender, casting the mix in 250 ml polyethylene bottles, sealing the bottles, and curing the samples for 28 days at 40oC and 95% relative humidity. The samples were prepared utilizing one of the two simulated Saltstone formulations shown in Table 6-15 (the reference Saltstone composition (WSRC 1992) is provided for comparison). The source of Class F fly ash varied as outlined in Table 6-16. Nitrate leach tests were conducted in 500 ml of deionized water on duplicate samples, utilizing the Savannah River Laboratory (SRL) modified International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) leaching procedure, which generally conforms to ANSI/ANS-16.1-1986 (ANS 1986). Solidified waste leach tests (ANS 1986) provide a measure of the cumulative fraction of a waste constituent leached from a solidified waste form in a water bath over a set period of time. From the measure of the cumulative fraction of a waste constituent leached, a diffusion coefficient for the specimen can be determined. Due to the test conditions, it is assumed that the calculated intrinsic diffusion coefficient represents that under saturated conditions.


191

Table 6-15. Saltstone Formulations Utilized for Diffusivity Testing

Mix Reference Saltstone

Composition (WSRC 1992)

Slag Mix I Slag Mix II

Salt Solution 47 wt% salt solution (28% by weight salts)

45 wt% salt solution (29 wt% Salts)

47 wt% salt solution (29 wt% Salts)

Slag 25 wt% grade 100 or 120 blast furnace slag

26 wt% grade 120 blast furnace slag

24 wt% grade 120 blast furnace slag

Class F Fly Ash 25 wt% 26 wt% 24 wt% Lime Source 3 wt% ASTM C

150 Type II cement

3 wt% Ca(OH)2 5 wt% ASTM C 150 Type II cement

Table 6-16. Saltstone Diffusivity and Wet Bulk Density Data

Sample No. Reference

Saltstone Mix

Fly Ash Source

Wet Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Cumulative Nitrate Leached in 14 days (percent)

Representative Intrinsic Diffusion Coefficient 2, Di (cm2/s)

4A 418 Langton 1986 I D-Area 1.64 11.52 3.43E-09 4B 418 Langton 1986 I D-Area 1.67 11.61 3.74E-09 1A 723 Langton 1987 I Marshall 1.67 4.03 6.23E-10 1B 723 Langton 1987 I Marshall 1.69 4.09 5.71E-10

3A 723 Langton 1987 I Belews Creek 1.69 3.15 3.76E-10

3B 723 Langton 1987 I Belews Creek 1.70 3.27 3.36E-10

unknown 1 Langton 1987 I Bowen na na 8.50E-10 unknown 1 Langton 1987 I D-Area na na 1.90E-09 2A 723 Langton 1987 II Marshall 1.75 8.93 2.49E-09 2B 723 Langton 1987 II Marshall 1.75 8.74 2.37E-09

4A 723 Langton 1987 II Belews Creek 1.73 7.48 1.55E-09

4B 723 Langton 1987 II Belews Creek 1.71 7.78 1.67E-09

1 Samples possibly designated 815 2E, 826 2A, and/or 826 2B 2 14 day intrinsic diffusivity results calculated based upon raw data provided by respective references except for the two values provided for sample with unknown sample numbers na = not available


192

Table 6-16 provides the representative intrinsic diffusivity (i.e., the diffusivity calculated based upon the 14 day leach data) for each sample. Additionally the wet bulk density data are provided (Langton 1986 and Langton 1987). Although Langton 1986 and Langton 1987 designated the diffusion coefficients determined as effective diffusion coefficients, they are intrinsic diffusion coefficients as defined in Section 6.1.4. Table 6-17 provides calculated effective diffusion coefficients based upon the average Saltstone porosity of 0.423 as measured by the Core Laboratory (Yu et al. 1993; see Table 6-20). As seen in Table 6-17 the overall Saltstone effective diffusion coefficient averages approximately 4.0E-09 cm2/s and ranges from approximately 8.0E-10 to 9E-09 cm2/s (i.e., approximately one order of magnitude in variation). The detailed data and calculations associated with this data are provided in Appendix A.

Table 6-17. Calculated Effective Diffusion Coefficient

Sample No.

Saltstone Mix

Representative Intrinsic Diffusivity 2, Di (cm2/s)

Assumed Porosity

Representative Effective Diffusivity 3, De (cm2/s)

Log Representative Effective Diffusivity, De (cm2/s)

4A 418 I 3.43E-09 0.423 8.11E-09 -8.09 4B 418 I 3.74E-09 0.423 8.83E-09 -8.05 1A 723 I 6.23E-10 0.423 1.47E-09 -8.83 1B 723 I 5.71E-10 0.423 1.35E-09 -8.87 3A 723 I 3.76E-10 0.423 8.88E-10 -9.05 3B 723 I 3.36E-10 0.423 7.94E-10 -9.10 unknown 1 I 8.50E-10 0.423 2.01E-09 -8.70 unknown 1 I 1.90E-09 0.423 4.49E-09 -8.35 2A 723 II 2.49E-09 0.423 5.61E-09 -8.25 2B 723 II 2.37E-09 0.423 5.75E-09 -8.24 4A 723 II 1.55E-09 0.423 3.67E-09 -8.44 4B 723 II 1.67E-09 0.423 3.94E-09 -8.40

Average 1.66E-09 0.423 3.92E-09 (5.0E-09 4)

-8.53 (2.95E-09) -8.30 (5.0E-09 4)

Std Dev of Population 1.17E-09 - 2.76E-09 0.37 Count 12 - 12 12

Std Dev of Mean 3.37E-10 - 7.98E-10 0.11 1 Samples possibly designated 815 2E, 826 2A, and/or 826 2B 2 14 day intrinsic diffusivity results calculated based upon raw data provided by respective

references except for the two values provided for sample with unknown sample numbers 3 η

ie

DD = , where η = porosity 4 Rounded the average representative effective diffusion coefficient up to 5.0E-09 cm2/s


193

6.2.3 1993 Physical Properties Measurement Program (Yu et al. 1993) During 1992 and 1993 a materials characterization program, which included the characterization of E-Area vault concrete, Saltstone vault concrete, and the Saltstone waste form, was conducted and documented by Yu et al. 1993. Testing of these materials by Core Laboratories was conducted to determine their saturated intrinsic permeability, saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention properties, total porosity, and dry bulk density, among other properties. The following bulk samples of these cementitious materials were supplied to Core Laboratories: • A 1-foot by 1-foot by 1-foot block of E-Area vault concrete (it is assumed that this block

was associated with the E-Area concrete test wall) • A formed cylinder of Saltstone vault concrete (probably associated with Vault 1), and • Several 1 liter plastic jugs of simulated Saltstone waste form. The Core Laboratories drilled ten 1-½ inch diameter samples from the E-Area and Saltstone vault concrete bulk samples and trimmed them to right cylinders approximately 5 centimeters long and obtained five similar samples from the Saltstone jug samples. These drilled and trimmed samples were utilized for all the testing conducted. Saturated hydraulic conductivity testing of these cementitious samples was conducted on samples pressure-saturated for a week with either tap water or a brine solution. The brine solution consisted of 700 g of deionized water, 300 g of NaNO3, and 40 g of NaOH. This produces a high pH brine solution containing 126,300 mg/L Na+ and 265,000 mg/L NO3

-. After saturation the samples were mounted in an epoxy coating to prevent bypass flow. It is assumed that the samples were mounted in a horizontal orientation. Either tap water or the brine solution was injected into the sample at a constant upstream pressure of 50 psi, and the flow rate out of the sample was measured until the flow rate essentially obtained steady state. The viscosity and density of the permeant was determined so that both intrinsic permeability and saturated hydraulic conductivity to the permeant could be determined. Core Laboratories attempted to determine the water retention properties of the cementitious samples, however the methodology utilized was inappropriate for such a determination. They desaturated the samples in humidified air under a pressure of 35 psi. The samples were then completely immersed in tap water or brine solution, and subjected to increasing pressures from 1 to 35 psi. At each pressure increment the samples were allowed to “equilibrate” and a final sample weight was determined. This produced increasing water contents with pressure. Immersion of the samples and the application of increasing pressures simply forced more water into the samples. Such measurements have no relationship to water retention properties. The water retention data reported by the Core Laboratories does not represent the water retention properties of the cementitious materials, therefore those data are not reproduced herein.


194

The dry bulk density and total porosity of the cementitious samples were determined in conjunction with other tests and are based upon dimensional and weight measurements. Table 6-18, Table 6-19, and Table 6-20 provide summary saturated intrinsic permeability, saturated hydraulic conductivity, total porosity, and dry bulk density data for the E-Area vault concrete, Saltstone vault concrete, and the Saltstone waste form from the Core Laboratories. The detailed data and calculations associated with this data are provided in Appendix B.


195

Table 6-18. Summary E-Area Vault Concrete Properties from Core Laboratories Testing (Yu et al. 1993)

Sample Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Calculated Porosity

(%)

Calculated Particle Density

(g/cm3)

Saturated Intrinsic

Permeability (water) (darcy)

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (water) (cm/s)

Log Saturated Hydraulic


1E 2.12 16.42 2.54 na na - 2E 2.10 18.07 2.57 7.44E-10 7.21E-13 -12.14 3E 2.07 na - na na - 4E 2.15 19.26 2.66 1.23E-09 1.19E-12 -11.93 5E 2.11 na - na na - 7E 2.11 19.76 2.63 1.26E-09 1.22E-12 -11.91 Average 2.11 18.38 2.59 1.08E-09 1.04E-12 -11.99 Std Dev of Population

0.03 1.48 0.05 2.87E-10 2.79E-13 0.13

Count 6 4 4 3 3 3 Std Dev of Mean 0.010 0.741 0.027 1.66E-10 1.608E-13 0.074

Std Dev = standard deviation; na = not analyzed


196

Table 6-19. Summary Saltstone Vault Concrete Properties from Core Laboratories Testing (Yu et al. 1993)

Sample Dry Bulk

Density (g/cm3)

Calculated Porosity

(%)

Calculated Particle Density (g/cm3)

Saturated Intrinsic

Permeability (brine) (darcy)

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (brine)

(cm/s)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (water)

(cm/s)


Conductivity (water)

(cm/s) 1B 2.05 13.80 2.37 2.12E-07 1.08E-10 - 2.07E-10 1 -9.68 2B 2.21 na - na na na na - 3B 2.40 21.87 3.07 na na na na - 5B 2.18 20.08 2.73 na na 2.38E-06 2.31E-09 -8.64 6B 2.19 na - na na na na - 7B 2.24 16.79 2.69 na na 1.31E-06 1.27E-09 -8.90 Average 2 2.21 18.13 2.70 - - 1.85E-06 1.79E-09 -8.77 Std Dev of Population 2

0.11 3.58 0.29 - - 7.58E-07 7.35E-10 0.18

Count 2 6 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 Std Dev of Mean 2

0.047 1.789 0.143 - - 5.36E-07 5.194E-10 0.130

1 Calculated from measured Intrinsic Permeability (brine) 2 Only includes samples 5B and 7B, which were permeated with tap water Std Dev = standard deviation; na = not analyzed


197

Table 6-20. Summary Saltstone Waste Form Properties from Core Laboratories Testing (Yu et al. 1993)


Calculated Porosity

(%)

Calculated Particle Density (g/cm3)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (brine) (cm/s)

Saturated Hydraulic




S1 1.25 44.64 2.25 6.80E-09 3.47E-12 6.66E-12 1 -11.18 S2 1.25 na - na na na - S3 1.27 na - na na na - S3A na 41.60 2.17 5.43E-09 2.77E-12 5.31E-12 1 -11.27 S4 1.27 40.64 2.15 3.68E-09 1.88E-12 3.60E-12 1 -11.44 Average 1.26 42.29 2.18 5.30E-09 2.71E-12 5.19E-12

(1.0E-11 2) -11.30

Std Dev of Population

0.01 2.09 0.06 1.56E-09 7.98E-13 1.53E-12 0.13

Count 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 Std Dev of Mean

0.006 1.204 0.033 9.028E-10 4.609E-13 8.839E-13 0.078

1 Calculated from measured Intrinsic Permeability (brine) 2 The average saturated hydraulic conductivity of 5.0E-12 cm/s was increased to 1.0E-11 cm/s, since the 5.0E-12 cm/s value was

based upon permeating the Saltstone sample with a brine solution, which may have resulted in precipitation within the sample as outlined in Section 6.2.3. Therefore the higher saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-11 cm/s as previously utilized within WSRC 1992 and Cook et al. 2005 will be used to represent Saltstone instead until further measurements are available.

Std Dev = standard deviation; na = not analyzed


198

In addition to saturated intrinsic permeability, the Core Laboratories reported the unsaturated intrinsic permeability for one sample of each of the cementitious materials at one saturation level as shown in Table 6-21.

Table 6-21. Unsaturated Intrinsic Permeability from Core Laboratories Testing (Yu et al. 1993)

Material Sample

Percent Saturation

(%)

Unsaturated Intrinsic Permeability (water)

(darcy)

Unsaturated Intrinsic Permeability (brine)

(darcy) E-Area Vault Concrete 7E 98.7 5.41E-10 na Saltstone Vault Concrete 7B 87 2.00E-07 na Saltstone Waste Form S4 99.3 na 5.80E-07

na = not analyzed As seen in Table 6-19, the average saturated intrinsic permeability of the Saltstone vault concrete permeated with tap water was approximately 1.8E-06 darcies, whereas that of sample 1B, which was permeated with brine solution, was approximately 2.1E-7 darcies. The sample permeated with brine solution had a saturated intrinsic permeability approximately one order of magnitude lower than that of the sample permeated with tap water. Intrinsic permeability should be a function of the medium alone (i.e., in this case the concrete) irrespective of the fluid properties (i.e., density and viscosity) (Freeze and Cherry 1979). One possible explanation, for this discrepancy in intrinsic permeability measurement, is that nitrate salts from the brine solution precipitated out within the sample causing an artificial lowering of the sample’s intrinsic permeability. Therefore until further measurements are available, the saturated intrinsic permeability of the Saltstone Vault 1 concrete will be taken as 1.8E-06 darcies and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (to water) will be taken as 1.8E-09 cm/s, based upon the data from the samples permeated with tap water. All of the Saltstone samples were permeated with the brine solution which contained 126,300 mg/L Na+ and 265,000 mg/L NO3

-. An estimate of the equilibrium Saltstone pore water concentrations was made within the 1992 Saltstone Performance Assessment (PA) (see WSRC 1992 Appendix E and Table D.3-3) using the computer program MINTEQ. These equilibrium calculations estimated that Saltstone pore water would contain 139,000 mg/L Na+ and 159,000 mg/L NO3

-. The brine solution permeant contained significantly more nitrate than the estimated equilibrium value. Therefore as with the Saltstone vault concrete permeated with the brine solution, it is possible that an artificial lowering of the Saltstone’s saturated intrinsic permeability occurred due to the precipitation of nitrate salts within the samples. Therefore the average saturated intrinsic permeability of 5.3E-09 darcies and the average saturated hydraulic conductivity (to water) of 5.2E-12 cm/s from Table 6-20 may be artificially low. Therefore until further measurements are available, it is recommended that the saturated hydraulic conductivity of Saltstone remain at 1.0E-11 cm/s as previously utilized within WSRC 1992 and Cook et al. 2005.


199

The 1992/1993 Core Laboratories testing of Saltstone indicated that Saltstone may be dimensionally unstable with moisture loss which could result in shrinkage cracks. The following information relative to this issue is provided within the report: • “The experimental results indicate that if clay and Saltstone lost about 5% of the pore

water, the permeability to water might increase significantly. The clay cap and the Saltstone should be maintained at 100% saturation to ensure maximum effectiveness.” (Yu et al. 1993 page 2)

• “The Saltstone sample exhibited an effective permeability to gas at residual water saturation 32400 times higher than the specific permeability to brine and an effective permeability to water at trapped gas saturation 157 times higher. These data can be explained by drying of the Saltstone during the gas injection, or the presence of a trapped gas saturation in the original preparation of the material. The observed increase in permeability is not due to bypassing around the epoxy seal as the absolute permeability measurements are low…” (Yu et al. 1993 page 1-2) Additionally Table 6-20 shows that the saturated (i.e., 100% saturation) intrinsic permeability (to brine) averaged 5.3E-09 darcies, whereas Table 6-21 shows that the unsaturated intrinsic permeability (to brine) at 99.3% saturation was measured at 5.8E-07 darcies.

• The initial unsaturated weight, length, and diameter of Saltstone sample 4 were recorded as 93.999 g, 4.736 cm, and 3.760 cm; whereas the saturated weight, length, and diameter were recorded as 97.694 g, 4.738 cm, and 3.793 cm. This 0.033 cm increase in diameter with saturation, indicates that Saltstone may shrink and swell with changes in moisture content similar to that of many clays. (Yu et al. 1993 page 2-93)

Based upon this information, it is recommended that additional testing be performed to address the potential dimensional instability of Saltstone with moisture loss and the resulting impacts upon hydraulic properties.

6.2.4 2005 Concrete Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density (Sappington and Phifer 2005)

Sappington and Phifer (2005) collected twenty-four concrete rubble samples from three different facilities being demolished at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and evaluated the samples for in-field moisture content and effective porosity. In addition the data necessary to determine the dry bulk density and particle density of the concrete were also obtained (Sappington and Phifer 2005, Appendix C, page C-14). Table 6-22 provides information extracted from Sappington and Phifer 2005 including effective concrete porosity and provides the associated calculated concrete bulk density and concrete particle density. As seen in Table 6-22 the concrete porosity ranged from 0.083 to 0.178 with an average of 0.132; the concrete dry bulk density ranged from 2.11 to 2.38 with an average of 2.26; and the concrete particle density ranged from 2.49 to 2.73 with an average of 2.60.


200

Table 6-22. Concrete Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density (Sappington and Phifer 2005)

Sample ID Sample Location and Type

Sample Effective Porosity 1

Final Oven Dry

Sample Mass (g)

Sample Volume

(mL)

Sample Dry Bulk

Density 2 (g/cm3)

Sample Particle Density 3 (g/cm3)

A-01 734-A Wall 0.083 3759.4 1580.3 2.38 2.59 A-02 734-A Wall 0.087 3474.1 1464.8 2.37 2.60 A-03 734-A Wall 0.096 2617.2 1107.6 2.36 2.61 A-04 734-A Wall 0.090 3762.1 1589.5 2.37 2.60 A-05 734-A Wall 0.093 419.6 181.1 2.32 2.56 A-06 734-A Wall 0.086 761.3 320.7 2.37 2.60 A-07 734-A Wall 0.100 332.4 141.1 2.36 2.62 A-08 734-A Wall 0.108 407.4 174.6 2.33 2.62

734-A Average 0.093 - - 2.36 2.60 734-A Std Dev of Population 0.0082 - - 0.022 0.020

734-A Count 8 - - 8 8 734-A Std Dev of Mean 0.0029 - - 0.0077 0.0071

D-01 701-1D Slab 0.130 2269.4 1002.2 2.26 2.60 D-02 701-1D Slab 0.154 3177.8 1442.7 2.20 2.60 D-03 701-1D Slab 0.154 2336.6 1055.5 2.21 2.62 D-04 701-1D Slab 0.174 2478.6 1134.6 2.18 2.65 D-05 701-1D Slab 0.144 509.7 228.6 2.23 2.60 D-06 701-1D Slab 0.167 512.8 228.3 2.25 2.70 D-07 701-1D Slab 0.124 491.3 216.3 2.27 2.59

701-1D Average 0.150 - - 2.23 2.62 701-1D Std Dev of Population 0.018 - - 0.032 0.036

701-1D Count 7 - - 7 7 701-1D Std Dev of Mean 0.0069 - - 0.0122 0.0136

D-08 675-T Column 4 0.159 414.2 188.9 2.19 2.61 TNX-01 675-T Column 0.157 3099.5 1411.5 2.20 2.61 TNX-02 675-T Slab 0.127 2723.5 1241.3 2.19 2.51 TNX-03 675-T Column 0.159 2412.9 1102.2 2.19 2.60 TNX-04 675-T Slab 0.141 2037.5 943.0 2.16 2.52 TNX-05 675-T Column 0.162 401.3 175.5 2.29 2.73 TNX-06 675-T Slab 0.133 487.1 223.5 2.18 2.51 TNX-07 675-T Column 0.178 528.5 246.3 2.15 2.61 TNX-08 675-T Slab 0.154 538.4 255.1 2.11 2.49

675-T Average 0.152 - - 2.18 2.58 675-T Std Dev of Population 0.0160 - - 0.048 0.075

675-T Count 9 - - 9 9 675-T Std Dev of Mean 0.0053 - - 0.0159 0.0250

Overall Average 0.132 - - 2.26 2.60 Overall Std Dev of Population 0.0313 - - 0.084 0.053

Overall Count 24 - - 24 24 Overall Std Dev of Mean 0.0064 - - 0.0171 0.0108


201

Table 6-22 Notes: 1 Porosity is expressed as a fraction as provided in Sappington and Phifer 2005 rather than

as a percent (%) as expressed in the bulk of this document 2 Sample Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3) = Final Oven Dry Sample Mass (g) / Sample Volume

(mL) 3 ( )( )1001 η

ρρ −= bp (Hillel 1982)

4 Sample ID D-8 appears to have been a TNX Column Sample Std Dev = standard deviation

6.2.5 2006 Component-in-Grout (CIG) Grout and Intermediate Level (IL) Vault Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Testing (Dixon and Phifer 2006)

Dixon and Phifer 2006 documented the determination of hydraulic and physical properties of Component-in-Grout (CIG) high flow grout and Intermediate Level (IL) Vault Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM). Two field test trenches were created, one each for the placement of grout and CLSM. The trenches were 6 feet wide by 12 feet long with a minimum depth of 4 feet. A total of eight cubic yards of the appropriate mix was poured into each trench. The grout used in the CIG Segments 1 through 8 and for this testing is mix A2000-X-0-0-AB as given in Table 4-1. The CLSM used in the IL Vault and for this testing is mix EXE-X-P-0-X as given in Table 4-2. Cementitious material was collected during each pour in order to prepare mold samples. Some of both the grout and CLSM mold samples were used to determine compressive strength at 7, 14, 28, 56, and 90 days. After the grout and CLSM had aged for a minimum of twenty eight days, core samples were collected using a wet abrasive coring bit and drill motor. These core samples along with mold samples prepared at the time of placement were submitted to offsite laboratories (i.e., GeoTesting Express, Inc (GTX) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL)) in order to determine the saturated hydraulic conductivity, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention characteristics, dry bulk density, and porosity. Table 6-23 through Table 6-29 provide a summary of the data produced. Details concerning the test methods and results can be found in Dixon and Phifer 2006.

Table 6-23. Grout and CLSM Compressive Strength

Days Aged

Grout Compressive

Strength (psi)

CLSM Compressive

Strength (psi)

7 1090 - 14 1045 85 28 1960 110 56 2790 215 90 2615 565


202

Table 6-24. Grout Hydraulic and Physical Properties Sample ID Lab Porosity 1 Dry Bulk

Density (g/cm3)

Particle Density 2 (g/cm3)

Volumetric Moisture Content

(cm3/cm3)

Saturation Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/s)


Conductivity (cm/s)

GRT004A INL 3 0.241 1.82 2.40 0.241 1.000 1.93E-08 -7.71 GRT004B INL 0.205 1.87 2.35 0.205 1.000 2.60E-08 -7.59

INL 0.236 1.87 2.45 0.236 1.000 8.40E-05 -4.08 0.231 0.979 7.60E-06 - 0.228 0.966 5.20E-07 -

GRT006A

0.228 0.966 1.10E-07 - INL 0.216 1.86 2.37 0.216 1.000 4.80E-05 -4.32 0.215 0.995 5.60E-06 - 0.213 0.986 1.60E-07 -

GRT006B

0.209 0.968 5.30E-08 - GRT006D INL - 1.79 - - - - GRT008A INL - 1.70 - - - -

INL 0.233 1.77 2.31 0.233 1.000 1.25E-06 -5.90 GRT008B 0.229 0.983 7.63E-08 -

GRT008C INL 0.213 1.83 2.33 0.213 1.000 1.38E-04 -3.86 GRT001 GTX 4 0.40 6 1.56 2.60 0.40 1.000 2.30E-04 -3.64 GRT002 GTX 4 0.28 6 1.85 2.57 0.28 1.000 4.30E-04 -3.37 GRT003 5 GTX 4 0.23 1.98 2.57 0.23 1.000 1.90E-06 -5.72 Average 0.224 1.79 2.31 2 - - 1.16E-04 7

(4.5E-05 8) -5.06 (8.75E-06)

Std Dev of Population 0.015 0.097 0.051 - - 1.50E-04 1.77 Count 6 10 6 - - 8 8 Std Dev of Mean 0.006 0.031 0.021 - - 5.31E-05 0.626


203

Notes to Table 6-24: 1 Porosity is expressed as a fraction as provided in Dixon and Phifer 2006 rather than as a

percent (%) as expressed in the bulk of this document 2 ( )η

ρρ −= 1b

p (Hillel 1982) 3 INL = Idaho National Laboratory 4 GTX = GeoTesting Express, Inc. 5 Sample GRT003 is a mold sample; the remainder are core samples. Due to the significant

matrix difference as seen in computed tomography (CT) scans, the mold sample (GRT003) has been excluded from the average and standard deviation calculations.

6 Based upon the grout water retention data report in Table 6-25, the porosity of samples GRT001 and GRT002 should have been less than ~0.27; therefore the porosity and particle density of these samples have excluded from the average and standard deviation calculations.

7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity average (i.e., average of hydraulic conductivies of samples with a saturation of 1)

8 Laboratory hydraulic property data for core samples and computed tomography (CT) scans provided by Dixon and Phifer 2006 suggest that the existing E-Area CIG grout is composed of both micropores and macropores. Saturated hydraulic conductivity for the 1-inch diameter CIG grout core samples ranged from 1.9E-8 cm/s to 1.4E-4 cm/s and for the 3-inch diameter CIG grout core samples from 2.3E-4 cm/s to 4.3E-4 cm/s (Dixon and Phifer 2006). Also as shown in the table the arithmetic averaged saturated hydraulic conductivity is 1.2E-04 cm/s; whereas the harmonic averaged (i.e., log averaged) saturated hydraulic conductivity is 8.8E-06 cm/s. The true saturated hydraulic conductivity should be between these two bounding values. This variability was attributed to the heterogeneity of the grout and the diameter of the samples analyzed. Because the smaller diameter samples incorporated only a small fraction of the CIG material, they were more likely affected by the variability in pore interconnectedness than the larger (3-inch) samples. This sampling bias was evident in the wide range of measured saturated hydraulic conductivities but was also observed in the CT images. In particular, 1-inch samples with higher saturated hydraulic conductivities showed interconnected pores around poorly cemented aggregate-paste boundaries. These interconnected pores would likely have created preferential flow paths. In contrast, samples with lower saturated hydraulic conductivities contained less observable interconnected porosity in the CT scans (Dixon and Phifer 2006). Due to this heterogeneity the upscaling methodology described in Section 5.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity for the undisturbed vadose zone soil with a power-averaging exponent of p=0.33 (assuming sample isotropy) was used to estimate the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Based upon this methodology a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 4.5E-5 cm/s was calculated for the existing E-Area CIG grout. Implicit in the analysis is the assumption that the sample variability is representative of the grout spatial heterogeneity.

Std Dev = standard deviation


204

Table 6-25. Grout Water Retention Properties as Measured by GeoTesting Express, Inc.

Potential (cm)

-102.07 (-0.1 bars)

-510.35 (-0.5 bars)

-1,020.7 (-1.0 bars)

-2,041.4 (-2.0 bars)

-5,103.5 (-5.0 bars)

-15,310.5 (-15.0 bars)

Sample ID

Volumetric Water Content (cm3/cm3)

GRT001 0.211 0.207 0.203 0.196 0.195 0.190 GRT001 0.223 0.215 0.210 0.207 0.205 0.200 GRT002 0.220 0.217 0.214 0.212 0.211 0.207 GRT002 0.222 0.216 0.212 0.210 0.208 0.200 GRT003 0.253 0.249 0.245 0.237 0.229 0.218 GRT003 0.238 0.234 0.229 0.220 0.215 0.203

Table 6-26. Grout Water Retention Properties as Measured by Idaho National Laboratory

Sample ID GRT004 GRT006 GRT008

Potential (cm)

Volumetric Water

Content (cm3/cm3)

Potential (cm)

Volumetric Water

Content (cm3/cm3)

Potential (cm)

Volumetric Water

Content (cm3/cm3)

0 0.223 0 0.226 0 0.223 -47,200 0.161 -11.5 0.217 -3,220 0.208 -88,400 0.151 -13.2 0.215 -849,020 0.012 -132,000 0.142 -15.7 0.213 -849,020 0.018 -31.4 0.209 -3,220 0.217 -356,000 0.096 -849,020 0.019


205

Table 6-27. CLSM Hydraulic and Physical Properties Sample ID Lab Porosity 1 Dry Bulk

Density (g/cm3)

Particle Density 2 (g/cm3)

Volumetric Moisture Content

(cm3/cm3)

Saturation Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/s)

Log Hydraulic

Conductivity (cm/s)

CLSM005 INL 3 na 1.73 na - na CLSM005A INL na 1.74 na - na CLSM005B INL na 1.81 na - na CLSM005E INL 0.340 - 2.67 6 0.340 1.00 3.42E-06 -5.47 - 0.301 0.89 7.48E-07 - 0.245 0.72 1.87E-07 CLSM005F INL 0.335 - 2.65 6 0.335 1.00 1.40E-06 -5.85 - 0.292 0.87 3.00E-07 - 0.200 0.60 7.50E-08 CLSM001 5 GTX 4 0.31 1.85 2.68 0.310 1.00 1.90E-06 -5.72

Average 0.328 1.78 2.65 2 - - 2.24E-06 7 -5.68 (2.09E-06)

Std Dev of Population 0.02 0.06 0.02 - - 1.05E-06 7 0.20 Count 3 4 3 - - 3 7 3

Std Dev of Mean 0.009 0.029 0.010 - - 6.07E-07 7 0.114


206

Notes to Table 6-27: 1 Porosity is expressed as a fraction as provided in Dixon and Phifer 2006 rather than as a

percent (%) as expressed in the bulk of this document 2 ( )η

ρρ −= 1b

p (Hillel 1982) 3 Idaho National Laboratory 4 GeoTesting Express, Inc. 5 Sample CLSM001 is a mold sample; the remainder are core samples. The mold sample is

considered similar enough to the core samples to include in the average and standard deviations.

6 The particle densities for samples CLSM005E and CLSM005F were determined using the average dry bulk density of samples CLSM005, CLSM005A, and CLSM005B.

7 Saturated hydraulic conductivity average (i.e., average of hydraulic conductivies of samples with a saturation of 1) and standard deviation of population, count, and standard deviation of mean of the saturated hydraulic conductivity values.

Std Dev = standard deviation

Table 6-28. CLSM Water Retention Properties as Measured by GeoTesting Express, Inc.

Potential (cm)

-102.07 (0.1 bars)

-510.35 (0.5 bars)

-1,020.7 (1.0 bars)

-2,041.4 (2.0 bars)

-5,103.5 (5.0 bars)

-15,310.5 (15.0 bars)

Sample ID

Volumetric Water Content (cm3/cm3) CLSM-001 0.271 0.248 0.241 0.210 0.194 0.154 CLSM-001 0.280 0.252 0.247 0.207 0.189 0.147

Table 6-29. CLSM Water Retention Properties as Measured by Idaho National Laboratory

Sample CLSM005

Potential (cm)

Volumetric Water Content (cm3/cm3)

0 0.338 -3,220 0.277 -849,020 0.003


207

6.3 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL NOMINAL PROPERTY REPRESENTATIONS

As outlined within Section 3.0 the property values assigned to the various E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials are based upon the following in order of priority: • Site-specific field data • Site-specific laboratory data • Similarity to material with site-specific laboratory data • Literature data There are no site-specific field data for any of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials. There are limited site-specific laboratory data for some of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials as outlined within Section 6.2. Literature data for generic cementitious materials are provided within Section 6.1. When available the site-specific laboratory data provided within Section 6.2 are utilized to provide material property representations for both the material tested and similar materials. When site-specific laboratory data are not available, the generic literature data provided in Section 6.1 are utilized to provide material property representations.

6.3.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density

Site-specific porosity and bulk density laboratory data are available for the existing E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CLSM, E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, and Z-Area Saltstone. Table 6-30 provides the site-specific porosity and bulk density laboratory data for each of these materials. Typically average values were utilized. Table 6-31 provides the particle density calculated from the site-specific porosity and bulk density laboratory data for each of these materials.


208

Table 6-30. Site-Specific Porosity and Bulk Density Laboratory Data

Cementitious Material


Formulation Table

Effective Porosity

(%)


Source of Porosity and

Dry Bulk Density Value

Existing E-Area CIG Grout

Table 4-1 22.4 1.79 Average from Table 6-24

E-Area CLSM Table 4-2 32.8 1.78 Average from Table 6-27

E-Area Vault Concrete


Z-Area Vault #1 Floor and Wall Concrete


Z-Area Saltstone Table 4-8 42.3 1.26 Average from Table 6-20

Table 6-31. Particle Density Calculated from Site-Specific Porosity and Bulk Density Laboratory Data

Cementitious Material Effective Porosity, η

(%)

Dry Bulk Density, ρb

(g/cm3)

Particle Density, ρp

1 (g/cm3) E-Area Existing CIG Grout 22.4 1.79 2.31 E-Area CLSM 32.8 1.78 2.65 E-Area Vault Concrete 18.4 2.11 2.59 Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete 18.1 2.21 2.70 Z-Area Saltstone 42.3 1.26 2.18

1 ( )( )1001 ηρρ −= b

p (Hillel 1982)

Site-specific laboratory data are not available for the new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete, and the Z-Area clean grout cap.


209

Due to similarities in cementitious material formulations the following porosity, bulk density, and particle density representations will be made:

• The Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall concrete porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by that of the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, since the concrete formulations are identical except for the WCR, which does not vary enough to result in an appreciable difference in porosity (see Table 4-6 and Table 4-5 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations).

• The Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by that of the E-Area vault concrete, since both are considered high quality formulations containing both blast furnace slag and fly ash (see Table 4-7 and Table 4-4 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations).

• The Z-Area clean grout cap porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by that of the Z-Area Saltstone, since the clean grout cap formulation is based on the Saltstone formulation and uses potable water rather than a salt solution (see Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by the Z-Area).

The porosity, bulk density, and particle density of the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, and the Z-Area Vault 4 roof have been calculated based upon their respective concrete formulations and literature data. The porosity has been calculated based upon the following equation presented in Figure 6-1, which was developed from literature values of concrete porosity based upon the concrete’s WCR:

0941.5208.15 += WCRη Table 6-32 provides the porosity calculations for these materials.

Table 6-32. Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs and Roof Porosity Calculations

Cementitious Material WCR Source of WCR

Effective Porosity, η 1

(%) Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs 0.56 Table 4-5 13.6 Z-Area Vault 1 Roof 0.62 Table 4-5 14.5 Z-Area Vault 4 Roof 0.56 Table 4-6 13.6

1 0941.5208.15 += WCRη


210

The dry bulk density for these materials has been calculated based upon the following assumptions: • At a WCR of 0.40 complete hydration of the cementitious material within concrete

occurs (Popovics 1992; Beaudoin and Marchand 2001). • For well consolidated concrete, water between a WCR of 0.40 and 0.70 forms free water

within capillary pores. • For well consolidated concrete, water above a WCR of 0.70 becomes bleed water, which

exits the concrete and reduces the volume of the set concrete from that of the poured concrete. The WCR dividing line of 0.70 between free water within capillary pores and bleed water is an assumption based upon the literature review provided in Section 6.1.1.

The following are the dry bulk density calculations for these materials: • Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs with a WCR of 0.56 (see Table 4-5):

- WCR between 0.40 and 0.70; so water representing 0.40 is incorporated into the concrete and that above 0.40 forms free water within capillary pores

- 40.0486

==lbs

wcw ; lbsw 4.194=

- Dry Bulk density = ((413 lbs + 73 lbs + 1,356 lbs + 1,698 lbs + 194.4 lbs)/27 ft3) × 1.602E-2 g/cm3 / lbs/ft3 = 2.22 g/cm3 (see Table 4-5 for ingredient weights per cubic yard)

• Z-Area Vault 1 Roof with a WCR of 0.62 (see Table 4-5): - WCR between 0.40 and 0.70; so water representing 0.40 is incorporated into the

concrete and that above 0.40 forms free water within capillary pores

- 40.0470

==lbs

wcw ; lbsw 188=

- Dry Bulk density = ((400 lbs + 70 lbs + 1,149 lbs + 1,900 lbs + 188 lbs)/27 ft3) × 1.602E-2 g/cm3 / lbs/ft3 = 2.20 g/cm3 (see Table 4-5 for ingredient weights per cubic yard)

• Z-Area Vault 4 Roof with a WCR of 0.56 (see Table 4-5): - WCR between 0.40 and 0.70; so water representing 0.40 is incorporated into the

concrete and that above 0.40 forms free water within capillary pores

- 40.0528

==lbs

wcw ; lbsw 2.211=

- Dry Bulk density = ((466 lbs + 62 lbs + 1,190 lbs + 1,800 lbs + 211.2 lbs)/27 ft3) × 1.602E-2 g/cm3 / lbs/ft3 = 2.21 g/cm3 (see Table 4-6 for ingredient weights per cubic yard)


211

The particle density for these materials has been calculated based upon the porosity and dry bulk density per the following equation:

( )( )1001 ηρρ −= b

p (Hillel 1982)

Table 6-33 provides the particle density calculations for these materials.

Table 6-33. Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs and Roof Particle Density Calculations


(%)


(g/cm3)


1 (g/cm3) Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs 13.6 2.22 2.57 Z-Area Vault 1 Roof 14.5 2.20 2.57 Z-Area Vault 4 Roof 13.6 2.21 2.56

1 ( )( )1001 ηρρ −= b

p (Hillel 1982)

The porosity, bulk density, and particle density of the new E-Area CIG grout has been calculated and that of the E-Area CIG concrete mats has been assumed to be the same as the E-Area CIG Grout. The formulation of the new E-Area CIG grout has not yet been designed. Therefore the dry bulk density of the new E-Area CIG grout has been assumed to be the same as that calculated for the existing E-Area CIG grout, assuming good consolidation, as shown below (see Table 4-1): • WCR greater than 0.70; so water representing 0.40 is incorporated into the concrete;

water between 0.40 and 0.70 is assumed to form free water within capillary pores, and water greater than 0.70 is assumed to become bleed water, which exits the concrete and reduces the volume of the set concrete from that of the poured concrete.

• Water at WCR of 0.70: 70.0618

==lbs

wcw ; lbsw 6.432=

• Assumed bleed-water volume: 593 lbs – 432.6 lbs = 160.4 lbs / 62.4 lbs/ft3 = 2.57 ft3 • Reduced volume due to bleed water: 27 ft3 - 2.57 ft3 = 24.43 ft3 • Assumed water incorporated into the grout due to hydration:

40.0618

==lbs

wcw ; lbsw 2.247=

• Dry Bulk density = ((618 lbs + 2,283 lbs + 247.2 lbs)/24.43 ft3) × 1.602E-2 g/cm3 / lbs/ft3 = 2.06 g/cm3


212

From Table 6-22 a particle density of 2.61 was selected as a reasonable value to represent the new E-Area CIG grout. The porosity was calculated as follows:

( ) ( ) %1.2110061.206.211001 =×−=×−= pb ρρη (Hillel 1982) Table 6-34 provides a summary of the porosity, bulk density, and particle density representations that will be utilized for the various E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials.

Table 6-34. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density Representation Summary


(%)


(g/cm3)


1 (g/cm3) Existing E-Area CIG Grout 22.4 1.79 2.31 New E-Area CIG Grout 21.1 2.06 2.61 E-Area CLSM 32.8 1.78 2.65 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 21.1 2.06 2.61 E-Area Vault Concrete 18.4 2.11 2.59 Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs 13.6 2.22 2.57 Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete 18.1 2.21 2.70 Z-Area Vault 1 Roof 14.5 2.20 2.57 Z-Area Vault 4 Floor and Wall Concrete 18.1 2.21 2.70 Z-Area Vault 4 Roof 13.6 2.21 2.56 Z-Area Vault 2 and Future Vault Concrete 18.4 2.11 2.59 Z-Area Saltstone 42.3 1.26 2.18 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap 42.3 1.26 2.18


213

6.3.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Site-specific saturated hydraulic conductivity laboratory data are available for the existing E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CLSM, E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, and Z-Area Saltstone. Table 6-35 provides the site-specific saturated hydraulic conductivity laboratory data for each of these materials.

Table 6-35. Site-Specific Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Laboratory Data



Formulation Table

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (cm/s)

Source of Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Value


Table 4-1 4.5E-05 Revised average from Table 6-24

E-Area CLSM Table 4-2 2.2E-06 Average from Table 6-27


Table 4-4 1.0E-12 Average from Table 6-18


Table 4-5 2.0E-09 Average from Table 6-19

Z-Area Saltstone Table 4-8 1.0E-11 Revised average Table 6-20

Site-specific laboratory data are not available for the new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete, and the Z-Area clean grout cap.

6.3.2.1 New E-Area CIG Grout: As outlined within Section 4.5.3 the new E-Area CIG grout, which will be utilized for all future CIG Trench segments, will be formulated and tested so that it will have a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-08 cm/s. As outlined within Section 6.1.2, typical concrete has a saturated hydraulic conductivity that ranges from 1.0E-09 to 1.0E-08 cm/s (Snyder 2003). Therefore a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-08 cm/s for the new E-Area CIG grout is not considered unreasonable. Based upon this information, a representative saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-08 cm/s will be assigned to the new E-Area CIG grout.


214

6.3.2.2 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats: As with porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density (Section 6.3.1), the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the E-Area CIG concrete mats (Table 4-3) has been assumed to be the same as that of the new E-Area CIG grout (i.e., 1.0E-08 cm/s). This is considered reasonable, since the concrete mats are placed using standard field construction practices, and are not built under the same level of quality control as for major projects. Therefore a saturated hydraulic conductivity at the lower range of typical concrete (i.e., 1.0E-09 to 1.0E-08 cm/s (Snyder 2003)) is considered reasonable.

6.3.2.3 Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs:

The Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs (Table 4-5 and Table 4-6), the Z-Area Vault 1 roof (Table 4-5), and the Z-Area Vault 4 roof (Table 4-6) were all built under a project conducted with significant quality control and are all considered a moderate quality concrete. Additionally as outlined within Section 6.1.2, typical concrete has a saturated hydraulic conductivity that ranges from 1.0E-09 to 1.0E-08 cm/s (Snyder 2003). Based upon this information, a representative saturated hydraulic conductivity at the midpoint of the typical concrete range (i.e., 5.0E-09 cm/s) will be assigned to the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, and the Z-Area Vault 4 roof.

6.3.2.4 Z-Area Vault 4 Floor and Wall Concrete: As outlined within Table 4-5 and Table 4-6, Vault 4 was built under a project conducted with significant quality control, and the workmanship and curing requirements were more rigorous than used for Vault 1 (WSRC 2005b). Additionally as outlined within Section 6.1.2, good quality concrete with a low WCR (approximately 0.45 and less) typically has a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-10 cm/s or less (Walton et al. 1990). Based upon this information and the WCR of 0.36 for the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall concrete outlined in Table 4-6, a representative saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-10 cm/s will be assigned to the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall concrete.

6.3.2.5 Z-Area Vault 2 concrete:

As outlined within Table 4-7 the requirements for the Z-Area Vault 2 include a requirement for a maximum permeability (i.e., saturated hydraulic conductivity) of 1.0E-10 cm/s. Additionally as outlined within Table 4-7, Vault 2 is being designed and built under a project conducted with significant quality control, including workmanship and curing requirements, and with significant concrete formulation testing to ensure that the requirements, including that of its permeability, are met. Again as outlined within Section 6.1.2, good quality concrete with a low WCR (approximately 0.45 and less) typically has a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-10 cm/s or less (Walton et al. 1990). Based upon this information and the maximum WCR of 0.38 for the Z-Area Vault 2 concrete outlined in Table 4-7, a representative saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-10 cm/s will be assigned to the Z-Area Vault 2 concrete.


215

6.3.2.6 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap: Due to similarities in cementitious material formulations the Z-Area clean grout cap saturated hydraulic conductivity will be represented by that of the Z-Area Saltstone, since the clean grout cap formulation is based off of the Saltstone formulation and uses potable water rather than a salt solution (see Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by the Z-Area). Table 6-36 provides a summary of the saturated hydraulic conductivity representations that will be utilized for the various E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials.

Table 6-36. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Representation Summary

Cementitious Material Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s)

E-Area Existing CIG Grout 4.5E-05 New E-Area CIG Grout 1.0E-08 E-Area CLSM 2.2E-06 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 1.0E-08 E-Area Vault Concrete 1.0E-12 Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs 5.0E-09 Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete 2.0E-09 Z-Area Vault 1 Roof 5.0E-09 Z-Area Vault 4 Floor and Wall Concrete 1.0E-10 Z-Area Vault 4 Roof 5.0E-09 Z-Area Vault 2 and Future Vault Concrete 1.0E-10 Z-Area Saltstone 1.0E-11 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap 1.0E-11

6.3.3 Characteristic Curves (Suction Head, Saturation, and Relative Permeability)

Site-specific saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water retention laboratory data are available for the existing E-Area CIG grout and E-Area CLSM and can be used to develop characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability). Table 6-24 provides the site-specific saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity laboratory data and Table 6-25 and Table 6-26 provide the water retention laboratory data for the existing E-Area CIG grout. The water retention laboratory data presented in Table 6-25, however, were not utilized to develop the existing E-Area CIG grout characteristic curves. The data could not be satisfactorily converted to saturation due to apparent problems with the sample porosity determination as noted in Table 6-24.


216

6.3.3.1 E-Area CIG Grout: Laboratory hydraulic property data for core samples and computed tomography (CT) scans provided by Dixon and Phifer 2006 suggest that the existing E-Area CIG grout is composed of both micropores and macropores. Saturated hydraulic conductivity for the 1-inch diameter CIG grout core samples ranged from 1.9E-8 cm/s to 1.4E-4 cm/s and for the 3-inch diameter CIG grout core samples from 2.3E-4 cm/s to 4.3E-4 cm/s (see Table 6-24). This variability was attributed to the heterogeneity of the grout and the diameter of the samples analyzed. Because the smaller diameter samples incorporated only a small fraction of the CIG material, they were more likely affected by the variability in pore interconnectedness than the larger (3-inch) samples. This sampling bias was evident in the wide range of measured saturated hydraulic conductivities but was also observed in the CT images. In particular, 1-inch samples with higher saturated hydraulic conductivities showed interconnected pores around poorly cemented aggregate-paste boundaries. These interconnected pores would likely have created preferential flow paths. In contrast, samples with lower saturated hydraulic conductivities contained less observable interconnected porosity in the CT scans (Dixon and Phifer 2006). Based on laboratory data and CT scans, the existing E-Area CIG grout was conceptualized as consisting of two components with different porosities and drainage behaviors. The two components consisted of: 1. A predominantly intact concrete with fine pore structure, which would drain slowly, and 2. A smaller amount of material with bigger pores and preferential flow paths, which would

drain easily and produce a higher saturated conductivity. A semi-empirical approach was selected to generate characteristic curves for the existing E-Area CIG grout material. Specifically, surrogate materials were used to represent the drainage behavior of the micro- and macro-porosity in the CIG grout conceptual model. The surrogate materials (Table 6-37 and Table 6-38) consisted of a concrete, which represented the intact concrete with a fine pore structure, and a hypothetical coarse grained material, which represented the small amount of material with large pores and preferential flow paths. These two surrogates were proportioned through a visual trial-and-error process to produce properties that mimicked the analytical hydraulic data for the CIG grout. A combination of 85% concrete and 15% coarse grained material appeared to best fit the laboratory data. Saturated hydraulic conductivity for the hypothetical composite material (i.e., existing E-Area CIG grout) was calculated based on the blend of 85% low quality concrete, 15% coarse material, and an upscaling power-average exponent of p=0.33. The resulting saturated hydraulic conductivity of 3.8E-5 cm/sec and a porosity of 0.24 (or 24%) for the composite material are similar to 4.5E-5 cm/s and 0.233 (23.3%) from Table 6-38 and Table 6-34, respectively. The comparison suggests that the surrogate materials selected for grout micro- and macro-porosity, and their proportions, are reasonable.


217

Saturation values for the CIG material were calculated by:

( ) ( )( ) ( )( )CGMCCIG nSnSnS ×+×=× 15.085.0 where S = saturation, n = porosity, CIG = CIG grout, C = concrete, and CGM = coarse grained material.

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated by:

( )( ) ( )( )[ ] ppCGMunsat

pCunsatCIGunsat KKK

115.085.0 −−− +=

where unsatK = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, p = power-averaging exponent of 0.33, CIG = CIG grout, C = concrete, and CGM = coarse grained material.

Relative permeability ( rK ) for the CIG grout was calculated by:

CIGsat

CIGunsatCIGr K

KK

−

−− =

where CIGsatK − = 3.8E-5 cm/sec. Table 6-39 provides a tabulation of the resulting existing E-Area CIG grout saturation, suction head, and relative permeability. Figure 6-6 shows suction head and relative permeability versus saturation curves for the concrete, the coarse grained material, and the resulting blend (i.e., the existing E-Area CIG grout). As seen the composite grout behaves similar to the coarse-grained constituent at low suction, but more like the fine-grained material at high suction. This behavior is consistent with the concept of macro-pores draining under low suction while micro-pores remain saturated until much higher suction is applied. The water retention data produced by INL (see Table 6-26) is also plotted on Figure 6-6 for comparison to the water retention curve (i.e., saturation versus suction head curve shown as a dashed black curve). As seen the composite CIG grout water retention curve aligns closely with most of the INL laboratory water retention data. The INL data points at the high suction levels (1,000,000 cm) were not influential in fitting the water retention curve for the composite CIG grout, since these values are well outside the suction range of interest for current site conditions and modeling studies. The Figure 6-6 nominal relative permeability curve (i.e., saturation versus relative permeability), shown as a solid black curve, is based upon a limited number of data points all at relatively high saturations. Figure 6-7 shows saturation versus hydraulic conductivity laboratory data from Table 6-24 along with the nominal hydraulic conductivity curve (i.e., saturation versus hydraulic conductivity, which was derived by multiplying the relative permeability by the existing CIG grout saturated hydraulic conductivity of 4.5E-05 cm/s). Although the nominal hydraulic conductivity curve for the existing CIG grout exhibits a steeper drop than its individual surrogate constituents (i.e., concrete and coarse grained material) near a saturation of one as seen in Figure 6-6, it still over-predicts the laboratory data as seen in Figure 6-7.


218

In addition to the nominal curve generated by the blending of material properties a bounding relative permeability curve (i.e., saturation versus relative permeability) has been produced for the existing CIG grout. This curve bounds the saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of Table 6-24. This curve was produced by cubic spline fitting to produce a continuous curve bounded by a constant hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-08 cm/s at saturations of 80% and below and consistent with the slope of the hydraulic conductivity data of samples whose hydraulic conductivity was measured at various saturations (i.e., samples GRT006A, GRT006B, and GRT 008B). The bounding relative permeability curve is shown in Figure 6-6 in relation to the nominal relative permeability curve. In Figure 6-7 the bounding curve is shown as a hydraulic conductivity curve for comparison to the nominal hydraulic conductivity curve and to the laboratory hydraulic conductivity data. The bounding relative permeability curve results in a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 6.0E-04 cm/s, which is significantly greater than the 4.5E-05 cm/s determined in Section 6.3.2 and associated with the nominal relative permeability curve. Table 6-39 provides a tabulation of the bounding relative permeability curve.

Table 6-37. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material to Represent CIG Grout Micro- and Macro-Porosity

Surrogate Material

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (cm/s)

Porosity (%) Characteristic Curves

Concrete 1.0E-8 21 The Hanford Concrete characteristic curves from Figure 6-2 were used; a tabulation of the saturation, suction head, and relative permeability is provided in Table 6-38..

Coarse Grained Material

1.0E-2 40 Characteristic curves produced from the water retention data for two gravel samples (GL-1 and GL-2) discussed in Section 5.5.3 were used 1; a tabulation of the saturation, suction head, and relative permeability is provided in Table 6-38

1 The relative permeability was produced by geometric averaging the two samples rather than arithmetic averaging as performed in Section 5.5.3.


219

Table 6-38. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material Characteristic Curve Data

Concrete Coarse Grained Material

Saturation (S)

Suction Head (ψ) (cm)

Saturation (S)

Relative Permeability

(kr)

Saturation (S)

Suction Head (y)

(cm)

Saturation (S)


(kr)

1.00E+00 1.00E-06 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E-06 1.00E+00 9.94E-01 1.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 9.94E-01 1.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 7.39E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 9.92E-01 9.99E-01 1.00E-01 9.99E-01 6.66E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 9.90E-01 9.97E-01 2.00E-01 9.97E-01 5.73E-01 1.00E+00 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 9.85E-01 9.90E-01 5.00E-01 9.90E-01 4.20E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.81E-01 9.76E-01 1.00E+00 9.76E-01 2.88E-01 1.00E+00 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 9.79E-01 9.70E-01 1.20E+00 9.70E-01 2.53E-01 1.00E+00 1.44E+00 1.00E+00 9.78E-01 9.63E-01 1.44E+00 9.63E-01 2.19E-01 1.00E+00 1.73E+00 1.00E+00 9.76E-01 9.54E-01 1.73E+00 9.54E-01 1.87E-01 1.00E+00 2.07E+00 1.00E+00 9.74E-01 9.43E-01 2.07E+00 9.43E-01 1.56E-01 1.00E+00 2.49E+00 1.00E+00 9.72E-01 9.30E-01 2.49E+00 9.30E-01 1.28E-01 1.00E+00 2.99E+00 1.00E+00 9.70E-01 9.15E-01 2.99E+00 9.15E-01 1.02E-01 1.00E+00 3.58E+00 1.00E+00 9.68E-01 8.97E-01 3.58E+00 8.97E-01 8.00E-02 1.00E+00 4.30E+00 1.00E+00 9.66E-01 8.77E-01 4.30E+00 8.77E-01 6.11E-02 1.00E+00 5.16E+00 1.00E+00 9.63E-01 8.53E-01 5.16E+00 8.53E-01 4.54E-02 1.00E+00 6.19E+00 1.00E+00 9.61E-01 8.28E-01 6.19E+00 8.28E-01 3.29E-02 1.00E+00 7.43E+00 1.00E+00 9.58E-01 7.99E-01 7.43E+00 7.99E-01 2.32E-02 1.00E+00 8.92E+00 1.00E+00 9.55E-01 7.67E-01 8.92E+00 7.67E-01 1.59E-02 1.00E+00 1.07E+01 1.00E+00 9.51E-01 7.34E-01 1.07E+01 7.34E-01 1.06E-02 1.00E+00 1.28E+01 1.00E+00 9.48E-01 6.98E-01 1.28E+01 6.98E-01 6.91E-03 1.00E+00 1.54E+01 1.00E+00 9.44E-01 6.61E-01 1.54E+01 6.61E-01 4.39E-03 1.00E+00 1.85E+01 1.00E+00 9.40E-01 6.23E-01 1.85E+01 6.23E-01 2.73E-03 1.00E+00 2.22E+01 1.00E+00 9.35E-01 5.85E-01 2.22E+01 5.85E-01 1.66E-03 1.00E+00 2.66E+01 1.00E+00 9.31E-01 5.48E-01 2.66E+01 5.48E-01 9.96E-04 1.00E+00 3.19E+01 1.00E+00 9.25E-01 5.12E-01 3.19E+01 5.12E-01 5.89E-04 1.00E+00 3.83E+01 1.00E+00 9.20E-01 4.77E-01 3.83E+01 4.77E-01 3.44E-04 1.00E+00 4.60E+01 1.00E+00 9.14E-01 4.44E-01 4.60E+01 4.44E-01 1.99E-04 1.00E+00 5.52E+01 1.00E+00 9.08E-01 4.14E-01 5.52E+01 4.14E-01 1.14E-04 1.00E+00 6.62E+01 1.00E+00 9.01E-01 3.85E-01 6.62E+01 3.85E-01 6.51E-05 1.00E+00 7.95E+01 1.00E+00 8.94E-01 3.58E-01 7.95E+01 3.58E-01 3.70E-05 1.00E+00 9.54E+01 1.00E+00 8.87E-01 3.34E-01 9.54E+01 3.34E-01 2.09E-05 1.00E+00 1.14E+02 1.00E+00 8.78E-01 3.11E-01 1.14E+02 3.11E-01 1.18E-05 1.00E+00 1.37E+02 1.00E+00 8.70E-01 2.90E-01 1.37E+02 2.90E-01 6.66E-06 1.00E+00 1.65E+02 1.00E+00 8.60E-01 2.71E-01 1.65E+02 2.71E-01 3.75E-06 1.00E+00 1.98E+02 1.00E+00 8.50E-01 2.53E-01 1.98E+02 2.53E-01 2.11E-06 1.00E+00 2.37E+02 1.00E+00 8.40E-01 2.37E-01 2.37E+02 2.37E-01 1.18E-06 1.00E+00 2.85E+02 1.00E+00 8.29E-01 2.22E-01 2.85E+02 2.22E-01 6.63E-07 1.00E+00 3.42E+02 1.00E+00 8.16E-01 2.09E-01 3.42E+02 2.09E-01 3.72E-07 1.00E+00 4.10E+02 1.00E+00 8.04E-01 1.96E-01 4.10E+02 1.96E-01 2.08E-07 1.00E+00 4.92E+02 1.00E+00 7.90E-01 1.85E-01 4.92E+02 1.85E-01 1.17E-07 1.00E+00 5.91E+02 1.00E+00 7.75E-01 1.75E-01 5.91E+02 1.75E-01 6.54E-08 1.00E+00 7.09E+02 1.00E+00 7.60E-01 1.65E-01 7.09E+02 1.65E-01 3.67E-08 1.00E+00 8.51E+02 1.00E+00 7.43E-01 1.56E-01 8.51E+02 1.56E-01 2.05E-08


220

Table 6-38. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material Characteristic Curve Data - continued


Saturation (S)


Saturation (S)


(kr)

Saturation (S)

Suction Head (y)

(cm)

Saturation (S)


(kr)

1.00E+00 1.02E+03 1.00E+00 7.26E-01 1.48E-01 1.02E+03 1.48E-01 1.15E-08 1.00E+00 1.22E+03 1.00E+00 7.07E-01 1.40E-01 1.22E+03 1.40E-01 6.44E-09 9.99E-01 1.47E+03 9.99E-01 6.87E-01 1.34E-01 1.47E+03 1.34E-01 3.60E-09 9.99E-01 1.76E+03 9.99E-01 6.66E-01 1.27E-01 1.76E+03 1.27E-01 2.02E-09 9.99E-01 2.12E+03 9.99E-01 6.44E-01 1.22E-01 2.12E+03 1.22E-01 1.13E-09 9.99E-01 2.54E+03 9.99E-01 6.21E-01 1.16E-01 2.54E+03 1.16E-01 6.32E-10 9.99E-01 3.05E+03 9.99E-01 5.96E-01 1.11E-01 3.05E+03 1.11E-01 3.54E-10 9.98E-01 3.66E+03 9.98E-01 5.71E-01 1.07E-01 3.66E+03 1.07E-01 1.98E-10 9.98E-01 4.39E+03 9.98E-01 5.44E-01 1.03E-01 4.39E+03 1.03E-01 1.11E-10 9.97E-01 5.27E+03 9.97E-01 5.15E-01 9.86E-02 5.27E+03 9.86E-02 6.21E-11 9.96E-01 6.32E+03 9.96E-01 4.86E-01 9.51E-02 6.32E+03 9.51E-02 3.48E-11 9.95E-01 7.58E+03 9.95E-01 4.55E-01 9.18E-02 7.58E+03 9.18E-02 1.95E-11 9.93E-01 9.10E+03 9.93E-01 4.24E-01 8.87E-02 9.10E+03 8.87E-02 1.09E-11 9.91E-01 1.09E+04 9.91E-01 3.91E-01 8.59E-02 1.09E+04 8.59E-02 6.10E-12 9.89E-01 1.31E+04 9.89E-01 3.58E-01 8.33E-02 1.31E+04 8.33E-02 3.41E-12 9.86E-01 1.57E+04 9.86E-01 3.25E-01 8.09E-02 1.57E+04 8.09E-02 1.91E-12 9.82E-01 1.89E+04 9.82E-01 2.91E-01 7.87E-02 1.89E+04 7.87E-02 1.07E-12 9.77E-01 2.26E+04 9.77E-01 2.58E-01 7.66E-02 2.26E+04 7.66E-02 5.99E-13 9.71E-01 2.72E+04 9.71E-01 2.25E-01 7.47E-02 2.72E+04 7.47E-02 3.35E-13 9.63E-01 3.26E+04 9.63E-01 1.93E-01 7.29E-02 3.26E+04 7.29E-02 1.88E-13 9.53E-01 3.91E+04 9.53E-01 1.62E-01 7.13E-02 3.91E+04 7.13E-02 1.05E-13 9.41E-01 4.70E+04 9.41E-01 1.34E-01 6.97E-02 4.70E+04 6.97E-02 5.88E-14 9.27E-01 5.63E+04 9.27E-01 1.08E-01 6.83E-02 5.63E+04 6.83E-02 3.29E-14 9.10E-01 6.76E+04 9.10E-01 8.53E-02 6.70E-02 6.76E+04 6.70E-02 1.84E-14 8.90E-01 8.11E+04 8.90E-01 6.55E-02 6.58E-02 8.11E+04 6.58E-02 1.03E-14 8.67E-01 9.74E+04 8.67E-01 4.90E-02 6.46E-02 9.74E+04 6.46E-02 5.78E-15 8.41E-01 1.17E+05 8.41E-01 3.56E-02 6.36E-02 1.17E+05 6.36E-02 3.23E-15 8.12E-01 1.40E+05 8.12E-01 2.52E-02 6.26E-02 1.40E+05 6.26E-02 1.81E-15 7.80E-01 1.68E+05 7.80E-01 1.74E-02 6.17E-02 1.68E+05 6.17E-02 1.01E-15 7.46E-01 2.02E+05 7.46E-01 1.17E-02 6.08E-02 2.02E+05 6.08E-02 5.67E-16 7.11E-01 2.42E+05 7.11E-01 7.67E-03 6.00E-02 2.42E+05 6.00E-02 3.18E-16 6.75E-01 2.91E+05 6.75E-01 4.93E-03 5.93E-02 2.91E+05 5.93E-02 1.78E-16 6.39E-01 3.49E+05 6.39E-01 3.11E-03 5.86E-02 3.49E+05 5.86E-02 9.95E-17 6.03E-01 4.19E+05 6.03E-01 1.93E-03 5.80E-02 4.19E+05 5.80E-02 5.57E-17 5.67E-01 5.02E+05 5.67E-01 1.19E-03 5.74E-02 5.02E+05 5.74E-02 3.12E-17 5.32E-01 6.03E+05 5.32E-01 7.20E-04 5.68E-02 6.03E+05 5.68E-02 1.75E-17 4.99E-01 7.23E+05 4.99E-01 4.33E-04 5.63E-02 7.23E+05 5.63E-02 9.77E-18 4.67E-01 8.68E+05 4.67E-01 2.58E-04 5.58E-02 8.68E+05 5.58E-02 5.47E-18 4.36E-01 1.04E+06 4.36E-01 1.53E-04 5.53E-02 1.04E+06 5.53E-02 3.06E-18 4.08E-01 1.25E+06 4.08E-01 9.05E-05 5.49E-02 1.25E+06 5.49E-02 1.71E-18 3.80E-01 1.50E+06 3.80E-01 5.33E-05 5.45E-02 1.50E+06 5.45E-02 9.60E-19 3.55E-01 1.80E+06 3.55E-01 3.12E-05 5.42E-02 1.80E+06 5.42E-02 5.37E-19 3.31E-01 2.16E+06 3.31E-01 1.83E-05 5.38E-02 2.16E+06 5.38E-02 3.01E-19 3.08E-01 2.59E+06 3.08E-01 1.07E-05 5.35E-02 2.59E+06 5.35E-02 1.68E-19 2.87E-01 3.11E+06 2.87E-01 6.23E-06 5.32E-02 3.11E+06 5.32E-02 9.42E-20


221

Table 6-38. Surrogate Concrete and Coarse Grained Material Characteristic Curve Data - continued


Saturation (S)


Saturation (S)


(kr)

Saturation (S)

Suction Head (y)

(cm)

Saturation (S)


(kr)

2.68E-01 3.73E+06 2.68E-01 3.63E-06 5.29E-02 3.73E+06 5.29E-02 5.27E-20 2.49E-01 4.48E+06 2.49E-01 2.12E-06 5.27E-02 4.48E+06 5.27E-02 2.95E-20 2.32E-01 5.38E+06 2.32E-01 1.23E-06 5.24E-02 5.38E+06 5.24E-02 1.65E-20 2.16E-01 6.45E+06 2.16E-01 7.16E-07 5.22E-02 6.45E+06 5.22E-02 9.25E-21 2.01E-01 7.74E+06 2.01E-01 4.16E-07 5.20E-02 7.74E+06 5.20E-02 5.18E-21 1.87E-01 9.29E+06 1.87E-01 2.42E-07 5.18E-02 9.29E+06 5.18E-02 2.90E-21 1.75E-01 1.11E+07 1.75E-01 1.41E-07 5.16E-02 1.11E+07 5.16E-02 1.62E-21 1.62E-01 1.34E+07 1.62E-01 8.16E-08 5.14E-02 1.34E+07 5.14E-02 9.09E-22 1.51E-01 1.61E+07 1.51E-01 4.74E-08 5.12E-02 1.61E+07 5.12E-02 5.09E-22 1.41E-01 1.93E+07 1.41E-01 2.75E-08 5.11E-02 1.93E+07 5.11E-02 2.85E-22 1.31E-01 2.31E+07 1.31E-01 1.60E-08 5.09E-02 2.31E+07 5.09E-02 1.59E-22 1.22E-01 2.77E+07 1.22E-01 9.29E-09 5.08E-02 2.77E+07 5.08E-02 8.92E-23 1.14E-01 3.33E+07 1.14E-01 5.39E-09 5.07E-02 3.33E+07 5.07E-02 5.00E-23 1.06E-01 3.99E+07 1.06E-01 3.13E-09 5.06E-02 3.99E+07 5.06E-02 2.80E-23 9.84E-02 4.79E+07 9.84E-02 1.82E-09 5.04E-02 4.79E+07 5.04E-02 1.57E-23 9.16E-02 5.75E+07 9.16E-02 1.06E-09 5.03E-02 5.75E+07 5.03E-02 8.76E-24 8.53E-02 6.90E+07 8.53E-02 6.13E-10 5.02E-02 6.90E+07 5.02E-02 4.91E-24 7.94E-02 8.28E+07 7.94E-02 3.56E-10 5.02E-02 8.28E+07 5.02E-02 2.75E-24 7.39E-02 9.94E+07 7.39E-02 2.07E-10 5.01E-02 9.94E+07 5.01E-02 1.54E-24 6.88E-02 1.19E+08 6.88E-02 1.20E-10 5.00E-02 1.19E+08 5.00E-02 8.61E-25 6.40E-02 1.43E+08 6.40E-02 6.96E-11 4.99E-02 1.43E+08 4.99E-02 4.82E-25 5.96E-02 1.72E+08 5.96E-02 4.04E-11 4.98E-02 1.72E+08 4.98E-02 2.70E-25 5.55E-02 2.06E+08 5.55E-02 2.35E-11 4.98E-02 2.06E+08 4.98E-02 1.51E-25 5.17E-02 2.47E+08 5.17E-02 1.36E-11 4.97E-02 2.47E+08 4.97E-02 8.45E-26 4.81E-02 2.97E+08 4.81E-02 7.91E-12 4.97E-02 2.97E+08 4.97E-02 4.73E-26 4.48E-02 3.56E+08 4.48E-02 4.59E-12 4.96E-02 3.56E+08 4.96E-02 2.65E-26 4.17E-02 4.27E+08 4.17E-02 2.67E-12 4.96E-02 4.27E+08 4.96E-02 1.48E-26 3.88E-02 5.13E+08 3.88E-02 1.55E-12 4.95E-02 5.13E+08 4.95E-02 8.30E-27 3.61E-02 6.15E+08 3.61E-02 8.99E-13 4.95E-02 6.15E+08 4.95E-02 4.65E-27 3.36E-02 7.38E+08 3.36E-02 5.22E-13 4.94E-02 7.38E+08 4.94E-02 2.60E-27 3.13E-02 8.86E+08 3.13E-02 3.03E-13 4.94E-02 8.86E+08 4.94E-02 1.46E-27 2.91E-02 1.06E+09 2.91E-02 1.76E-13 4.93E-02 1.06E+09 4.93E-02 8.15E-28


222

Table 6-39. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves

Saturation (S)


Saturation (S)

Nominal Relative

Permeability (kr)

Saturation (S)

Bounding Relative

Permeability (kr)

1 0 1 1 1 1 0.9999 5.00E-02 0.9999 7.52E-01 0.9999 9.72E-01 0.9997 1.00E-01 0.9997 6.82E-01 0.9997 9.29E-01 0.9993 2.00E-01 0.9993 5.93E-01 0.9993 8.29E-01 0.9976 5.00E-01 0.9976 4.44E-01 0.9976 5.26E-01 0.9940 1.00E+00 0.9940 3.13E-01 0.9940 2.08E-01 0.9925 1.20E+00 0.9925 2.78E-01 0.9925 1.46E-01 0.9906 1.44E+00 0.9906 2.44E-01 0.9906 9.99E-02 0.9884 1.73E+00 0.9884 2.11E-01 0.9884 6.19E-02 0.9856 2.07E+00 0.9856 1.79E-01 0.9856 3.37E-02 0.9824 2.49E+00 0.9824 1.50E-01 0.9824 1.66E-02 0.9785 2.99E+00 0.9785 1.23E-01 0.9785 8.20E-03 0.9741 3.58E+00 0.9741 9.86E-02 0.9741 3.60E-03 0.9690 4.30E+00 0.9690 7.78E-02 0.9690 1.50E-03 0.9631 5.16E+00 0.9631 6.02E-02 0.9631 7.62E-04 0.9566 6.19E+00 0.9566 4.57E-02 0.9566 3.90E-04 0.9494 7.43E+00 0.9494 3.41E-02 0.9494 1.95E-04 0.9415 8.92E+00 0.9415 2.50E-02 0.9415 1.18E-04 0.9330 1.07E+01 0.9330 1.80E-02 0.9330 7.33E-05 0.9240 1.28E+01 0.9240 1.29E-02 0.9240 4.95E-05 0.9147 1.54E+01 0.9147 9.14E-03 0.9147 3.56E-05 0.9052 1.85E+01 0.9052 6.46E-03 0.9052 2.57E-05 0.8956 2.22E+01 0.8956 4.58E-03 0.8956 2.06E-05 0.8863 2.66E+01 0.8863 3.26E-03 0.8863 1.85E-05 0.8772 3.19E+01 0.8772 2.35E-03 0.8772 1.79E-05 0.8685 3.83E+01 0.8685 1.72E-03 0.8685 1.75E-05 0.8602 4.60E+01 0.8602 1.28E-03 0.8602 1.72E-05 0.8525 5.52E+01 0.8525 9.74E-04 0.8525 1.70E-05 0.8453 6.62E+01 0.8453 7.57E-04 0.8453 1.69E-05 0.8386 7.95E+01 0.8386 6.02E-04 0.8386 1.68E-05 0.8324 9.54E+01 0.8324 4.89E-04 0.8324 1.67E-05 0.8267 1.14E+02 0.8267 4.06E-04 0.8267 1.67E-05 0.8214 1.37E+02 0.8214 3.44E-04 0.8214 1.67E-05 0.8166 1.65E+02 0.8166 2.98E-04 0.8166 1.66E-05 0.8122 1.98E+02 0.8122 2.62E-04 0.8122 1.67E-05 0.8081 2.37E+02 0.8081 2.34E-04 0.8081 1.67E-05 0.8043 2.85E+02 0.8043 2.11E-04 0.8043 1.67E-05 0.8009 3.42E+02 0.8009 1.94E-04 0.8009 1.67E-05 0.7978 4.10E+02 0.7978 1.79E-04 0.7978 1.67E-05 0.7949 4.92E+02 0.7949 1.67E-04 0.7949 1.67E-05 0.7922 5.91E+02 0.7922 1.57E-04 0.7922 1.67E-05 0.7898 7.09E+02 0.7898 1.48E-04 0.7898 1.67E-05 0.7875 8.51E+02 0.7875 1.40E-04 0.7875 1.67E-05


223

Table 6-39. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves - continued

Saturation (S)


Saturation (S)

Nominal Relative

Permeability (kr)

Saturation (S)

Bounding Relative

Permeability (kr)

0.7854 1.02E+03 0.7854 1.33E-04 0.7854 1.67E-05 0.7835 1.22E+03 0.7835 1.27E-04 0.7835 1.67E-05 0.7816 1.47E+03 0.7816 1.21E-04 0.7816 1.67E-05 0.7799 1.76E+03 0.7799 1.16E-04 0.7799 1.67E-05 0.7783 2.12E+03 0.7783 1.11E-04 0.7783 1.67E-05 0.7768 2.54E+03 0.7768 1.06E-04 0.7768 1.67E-05 0.7753 3.05E+03 0.7753 1.01E-04 0.7753 1.67E-05 0.7738 3.66E+03 0.7738 9.55E-05 0.7738 1.67E-05 0.7724 4.39E+03 0.7724 9.04E-05 0.7724 1.67E-05 0.7709 5.27E+03 0.7709 8.53E-05 0.7709 1.67E-05 0.7693 6.32E+03 0.7693 8.01E-05 0.7693 1.67E-05 0.7676 7.58E+03 0.7676 7.48E-05 0.7676 1.67E-05 0.7657 9.10E+03 0.7657 6.94E-05 0.7657 1.67E-05 0.7636 1.09E+04 0.7636 6.39E-05 0.7636 1.67E-05 0.7611 1.31E+04 0.7611 5.84E-05 0.7611 1.67E-05 0.7582 1.57E+04 0.7582 5.28E-05 0.7582 1.67E-05 0.7547 1.89E+04 0.7547 4.73E-05 0.7547 1.67E-05 0.7504 2.26E+04 0.7504 4.18E-05 0.7504 1.67E-05 0.7453 2.72E+04 0.7453 3.64E-05 0.7453 1.67E-05 0.7390 3.26E+04 0.7390 3.12E-05 0.7390 1.67E-05 0.7314 3.91E+04 0.7314 2.63E-05 0.7314 1.67E-05 0.7221 4.70E+04 0.7221 2.17E-05 0.7221 1.67E-05 0.7111 5.63E+04 0.7111 1.75E-05 0.7111 1.67E-05 0.6980 6.76E+04 0.6980 1.38E-05 0.6980 1.67E-05 0.6827 8.11E+04 0.6827 1.06E-05 0.6827 1.67E-05 0.6651 9.74E+04 0.6651 7.91E-06 0.6651 1.67E-05 0.6453 1.17E+05 0.6453 5.75E-06 0.6453 1.67E-05 0.6233 1.40E+05 0.6233 4.07E-06 0.6233 1.67E-05 0.5994 1.68E+05 0.5994 2.81E-06 0.5994 1.67E-05 0.5740 2.02E+05 0.5740 1.88E-06 0.5740 1.67E-05 0.5475 2.42E+05 0.5475 1.24E-06 0.5475 1.67E-05 0.5203 2.91E+05 0.5203 7.96E-07 0.5203 1.67E-05 0.4928 3.49E+05 0.4928 5.02E-07 0.4928 1.67E-05 0.4655 4.19E+05 0.4655 3.12E-07 0.4655 1.67E-05 0.4387 5.02E+05 0.4387 1.91E-07 0.4387 1.67E-05 0.4126 6.03E+05 0.4126 1.16E-07 0.4126 1.67E-05 0.3875 7.23E+05 0.3875 6.98E-08 0.3875 1.67E-05 0.3635 8.68E+05 0.3635 4.17E-08 0.3635 1.67E-05 0.3406 1.04E+06 0.3406 2.47E-08 0.3406 1.67E-05 0.3189 1.25E+06 0.3189 1.46E-08 0.3189 1.67E-05 0.2985 1.50E+06 0.2985 8.59E-09 0.2985 1.67E-05 0.2793 1.80E+06 0.2793 5.04E-09 0.2793 1.67E-05 0.2612 2.16E+06 0.2612 2.95E-09 0.2612 1.67E-05


224

Table 6-39. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves - continued

Saturation (S)


Saturation (S)

Nominal Relative

Permeability (kr)

Saturation (S)

Bounding Relative

Permeability (kr)

0.2443 2.59E+06 0.2443 1.72E-09 0.2443 1.67E-05 0.2285 3.11E+06 0.2285 1.01E-09 0.2285 1.67E-05 0.2137 3.73E+06 0.2137 5.86E-10 0.2137 1.67E-05 0.1999 4.48E+06 0.1999 3.41E-10 0.1999 1.67E-05 0.1870 5.38E+06 0.1870 1.98E-10 0.1870 1.67E-05 0.1750 6.45E+06 0.1750 1.15E-10 0.1750 1.67E-05 0.1638 7.74E+06 0.1638 6.71E-11 0.1638 1.67E-05 0.1533 9.29E+06 0.1533 3.90E-11 0.1533 1.67E-05 0.1436 1.11E+07 0.1436 2.27E-11 0.1436 1.67E-05 0.1345 1.34E+07 0.1345 1.32E-11 0.1345 1.67E-05 0.1261 1.61E+07 0.1261 7.65E-12 0.1261 1.67E-05 0.1182 1.93E+07 0.1182 4.44E-12 0.1182 1.67E-05 0.1109 2.31E+07 0.1109 2.58E-12 0.1109 1.67E-05 0.1041 2.77E+07 0.1041 1.50E-12 0.1041 1.67E-05 0.0978 3.33E+07 0.0978 8.70E-13 0.0978 1.67E-05 0.0919 3.99E+07 0.0919 5.05E-13 0.0919 1.67E-05 0.0864 4.79E+07 0.0864 2.93E-13 0.0864 1.67E-05 0.0812 5.75E+07 0.0812 1.70E-13 0.0812 1.67E-05 0.0765 6.90E+07 0.0765 9.88E-14 0.0765 1.67E-05 0.0720 8.28E+07 0.0720 5.74E-14 0.0720 1.67E-05 0.0679 9.94E+07 0.0679 3.33E-14 0.0679 1.67E-05 0.0641 1.19E+08 0.0641 1.93E-14 0.0641 1.67E-05 0.0605 1.43E+08 0.0605 1.12E-14 0.0605 1.67E-05 0.0572 1.72E+08 0.0572 6.52E-15 0.0572 1.67E-05 0.0541 2.06E+08 0.0541 3.78E-15 0.0541 1.67E-05 0.0512 2.47E+08 0.0512 2.20E-15 0.0512 1.67E-05 0.0485 2.97E+08 0.0485 1.28E-15 0.0485 1.67E-05 0.0460 3.56E+08 0.0460 7.40E-16 0.0460 1.67E-05 0.0436 4.27E+08 0.0436 4.30E-16 0.0436 1.67E-05 0.0415 5.13E+08 0.0415 2.50E-16 0.0415 1.67E-05 0.0395 6.15E+08 0.0395 1.45E-16 0.0395 1.67E-05 0.0376 7.38E+08 0.0376 8.41E-17 0.0376 1.67E-05 0.0358 8.86E+08 0.0358 4.88E-17 0.0358 1.67E-05 0.0342 1.06E+09 0.0342 2.83E-17 0.0342 1.67E-05


225

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

Existing CIG GroutPotential

INL Sample GRT004Potential



Surrogate ConcretePotential

Surrogate CoarseGrained MaterialPotential

Existing CIG GroutNominal RelativePermeability

Existing CIG GroutBounding RelativePermeability

Surrogate ConcreteRelative Permeability

Surrogate CoarseGrained MaterialRelative Permeability

Figure 6-6. Existing E-Area CIG Grout Characteristic Curves

1.0E-12

1.0E-11

1.0E-10

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Saturation

Hyd

raul

ic C

ondu

ctiv

ity (c

m/s

)

Existing CIG Grout Nominal Hydraulic Conductivity

Existing CIG Grout Bounding Hydraulic Conductivity

INL Sample GRT004A Hydraulic Conductivity

INL Sample GRT004B Hydraulic Conductivity

INL Sample GRT006A Hydraulic Conductivity



INL Sample GRT008C Hydraulic Conductivity

GTX Sample GRT001 Hydraulic Conductivity



Figure 6-7. Nominal and Bounding Hydraulic Conductivity Curves


226

6.3.3.2 E-Area CLSM Table 6-27 provides the site-specific saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity laboratory data and Table 6-28 and Table 6-29 provide the water retention laboratory data for the E-Area CLSM from which characteristic curves were derived. These laboratory measurements of hydraulic conductivity (median of 1.9E-06 cm/s) and porosity (average of 32.8%) along with computed tomography (CT) scans indicate that the CLSM has significant interconnected porosity, poor cementation at the aggregate-paste boundaries and heterogeneity (Dixon and Phifer 2006). Based on these attributes, the CLSM was conceptually viewed as having soil-like properties. Characteristic curves for the CLSM were generated using RETC software, which is designed for soils, and matching the available water retention and relative permeability data. Van Genuchten parameters for the CLSM are provided in Table 6-40. Figure 6-8 shows the resulting characteristic curves (i.e., suction head and relative permeability versus saturation) for the E-Area CLSM. Water retention measurements are shown by the open symbols and relative permeability by the closed square symbols.

Table 6-40. E-Area CLSM van Genuchten Parameters

van Genuchten Parameters E-Area CLSM θr 0.05 θs 0.29 α (cm-1 of H2O) 1 0.002 n 1.7 M = (1-1/n) 0.412

Site-specific unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water retention laboratory data are not available for the new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete, the Z-Area Saltstone and the Z-Area clean grout cap. Therefore the characteristic curves for these materials will be assigned based upon the literature data provided in Section 6.1.3. For all the materials excluding the Z-Area Saltstone and the Z-Area clean grout cap, the following three characteristic curves from Section 6.1.3, which span the range of curves, have been selected to represent these materials (Figure 6-9 provides the selected curves): • Hanford Concrete (see Table 6-5) will represent low quality concretes, • Savage and Janssen 1997 Concrete Mix M69 (see Table 6-6) will represent ordinary

quality concrete, and • Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 High Performance Concrete Mix BH (see Table 6-7) will

represent high quality or high performance concretes.


227

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

CLSM Potential

GTX Water Retention Data

INL Water Retention Data

CLSM Permeability

INL Relative Permeability Data

Figure 6-8. E-Area CLSM Characteristic Curves

Table 6-41 provides a list of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials, which have no site-specific data from which to derive characteristic curves, along with the literature derived characteristic curve that will be used to represent each material. The table also includes the reason the particular curve was selected to represent each material.

6.3.3.3 Z-Area Saltstone and Z-Area Clean Grout Cap: The characteristic curves for the Z-Area Saltstone and Z-Area clean grout cap will also be assigned based upon the literature data provided in Section 6.1.3. In particular Rockhold et al. 1993 estimated the hydraulic properties for the double-shell slurry feed (DSSF) grout (i.e., grouted waste form), including characteristic curves. The DSSF grout is very similar to Saltstone and the Z-Area clean grout cap as shown in Table 6-42. The DSSF grout characteristic curve was adjusted as outlined in Section 5.4.2 to represent the Saltstone characteristic curve by Leverett scaling (Bear 1972) using the following equation:

1

2/1

12

212 ψ

ηη

ψ ×⎥⎥⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎣

⎡=

Sat

Sat

KK

, where ψ = suction head, KSat = Saturated hydraulic

conductivity, and η = porosity


228

Table 6-43 provides the Hanford DSSF Grout and Saltstone saturated hydraulic conductivities and porosities utilized to perform the Leverett scaling. This resulted in the Saltstone characteristic curves shown in Figure 6-10 (the Hanford DSSF Grout characteristic curve is provided for comparison). The characteristic curves for the Z-Area clean grout cap are assumed to be the same as that of the Saltstone due to the similarities in their formulations (see Table 6-42).

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m-H

2O)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

Hanford Concrete Potential

Savage & Janssen 1997 M69 Concrete Potential

Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 BH Concrete Potential

Hanford Concrete Permeability

Savage & Janssen 1997 M69 Concrete Permeability

Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 BH Concrete Permeability

Figure 6-9. Selected Literature Concrete Characteristic Curves


229

Table 6-41. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Characteristic Curve Representation


Characteristic Curve Representation

Reason for Selection

New E-Area CIG Grout

Hanford Concrete (i.e., low quality concrete)

Will be designed to be a high flow grout and will be placed with minimal consolidation and curing requirements

E-Area CIG Concrete Slabs

Hanford Concrete (i.e., low quality concrete)

Has a moderate WCR, placed with standard field construction practices, and is not built under the same level of quality control as major projects (see Table 4-3)

E-Area Vault Concrete (i.e., LAW And IL Vaults)

Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 High Performance Concrete Mix BH (i.e., high quality concrete)

Has a fairly low WCR, contains blast furnace slag and fly ash, and was built under strict project placement and curing requirements (see Table 4-4)

Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs

Savage and Janssen 1997 Concrete Mix M69 (i.e., ordinary quality concrete)

Has a moderate WCR but was built under a project conducted with significant quality control (see Table 4-5 and Table 4-6)

Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete


Has a low WCR, contains blast furnace slag, and was built under a project conducted with significant quality control (see Table 4-5)

Z-Area Vault 1 Roof Savage and Janssen 1997 Concrete Mix M69 (i.e., ordinary quality concrete)

Has a moderate WCR but was built under a project conducted with significant quality control (see Table 4-5)

Z-Area Vault 4 Floor And Wall



Z-Area Vault 4 Roof Savage and Janssen 1997 Concrete Mix M69 (i.e., ordinary quality concrete)


Z-Area Vault 2 and Future Vault Concrete


Will have a low WCR, will contain blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume, and will be built under a project conducted with significant quality control (see Table 4-7)


230

Table 6-42. Hanford DSSF Grout, Z-Area Saltstone, and Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Comparison

Ingredient Hanford DSSF Grout Nominal

Quantity (wt%) 1

Saltstone Nominal Quantity

(wt%)

Clean Grout Cap Nominal Quantity

(wt%)

Water or Salt solution

55 47 2 37.5 3

Blast furnace slag 21.2 25 28.125 Fly ash 21.2 25 28.125 Cement 1.35 3 6.250 1 Assumes a 45/55 mix of solution to dry cementitious material (i.e., blast furnace slag, fly

ash, and cement) based upon the use of 8.5 pounds of dry cementitious material per gallon of simulated salt solution containing 26 wt% salts (~10.5 pounds) (see Section 6.1.3)

2 Average 28% by weight salts (see Table 4-8) 3 No salt content (see Table 4-9)

Table 6-43. Hanford DSSF Grout and Saltstone Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities and Porosities Utilized for Leverett Scaling

Parameter Hanford DSSF Grout Saltstone Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/s

1.47E-08 (from Table 6-5)

1.0E-11 (from Table 6-36)

Porosity, % 57.81 (from Table 6-5)

42.3 (from Table 6-34)


231

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Saturation

Suct

ion

Hea

d (c

m)

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rmea

bilit

y

DSSF Grout Potential

Saltstone Potential

DSSF Grout Relative Permeability

Saltstone Permeability

Figure 6-10. Saltstone and Hanford DSSF Grout Characteristic Curves

6.3.4 Saturated Effective Diffusivity The only cementitious material for which site-specific saturated effective diffusivity data exists is Saltstone. The saturated effective diffusivity data for all the other cementitious materials must be derived from literature values. As outlined in Section 6.2.2 Saltstone diffusivity testing was conducted by Langton (1986 and 1987). Based upon these data an overall average Saltstone effective diffusion coefficient of 3.9E-09 cm2/s was measured (see Table 6-17). Based upon these measurements a Saltstone effective diffusion coefficient of 5.0E-09 cm2/s will be assumed. Due to the similarities between the Saltstone and Z-Area clean grout cap (see Table 6-42), the Z-Area clean grout cap will be assigned the same saturated effective diffusion coefficient as Saltstone (i.e., 5.0E-09 cm2/s). The new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete are considered fairly typical cementitious materials for which the saturated effective diffusivity coefficient can be reasonably derived from literature values presented in Section 6.1.4.


232

As concluded in Section 6.1.4, the saturated effective diffusion coefficients of typical cementitious materials range from approximately 1.0E-08 to 5.0E-07 cm2/s (see Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11). This is a relatively narrow range at just over one order of magnitude, particularly in comparison to the range of saturated hydraulic conductivities for cementitious materials. This data clearly show that the effective diffusion coefficient decreases with decreasing WCR and with the addition of fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica fume. Based upon this information the three categories of cementitious materials outlined in Table 6-44 will be established in order to assign appropriate saturated effective diffusivity coefficients to each of these E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials. Table 6-45 provides the resulting saturated effective diffusivity coefficient assignments for each of these materials along with its justification. While the existing E-Area CIG grout and E-Area CLSM are cementitious materials, it is not considered appropriate to assign these materials saturated effective diffusivity coefficients based strictly upon the cementitious material literature for the following reasons: • As outlined in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, the existing E-Area CIG grout porosity consists

of a small fraction of macropores (~15% of material volume characterized as containing macropores) with a high hydraulic conductivity that results in rapid drainage and a larger fraction of micropores (~85% of material volume characterized as containing micropores) with a relatively low hydraulic conductivity that drain slowly. Therefore in terms of a saturated effective diffusion coefficient, the E-Area CIG grout probably behaves more like a combination of ~15% sand containing macropores and ~85% cementitious material containing micropore than solely a cementitious material.

• As outlined in Section 6.3.2, the E-Area CLSM has a saturated hydraulic conductivity (median of 1.9E-06 cm/s) similar to that of the clay (>50% mud) discussed in Section 5.2 and Table 5-18 (2.0E-06 cm/s). Additionally as outlined in Section 6.3.3.2, the E-Area CLSM has significant interconnected porosity, poor cementation at the aggregate-paste boundaries and heterogeneity, which make the CLSM appear to have soil-like properties. Finally the fly ash used in the CLSM is a relatively fine grained material. Therefore, in terms of a saturated effective diffusion coefficient, the E-Area CLSM probably behaves more like a clayey soil than a cementitious material.

Based upon this reasoning, the saturated effective diffusion coefficient for the existing E-Area CIG grout will be calculated as though it consists of 15% sand with a De of 8.0E-06 cm2/s (see Section 5.2.5 and Table 5-12) and 85% cementitious material with a De of 8.0E-07 cm2/s (see Table 6-44 for the low quality concrete De). This results in a De of 1.9E-06 cm2/s for the existing E-Area CIG grout as shown below:

( ) ( ) scmEEscmEDe /069.1060.815.0/070.885.0 2 −=−×+−×= Additionally based upon this reasoning, the E-Area CLSM will be assigned the same saturated effective diffusion coefficient as the Section 5.2.5 and Table 5-12 clay (>50% mud), which is 4.0E-06 cm2/s.


233

Table 6-46 presents a summary of the saturated effective diffusion coefficient assigned to each of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials.

Table 6-44. Cementitious Material Categories for Assignment of Representative Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient

Cementitious Material Category

Description Representative Saturated Effective Diffusion

Coefficient (cm2/s)

Justification

Low Quality Concrete

Does not contain fly ash, blast furnace slag, and/or silica fume; little placement quality control

8.0E-07 Slightly greater than the highest diffusion coefficient of 5.0E-07 cm2/s from Table 6-9, Table 6-10, and Table 6-11

Ordinary Quality Concrete

Low to moderate WCR; does not contain fly ash, blast furnace slag, and/or silica fume; good placement quality control

1.0E-07 Represents the upper two thirds of the diffusion coefficient range of 1.0E-08 to 5.0E-07 cm2/s

High Quality Concrete

Relatively low WCR; contains fly ash, blast furnace slag, and/or silica fume; good placement quality control

5.0E-08 Consistent with Figure 6-5 concretes and mortars containing fly ash, blast furnace slag, and/or silica fume; and 5 times greater than the lower range of diffusion coefficients


234

Table 6-45. E-Area and Z-Area Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Representation Summary


Effective Diffusion Coefficient

Representation

Reason for Selection

New E-Area CIG Grout

Low Quality Concrete with De = 8.0E-07 cm2/s

Will be designed to be a high flow grout and will be placed with minimal consolidation and curing requirements


Low Quality Concrete with De = 8.0E-07 cm2/s

Has a moderate WCR, placed with standard field construction practices, and is not built under the same level of quality control as major projects (see Table 4-3)

E-Area Vault Concrete (i.e., LAW And IL Vaults)

High Quality Concrete with De = 5.0E-08 cm2/s

Has a fairly low WCR, contains blast furnace slag and fly ash, and was built under strict project placement and curing requirements (see Table 4-4)


Ordinary Quality Concrete with De = 1.0E-07 cm2/s


Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete



Z-Area Vault 1 Roof Ordinary Quality Concrete with De = 1.0E-07 cm2/s


Z-Area Vault 4 Floor And Wall



Z-Area Vault 4 Roof Ordinary Quality Concrete with De = 1.0E-07 cm2/s


Z-Area Vault 2 and Future Vault Concrete


Will have a low WCR, will contain blast furnace slag, fly ash, and silica fume, and will be built under a project conducted with significant quality control (see Table 4-7)


235

Table 6-46. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Representation Summary

Cementitious Material Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient(cm2/s)

Existing E-Area CIG Grout 1.9E-06 New E-Area CIG Grout 8.0E-07 E-Area CLSM 4.0E-06 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 8.0E-07 E-Area Vault Concrete 5.0E-08 Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 Work Slabs 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault 1 Floor and Wall Concrete 5.0E-08 Z-Area Vault 1 Roof 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault 4 Floor and Wall Concrete 5.0E-08 Z-Area Vault 4 Roof 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault 2 and Future Vault Concrete 5.0E-08 Z-Area Saltstone 5.0E-09 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap 5.0E-09


236

6.3.5 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Nominal Property Summary

Table 6-47 and Table 6-48 provide a summary of the recommended nominal cementitious material hydraulic properties for use to model flow associated with various E-Area and Z-Area disposal units (see Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.4 for development of the nominal values). As indicated in Table 6-48 slight modifications have been made to the recommended values for the existing E-Area CIG grout and the E-Area CLSM from that originally used within the GIG Trench flow models. The original values were based upon preliminary laboratory data, whereas the current values are based upon final laboratory data. The differences are considered so small that it is not recommended that the CIG models be revised with the currently recommended values.


237

Table 6-47. E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Nominal Cementitious Material Hydraulic Property Values

Material Effective Porosity, η (%)

Dry Bulk

Density, ρb

(g/cm3)

Particle Density,

ρp (g/cm3)

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity, Ksat (cm/s)

Characteristic Curves Saturated Effective Diffusion

Coefficient, De (cm2/s)

Existing E-Area CIG Grout (Segments 1 - 8 only)

22.4; 23.5 3

1.79; 1.85 3

2.31; 2.41 3

4.5E-05 1; 6.0E-04 2; 4.2E-05 1,3

Table 6-48 Existing E-Area CIG Grout 1.9E-06

New E-Area CIG Grout (i.e., Segments beyond Segment 8)

21.1 2.06 2.61 1.0E-08 Table 6-48 Low Quality Concrete 8.0E-07

E-Area CLSM 32.8; 33.0 3

1.78 2.65; 2.67 3

2.2E-06; 1.9E-06 3

Table 6-48 E-Area CLSM 4.0E-06

E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 21.1 2.06 2.61 1.0E-08 Table 6-48 Low Quality Concrete 8.0E-07 E-Area Vault Concrete 18.4 2.11 2.59 1.0E-12 Table 6-48 High Quality Concrete 5.0E-08 Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab 13.6 2.22 2.57 5.0E-09 Table 6-48 Ordinary Quality Concrete 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault #1 Floor and Wall Concrete

18.1 2.21 2.70 2.0E-09 Table 6-48High Quality Concrete 5.0E-08

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof 14.5 2.20 2.57 5.0E-09 Table 6-48 Ordinary Quality Concrete 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

18.1 2.21 2.70 1.0E-10 Table 6-48 High Quality Concrete 5.0E-08

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof 13.6 2.21 2.56 5.0E-09 Table 6-48 Ordinary Quality Concrete 1.0E-07 Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

18.4 2.11 2.59 1.0E-10 Table 6-48 High Quality Concrete 5.0E-08

Z-Area Saltstone 42.3 1.26 2.18 1.0E-11 Table 6-48 Z-Area Saltstone 5.0E-09 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap 42.3 1.26 2.18 1.0E-11 Table 6-48 Z-Area Saltstone 5.0E-09

1 Ksat for use with Nominal Relative Permeability Curve 2 Ksat for use with Bounding Relative Permeability Curve 3 Values based upon preliminary laboratory data which was used within the CIG modeling


238

Table 6-48. E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Cementitious Material Characteristic Curves

Existing E-Area CIG Grout (Segments 1 - 8 only) E-Area CLSM Saturation

S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)

Nominal Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 4.5E-05 cm/s)

Bounding Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 6.0E-04 cm/s)

Saturation S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)


kr 1

1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.9999 5.00E-02 7.52E-01 9.72E-01 1.0000 1.00E-01 9.95E-01 0.9997 1.00E-01 6.82E-01 9.29E-01 1.0000 5.00E-01 9.84E-01 0.9993 2.00E-01 5.93E-01 8.29E-01 1.0000 1.00E+00 9.74E-01 0.9976 5.00E-01 4.44E-01 5.26E-01 1.0000 2.00E+00 9.58E-01 0.9940 1.00E+00 3.13E-01 2.08E-01 0.9999 5.00E+00 9.22E-01 0.9925 1.20E+00 2.78E-01 1.46E-01 0.9996 1.00E+01 8.75E-01 0.9906 1.44E+00 2.44E-01 9.99E-02 0.9986 2.00E+01 8.01E-01 0.9884 1.73E+00 2.11E-01 6.19E-02 0.9972 3.00E+01 7.40E-01 0.9856 2.07E+00 1.79E-01 3.37E-02 0.9954 4.00E+01 6.87E-01 0.9824 2.49E+00 1.50E-01 1.66E-02 0.9933 5.00E+01 6.41E-01 0.9785 2.99E+00 1.23E-01 8.20E-03 0.9909 6.00E+01 5.99E-01 0.9741 3.58E+00 9.86E-02 3.60E-03 0.9882 7.00E+01 5.60E-01 0.9690 4.30E+00 7.78E-02 1.50E-03 0.9853 8.00E+01 5.25E-01 0.9631 5.16E+00 6.02E-02 7.62E-04 0.9822 9.00E+01 4.92E-01 0.9566 6.19E+00 4.57E-02 3.90E-04 0.9789 1.00E+02 4.62E-01 0.9494 7.43E+00 3.41E-02 1.95E-04 0.9735 1.15E+02 4.21E-01 0.9415 8.92E+00 2.50E-02 1.18E-04 0.9678 1.30E+02 3.84E-01 0.9330 1.07E+01 1.80E-02 7.33E-05 0.9617 1.45E+02 3.50E-01 0.9240 1.28E+01 1.29E-02 4.95E-05 0.9554 1.60E+02 3.20E-01 0.9147 1.54E+01 9.14E-03 3.56E-05 0.9488 1.75E+02 2.93E-01 0.9052 1.85E+01 6.46E-03 2.57E-05 0.9420 1.90E+02 2.68E-01 0.8956 2.22E+01 4.58E-03 2.06E-05 0.9374 2.00E+02 2.53E-01 0.8863 2.66E+01 3.26E-03 1.85E-05 0.9134 2.50E+02 1.91E-01 0.8772 3.19E+01 2.35E-03 1.79E-05 0.8888 3.00E+02 1.45E-01 0.8685 3.83E+01 1.72E-03 1.75E-05 0.8401 4.00E+02 8.62E-02 0.8602 4.60E+01 1.28E-03 1.72E-05 0.7945 5.00E+02 5.35E-02 0.8525 5.52E+01 9.74E-04 1.70E-05 0.7532 6.00E+02 3.44E-02 0.8453 6.62E+01 7.57E-04 1.69E-05 0.7163 7.00E+02 2.30E-02 0.8386 7.95E+01 6.02E-04 1.68E-05 0.6835 8.00E+02 1.58E-02 0.8324 9.54E+01 4.89E-04 1.67E-05 0.6544 9.00E+02 1.12E-02 0.8267 1.14E+02 4.06E-04 1.67E-05 0.6286 1.00E+03 8.12E-03 0.8214 1.37E+02 3.44E-04 1.67E-05 0.5948 1.15E+03 5.23E-03 0.8166 1.65E+02 2.98E-04 1.66E-05 0.5622 1.32E+03 3.32E-03 0.8122 1.98E+02 2.62E-04 1.67E-05 0.5309 1.52E+03 2.08E-03 0.8081 2.37E+02 2.34E-04 1.67E-05 0.5013 1.75E+03 1.29E-03 0.8043 2.85E+02 2.11E-04 1.67E-05 0.4734 2.01E+03 7.93E-04 0.8009 3.42E+02 1.94E-04 1.67E-05 0.4475 2.31E+03 4.84E-04 0.7978 4.10E+02 1.79E-04 1.67E-05 0.4233 2.66E+03 2.93E-04


239

Table 6-48. E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Cementitious Material Characteristic Curves - continued


S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)

Nominal Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 4.5E-05 cm/s)

Bounding Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 6.0E-04 cm/s)

Saturation S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)


kr 1

0.7949 4.92E+02 1.67E-04 1.67E-05 0.4010 3.06E+03 1.77E-04 0.7922 5.91E+02 1.57E-04 1.67E-05 0.3805 3.52E+03 1.06E-04 0.7898 7.09E+02 1.48E-04 1.67E-05 0.3617 4.05E+03 6.37E-05 0.7875 8.51E+02 1.40E-04 1.67E-05 0.3445 4.65E+03 3.81E-05 0.7854 1.02E+03 1.33E-04 1.67E-05 0.3288 5.35E+03 2.27E-05 0.7835 1.22E+03 1.27E-04 1.67E-05 0.3144 6.15E+03 1.35E-05 0.7816 1.47E+03 1.21E-04 1.67E-05 0.3013 7.08E+03 8.06E-06 0.7799 1.76E+03 1.16E-04 1.67E-05 0.2894 8.14E+03 4.79E-06 0.7783 2.12E+03 1.11E-04 1.67E-05 0.2786 9.36E+03 2.84E-06 0.7768 2.54E+03 1.06E-04 1.67E-05 0.2688 1.08E+04 1.69E-06 0.7753 3.05E+03 1.01E-04 1.67E-05 0.2598 1.24E+04 1.00E-06 0.7738 3.66E+03 9.55E-05 1.67E-05 0.2517 1.42E+04 5.93E-07 0.7724 4.39E+03 9.04E-05 1.67E-05 0.2443 1.64E+04 3.52E-07 0.7709 5.27E+03 8.53E-05 1.67E-05 0.2376 1.88E+04 2.08E-07 0.7693 6.32E+03 8.01E-05 1.67E-05 0.2316 2.16E+04 1.24E-07 0.7676 7.58E+03 7.48E-05 1.67E-05 0.2261 2.49E+04 7.32E-08 0.7657 9.10E+03 6.94E-05 1.67E-05 0.2211 2.86E+04 4.33E-08 0.7636 1.09E+04 6.39E-05 1.67E-05 0.2165 3.29E+04 2.57E-08 0.7611 1.31E+04 5.84E-05 1.67E-05 0.2124 3.79E+04 1.52E-08 0.7582 1.57E+04 5.28E-05 1.67E-05 0.2087 4.35E+04 9.00E-09 0.7547 1.89E+04 4.73E-05 1.67E-05 0.2053 5.01E+04 5.33E-09 0.7504 2.26E+04 4.18E-05 1.67E-05 0.2023 5.76E+04 3.16E-09 0.7453 2.72E+04 3.64E-05 1.67E-05 0.1995 6.62E+04 1.87E-09 0.7390 3.26E+04 3.12E-05 1.67E-05 0.1970 7.61E+04 1.11E-09 0.7314 3.91E+04 2.63E-05 1.67E-05 0.1947 8.76E+04 6.56E-10 0.7221 4.70E+04 2.17E-05 1.67E-05 0.1926 1.01E+05 3.88E-10 0.7111 5.63E+04 1.75E-05 1.67E-05 0.1907 1.16E+05 2.30E-10 0.6980 6.76E+04 1.38E-05 1.67E-05 0.1890 1.33E+05 1.36E-10 0.6827 8.11E+04 1.06E-05 1.67E-05 0.1875 1.53E+05 8.06E-11 0.6651 9.74E+04 7.91E-06 1.67E-05 0.1861 1.76E+05 4.77E-11 0.6453 1.17E+05 5.75E-06 1.67E-05 0.1848 2.03E+05 2.82E-11 0.6233 1.40E+05 4.07E-06 1.67E-05 0.1836 2.33E+05 1.67E-11 0.5994 1.68E+05 2.81E-06 1.67E-05 0.1826 2.68E+05 9.90E-12 0.5740 2.02E+05 1.88E-06 1.67E-05 0.1816 3.08E+05 5.86E-12 0.5475 2.42E+05 1.24E-06 1.67E-05 0.1808 3.54E+05 3.47E-12 0.5203 2.91E+05 7.96E-07 1.67E-05 0.1800 4.07E+05 2.06E-12 0.4928 3.49E+05 5.02E-07 1.67E-05 0.1793 4.68E+05 1.22E-12 0.4655 4.19E+05 3.12E-07 1.67E-05 0.1787 5.39E+05 7.21E-13 0.4387 5.02E+05 1.91E-07 1.67E-05 0.1781 6.20E+05 4.27E-13 0.4126 6.03E+05 1.16E-07 1.67E-05 0.1775 7.13E+05 2.53E-13 0.3875 7.23E+05 6.98E-08 1.67E-05 0.1771 8.19E+05 1.50E-13


240



S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)

Nominal Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 4.5E-05 cm/s)

Bounding Relative

Permeability kr 1

(Ksat = 6.0E-04 cm/s)

Saturation S 1

Suction Head

ψ (cm)


kr 1

0.3635 8.68E+05 4.17E-08 1.67E-05 0.1766 9.42E+05 8.86E-14 0.3406 1.04E+06 2.47E-08 1.67E-05 0.1765 1.00E+06 7.09E-14 0.3189 1.25E+06 1.46E-08 1.67E-05 0.1755 1.50E+06 1.55E-14 0.2985 1.50E+06 8.59E-09 1.67E-05 0.1749 2.00E+06 5.27E-15 0.2793 1.80E+06 5.04E-09 1.67E-05 0.1743 3.00E+06 1.15E-15 0.2612 2.16E+06 2.95E-09 1.67E-05 0.1739 4.00E+06 3.91E-16 0.2443 2.59E+06 1.72E-09 1.67E-05 0.1737 5.00E+06 1.70E-16 0.2285 3.11E+06 1.01E-09 1.67E-05 0.1736 6.00E+06 8.56E-17 0.2137 3.73E+06 5.86E-10 1.67E-05 0.1735 7.00E+06 4.80E-17 0.1999 4.48E+06 3.41E-10 1.67E-05 0.1734 8.00E+06 2.91E-17 0.1870 5.38E+06 1.98E-10 1.67E-05 0.1733 9.00E+06 1.87E-17 0.1750 6.45E+06 1.15E-10 1.67E-05 0.1732 1.00E+07 1.26E-17 0.1638 7.74E+06 6.71E-11 1.67E-05 0.1727 5.00E+07 3.02E-20 0.1533 9.29E+06 3.90E-11 1.67E-05 0.1726 1.00E+08 2.24E-21 0.1436 1.11E+07 2.27E-11 1.67E-05 0.1725 5.00E+08 5.36E-24 0.1345 1.34E+07 1.32E-11 1.67E-05 0.1724 1.00E+09 3.99E-25 0.1261 1.61E+07 7.65E-12 1.67E-05 0.1182 1.93E+07 4.44E-12 1.67E-05 0.1109 2.31E+07 2.58E-12 1.67E-05 0.1041 2.77E+07 1.50E-12 1.67E-05 0.0978 3.33E+07 8.70E-13 1.67E-05 0.0919 3.99E+07 5.05E-13 1.67E-05 0.0864 4.79E+07 2.93E-13 1.67E-05 0.0812 5.75E+07 1.70E-13 1.67E-05 0.0765 6.90E+07 9.88E-14 1.67E-05 0.0720 8.28E+07 5.74E-14 1.67E-05 0.0679 9.94E+07 3.33E-14 1.67E-05 0.0641 1.19E+08 1.93E-14 1.67E-05 0.0605 1.43E+08 1.12E-14 1.67E-05 0.0572 1.72E+08 6.52E-15 1.67E-05 0.0541 2.06E+08 3.78E-15 1.67E-05 0.0512 2.47E+08 2.20E-15 1.67E-05 0.0485 2.97E+08 1.28E-15 1.67E-05 0.0460 3.56E+08 7.40E-16 1.67E-05 0.0436 4.27E+08 4.30E-16 1.67E-05 0.0415 5.13E+08 2.50E-16 1.67E-05 0.0395 6.15E+08 1.45E-16 1.67E-05 0.0376 7.38E+08 8.41E-17 1.67E-05 0.0358 8.86E+08 4.88E-17 1.67E-05 0.0342 1.06E+09 2.83E-17 1.67E-05


241


Low Quality Concrete (Hanford Concrete) Ordinary Quality Concrete (Savage and Janssen 1997 Concrete Mix M69)

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1.0000 5.00E-02 9.94E-01 1.0000 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E-01 9.92E-01 1.0000 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E-01 9.90E-01 1.0000 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E-01 9.85E-01 1.0000 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E+00 9.81E-01 1.0000 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E+00 9.75E-01 1.0000 2.00E+00 9.99E-01 1.0000 5.00E+00 9.64E-01 1.0000 5.00E+00 9.99E-01 1.0000 1.00E+01 9.52E-01 1.0000 1.00E+01 9.98E-01 1.0000 2.00E+01 9.38E-01 1.0000 2.00E+01 9.97E-01 1.0000 5.00E+01 9.11E-01 1.0000 5.00E+01 9.94E-01 1.0000 1.00E+02 8.85E-01 1.0000 1.00E+02 9.91E-01 1.0000 2.00E+02 8.50E-01 1.0000 2.00E+02 9.86E-01 0.9999 5.00E+02 7.89E-01 1.0000 5.00E+02 9.74E-01 0.9997 1.00E+03 7.28E-01 1.0000 1.00E+03 9.60E-01 0.9996 1.15E+03 7.13E-01 1.0000 1.15E+03 9.56E-01 0.9995 1.32E+03 6.99E-01 1.0000 1.32E+03 9.51E-01 0.9994 1.52E+03 6.83E-01 1.0000 1.52E+03 9.47E-01 0.9993 1.75E+03 6.67E-01 0.9999 1.75E+03 9.42E-01 0.9992 2.01E+03 6.50E-01 0.9999 2.01E+03 9.36E-01 0.9990 2.31E+03 6.33E-01 0.9999 2.31E+03 9.30E-01 0.9988 2.66E+03 6.15E-01 0.9999 2.66E+03 9.23E-01 0.9985 3.06E+03 5.96E-01 0.9998 3.06E+03 9.16E-01 0.9982 3.52E+03 5.76E-01 0.9998 3.52E+03 9.08E-01 0.9978 4.05E+03 5.56E-01 0.9998 4.05E+03 8.99E-01 0.9973 4.65E+03 5.35E-01 0.9997 4.65E+03 8.90E-01 0.9968 5.35E+03 5.13E-01 0.9996 5.35E+03 8.79E-01 0.9961 6.15E+03 4.90E-01 0.9995 6.15E+03 8.68E-01 0.9952 7.08E+03 4.67E-01 0.9994 7.08E+03 8.55E-01 0.9942 8.14E+03 4.43E-01 0.9992 8.14E+03 8.42E-01 0.9930 9.36E+03 4.19E-01 0.9990 9.36E+03 8.27E-01 0.9915 1.08E+04 3.94E-01 0.9988 1.08E+04 8.11E-01 0.9897 1.24E+04 3.69E-01 0.9984 1.24E+04 7.94E-01 0.9876 1.42E+04 3.43E-01 0.9980 1.42E+04 7.75E-01 0.9850 1.64E+04 3.17E-01 0.9975 1.64E+04 7.54E-01 0.9819 1.88E+04 2.92E-01 0.9969 1.88E+04 7.32E-01 0.9782 2.16E+04 2.66E-01 0.9961 2.16E+04 7.09E-01 0.9738 2.49E+04 2.40E-01 0.9950 2.49E+04 6.83E-01 0.9686 2.86E+04 2.15E-01 0.9938 2.86E+04 6.55E-01 0.9624 3.29E+04 1.91E-01 0.9922 3.29E+04 6.26E-01 0.9551 3.79E+04 1.68E-01 0.9901 3.79E+04 5.95E-01


242



Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1 0.9466 4.35E+04 1.46E-01 0.9876 4.35E+04 5.61E-01 0.9367 5.01E+04 1.25E-01 0.9844 5.01E+04 5.26E-01 0.9253 5.76E+04 1.05E-01 0.9805 5.76E+04 4.89E-01 0.9122 6.62E+04 8.78E-02 0.9756 6.62E+04 4.51E-01 0.8974 7.61E+04 7.21E-02 0.9695 7.61E+04 4.11E-01 0.8808 8.76E+04 5.82E-02 0.9621 8.76E+04 3.70E-01 0.8624 1.01E+05 4.63E-02 0.9529 1.01E+05 3.29E-01 0.8421 1.16E+05 3.62E-02 0.9418 1.16E+05 2.89E-01 0.8202 1.33E+05 2.79E-02 0.9284 1.33E+05 2.49E-01 0.7967 1.53E+05 2.11E-02 0.9124 1.53E+05 2.10E-01 0.7719 1.76E+05 1.58E-02 0.8935 1.76E+05 1.74E-01 0.7459 2.03E+05 1.16E-02 0.8715 2.03E+05 1.42E-01 0.7190 2.33E+05 8.41E-03 0.8462 2.33E+05 1.12E-01 0.6915 2.68E+05 6.03E-03 0.8177 2.68E+05 8.68E-02 0.6637 3.08E+05 4.27E-03 0.7861 3.08E+05 6.55E-02 0.6357 3.54E+05 2.99E-03 0.7517 3.54E+05 4.82E-02 0.6079 4.07E+05 2.08E-03 0.7149 4.07E+05 3.46E-02 0.5805 4.68E+05 1.43E-03 0.6763 4.68E+05 2.43E-02 0.5535 5.39E+05 9.81E-04 0.6365 5.39E+05 1.66E-02 0.5272 6.20E+05 6.67E-04 0.5963 6.20E+05 1.12E-02 0.5016 7.13E+05 4.52E-04 0.5562 7.13E+05 7.37E-03 0.4769 8.19E+05 3.04E-04 0.5168 8.19E+05 4.79E-03 0.4530 9.42E+05 2.04E-04 0.4785 9.42E+05 3.06E-03 0.4301 1.08E+06 1.37E-04 0.4419 1.08E+06 1.94E-03 0.4082 1.25E+06 9.13E-05 0.4070 1.25E+06 1.21E-03 0.3871 1.43E+06 6.08E-05 0.3741 1.43E+06 7.53E-04 0.3671 1.65E+06 4.05E-05 0.3433 1.65E+06 4.65E-04 0.3480 1.90E+06 2.69E-05 0.3146 1.90E+06 2.85E-04 0.3298 2.18E+06 1.78E-05 0.2880 2.18E+06 1.74E-04 0.3124 2.51E+06 1.18E-05 0.2634 2.51E+06 1.06E-04 0.2960 2.88E+06 7.81E-06 0.2407 2.88E+06 6.41E-05 0.2804 3.31E+06 5.16E-06 0.2198 3.31E+06 3.88E-05 0.2655 3.81E+06 3.41E-06 0.2006 3.81E+06 2.34E-05 0.2514 4.38E+06 2.25E-06 0.1831 4.38E+06 1.41E-05 0.2381 5.04E+06 1.49E-06 0.1670 5.04E+06 8.50E-06 0.2254 5.80E+06 9.83E-07 0.1523 5.80E+06 5.11E-06 0.2134 6.67E+06 6.49E-07 0.1389 6.67E+06 3.07E-06 0.2021 7.67E+06 4.28E-07 0.1266 7.67E+06 1.84E-06 0.1913 8.82E+06 2.82E-07 0.1154 8.82E+06 1.11E-06 0.1811 1.01E+07 1.86E-07 0.1052 1.01E+07 6.65E-07 0.1715 1.17E+07 1.23E-07 0.0959 1.17E+07 3.99E-07


243



Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1 0.1623 1.34E+07 8.10E-08 0.0874 1.34E+07 2.39E-07 0.1536 1.54E+07 5.34E-08 0.0796 1.54E+07 1.43E-07 0.1454 1.77E+07 3.52E-08 0.0726 1.77E+07 8.59E-08 0.1377 2.04E+07 2.32E-08 0.0661 2.04E+07 5.15E-08 0.1303 2.35E+07 1.53E-08 0.0602 2.35E+07 3.09E-08 0.1234 2.70E+07 1.01E-08 0.0549 2.70E+07 1.85E-08 0.1168 3.10E+07 6.65E-09 0.0500 3.10E+07 1.11E-08 0.1105 3.57E+07 4.39E-09 0.0456 3.57E+07 6.65E-09 0.1046 4.10E+07 2.89E-09 0.0415 4.10E+07 3.98E-09 0.0990 4.72E+07 1.91E-09 0.0378 4.72E+07 2.39E-09 0.0937 5.43E+07 1.26E-09 0.0345 5.43E+07 1.43E-09 0.0887 6.24E+07 8.28E-10 0.0314 6.24E+07 8.57E-10 0.0840 7.18E+07 5.46E-10 0.0286 7.18E+07 5.13E-10 0.0795 8.25E+07 3.60E-10 0.0261 8.25E+07 3.08E-10 0.0753 9.49E+07 2.37E-10 0.0238 9.49E+07 1.84E-10 0.0712 1.09E+08 1.56E-10 0.0216 1.09E+08 1.10E-10 0.0674 1.25E+08 1.03E-10 0.0197 1.25E+08 6.62E-11 0.0638 1.44E+08 6.79E-11 0.0180 1.44E+08 3.97E-11 0.0604 1.66E+08 4.48E-11 0.0164 1.66E+08 2.38E-11 0.0572 1.91E+08 2.95E-11 0.0149 1.91E+08 1.42E-11 0.0541 2.19E+08 1.94E-11 0.0136 2.19E+08 8.53E-12 0.0512 2.52E+08 1.28E-11 0.0124 2.52E+08 5.11E-12 0.0485 2.90E+08 8.45E-12 0.0113 2.90E+08 3.06E-12 0.0459 3.34E+08 5.57E-12 0.0103 3.34E+08 1.83E-12 0.0435 3.84E+08 3.67E-12 0.0094 3.84E+08 1.10E-12 0.0411 4.41E+08 2.42E-12 0.0085 4.41E+08 6.59E-13 0.0389 5.08E+08 1.59E-12 0.0078 5.08E+08 3.95E-13 0.0369 5.84E+08 1.05E-12 0.0071 5.84E+08 2.36E-13 0.0349 6.71E+08 6.93E-13 0.0065 6.71E+08 1.42E-13 0.0330 7.72E+08 4.57E-13 0.0059 7.72E+08 8.49E-14 0.0313 8.88E+08 3.01E-13 0.0054 8.88E+08 5.09E-14 0.0296 1.02E+09 1.98E-13 0.0049 1.02E+09 3.05E-14


244


High Quality Concrete (Baroghel-Bouny et al. 1999 High Performance Concrete Mix BH)

Z-Area Saltstone (Derived from Rockhold et al. 1993 Hanford DSSF Grout)

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

1 0 1 1 0 1 1.0000 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.0000 1.00E+01 9.99E-01 1.0000 2.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.0000 2.00E+01 9.99E-01 1.0000 5.00E+01 1.00E+00 1.0000 5.00E+01 9.98E-01 1.0000 1.00E+02 9.99E-01 1.0000 1.00E+02 9.98E-01 1.0000 2.00E+02 9.99E-01 1.0000 2.00E+02 9.96E-01 1.0000 5.00E+02 9.97E-01 1.0000 5.00E+02 9.93E-01 1.0000 1.00E+03 9.94E-01 1.0000 1.00E+03 9.89E-01 1.0000 1.15E+03 9.93E-01 1.0000 1.15E+03 9.88E-01 1.0000 1.32E+03 9.92E-01 1.0000 1.32E+03 9.87E-01 1.0000 1.52E+03 9.91E-01 1.0000 1.52E+03 9.86E-01 1.0000 1.75E+03 9.90E-01 1.0000 1.75E+03 9.84E-01 1.0000 2.01E+03 9.89E-01 1.0000 2.01E+03 9.83E-01 1.0000 2.31E+03 9.87E-01 1.0000 2.31E+03 9.81E-01 1.0000 2.66E+03 9.85E-01 1.0000 2.66E+03 9.80E-01 1.0000 3.06E+03 9.83E-01 1.0000 3.06E+03 9.78E-01 1.0000 3.52E+03 9.81E-01 1.0000 3.52E+03 9.75E-01 1.0000 4.05E+03 9.78E-01 1.0000 4.05E+03 9.73E-01 0.9999 4.65E+03 9.75E-01 1.0000 4.65E+03 9.71E-01 0.9999 5.35E+03 9.71E-01 1.0000 5.35E+03 9.68E-01 0.9999 6.15E+03 9.67E-01 1.0000 6.15E+03 9.65E-01 0.9999 7.08E+03 9.63E-01 1.0000 7.08E+03 9.61E-01 0.9998 8.14E+03 9.58E-01 1.0000 8.14E+03 9.58E-01 0.9998 9.36E+03 9.52E-01 1.0000 9.36E+03 9.54E-01 0.9997 1.08E+04 9.45E-01 1.0000 1.08E+04 9.50E-01 0.9996 1.24E+04 9.37E-01 1.0000 1.24E+04 9.45E-01 0.9995 1.42E+04 9.29E-01 0.9999 1.42E+04 9.40E-01 0.9993 1.64E+04 9.19E-01 0.9999 1.64E+04 9.34E-01 0.9991 1.88E+04 9.08E-01 0.9999 1.88E+04 9.28E-01 0.9988 2.16E+04 8.95E-01 0.9999 2.16E+04 9.21E-01 0.9985 2.49E+04 8.80E-01 0.9999 2.49E+04 9.14E-01 0.9980 2.86E+04 8.64E-01 0.9998 2.86E+04 9.06E-01 0.9973 3.29E+04 8.46E-01 0.9998 3.29E+04 8.97E-01 0.9965 3.79E+04 8.25E-01 0.9997 3.79E+04 8.88E-01


245




Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1 0.9954 4.35E+04 8.02E-01 0.9996 4.35E+04 8.77E-01 0.9940 5.01E+04 7.76E-01 0.9995 5.01E+04 8.66E-01 0.9922 5.76E+04 7.46E-01 0.9994 5.76E+04 8.54E-01 0.9898 6.62E+04 7.14E-01 0.9993 6.62E+04 8.40E-01 0.9867 7.61E+04 6.78E-01 0.9991 7.61E+04 8.26E-01 0.9826 8.76E+04 6.38E-01 0.9989 8.76E+04 8.10E-01 0.9774 1.01E+05 5.95E-01 0.9986 1.01E+05 7.93E-01 0.9707 1.16E+05 5.48E-01 0.9982 1.16E+05 7.75E-01 0.9621 1.33E+05 4.98E-01 0.9977 1.33E+05 7.55E-01 0.9511 1.53E+05 4.46E-01 0.9972 1.53E+05 7.33E-01 0.9373 1.76E+05 3.91E-01 0.9964 1.76E+05 7.10E-01 0.9200 2.03E+05 3.36E-01 0.9955 2.03E+05 6.85E-01 0.8988 2.33E+05 2.82E-01 0.9944 2.33E+05 6.59E-01 0.8731 2.68E+05 2.30E-01 0.9929 2.68E+05 6.30E-01 0.8426 3.08E+05 1.82E-01 0.9911 3.08E+05 6.00E-01 0.8070 3.54E+05 1.39E-01 0.9889 3.54E+05 5.67E-01 0.7667 4.07E+05 1.03E-01 0.9860 4.07E+05 5.33E-01 0.7221 4.68E+05 7.32E-02 0.9825 4.68E+05 4.97E-01 0.6740 5.39E+05 5.04E-02 0.9782 5.39E+05 4.60E-01 0.6236 6.20E+05 3.35E-02 0.9728 6.20E+05 4.22E-01 0.5721 7.13E+05 2.15E-02 0.9661 7.13E+05 3.82E-01 0.5209 8.19E+05 1.34E-02 0.9580 8.19E+05 3.42E-01 0.4710 9.42E+05 8.19E-03 0.9480 9.42E+05 3.02E-01 0.4233 1.08E+06 4.87E-03 0.9361 1.08E+06 2.63E-01 0.3785 1.25E+06 2.85E-03 0.9217 1.25E+06 2.24E-01 0.3371 1.43E+06 1.64E-03 0.9046 1.43E+06 1.88E-01 0.2991 1.65E+06 9.33E-04 0.8847 1.65E+06 1.55E-01 0.2647 1.90E+06 5.25E-04 0.8616 1.90E+06 1.24E-01 0.2338 2.18E+06 2.93E-04 0.8354 2.18E+06 9.75E-02 0.2061 2.51E+06 1.63E-04 0.8060 2.51E+06 7.47E-02 0.1815 2.88E+06 9.00E-05 0.7738 2.88E+06 5.59E-02 0.1596 3.31E+06 4.96E-05 0.7389 3.31E+06 4.08E-02 0.1403 3.81E+06 2.72E-05 0.7020 3.81E+06 2.90E-02 0.1232 4.38E+06 1.49E-05 0.6635 4.38E+06 2.02E-02 0.1081 5.04E+06 8.15E-06 0.6242 5.04E+06 1.38E-02 0.0949 5.80E+06 4.45E-06 0.5846 5.80E+06 9.24E-03 0.0832 6.67E+06 2.43E-06 0.5453 6.67E+06 6.08E-03 0.0730 7.67E+06 1.32E-06 0.5069 7.67E+06 3.94E-03 0.0640 8.82E+06 7.21E-07 0.4698 8.82E+06 2.52E-03 0.0561 1.01E+07 3.93E-07 0.4342 1.01E+07 1.60E-03 0.0492 1.17E+07 2.14E-07 0.4004 1.17E+07 1.00E-03


246




Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1

Saturation S 1

Suction Head ψ

(cm)


kr 1 0.0432 1.34E+07 1.16E-07 0.3686 1.34E+07 6.24E-04 0.0378 1.54E+07 6.34E-08 0.3388 1.54E+07 3.86E-04 0.0332 1.77E+07 3.45E-08 0.3110 1.77E+07 2.38E-04 0.0291 2.04E+07 1.88E-08 0.2852 2.04E+07 1.46E-04 0.0255 2.35E+07 1.02E-08 0.2613 2.35E+07 8.89E-05 0.0223 2.70E+07 5.55E-09 0.2393 2.70E+07 5.42E-05 0.0196 3.10E+07 3.02E-09 0.2189 3.10E+07 3.29E-05 0.0172 3.57E+07 1.64E-09 0.2003 3.57E+07 2.00E-05 0.0150 4.10E+07 8.93E-10 0.1831 4.10E+07 1.21E-05 0.0132 4.72E+07 4.86E-10 0.1674 4.72E+07 7.33E-06 0.0116 5.43E+07 2.64E-10 0.1530 5.43E+07 4.43E-06 0.0101 6.24E+07 1.44E-10 0.1398 6.24E+07 2.68E-06 0.0089 7.18E+07 7.81E-11 0.1277 7.18E+07 1.62E-06 0.0078 8.25E+07 4.25E-11 0.1167 8.25E+07 9.75E-07 0.0068 9.49E+07 2.31E-11 0.1066 9.49E+07 5.89E-07 0.0060 1.09E+08 1.26E-11 0.0974 1.09E+08 3.55E-07 0.0052 1.25E+08 6.83E-12 0.0889 1.25E+08 2.14E-07 0.0046 1.44E+08 3.72E-12 0.0812 1.44E+08 1.29E-07 0.0040 1.66E+08 2.02E-12 0.0742 1.66E+08 7.78E-08 0.0035 1.91E+08 1.10E-12 0.0678 1.91E+08 4.69E-08 0.0031 2.19E+08 5.98E-13 0.0619 2.19E+08 2.83E-08 0.0027 2.52E+08 3.25E-13 0.0565 2.52E+08 1.70E-08 0.0024 2.90E+08 1.77E-13 0.0516 2.90E+08 1.03E-08 0.0021 3.34E+08 9.61E-14 0.0471 3.34E+08 6.19E-09 0.0018 3.84E+08 5.23E-14 0.0430 3.84E+08 3.73E-09 0.0016 4.41E+08 2.84E-14 0.0393 4.41E+08 2.25E-09 0.0014 5.08E+08 1.55E-14 0.0359 5.08E+08 1.35E-09 0.0012 5.84E+08 8.41E-15 0.0328 5.84E+08 8.16E-10 0.0011 6.71E+08 4.57E-15 0.0299 6.71E+08 4.92E-10 0.0009 7.72E+08 2.49E-15 0.0273 7.72E+08 2.96E-10 0.0008 8.88E+08 1.35E-15 0.0250 8.88E+08 1.78E-10 0.0007 1.02E+09 7.35E-16 0.0228 1.02E+09 1.08E-10

1 All saturation and relative permeability values are unique; the number of significant figures provided in the table was selected for clarity.


247

6.4 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL UNCERTAINTY REPRESENTATION

Uncertainty has been assigned to porosity, bulk density, particle density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and saturated effective diffusion coefficient for each of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials. As outlined within Section 3.0 the uncertainty assigned to the hydraulic properties of the various cementitious materials is based upon the following in order of priority: • Site-specific field data, • Site-specific laboratory data, • Similarity to material with site-specific laboratory data, and • Literature data. There are no site-specific field data for any of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials. There are limited site-specific laboratory data for some of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials as outlined within Section 6.2. Literature data for generic cementitious materials are provided within Section 6.1. When available the site-specific laboratory data provided within Section 6.2 are utilized to provide a representation of material property uncertainty for both the material tested and similar materials. When site-specific laboratory data are not available, the generic literature data provided in Section 6.1 are utilized to provide a representation of material property uncertainty.

6.4.1 Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density Uncertainty Site-specific laboratory data are available for the existing E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CLSM, E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, and Z-Area Saltstone in order to establish the uncertainty associated with the representative nominal values of porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density. Table 6-49 provides the porosity, bulk density, and particle density nominal values (from Table 6-47) and the standard deviation of the mean for each of these materials along with the source of this data. Site-specific laboratory data are not available for the new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete, and the Z-Area clean grout cap. Due to similarities in cementitious material formulations the following porosity, bulk density, and particle density representations will be made: • The Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall concrete porosity, bulk density, and particle density

will be represented by that of the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, since the concrete formulations are identical except for the WCR (see Table 4-6 and Table 4-5 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations).


248

• The Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by that of the E-Area vault concrete, since both are considered high quality formulations containing both blast furnace slag and fly ash (see Table 4-7 and Table 4-4 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations).

• The Z-Area clean grout cap porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by that of the Z-Area Saltstone, since the clean grout cap formulation is based on the Saltstone formulation and uses potable water rather than a salt solution (see Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations).

Site-specific laboratory data for the porosity, bulk density, and particle density of the new E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CIG concrete mats, Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, and the Z-Area Vault 4 roof are not available, and these materials are not similar to the cementitious materials for which such data are available. Therefore representation of material property uncertainty for each of these concretes will be based upon literature values. Table 6-50 categorizes each of these concretes as either a low quality, ordinary quality, or high quality concrete, consistent with its previous classification in Table 6-41 associated with the assignment of characteristic curves.

6.4.1.1 High Quality Concrete: The high quality concrete category will be assigned the standard deviations of the population determined for the E-Area vault concrete (Table 6-18) as its standard deviation of the mean. This is considered reasonable for two reasons. First, the E-Area vault concrete is a high quality concrete. Second, the standard deviation of the population was used since there are currently no data associated with these concretes.

6.4.1.2 Ordinary Quality Concrete

The ordinary quality concrete category will be assigned the standard deviation of the population associated with the 675-T concrete from Table 6-22 as its standard deviation of the mean. This is considered reasonable for two reasons. First, the 675-T concrete represents material used in typical building construction. Second, the standard deviation of the population was used since there are currently no data associated with these concretes.

6.4.1.3 Low Quality Concrete The low quality concrete classification was assigned a standard deviation of the mean twice that of the ordinary quality concrete, due to the assumption that poorer workmanship and quality control are associated with this classification than the ordinary concrete. Table 6-51 provides a summary of the assigned standard deviation of mean for low quality, ordinary quality, or high quality concretes. The resulting summary of uncertainty statistics are provided for effective porosity, dry bulk density, and particle density in Table 6-52, Table 6-53, and Table 6-54, respectively. However the mean maximum porosity of 30.7 appears excessive for the new E-Area CIG grout and E-Area CIG concrete mats (i.e., assigned as poor quality concrete) compared to the literature and site-specific concrete porosity data range of 8 to 22%. Therefore an alternate mean maximum of 25 is provided in Table 6-52 (in parenthesis) along with its associated standard deviation of the mean, variance of the mean, and mean minimum to represent these materials.


249

Table 6-49. Site-Specific Porosity, Bulk Density, and Particle Density Nominal Value and Standard Deviation of Mean


Effective Porosity Nominal

Value (%)

Effective Porosity Standard Deviation of Mean

(%)

Dry Bulk Density Nominal

Value (g/cm3)

Dry Bulk Density

Standard Deviation of Mean (g/cm3)

Particle Density Nominal

Value (g/cm3)

Particle Density

Standard Deviation of Mean (g/cm3)

Source of Porosity and Dry Bulk Density Value


22.4 0.6 1.79 0.031 2.31 0.021 Table 6-24

E-Area CLSM 32.8 0.9 1.78 0.029 2.65 0.010 Table 6-27 E-Area Vault Concrete

18.4 0.74 2.11 0.010 2.59 0.027 Table 6-18


18.1 1.79 2.21 0.047 2.70 0.14 Table 6-19

Z-Area Saltstone 42.3 1.20 1.26 0.006 2.18 0.033 Table 6-20


250

Table 6-50. Concrete Material Categorization

Concrete Material Category Reason for Selection New E-Area CIG Grout

Low quality concrete Will be designed to be a high flow grout and will be placed with minimal consolidation and curing requirements


Low quality concrete Has a moderate WCR, placed with standard field construction practices, and is not built under the same level of quality control as major projects (see Table 4-3)


Ordinary quality concrete


Z-Area Vault 1 Roof Ordinary quality concrete


Z-Area Vault 4 Roof Ordinary quality concrete


Table 6-51. Low, Ordinary, and High Quality Concrete Assigned Standard Deviation of Mean for Effective Porosity, Dry Bulk Density, and Particle Density

Concrete Material Classification

Assigned Effective Porosity Standard

Deviation of the Mean (%)

Assigned Dry Bulk Density Standard Deviation of the

Mean (g/cm3)

Assigned Particle Density Standard Deviation of the

Mean (g/cm3) High quality concrete

1.5 0.03 0.05

Ordinary quality concrete

1.6 0.05 0.075

Low quality concrete 3.2 0.10 0.15


251

Table 6-52. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Effective Porosity (%)

Material Distribution Type

Nominal Value 1

(%)

Count Standard Deviation of

the Mean

Variance of the Mean

Mean Minimum (3 sigma)

Mean Maximum (3 sigma)


Normal 22.4 6 0.6 0.36 20.6 24.2

New E-Area CIG Grout (i.e., Segments beyond Segment 8) 2

Normal 21.1 - 3.2 (1.3)

10.24 (1.69)

11.5 (17.2)

30.7 (25)

E-Area CLSM Normal 32.8 3 0.9 0.81 30.1 35.5 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 2

Normal 21.1 - 3.2 (1.3)

10.24 (1.69)

11.5 (17.2)

30.7 (25)

E-Area Vault Concrete Normal 18.4 4 0.74 0.55 16.2 20.6 Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab

Normal 13.6 - 1.6 2.56 8.8 18.4


Normal 18.1 4 1.79 3.20 12.7 23.5

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof Normal 14.5 - 1.6 2.56 9.7 19.3 Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

Normal 18.1 - 1.79 3.20 12.7 23.5

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof Normal 13.6 - 1.6 2.56 8.8 18.4 Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

Normal 18.4 - 0.74 0.55 16.2 20.6

Z-Area Saltstone Normal 42.3 3 1.20 1.45 38.7 45.9 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Normal 42.3 - 1.20 1.45 38.7 45.9 1 Nominal value taken from Table 6-47 2 The mean maximum for porosity of 30.7 appears excessive for the new E-Area CIG grout and E-Area CIG concrete mats compared to the literature and site-specific concrete porosity data ranges from 8 to 22%; therefore an alternate mean maximum of 25 is provided in parenthesis along with its associated standard deviation of the mean, variance of the mean, and mean minimum.


252

Table 6-53. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)


Nominal Value 1 (g/cm3)


the Mean





Normal 1.79 10 0.031 9.61E-04 1.70 1.88


Normal 2.06 - 0.10 1.00E-02 1.76 2.36

E-Area CLSM Normal 1.78 4 0.029 8.41E-04 1.69 1.87 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats Normal 2.06 - 0.10 1.00E-02 1.76 2.36 E-Area Vault Concrete Normal 2.11 6 0.010 1.00E-04 2.08 2.14 Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab

Normal 2.22 - 0.05 2.50E-03 2.07 2.37


Normal 2.21 6 0.047 2.21E-03 2.07 2.35

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof Normal 2.20 - 0.05 2.50E-03 2.05 2.35 Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

Normal 2.21 - 0.047 2.21E-03 2.07 2.35

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof Normal 2.21 - 0.05 2.50E-03 2.06 2.36 Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

Normal 2.11 - 0.010 1.00E-04 2.08 2.14

Z-Area Saltstone Normal 1.26 4 0.006 3.60E-05 1.24 1.28 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Normal 1.26 - 0.006 3.60E-05 1.24 1.28 1 Nominal value taken from Table 6-47


253

Table 6-54. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Particle Density (g/cm3)


Nominal Value 1 (g/cm3)


the Mean





Normal 2.31 6 0.021 4.41E-04 2.25 2.37


Normal 2.61 - 0.15 2.25E-02 2.16 3.06

E-Area CLSM Normal 2.65 3 0.010 1.00E-04 2.62 2.68 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats Normal 2.61 - 0.15 2.25E-02 2.16 3.06 E-Area Vault Concrete Normal 2.59 4 0.027 7.29E-04 2.51 2.67 Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab

Normal 2.57 - 0.075 5.63E-03 2.35 2.80


Normal 2.70 4 0.14 2.04E-02 2.27 3.13

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof Normal 2.57 - 0.075 5.63E-03 2.35 2.80 Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

Normal 2.70 - 0.14 2.04E-02 2.27 3.13

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof Normal 2.56 - 0.075 5.63E-03 2.34 2.79 Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

Normal 2.59 - 0.027 7.29E-04 2.51 2.67

Z-Area Saltstone Normal 2.18 3 0.033 1.09E-03 2.08 2.28 Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Normal 2.18 - 0.033 1.09E-03 2.08 2.28 1 Nominal value taken from Table 6-47


254

6.4.2 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Uncertainty Typically the saturated hydraulic conductivity of porous material is considered log normally distributed, which means the log of saturated hydraulic conductivity is normally distributed. Therefore the uncertainty associated with the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the cementitious materials will be expressed logarithmically. Site-specific laboratory data are available for the existing E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CLSM, E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, and Z-Area Saltstone in order to establish the uncertainty associated with the representative nominal values of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Table 6-55 provides the site-specific saturated hydraulic conductivity nominal value (from Table 6-47) and standard deviation of mean for each of these materials in log space along with the source of these data. Site-specific laboratory data are not available for the new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete, and the Z-Area clean grout cap. Due to similarities in cementitious material formulations the following saturated hydraulic conductivity representations will be made: • The Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall concrete log saturated hydraulic conductivity

standard deviation will be represented by that of the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, since the concrete formulations are identical except for the WCR (see Table 4-6 and Table 4-5 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations):

• The Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation will be represented by that of the E-Area vault concrete, since both are considered high quality formulations containing both blast furnace slag and fly ash (see Table 4-7 and Table 4-4 for a comparison of the respective concrete formulations):

• The Z-Area clean grout cap concrete log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation will be represented by that of the Z-Area Saltstone, since the clean grout cap formulation is based on the Saltstone formulation and uses potable water rather than a salt solution (see Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 porosity, bulk density, and particle density will be represented by the Z-Area).

Site-specific laboratory data for the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the new E-Area CIG grout, E-Area CIG concrete mats, Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, and the Z-Area Vault 4 roof are not available, and these materials are not similar to the cementitious materials for which such data are available. Therefore representation of material property uncertainty for each of these concretes will be based upon other documented values. Table 6-50 categorizes each of these concretes as either a low quality, ordinary quality, or high quality concrete, consistent with its previous classification in Table 6-41 associated with the assignment of characteristic curves.


255

6.4.2.1 High Quality Concrete The log standard deviation of the mean for the high quality concrete category will be assigned the E-Area vault concrete log standard deviation of the population (see Table 6-18). This is considered reasonable for two reasons. First the E-Area vault concrete is a high quality concrete. Second the log standard deviation of the population was used for the log standard deviation of the mean since there are currently no data associated with these concretes.

6.4.2.2 Low Quality Concrete The log standard deviation of the mean for the low quality concrete category will be assigned the existing E-Area CIG grout log standard deviation of the population (see Table 6-24). This is considered reasonable for two reasons. The existing E-Area CIG grout had a high WCR and minimal placement and curing requirements. Second the log standard deviation of the population was used for the log standard deviation of the mean since there are currently no data associated with these concretes.

6.4.2.3 Ordinary Quality Concrete The ordinary quality concrete category will be assigned a log standard deviation of the mean that is the average of the high quality and low quality concrete categories. Table 6-56 provides a summary of the log standard deviation of the mean assigned to the low, ordinary, and high quality concretes. The resulting summary uncertainty statistics are provided for the saturated hydraulic conductivity of these various cementitious materials in Table 6-57


256

Table 6-55. Site-Specific Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Nominal Value and Standard Deviation of Mean


Log Nominal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Value 1

(cm/s)


Conductivity Standard Deviation

of Mean (cm/s)

Source of Standard

Deviation of Mean Value


-4.35 (4.5E-05)

0.63 2 Table 6-24

E-Area CLSM -5.66 (2.2E-06)

0.114 Table 6-27


-12 (1.0E-12)

0.074 Table 6-18


-8.70 (2.0E-09)

0.130 Table 6-19

Z-Area Saltstone -11 (1.0E-11)

0.078 3 Table 6-20

1 Saturated hydraulic conductivities from Table 6-47 are provided in parenthesis and the log of the value is shown above it

2 The log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation of mean associated with the average saturated hydraulic conductivity of 8.75E-06 cm/s is assumed to adequately apply to a nominal saturated hydraulic conductivity of 4.5E-05 cm/s (see Table 6-24)

3 The log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation of mean associated with the average saturated hydraulic conductivity of 5.19E-12 cm/s is assumed to adequately apply to a nominal saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-11 cm/s (see Table 6-20)

Table 6-56. Low, Ordinary, and High Quality Concrete Assigned Ratio of Standard Deviation of Mean to Nominal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Value

Concrete Material Classification

Log Nominal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/s)

Assigned Log Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Standard Deviation of the Mean

High quality concrete -12 (1.0E-12)

0.074

Ordinary quality concrete - 0.35 Low quality concrete -4.35

(4.5E-05) 0.63


257

Table 6-57. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Material Distribution

Type Log Nominal

Value 1 (cm/s)

Count Log Standard Deviation of

the Mean

Log Variance of the Mean

Log Mean Minimum (3 sigma)

Log Mean Maximum (3 sigma)


Normal 2 -4.35 (4.5E-05)

8 0.63 3.92E-01 -6.228 -2.472


Normal -8 (1.0E-08)

- 0.63 3.92E-01 -9.878 -6.122

E-Area CLSM Normal -5.66 (2.2E-06)

3 0.114 1.30E-04 -6.002 -5.318

E-Area CIG Concrete Mats Normal -8 (1.0E-08)

- 0.63 3.92E-01 -9.878 -6.122

E-Area Vault Concrete Normal -12 (1.0E-12)

3 0.074 5.48E-03 -12.222 -11.778

Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab

Normal -8.30 (5.0E-09)

- 0.35 1.23E-01 -9.35 -7.25


Normal -8.79 (2.0E-09)

2 0.13 1.69E-02 -9.18 -8.4

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof Normal -8.30 (5.0E-09)

- 0.35 1.23E-01 -9.35 -7.25

Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

Normal -10 (1.0E-10)

- 0.13 1.69E-02 -10.39 -9.61

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof Normal -8.30 (5.0E-09)

- 0.35 1.23E-01 -9.35 -7.25

Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

Normal -10 (1.0E-10)

- 0.074 5.48E-03 -10.222 -9.778

Z-Area Saltstone Normal -11 (1.0E-11)

3 0.078 6.08E-03 -11.234 -10.766

Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Normal -11 (1.0E-11)

- 0.078 6.08E-03 -11.234 -10.766

1 Saturated hydraulic conductivities from Table 6-47 are provided in parenthesis and the log of the value is shown above it 2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity is log normally distributed therefore the log of saturated hydraulic conductivity is normally distributed


258

6.4.3 Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Uncertainty The only cementitious material for which site-specific saturated effective diffusivity data exist is Saltstone. The saturated effective diffusivity data for all the other cementitious materials must be derived. As outlined in Section 6.2.2 Saltstone diffusivity testing was conducted by Langton (1986 and 1987). Based upon this data an overall average Saltstone effective diffusion coefficient of 5.0E-09 cm2/s with a standard deviation of the mean of 8.0E-10 (i.e., -8.3 and 0.11 in log space, respectively) (see Table 6-17). Due to the similarities between the Saltstone and Z-Area clean grout cap (see Table 6-42), the Z-Area clean grout cap will be assigned the same log saturated effective diffusion coefficient standard deviation of the mean as Saltstone (i.e., 0.11). The new E-Area CIG Grout, the E-Area CIG concrete slabs, the E-Area vault concrete (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults), the Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slabs, the Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete, the Z-Area Vault 1 roof, the Z-Area Vault 4 floor and wall, the Z-Area Vault 4 roof, the Z-Area Vault 2 and future vault concrete are considered fairly typical cementitious materials for which the log saturated effective diffusion coefficient standard deviation of the mean can be reasonably derived from that of the associated log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation of the mean. This is considered reasonable, since both the saturated hydraulic conductivity and saturated effective diffusion coefficient of cementitious materials are dependent upon the pore structure characteristics (i.e., porosity, pore size distribution, connectivity of pores, and extent of separation and microcracking at aggregate-paste interfaces) as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.4. As outlined in Section 6.1.2 the typical range of concrete saturated hydraulic conductivity is from 1.0E-13 to 1.0E-08 cm/s (i.e., 5 orders of magnitude), whereas that of concrete saturated effective diffusion coefficient is from 1.0E-08 to 5.0E-07 cm2/s (i.e., 1.7 orders of magnitude) as outlined in Section 6.1.4. Based upon these ranges and the link between conductivity and diffusivity, the log saturated effective diffusion coefficient standard deviation of the mean for these materials will be assigned that of their respective log saturated hydraulic conductivity standard deviation of the mean modified by the factor 1.7/5. Table 6-58 provides the calculated log saturated effective diffusion coefficient standard deviation of the mean for these materials. In terms of saturated effective diffusion coefficient, the E-Area CIG grout probably behaves more like a combination of ~15% sand containing macropores and ~85% cementitious material containing micropore than solely a cementitious material and the E-Area CLSM probably behaves more like a clayey soil than a cementitious material as outlined within Section 6.3.4. The existing E-Area CIG grout has been assigned a saturated effective diffusion coefficient of 1.9E-06 cm2/s, and the E-Area CLSM has been assigned 4.0E-06 cm2/s (see Table 6-47). These diffusion coefficients are similar to that of the clay soil (4.1E-06 cm2/s) outlined in Section 5.2.5. Therefore the existing E-Area CIG grout and E-Area CLSM will be assigned the same log saturated effective diffusion coefficient standard deviation of the mean as that of the clay soil in Table 5-17 of Section 5.7 (i.e., 0.053).


259

The resulting summary uncertainty statistics are provided for the saturated effective diffusion coefficient of these various cementitious materials in Table 6-59.

Table 6-58. Log Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Standard Deviation for Concretes

Material Log Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Standard

Deviation of the Mean

Log Saturated Effective Diffusion

Coefficient Standard

Deviation of the Mean

New E-Area CIG Grout (i.e., Segments beyond Segment 8) 0.63 0.21 E-Area CIG Concrete Mats 0.63 0.21 E-Area Vault Concrete 0.074 0.025 Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab 0.35 0.12 Z-Area Vault #1 Floor and Wall Concrete 0.13 0.044 Z-Area Vault #1 Roof 0.35 0.12 Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete 0.13 0.044 Z-Area Vault #4 Roof 0.35 0.12 Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete 0.074 0.025

Log Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Standard Deviation of the Mean = (1.7/5) × Log Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Standard Deviation of the Mean


260

Table 6-59. E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient


Log Nominal Value 1 (cm2/s)

Count Log Standard Deviation of

the Mean

Log Variance of the Mean

Log Mean Minimum (3 sigma)

Log Mean Maximum (3 sigma)


Normal 2 -5.72 (1.9E-06)

- 0.053 2.81E-03 -5.88 -5.56


Normal -6.10 (8.0E-07)

- 0.21 4.54E-02 -6.74 -5.46

E-Area CLSM Normal -5.40 (4.0E-06)

- 0.053 2.81E-03 -5.56 -5.24

E-Area CIG Concrete Mats Normal -6.10 (8.0E-07)

- 0.21 4.54E-02 -6.74 -5.46

E-Area Vault Concrete Normal -7.30 (5.0E-08)

- 0.025 6.25E-04 -7.38 -7.22

Z-Area Vaults #1 and #4 Work Slab

Normal -7 (1.0E-07)

- 0.12 1.42E-02 -7.36 -6.64


Normal -7.30 (5.0E-08)

- 0.044 1.94E-03 -7.43 -7.17

Z-Area Vault #1 Roof Normal -7 (1.0E-07)

- 0.12 1.42E-02 -7.36 -6.64

Z-Area Vault #4 Wall and Floor Concrete

Normal -7.30 (5.0E-08)

- 0.044 1.94E-03 -7.43 -7.17

Z-Area Vault #4 Roof Normal -7 (1.0E-07)

- 0.12 1.42E-02 -7.36 -6.64

Z-Area Vault #2 and Future Vault Concrete

Normal -7.30 (5.0E-08)

- 0.025 6.25E-04 -7.38 -7.23

Z-Area Saltstone Normal -8.3 (5.0E-09)

12 0.11 1.21E-02 -8.63 -7.97

Z-Area Clean Grout Cap Normal -8.3 (5.0E-09)

12 0.11 1.21E-02 -8.63 -7.97

1 Saturated effective diffusion coefficients from Table 6-47 are provided in parenthesis and the log of the value is shown above it 2 Saturated effective diffusion coefficients are log normally distributed; therefore the log of the saturated effective diffusion coefficients are normally distributed


261

6.5 E-AREA AND Z-AREA CRACKED CONCRETE REPRESENTATION Degradation of the E-Area vaults (i.e., LAW and IL Vaults) is based upon the results of structural modeling that provides information on the concrete cracking and structural failure associated with each vault (Carey 2005 and Peregoy 2006a). Degradation of the Z-Area vaults is based upon both the results of structural modeling (i.e., concrete cracking and structural failure) and sulfate attack from the Saltstone pore fluid. The primary impact of concrete cracking is the increase in saturated hydraulic conductivity and the subsequent increase in saturated water flux. Portions of Snyder 2003 Section 3.1, Composite Model, which provides a concrete crack model that involves an arithmetic averaging followed by harmonic averaging method, has been extracted, corrected where necessary, and provided below for use in determining the permeability of cracked concrete slabs under saturated flow conditions.

“The influence of cracks on the transport properties of a slab with span L and depth h can be characterized analytically using the schematic shown in Figure 2. Let there be m cracks, each with width w, perpendicular to the entire the span, and each crack penetrating into the slab a proportion of the total depth. The permeability of the uncracked concrete is ko. The permeability of each crack kc is based on the assumption that the crack walls are parallel and planar, water fills the aperture, and the flow is laminar:”

“12

2wkc = (3)”

“It is assumed that this equation will be applied to the cracks sufficiently large that a continuum description of the fluid applies and that molecular effects may be neglected.” “The total flow through the slab can be estimated by assuming a parallel (arithmetic averaging) and series (harmonic averaging) model for the materials. First, the composite permeability kp of the cracked and uncracked portion up to the depth αh is calculated. The composite permeability kp of the slab to the depth αh is a weighted sum of the two permeabilities (two conductors in parallel):”

“ cop kL

mwkL

mwk +⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛ −= 1 Arithmetic averaging (4)”

“Second, this composite value is put in series with the final (1 − α)h depth of uncracked concrete to determine the overall bulk permeability of the entire slab. The bulk permeability kb of the entire slab is estimated by analogy to electrical conductors in series:”

“pob kkk

αα+

−=

11 Harmonic averaging (5)”


262

“Figure 2: Crack model schematic for a concrete slab with span L, depth h, and containing m cracks, each having width w and penetrating a fraction into the element. ko is the permeability of the uncracked concrete, and kc is the permeability of each crack.”

ko

ko kc

L-mw

αh

(1-α)h

mw


263

7.0 WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION Adequate representation of the Saltstone waste form has been possible since Saltstone is a manufactured waste form of relatively known composition. Its representation has been previously documented within Sections 4.6 and 6.3; therefore no further discussion of Saltstone will be presented within this section. However the waste forms within the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (LLWF) are extremely varied and have undergone little quantitative characterization. Therefore gross assumptions based upon qualitative information must be made relative to the hydraulic properties of the waste zones within the E-Area LLWF disposal units. The following discussion provides the available qualitative information regarding the various E-Area LLWF disposal units except for the Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs).

7.1 SLIT AND ENGINEERED TRENCH WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION A description of the Slit Trenches is provided in Section 4.5.1 and of the Engineered Trenches in Section 4.5.2. It is anticipated that dynamic compaction of the Slit and Engineered Trenches will be performed at the end of the 100-year institutional control period. The following two Slit and Engineered Trench waste zone representations will be made: prior to dynamic compaction and after dynamic compaction (at the end of the 100-year institutional control period).

7.1.1 Trenches prior to Dynamic Compaction

Slit Trenches have generally been approximately 20 feet deep, 20 feet wide, and 650 feet long. Waste, disposed within Slit Trenches, consists of soil, debris, rubble, wood, and job control waste. The waste may be disposed as bulk waste or contained within B-25 boxes, B-12 boxes, 55-gallon drums, SeaLand containers, and other metal containers. The waste is generally dumped into the trench, whether bulk or in containers, to produce an approximately 16-foot waste layer thickness. Larger containers are placed with a crane. Placement of waste continues until the trench is filled with waste. A nominal 4-foot operational soil cover is placed over the waste in the trench, and the entire area is graded to provide positive drainage off the trench. Engineered Trenches vary in depth (16 to 25 feet) and are hundreds of feet long and over a hundred feet wide. The trench bottom consists of compacted soil, a geotextile filter fabric, and approximately 6 inches of granite crusher run (from bottom to top). Carbon steel B-25 boxes containing low-level waste are stacked four high in rows (approximately 17 feet high) within the Engineered Trench. Placement of the B-25 boxes continues until the trench is filled with boxes. A minimum 4 feet operational soil cover is placed over the boxes in the trench, and the entire area is graded to provide positive drainage off the trench.


264

It is estimated that the waste layer thickness is approximately 16 feet after operational soil cover placement due to the collapse of the top box’s lid during operational soil cover placement (Phifer and Wilhite 2001). Due to the presence of soil between waste within the trenches, the Engineered/Slit Trench waste zone prior to dynamic compaction will be represented hydraulically by the E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction. This is a relatively loose soil with the hydraulic properties presented in Section 5.4 and Table 5-18.

7.1.2 Trenches after Dynamic Compaction For B-25 boxes in Engineered Trenches an estimated subsidence potential of approximately 13.5 feet exists within the 16-foot waste layer thickness, resulting in an ultimate waste layer thickness of approximately 2.5 feet (Phifer and Wilhite 2001). In addition to B-25 boxes, waste in Engineered Trenches can be contained within B-12 boxes, 55-gallon drums, SeaLand containers, and other metal containers. The subsidence potential of Slit Trenches has not been estimated to the extent performed for Engineered Trenches. The maximum subsidence potential of Slit Trenches should, however, be bounded by the potential of boxed job control waste in Engineered Trenches. Portions of Slit Trenches that receive bulk waste (e.g. concrete rubble and soil) should have substantially less subsidence potential than that of Engineered Trenches. That is, the ultimate waste layer thickness (i.e., after dynamic compaction) of Slit Trenches that received bulk waste should be greater than that of Engineered Trenches. Portions of Slit Trenches that receive containerized waste should be similar to Engineered Trenches in terms of subsidence potential. That is, the ultimate waste layer thickness (i.e., after subsidence treatment) of Slit Trenches that received containerized waste should be similar to that of Engineered Trenches. It is planned to perform dynamic compaction on the Engineered and Slit Trenches after the 100 year institutional control period when significant corrosion of the containers would have occurred. Such degradation of the containers will improve the efficiency of dynamic compaction to eliminate subsidence potential. Waste containers can be effectively crushed and compacted at the time of dynamic compaction are termed “crushable” containers, and the balance “non-crushable”. Upon dynamic compaction it is assumed that the crushable waste will be compacted to a height of 2.5 feet and obtain the same density as soil. Due to the significant soil presence and the assumed waste zone density that is similar to that of soil, the Engineered/Slit Trench waste zone after dynamic compaction will be represented hydraulically by the E-Area operational soil cover after dynamic compaction. This is a relatively dense soil with the hydraulic properties presented in Section 5.4 and Table 5-18.


265

Two Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluations (UDQE) (Hang et al. 2005 and Swingle and Phifer 2006) have allowed the disposal of non-crushable containers (i.e., containers that will not be crushed by dynamic compaction thereby maintaining the associated subsidence potential) within 10 to 20 percent of the waste area’s surface area. This represents subsidence potential that is not eliminated prior to final closure. That will result in closure cap subsidence sometime after the institutional control period and an associated increase in infiltration. The 20-foot trench zone, comprising non-crushable waste and backfilled soil, is assumed to behave hydraulically similar to the E-Area operational soil cover before dynamic compaction throughout the final closure phase, both before and after eventual waste subsidence.

7.2 COMPONENT-IN-GROUT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION A description of the Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches is provided in Section 4.5.3. Structural modeling of the CIG trenches (Peregoy 2006b) has been conducted to evaluate a CIG Trench design life of 300 years in terms of structural integrity. The structural modeling indicates that the CIG Trench segments can achieve a structural design life of 300 years so long as the interior void spaces of the components are fully grouted or the segments are covered with a 20-inch thick concrete mat. Additionally components disposed within the CIG Trenches consist of large radioactively contaminated equipment along with other containerized waste. Typically the components are carbon steel and the type of component with the least wall thickness would typically be a B-25 box with a 12-gauge (0.1094 inch) wall thickness. Dunn 2001 estimated the time to through-wall pitting of a 12-gauge carbon steel B-25 box buried in soil at a minimum 40 years. Through-wall pitting of such a box encapsulated within a cementitious grout would take longer than 40 years due to the elevated pH within such an environment. Furthermore the encapsulating grout would tend to seal any minor openings or joints associated with the components. Therefore components will be assumed to be hydraulically intact for 40 years. Based upon this information the following three CIG trench waste zone representations will be provided: structurally and hydraulically intact conditions for 40 years; structurally intact but hydraulically degraded conditions from 40 to 300 years; and structurally and hydraulically degraded conditions after 300 years.

7.2.1 CIG Structurally and Hydraulically Intact Conditions Under structurally and hydraulically intact conditions (prior to 40 years) the CIG Trench waste zone consists of components and containerized waste, which are encapsulated in at least 1-foot of E-Area grout. The existing E-Area grout and new E-Area grout are described in Sections 4.5.3 and 6.3. Components disposed within the CIG Trenches consist of large radioactively contaminated equipment along with other containerized waste to optimize the use of disposal space. Existing components and containerized wastes include trailers, tankers, a concrete culvert containing radioactive sources, SeaLands, B-25s, B-12s, flat bed trailers, HICs, columns, etc. The bottom of the trench section is filled with grout to a minimum one-foot, and the grout is allowed to cure. The component(s) are then placed on the one-foot base grout layer and the grout is poured around, between, and over the component(s) in order to encapsulate the component(s).


266

Additional layers of component(s) and grout may be placed on top of previous layers until approximately 16 feet (4.9 m) of trench is filled up with component(s) (approximately a 14-foot waste zone) and grout (approximately 2 feet of grout). The operation is conducted so that a minimum one-foot of grout is between the component(s) and the trench bottom and side and so that a minimum one foot of grout is over the top of the upper most component(s). As outlined above, components are typically carbon steel with a minimum 12-gauge (0.1094 inch) wall thickness, in which through-wall pitting should take longer than 40 years (Dunn 2001), therefore components will be assumed to be hydraulically intact for 40 years. Under these conditions the waste zone will be assumed to consist of an intact container with a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0E-12 cm/s (i.e., a low saturated hydraulic conductivity to represent intact carbon steel that is not zero, due to potential model instability with the use of zero) that is half filled with an air space.

7.2.2 CIG Structurally Intact but Hydraulically Degraded Conditions

After 40 years it is assumed that the components within CIG trenches all have through-wall pitting and are no longer hydraulically intact, however based upon the structural modeling the trenches are assumed to remain structurally intact for 300 years (i.e., no subsidence). Under these conditions the waste zone will be assumed to consist of a degraded container with hydraulic properties of the E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction (Section 5.4 and Table 5-18) that is half filled with an air space.

7.2.3 CIG Structurally and Hydraulically Degraded Conditions The void space within components and the integrity of the components can vary widely. However the subsidence potential of the 14-foot waste zone has not yet been estimated. If it is assumed that the waste within a trench consists of 3 layers of B-25 boxes, containing waste with the same density as B-25 boxes disposed within the Engineered Trenches (Phifer and Wilhite 2001), with a total thickness of 14 feet then the subsidence potential of the CIG waste zone would be approximately 10 feet, resulting in a subsided waste zone thickness of 4 feet. This indicates that a significant subsidence potential may exist for the CIG waste zone. However since the waste zone does not solely consist of low density waste in B-25 boxes, the subsidence potential will be taken as half the waste zone thickness (i.e., 7 feet). Therefore the waste zone thickness after subsidence will be taken as 7 feet. Under structurally and hydraulically degraded conditions (after 300 years) it is assumed that the components and the containerized waste and overlying grout and concrete mat break up and collapse in upon themselves, resulting in the waste zone collapsing to a 7-foot thickness and subsidence of the overlying closure cap soil into the CIG Trench. Due to the significant soil presence within a degraded CIG Trench and the fluffing of the soil as it collapses into the CIG Trench, the CIG Trench waste zone after subsidence will be represented hydraulically by the E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction (Section 5.4 and Table 5-18).


267

7.3 LAW VAULT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION A description of the LAW Vault is provided in Section 4.5.4. Based upon structural modeling which considers vault loadings (both static and seismic) and rebar corrosion, Carey 2005 estimated that the mean time to LAW Vault collapse is 2805 years with a standard deviation of 920 years. The following two LAW Vault waste zone representations will be provided: prior to vault collapse and after vault collapse.

7.3.1 Prior to LAW Vault Collapse Prior to vault collapse, the LAW Vault waste zone will consist of low-activity waste contained within stacked B-25 boxes, B-12 boxes, drums, other metal containers and/or concrete containers. B-25 boxes are stacked four high for a nominal waste thickness of 17.3 feet. The waste within the containers typically has a very low density and significant internal void space. No soil, grout, or any other material will exist between the stacked containers and a significant void space will exist between the top of the container stack and the LAW Vault bridge beams and roof. The bridge beams are a minimum of 20 feet off the floor, while the roof is a minimum 24 feet 6 inches off the floor (see Figure 4-16). Additionally prior to vault collapse, it is anticipated that significant corrosion of the metal waste containers will occur, resulting in limited self compaction of the waste zone under its own weight (the waste within the containers typically has a very low density) prior to the time of vault collapse. The PorFlow code models flow and transport through porous media and can not represent a significant empty space. Additionally adjacent materials within a PorFlow model that have significantly different saturated hydraulic conductivities can create flow convergent problems. Therefore the LAW Vault waste zone and vault interior prior to vault collapse will be represented hydraulically by CLSM, which has a saturated hydraulic conductivity six orders of magnitude than the vault concrete enclosing it (Section 6.3.5, Table 6-47). This is deemed appropriate, since the vault concrete, not the waste zone represented by CLSM, will control the flow of water through the waste zone.

7.3.2 After LAW Vault Collapse

Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft) estimated that the interior of the LAW Vault has a subsidence potential of approximately 21 feet. Upon vault collapse, it is anticipated that the broken bridge beams and roof, along with the overlying closure cap soils, will fall into the vault interior crushing the corroded containers and waste to a nominal 2.5 foot thickness. Due to the significant soil presence within a collapsed LAW Vault and the fluffing of the soil as it collapses into the LAW Vault, the LAW Vault waste zone and vault interior after vault collapse will be represented hydraulically by the E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction as (Section 5.4 and Table 5-18).


268

7.4 IL VAULT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION A description of the IL Vault is provided in Section 4.5.5. Based upon structural modeling which considers vault loadings (both static and seismic) and rebar corrosion, Peregoy 2006a has estimated that the mean time to IL Vault collapse is 6703 years with a standard deviation of 1976 years. The following two IL Vault waste zone representations will be provided: prior to vault collapse and after vault collapse.

7.4.1 Prior to IL Vault Collapse Prior to vault collapse, the IL Vault waste zone will include vessels and waste contained within drums, B-12 boxes, B-25 boxes, other metal containers, and concrete containers. The first layer of containers is placed within a cell directly on top of the graded stone leachate collection system. This first layer of waste is encapsulated with the E-Area CIG grout (see Sections 4.5.3 and 6.3) and the overlying grout forms the surface for the placement of the next layer of waste. Subsequent layers of containers within a cell are encapsulated with E-Area CLSM (see Sections 4.5.3 and 6.3). This process is continued until the waste/CLSM zone thickness is 25 foot 10 inch in the ILNT cells and 21 foot 9 inches in the ILT cells. A nominal 1-foot 5-inch final top layer of E-Area CIG grout is used to provide the surface upon which the final reinforced concrete roof will be placed for the ILNT cells and a nominal 2-foot 6-inch top layer of grout for the ILT cells (see Figure 4-20 and Figure 4-21). Prior to vault collapse (i.e., an estimated 6703 years), it is anticipated that significant corrosion of the metal waste containers will occur, resulting in collapse of individual containers and overlying CSLM and/or grout prior to the time of vault collapse. Over time this will result in a crumbling, fractured waste zone. Due to the anticipated crumbling, fractured waste zone, the IL Vault waste zone and vault interior prior to vault collapse will be represented hydraulically by gravel (Section 5.4 and Table 5-18).

7.4.2 After IL Vault Collapse

It is assumed that significant void space exists in most of the containers within the IL Vault. However the interior subsidence potential of the IL Vault has not yet been estimated. If it is assumed that the waste within a cell consists of 6 layers of B-25 boxes, containing waste with the same density as B-25 boxes disposed within the Engineered Trenches, then the interior subsidence potential of the IL Vault would be approximately 20 feet, resulting in a subsided waste zone thickness of approximately 5 or 6 feet. This indicates that a significant subsidence potential may exist for the IL Vault waste zone. However since the waste zone does not solely consist of low density waste in B-25 boxes, the subsided waste zone thickness will be taken as 10 feet (approximately twice that based upon low density waste in B-25 boxes alone).


269

Upon vault collapse, it is anticipated that the roof, along with the overlying closure cap soils, will fall into the vault interior crushing the crumbling, fractured CLSM/grout, corroded containers and waste to a nominal 10-foot thickness. Due to the significant soil presence within a collapsed IL Vault and the fluffing of the soil as it collapses into the IL Vault, the IL Vault waste zone and vault interior after vault collapse will be represented hydraulically by the E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction (Section 5.4 and Table 5-18).

7.5 E-AREA DISPOSAL UNIT WASTE ZONE REPRESENTATION SUMMARY Table 7-1 provides a summary of the waste zone representations for each of the E-Area disposal units based upon the qualitative information provided above except for the NRCDAs.


270

Table 7-1. E-Area Disposal Unit Waste Zone Representation Summary

E-Area Disposal Unit

Waste Zone Condition Waste Zone Thickness

(ft)

Best Estimate Waste Zone Representation

Prior to Dynamic Compaction

16 OSC prior to DC Slit and Engineered Trenches After Dynamic

Compaction 2.5 OSC after DC (crushable

waste) OSC prior to DC (non-crushable waste)

Structurally and Hydraulically Intact

14 Intact container with a Ksat of 1.0E-12 cm/s that is half filled with an air space

Structurally Intact but Hydraulically Degraded

14 Degraded container with properties of OSC prior to DC that is half filled with an air space

CIG Trenches

Structurally and Hydraulically Degraded

7 OSC prior to DC

Prior to Vault Collapse 17.3 CLSM 1 LAW Vault After Vault Collapse 2.5 OSC prior to DC Prior to Vault Collapse 25.83 Gravel 2 IL Vault After Vault Collapse 10 OSC prior to DC

Notes to Table 7.5-1: • OSC prior to DC = E-Area operational soil cover prior to dynamic compaction described

in Section 5.4 and Table 5-18 • OSC after DC = E-Area operational soil cover after dynamic compaction described in

Section 5. 4 and Table 5-18 • CLSM = controlled low strength material described in Section 6.3.5 Table 6-47 • Gravel as described in Section 5. 5 and Table 5-18 1 In order to not overestimate the retardation of radionuclides during transport, it is

recommended that the initial, intact, waste zone bulk density (ρb), porosity (η), and particle density (ρp) be represented as follows for modeling transport runs for the LAW Vault: ρb = 0.245 g/cm3; η = 90%; ρp = 2.45 g/cm3

2 In order to not overestimate the retardation of radionuclides during transport, it is recommended that the initial, intact, waste zone bulk density (ρb), porosity (η), and particle density (ρp) be represented as follows for modeling transport runs for the IL Vault: ρb = 0.612 g/cm3; η = 73.6%; ρp = 2.32 g/cm3


271

8.0 INFILTRATION ESTIMATES Phifer and Nelson 2003 developed a methodology to evaluate closure cap degradation mechanisms and their impact upon infiltration through the closure cap for the institutional control to pine forest, land use scenario. This land use scenario is considered the base case land use scenario. This scenario assumes a 100-year institutional control period during which facilities are maintained followed by a post institutional control period during which no facility maintenance is conducted. At the end of institutional control, it is assumed that a pine forest succeeds the cap’s original vegetative cover. Phifer and Nelson 2003 evaluated the impacts of pine forest succession, erosion, and colloidal clay migration as degradation mechanisms on the hydraulic properties of the closure cap layers over time and the resulting infiltration through the closure cap. The primary changes caused by the degradation mechanisms that result in increased infiltration are the formation of holes in the upper GCL by pine forest succession and the reduction in the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the drainage layers due to colloidal clay migration into the layers. Erosion can also result in significant increases in infiltration if it causes the removal of soil layers, which provide water storage for the promotion of evapotranspiration. Phifer and Nelson 2003 utilized the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model to conduct the evaluations of the closure cap configuration and of the impact of closure cap degradation upon infiltration. The HELP model is a quasi-two-dimensional water balance model designed to conduct landfill water balance analyses. The model requires the input of weather, soil, and design data. It provides estimates of runoff, evapotranspiration, lateral drainage, vertical percolation (infiltration), hydraulic head, and water storage for the evaluation of various landfill designs. Personnel at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi developed the HELP model, under an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). HELP model version 3.07, issued on November 1, 1997, is the latest version of the model available from the Waterways Experiment Station (USEPA 1994a and USEPA 1994b). Infiltration through the upper hydraulic barrier layer of the closure cap as determined by evaluations following the methodology developed by Phifer and Nelson 2003 will be utilized as the infiltration input to subsequent vadose zone flow and contaminant transport modeling. Table 8-1 provides the infiltration associated with the E-Area Slit and Engineered Trenches assuming no subsidence based upon Phifer 2003 and Phifer 2004a. A lower infiltration was calculated during the operational period for Slit Trenches 1 and 2 by Flach et al. 2005 (i.e., 11.3 inches/year through the operational soil cover). This lower infiltration is only applicable to Slit Trenches 1 and 2. Some future subsidence is anticipated in the closure cap over the Slit and Engineered Trenches due to the disposal of non-crushable containers (i.e., containers for which it is anticipated that dynamic compaction will not crush).


272

Table 8-2 provides the infiltration associated with various subsidence conditions for the E-Area Slit and Engineered Trenches based upon Hang et al. 2005 and Swingle and Phifer 2006. Assuming complete subsidence of all E-Area CIG Trench segments at year 300, Table 8-3 provides the infiltration associated with existing E-Area CIG Trench segments 1 through 8 and Table 8-4 provides that associated with future CIG segments. The CIG Trench infiltration provided in Table 8-3 and Table 8-4 are based upon Phifer and Jones 2006 (draft), Phifer 2004a, and Hang et al. 2005. The CIG Trench subsided infiltration is taken from the Hang et al. 2005 infiltration for the middle trench subsided with subsidence of the crest trench (see Table 8-2). Based upon Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft) Table 8-5 and Table 8-6 provide the infiltration associated with the E-Area LAW Vault and IL Vault, respectively, including estimates at vault roof collapse. These tables additionally provide the estimated change over time in saturated hydraulic conductivity of a drainage layer located directly over the vault roofs, if utilized. Table 8-7 provides the infiltration associated with the E-Area NRCDAs based upon Phifer 2004a. It is anticipated that the casks containing the waste will remain water tight for 750 years (McDowell-Boyer 2000). Table 8-8 provides the infiltration associated with the Z-Area SDF vaults based upon Phifer 2003 and Phifer 2005. These tables additionally provide the estimated change over time in saturated hydraulic conductivity of a drainage layers located adjacent to the vault roofs and/or sides.


273

Table 8-1. E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration without Subsidence (Phifer 2003; Phifer 2004a)

Year Period

Layer through which Infiltration

Estimated

Infiltration Estimate

(inches/year)

-125 to -100 Operational Operational Soil Cover

15.748 (11.3 1)

-100 to 0 Institutional Control

Interim Runoff Cover 0.36

0 Closure Cap GCL 0.36 100 Closure Cap GCL 0.41 300 Closure Cap GCL 3.05 550 Closure Cap GCL 7.9 1,000 Closure Cap GCL 12.04 1,800 Closure Cap GCL 13.76 3,400 Closure Cap GCL 14.03 5,600 Closure Cap GCL 14.08 10,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.09 50,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.04 97,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.1 100,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.11 190,000 Closure Cap GCL 16.54 280,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12 500,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12 1,000,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12

1 For Slit Trenches 1 and 2 an infiltration rate of 11.3 inches/year was estimated through the operational soil cover by Flach et al. 2005. This lower infiltration during the operational period is not applicable to any other Slit Trench


274

Table 8-2. E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration with Subsidence (Hang et al. 2005 and Swingle and Phifer 2006)

Year

Period

Intact Conditions

(in/yr)

Crest Trench

Subsided Infiltration

1 (in/yr)

Middle Trench


with No Upslope

Subsidence 1

(in/yr)

Middle Trench


with Subsidence of the Crest

Trench 1 (in/yr)

Edge Trench Subsided

Infiltration with No Upslope

Subsidence 1 (in/yr)


Infiltration with

Subsidence of the Crest

Trench 1 (in/yr)

Edge Trench


with Subsidence

of the Middle

Trench 1 (in/yr)


Infiltration with

Subsidence of both the Crest and Middle

Trenches 1 (in/yr)

Engineered Trench

subsided Side-Slope Infiltration

with No Upslope

Subsidence 2

(in/yr) -125 to -100

Operational 15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)

15.748 (11.255 3)


0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36

0 Closure Cap 0.36 - - - - - - - - 100 Closure Cap 0.41335 15.35101 27.3554 21.27118 47.7733 40.84586 21.27118 21.27118 59.30101 300 Closure Cap 3.04724 15.91374 24.96526 20.19972 41.1845 35.59461 20.19972 20.19972 50.53281 550 Closure Cap 7.89958 15.91282 20.8031 18.36486 29.28333 26.35596 18.36486 18.36486 34.39588 1,000 Closure Cap 12.0371 15.90293 17.67164 17.00104 20.14728 19.28921 17.00104 17.00104 21.67272 1,800 Closure Cap 13.76236 15.88178 16.62701 16.42927 16.94936 16.83654 16.42927 16.42927 17.31168 3,400 Closure Cap 14.03487 15.81477 16.27673 16.2403 16.4594 16.43844 16.2403 16.2403 16.61793 5,600 Closure Cap 14.07915 15.74556 16.12043 16.13 16.26553 16.24025 16.13 16.13 16.50722 10,000 Closure Cap 14.09278 15.68338 16.15502 16.1351 16.44462 16.30297 16.1351 16.1351 16.51862

1 Hang et al. 2005 2 Swingle and Phifer 2006 3 For Slit Trenches 1 and 2 an infiltration rate of 11.3 inches/year was estimated through the operational soil cover by Flach et al.

2005.


275

Table 8-3. E-Area CIG Trench Segments 1 through 8 Infiltration

Year Period Layer through which

Infiltration Estimated


(inches/year)

Reference

-25 to -19 Operational without Runoff

Cover 1


12.70 Phifer and Jones 2006 (draft)

-19 to 0 Operational with Runoff

Cover

Interim Runoff Cover 2

0.36 Phifer 2004a

0 to 100 Institutional Control


0.36 Phifer 2004a

100 Closure Cap GCL 0.41 Phifer 2004a 300 Closure Cap GCL 3.05 Phifer 2004a 300 Subsidence 3 GCL 20.20 Hang et al. 2005 550 Subsidence 3 GCL 18.36 Hang et al. 2005

1,000 Subsidence 3 GCL 17.00 Hang et al. 2005 1,800 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.43 Hang et al. 2005 3,400 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.24 Hang et al. 2005 5,600 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.13 Hang et al. 2005 10,000 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.14 Hang et al. 2005

1 Emplacement of Segments 1 through 8 began in August 2000 and an interim runoff cover covered all 8 segments by April 1, 2006

2 Interim Runoff Cover assumed to have infiltration equal to that of an intact closure cap 3 It is assumed that all CIG segments subside at year 300


276

Table 8-4. E-Area CIG Trench Future Segments Infiltration




(inches/year)

Reference

-18 to -17.75 Operational without Runoff

Cover 1


12.70 Phifer and Jones 2006 (Draft)

-17.75 to 0 Operational with Runoff

Cover


0.36 Phifer 2004a

0 to 100 Institutional Control


0.36 Phifer 2004a

100 Closure Cap GCL 0.41 Phifer 2004a 300 Closure Cap GCL 3.05 Phifer 2004a 300 Subsidence 3 GCL 20.20 Hang et al. 2005 550 Subsidence 3 GCL 18.36 Hang et al. 2005

1,000 Subsidence 3 GCL 17.00 Hang et al. 2005 1,800 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.43 Hang et al. 2005 3,400 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.24 Hang et al. 2005 5,600 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.13 Hang et al. 2005 10,000 Subsidence 3 GCL 16.14 Hang et al. 2005

1 Three month period of operations with operational soil cover but no interim runoff cover is assumed

2 Interim Runoff Cover assumed to have infiltration equal to that of an intact closure cap 3 It is assumed that all CIG segments subside at year 300


277

Table 8-5. E-Area LAW Vault Infiltration (Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft))



Infiltration Estimate Over

Vault (inches/year)

Infiltration Estimate Off-

Vault (inches/year)

12-inch Lower Drainage Layer

Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Over Vault

(cm/sec)


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Off-Vault (cm/sec)

-125 to -100 Operational Vault Concrete Roof

0 15.748 NA NA


Vault Concrete Roof

0.00041 15.748 NA NA

0 Closure Cap GCL 0.061 0.066 1.000E-01 1.000E-01 100 Closure Cap GCL 0.066 0.068 9.999E-02 9.999E-02 300 Closure Cap GCL 0.962 1.149 9.986E-02 9.984E-02 550 Closure Cap GCL 2.341 2.805 9.935E-02 9.922E-02 1000 Closure Cap GCL 5.692 6.722 9.708E-02 9.654E-02 1800 Closure Cap GCL 10.997 12.178 8.873E-02 8.707E-02 2740 Closure Cap GCL 13.256 13.714 7.446E-02 7.184E-02 2805 Closure Cap GCL 13.278 13.726 7.338E-02 7.072E-02 2805 Vault Roof

Collapse Collapsed Cap 15.93 13.726 NA NA

1 During the operational (-125 to -100) and institutional control (-100 to 0) periods the off vault infiltration is assumed to be 15.748 inches/year. However the vault will be completely above grade during these periods so infiltration through the off-vault area should not affect flow through the vault. It is assumed that drainage structures are maintained during these periods to carry rainwater off the roof and surrounding areas away from the vault so that infiltration in the off-vault areas does not exceed 15.748 inches/year.


278

Table 8-6. E-Area IL Vault Infiltration (Jones and Phifer 2006 (draft))



Infiltration Estimate Over

Vault (inches/year)

Infiltration Estimate Off-

Vault (inches/year)


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Over Vault

(cm/sec)


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity Off-Vault (cm/sec)

-125 to -100 Operational Vault Concrete Roof 0 15.748 NA NA


Vault Concrete Roof 0.00041 15.748 NA NA

0 Closure Cap GCL 0.061 0.066 1.000E-01 1.000E-01 100 Closure Cap GCL 0.066 0.068 9.999E-02 9.999E-02 300 Closure Cap GCL 0.962 1.149 9.986E-02 9.984E-02 550 Closure Cap GCL 2.341 2.805 9.935E-02 9.922E-02 1000 Closure Cap GCL 5.692 6.722 9.708E-02 9.654E-02 1800 Closure Cap GCL 10.997 12.178 8.873E-02 8.707E-02 2740 Closure Cap GCL 13.256 13.714 7.446E-02 7.184E-02 2805 Closure Cap GCL 13.278 13.726 7.338E-02 7.072E-02 3400 Closure Cap GCL 13.414 13.803 6.344E-02 6.047E-02 5600 Closure Cap GCL 13.682 13.924 2.612E-02 2.229E-02 7000 Closure Cap GCL 13.752 13.947 2.083E-03 1.000E-04

7000 Vault Roof Collapse Collapsed Cap 15.93 13.726 NA NA

1 During the operational (-125 to -100) and institutional control (-100 to 0) periods the off vault infiltration is assumed to be 15.748 inches/year. The IL vault is partially below grade during these periods so infiltration through the off-vault area could affect flow through the vault. It is assumed that drainage structures are maintained during these periods to carry rainwater off the roof and surrounding areas away from the vault so that infiltration in the off-vault areas does not exceed 15.748 inches/year.


279

Table 8-7. E-Area NRCDAs Infiltration (Phifer 2003; Phifer 2004a)

Year Period

Layer through which Infiltration

Estimated


(inches/year) -125 to -100 Operational Casks 1 0

-100 to 0 Institutional Control Casks 0

0 Closure Cap 2 GCL 0.36 100 Closure Cap GCL 0.41 300 Closure Cap GCL 3.05 550 Closure Cap GCL 7.9 1,000 Closure Cap GCL 12.04 1,800 Closure Cap GCL 13.76 3,400 Closure Cap GCL 14.03 5,600 Closure Cap GCL 14.08 10,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.09 50,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.04 97,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.1 100,000 Closure Cap GCL 14.11 190,000 Closure Cap GCL 16.54 280,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12 500,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12 1,000,000 Closure Cap GCL 18.12

1 As described in Section 4.5.6 the NR casks have thick walls, are closed with a gasket or welds, and are considered water tight, therefore there is not infiltration into the casks during the operational and 100-year institutional control periods.

2 Infiltration through the GCL of the closure cap is assumed to be the same as that of the E-Area Trenches (Slit and Engineered Trenches) without subsidence


280

Table 8-8. Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vaults Infiltration (Phifer 2003; Phifer 2005) Year Period Layer through

which Infiltration Estimated

Infiltration Estimate for all

SDF Vaults (inches/year)


Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity for all SDF

Vaults (cm/sec)

Height of Side Vertical

Drainage Layer with a Ks of 0.1 cm/s for

Vaults 1 and 4 (feet)

Height of Side Vertical

Drainage Layer with a Ks of

0000.1 cm/s for Vaults 1 and 4

(feet)

Thickness of Upper Portion of the Vault

Base Drainage Layer with a

Ks of 0.1 cm/s for Vaults 1 and 4 (feet)

Thickness of Lower Portion

of the Vault Base Drainage Layer with a Ks of 0.0001

cm/s for Vaults 1 and 4 (feet)

-25 to 0 Operational 1 Vault Concrete

Roof 3 0.025 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Closure Cap 2 GCL 0.36 1.00E-01 23.5 0 5 0

100 Closure Cap 2 GCL 0.41 1.00E-01 23.5 0 4.9995 0.0005 300 Closure Cap 2 GCL 3.05 9.98E-02 23.5 0 4.995 0.005 550 Closure Cap 2 GCL 7.9 9.89E-02 23.5 0 4.978 0.022

1,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 12.04 9.61E-02 23.5 0 4.92 0.08 1,800 Closure Cap 2 GCL 13.76 8.96E-02 23.5 0 4.79 0.21 3,400 Closure Cap 2 GCL 14.03 7.56E-02 23.5 0 4.51 0.49 5,600 Closure Cap 2 GCL 14.08 5.62E-02 23.5 0 4.12 0.88 10,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 14.09 1.74E-02 23.5 0 3.34 1.66 50,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 14.04 1.00E-04 19.78 3.72 0 5

100,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 14.11 1.00E-04 10.94 12.56 0 5 190,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 16.54 1.00E-04 0 23.5 0 5 280,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 18.12 1.00E-04 0 23.5 0 5 500,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 18.12 1.00E-04 0 23.5 0 5

1,000,000 Closure Cap 2 GCL 18.12 1.00E-04 0 23.5 0 5


281

Notes to Table 8-8: 1 During the operational period (-25 to 0) the off vault infiltration is assumed to be 15.748

inches/year. However Vault 1 and 4 will be completely above grade during this period so infiltration through the off-vault area should not affect flow through these vaults. Vault 2 will be mostly below grade during this period so infiltration through the off-vault area could affect flow through the vault. It is not currently known whether subsequent vaults will be above or below grade during these periods. It is assumed that drainage structures are maintained during this period to carry rainwater off the vault roofs and surrounding areas away from the vaults so that infiltration in the off-vault areas does not exceed 15.748 inches/year.

2 During the periods with the closure cap (0 to 1,000,000) the off vault infiltration is assumed to be the same as the on vault infiltration.

3 Based upon Vault #4. Infiltration during the operational period would be lower for both Vaults #1 and #2 than for vault #4


282



283

9.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 SUMMARY Hydraulic property estimates for the soils, the cementitious materials, and the waste zones associated with the E-Area and Z-Area low-level radioactive waste disposal units have been provided to support the Performance Assessments (PA) for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (LLWF) and the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Nominal or “best estimate” hydraulic property values for use in the deterministic and sensitivity modeling are provided along with representations of the hydraulic property value uncertainty for use in the uncertainty modeling. The hydraulic properties provided for each of the E-Area and Z-Area materials include porosity (η), dry bulk density (ρb), particle density (ρp), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), characteristic curves (suction head, saturation, and relative permeability), and effective diffusion coefficient (De). A representation of the uncertainty associated with each property, except for the characteristic curves, is provided for each material, except for the E-Area waste zones. These nominal parameter values and parameter uncertainty representations for each of the E-Area and Z-Area soils, cementitious materials, and waste zones are based upon the following in order of priority: • Site-specific field data, • Site-specific laboratory data, • Similarity to material with site-specific field or laboratory data, and • Literature data. The following tables contained herein provide the nominal parameter values and parameter uncertainty representation for each of the E-Area and Z-Area soils: • Table 5-18 Summary of Recommended Soil Properties • Table 5-19 Characteristic Curve Values for the Upper, Lower & Single Vadose Zone • Table 5-20 Characteristic Curve Values for Textural Categories • Table 5-21 Characteristic Curve Values for the Operational Soil Cover & Controlled

Compacted Backfill • Table 5-22 Characteristic Curve Values for Gravel & IL Vault Permeable Backfill • Table 5-15 Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Total Porosity, Dry Bulk

Density, and Particle Density • Table 5-16 Uncertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity • Table 5-17 Undertainty Analysis Summary Statistics for Saturated Effective Diffusion

Coefficient


284

The following tables contained herein provide the nominal parameter values and parameter uncertainty representation for each of the E-Area and Z-Area cementitious materials: • Table 6-47 E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Nominal Cementitious Material Hydraulic

Property Values • Table 6-48 E-Area and Z-Area Recommended Cementitious Material Characteristic

Curves • Table 6-52 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for

Effective Porosity (%) • Table 6-53 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for

Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3) • Table 6-54 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for

Particle Density (g/cm3) • Table 6-57 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity • Table 6-59 E-Area and Z-Area Cementitious Material Uncertainty Summary Statistics for

Saturated Effective Diffusion Coefficient Cracked concrete will be represented as outlined in Section 6.5. Table 7-1 provides the recommended waste zone representation for each of the E-Area disposal units except for the NRCDAs. An explicit uncertainty representation for the E-Area disposal unit waste zones is not provided due to the lack of data from which to derive such a representation. The Z-Area waste zone (i.e., Saltstone) representation is provided with the other cementitious materials as discussed above. In addition recommended infiltration estimates, for each of the disposal unit type, are provided for use in the deterministic modeling efforts in the following tables: • Table 8-1 E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration without Subsidence • Table 8-2 E-Area Trench (Slit and Engineered Trenches) Infiltration with Subsidence • Table 8-3 E-Area CIG Trench Segments 1 through 8 Infiltration • Table 8-4 E-Area CIG Trench Future Segments Infiltration • Table 8-5 E-Area LAW Vault Infiltration • Table 8-6 E-Area IL Vault Infiltration • Table 8-7 E-Area NRCDAs Infiltration • Table 8-8 Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Vaults Infiltration


285

9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Much of the nominal hydraulic property values and uncertainty representations provided herein are based upon similarity to other materials for which site-specific field or laboratory data is available or are based upon literature data. This reliance upon similarity and literature data increases the uncertainty associated with such representations compared to direct measurement. Therefore additional work should be considered in order to better define the hydraulic property values and uncertainty representations associated with the E-Area and Z-Area soils, cementitious materials, and waste zones. Such additional work should be based upon the importance of the material and/or property to the results of the deterministic and uncertainty modeling. The relative importance of the various materials and properties should be established through a process of sensitivity modeling. The materials and properties that most affect the results of the deterministic, sensitivity, and uncertainty modeling should receive priority for further field and laboratory testing. The remaining materials and properties should receive a lower priority or even be eliminated for further testing. Prioritization should also consider the following: • Very few site-specific measurements of the following properties for the E-Area and

Z-Area materials have been obtained: - Very few site-specific unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (i.e., relative permeability)

measurements exist except for the existing E-Area CIG grout and the E-Area CLSM. - No site-specific saturated effective diffusion coefficient measurements exist, except

for the Z-Area Saltstone. • No site-specific hydraulic property measurements have been obtained for the following

existing E-Area and Z-Area materials: - E-Area operational soil cover (both before and after dynamic compaction) - IL Vault permeable backfill - E-Area CIG concrete mats - Z-Area Vaults 1 and 4 work slab - Z-Area Vault 1 roof - Z-Area Vault 4 wall and floor concrete - Z-Area Vault 4 roof - Z-Area clean grout cap - E-Area disposal unit waste zone

• Little site-specific property measurements have been obtained for the following existing E-Area and Z-Area materials: - Z-Area vadose zone soils - E-Area vault concrete - Z-Area Vault 1 floor and wall concrete - Z-Area Saltstone


286

Additionally further investigations into the generation of characteristic curves based upon water retention and/or unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data and curve fitting codes such as RETC (USDA 1998) for both soils and cementitious materials is recommended to ensure that recent advances in modeling water retention and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity are appropriately taken into consideration.


287

10.0 REFERENCES Aadland, R. K., M. K. Harris, C. M. Lewis, T. F. Gaughan, and T. M. Westbrook, 1991, Hydrostratigraphy of the General Separations Area, Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina, WSRC-RP-91-13, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC 29808. Aadland, R. K., J. A. Gellici, and P. A. Thayer, 1995, Hydrogeologic Framework of West-Central South Carolina, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Division, Report 5, Columbia, South Carolina, 200p. AASHTO 2002. Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration, T 259-02, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C. 2002. AASHTO 2005. Standard Method of Test for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, T 277-05, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C. 2005. Ababou, R. and E. F. Wood, 1990, Comment on "Effective groundwater model parameter values: influence of spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity, leakance, and recharge" by J. J. Gomez-Hernandez and S. M. Gorelick, Water Resources Research, v26, n8, 1843-1846. ACI 1996. Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete, ACI 234R-96, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. May 1, 1996. ACI 2001. Guide to Durable Concrete, ACI 201.2R-01, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. October 2001. ACI 2003a. Use of Fly Ash in Concrete, ACI 232.2R-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. March 2003. ACI 2003b. Slag Cement in Concrete and Mortar, ACI 233R-03, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. June 2003. Anderson, M. P., 1991, Comment on “Universal scaling of hydraulic conductivities and dispersivities in geologic media” by S. P. Neuman, Water Resources Research, v27, n6, 1381-1384. Anderson, M. P., 1997, Characterization of geological heterogeneity, in G. Dagan and S. P. Neuman, eds., Subsurface flow and transport: a stochastic approach, Cambridge University Press, 241 p.


288

ANS 1986. Measurement of the Leachability of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure, ANSI/ANS-16.1-1986, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois. 1986. ANS 2003. Measurement of the Leachability of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by a Short-Term Test Procedure, ANSI/ANS-16.1-2003, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois. 2004. Ampadu, K. O., Torii, K., and Kawamura, M. 1999. “Beneficial effect of fly ash on chloride diffusivity of hardened cement paste,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 29, pp. 585-590, 1999. ASTM 1982. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete, ASTM C 642-82. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA. December 1982. ATSM 1983. Standard Specification for Apparatus for use in Measurement of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste, Mortar, and Concrete, ASTM C 490-83a. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, PA. July 1983. ASTM 1995. Standard Test Method for Accelerated Leach Test for Diffusive Releases from Solidified Waste and a Computer Program to Model Diffusive, Fractional Leaching from Cylindrical Waste Forms, ASTM C 1308-95, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. September 10, 1995. ASTM 1997. Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete ASTM C 642-97, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. March 1997. ASTM 2000. Standard Test Method for Determining Unsaturated and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in Porous Media by Steady-State Centrifugation, ASTM 6527-00, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. June 2000. ASTM 2003. Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter, ASTM D 5084-03, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. January 2004. ASTM 2004a. Standard Test Method for Determination of Pore Volume and Pore Volume Distribution of Soil and Rock by Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry, ASTM D 4404-84 (Reapproved 2004), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. July 2004. ASTM 2004b. Standard Test Method for Determining the Apparent Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Cementitious Mixtures by Bulk Diffusion, ASTM C 1556-04, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. July 2004.


289

ASTM 2005. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, ASTM C 1202-05, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. August 2005. Atkinson, A., Nickerston, A. K., and Valentine, T. M. 1984. “The Mechanism of Leaching from Some Cement-Based Nuclear Wasteforms,” Radioactive Waste Management and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Volume 4(4), pp. 357-378, February 1984. Baroghel-Bouny, V., Mainguy, M., Lassabatere, T., and Coussy, O. 1999. “Characterization and identification of equilibrium and transfer moisture properties for ordinary and high-performance cementitious materials,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 29, pp. 1225-1238. 1999. Basheer, P. A. M. 2001. Chapter 16 Permeation Analysis, in Handbook of Analytical Techniques in Concrete Science and Technology Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Ramachandran, V. A. and Beaudoin, J. J. (editors), Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. pp. 658-737. Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover Publications, New York, 764 p. Beaudoin, J. J. and Marchand, J. 2001. Chapter 14 Pore Structure, in Handbook of Analytical Techniques in Concrete Science and Technology Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Ramachandran, V. A. and Beaudoin, J. J. (editors), Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. pp. 528-628. Boudreau, B. P., 1996, The Diffusive Tortuosity of Fine-grained Unlithified Sediments, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 60, n.16, 3139-3142. Boving, T. B. and P. Grathwohl, 2001, Tracer Diffusion Coefficients in Sedimentary Rocks: Correlation to Porosity and Hydraulic Conductivity, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, v.53, 85-100. Brannan, J. R. and J. S. Haselow, 1993, Compound random field models of multiple scale hydraulic conductivity, Water Resources Research, v29, n2, 365-372. Bruins, H. R., 2003, Coefficients of Diffusion in Liquids, in E. W. Washburn, ed., International Critical Tables of Numerical Data, Physics, Chemistry and Technology, Knovel, Norwich, New York, 3414 p. Carey, S. 2006. Low Activity Waste (LAW) Vault Structural Degradation Prediction, T-CLC-E-00018, Rev. 1. Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June 15, 2006.


290

Castellote, M., Alonso, C, Andrade., C., Chadbourn, G. A. and Page, C. L. 2001a. “Oxygen and chloride diffusion in cement pastes as a validation of chloride diffusion coefficients obtained by steady-state migration tests,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 31, pp. 621-625, 2001. Castellote, M., Andrade., C., and Alonso, C. 2001b. “Measurement of the steady and non-steady-state chloride diffusion coefficients in a migration test by means of monitoring the conductivity in the anolyte chamber Comparison with natural diffusion tests,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 31, pp. 1411-1420, 2001. Chiappetto, C. A. 2006. Personal Correspondence. September 22, 2006. Clifton, J. R. and Knab, L. I. 1989. Service Life of Concrete, NUREG/CR-5466, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. November 1989. Colquhoun, D. J., I. D. Woollen, D. S. Van Nieuwenhuise, G. G. Padgett, R. W. Oldham, D. C. Boylan, J. W. Bishop, and P. D. Howell, 1983, Surface and Subsurface Stratigraphy, Structure and Aquifers of the South Carolina Coastal Plain, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Report ISBN 0-9613154-0-7, 78p. Cook, J. R., Phifer, M. A., Wilhite, E. L., Young, K. E., and Jones, W. E. 2004. Closure Plan for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility, WSRC-RP-2000-00425, Rev. 4, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. May 2004. Cook, J. R., Wilhite, E. L., Hiergesell, R. A., and Flach, G. P. 2005. Special Analysis: Revision of Saltstone Vault 4 Disposal Limits (U), WSRC-TR-2005-00074, Revision 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. May 26, 2005. Dagan, G. and S. P. Neuman, eds., 1997, Subsurface flow and transport: a stochastic approach, Cambridge University Press, 241 p. Delagrave, A., Marchand, J., and Pigeon, M. 1998. “Influence of Microstructure on the Tritiated Water Diffusivity of Mortars,” Advanced Cement Based Materials, volume 7, pp. 60-65. 1998. Dennehy, K. F., D. C. Prowell, and P. B. McMahon, 1989, Reconnaissance Hydrogeologic Investigation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility and Vicinity, Savannah River Plant, South Carolina, U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4221, 74p. Desbarats, A. J., 1992, Spatial averaging of hydraulic conductivity in three-dimensional heterogeneous porous media, Mathematical Geology, v24, n3, 249-267.


291

Dixon, K. L. 2005a. Concrete Mixes for Saltstone Vault 4, SRNL-EST-2005-00105, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June 21, 2005. Dixon, K. L. 2005b. Concrete Mixes for Saltstone Vault 1, SRNL-EST-2005-00109, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. October 10, 2005. Dixon, K. L. and Phifer, M. A. 2006. Hydraulic and Physical Properties of Cementitious Materials used at the Component-in-Grout Waste Trenches and the Intermediate Level Vault, WSRC-CP-2006-00033, Revision 0, Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. August 2006. Dunn 2002. B-25 Corrosion Evaluation Summary Report (U), WSRC-TR-2001-00587, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. January 2002. Dutro, Jr., J. T., R. V. Dietrich, and R. M. Foose, 1989, AGI Data Sheets for Geology in the Field, Laboratory, and Office, 3rd ed, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia. Dykhuizen, R. C. and W. H. Casey, 1989, An Analysis of Solute Diffusion in Rocks, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53, 2797-2805. Efron, B., 1982, The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Number 38 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. El-Dieb, A. S. and Hooton, R. D., 1994. “Evaluation of the Katz-Thompson Model for Estimating the Water Permeability of Cement-Based Materials from Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry Data,” Cement and Concrete Research, v. 24, no. 3, pp. 443-455. Fallaw, W. C. and V. Price, and P. A. Thayer, 1990, Stratigraphy of the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, in V. A. Zullo, W. B. Harris and V. Price, eds., Savannah River Region: Transition Between the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, Proceedings of the Second Bald Head Island Conference on Coastal Plain Geology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 144p. Fallaw, W. C. and V. Price, 1995, Stratigraphy of the Savannah River Site and Vicinity, Southeastern Geology, v.35, 21-58. Faure, G., 1991, Principles and Applications of Inorganic Geochemistry, MacMillan Publishing, New York, New York, 626 p. Feehley, C. E., C. Zheng and F. J. Molz, 2000, A dual-domain mass transfer approach for modeling solute transport in heterogeneous aquifers: Application to the Macrodispersion Experiment (MADE) site, Water Resources Research, v36, n9, 2501-2515.


292

Fetter, C. W. 1993. Contaminant Hydrogeology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Flach, G. P. and Harris, M. K. 1996. Integrated Hydrogeological Modeling of the General Separations Area, Volume 2, Groundwater Flow Model (U), WSRC-TR-96-0399, Rev. 1. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. April 1999. Flach, G. P., L. B. Collard, M. A. Phifer, K. P. Crapse, K. L. Dixon, L. D. Koffman, E. L. Wilhite, 2005, Preliminary Closure Analysis for Slit Trenches #1 and #2, WSRC-TR-2005-00093, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. Flach, G. P. 2004. Groundwater Flow Model of the General Separations Area Using PorFlow (U), WSRC-TR-2004-00106, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. July 15, 2004. Flach, G. P., S. A. Crisman and F. J. Molz III, 2004, Comparison of single-domain and dual-domain subsurface transport models, Ground Water, v42, n6, 815-828. Flach, G. P., M. K. Harris, A. D. Smits, and F. H. Syms, 2005, Modeling Aquifer Heterogeneity Using Cone Penetration Testing Data and Stochastic Upscaling Methods, Environmental Geosciences, v.12, no.1, 1-15. Flach, G. P., M. K. Harris, R. A. Hiergesell, A. D. Smits, and K. L. Hawkins, 1999, Regional Groundwater Flow Model for C, K, L, and P Reactor Areas, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina (U), WSRC-TR-99-00248, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC, 29808. Flach, G. P, Collard, L. B., Phifer, M. A., Crapse, K. P., Dixon, K. L., Koffman, L. D., and Wilhite, E. L. 2005. Preliminary Closure Analysis for Slit Trenches #1 and #2, WSRC-TR-2005-00093, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC, 29808. Flint and Flint 2002a. Total Porosity – Gravimetric Method with Water Saturation, SSSA Method 2.3.2.2 in SSSA Book Series: 5, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-Physical Methods. Dane, J. H. and Topp, G. C. (co-editors). Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 2002. Flint and Flint 2002b. Particle Density – Calculation form Porosity and Bulk Density, SSSA Method 2.2.3.1 in SSSA Book Series: 5, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-Physical Methods. Dane, J. H. and Topp, G. C. (co-editors). Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 2002. Fredlund, D. G. and H. Rahardjo, 1993, Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 517 p.


293

Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Gelhar, L. W., 1993, Stochastic subsurface hydrology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 390 p. Gelhar, L. W., 1997, Perspectives on field-scale application of stochastic subsurface hydrology, in G. Dagan and S. P. Neuman, eds., Subsurface flow and transport: a stochastic approach, Cambridge University Press, 241 p. Gelhar, L. W. and C. L. Axness, 1983, Three-dimensional stochastic analysis of macrodispersion in aquifers, Water Resources Research, v19, n1, 161-180. Greskovich, E. J., J. M. Pommersheim, and R. C. Kenner, Jr., 1975, Determination of Hindered Diffusivities for Nonadsorbing Pollutants in Muds, AIChe, v.21, n.5, 1022-1024. Hang, T, Collard, L. B., and Phifer, M. A. 2005. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Subsidence Study for Non-Crushable Containers in Slit Trenches (U), WSRC-TR-2005-00104, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. March 15, 2005. Harvey, C. F. and S. M. Gorelick, 2000, Rate-limited mass transfer or macrodispersion: Which dominates plume evolution at the Macrodispersion Experiment (MADE) site? Water Resources Research, v36, n3, 637-650. Hearn, N. 1990. “A Recording Permeameter for Measuring Time-Sensitive Permeability of Concrete,” Advances in Cementitious Materials Ceramic Transactions, v. 16,, ed. Mindess, S., pp. 463-475, American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH. Hearn, N., Detwiler, R. J., and Sframeli, C., 1994. “Water Permeability and Microstructure of Three Old Concretes,” Cement and Concrete Research, v. 24, no. 4, pp. 633-640. Hearn, N. and Figg, J., 2001. “Transport Mechanisms and Damage: Current Issues in Permeation Characteristics of Concrete,” Chapter in Materials Science of Concrete VI, ed. by Mindess, S. and Skalny, J., 2001, pp. 327 – 375. Helms, S. B. 1966. Hardened Concrete Air Content and Unit Weight, in Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169-A, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 309-325. Hernandez, M. G., Izquierdo, M. A. G., Ibanez, A., Anaya, J. J., and Ullate, L. G. 2000. “Porosity estimation of concrete by ultrasonic NDE”, Ultrasonics, Volume 38, pp. 531-533, 2000.


294

Hillel, D. 1982. Introduction to Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA. Jackson, D. G., 2000, Laboratory Analysis of Shallow Sediment Samples at the 321-M Solvent Storage Tank, SRT-EST-2000-00109, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. Jean, G. A., J. M. Yarus, G. P. Flach, M. R. Millings, M. K. Harris, R. L. Chambers, and F. H. Syms, 2004, Three-dimensional geologic model of southeastern Tertiary coastal-plain sediments, Savannah River Site, South Carolina: An applied geostatistical approach for environmental applications, Environmental Geosciences, v11, n4, 205 - 220. Johnston, H. M. and Wilmot, D. J. 1992. “Sorption and Diffusion Studies in Cementitious Grouts,” Waste Management, Vol. 12, pp. 289-297, 1992. Jones, W. E., Phifer, M. A., and Kukreja, J. 2004. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Components-In-grout Options for Structural Stability – Component Filling, Component Stability, or Concrete Mat Cover, WSRC-TR-2004-00039, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. February 2004. Jones, W. E. and Phifer, M. A. 2006. E-Area Low-Activity Waste Vault Subsidence Potential and Closure Cap Performance (U), WSRC-TR-2005-00405, Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. 2006. (draft) Kaplan, D. I. 2006. Geochemical Data Package for Performance Assessment Calculation Related to the Savannah River Site (U), WSRC-TR-2006-00004, Revision 0. Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. February 28, 2006. Kumar, R and Bhattacharjee, B. 2003. “Porosity, pore size distribution and in situ strength of concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 33, pp. 155-164, 2003. Lafhaj, Z., Goueygou, M., Djerbi, A., and Kaczmarek, M. 2005. “Correlation between porosity, permeability and ultrasonic parameters of mortar with variable water / cement ratio and water content,” Article In Press, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume XX, pp. XXX-XXX, 2005. Langton, C. A. 1986. Reduced Technetium Leaching in Slag – Class F Fly Ash Saltstone Formulations. DPST-86-551. Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. November 4, 1986. Langton, C. A. 1987. Physical Properties of Slag Saltstone. DPST-87-673. Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. October 26, 1987. Langton, C. A. 2005. Saltstone Physical and Mechanical Properties, WSRC-RP-2005-01733, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. August 16, 2005. (contains Licastro 1985)


295

Langton, C. A., Hansen E. K., Cook J. P., and Mhyre, W. L. 2005. Saltstone Clean Cap Formulation, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. April 22, 2005. Leng, F., Feng, N., and Xinying, L. 2000. “An experimental study on the properties of resistance to diffusion of chloride ions of fly ash and blast furnace slag concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 30, pp. 989-992, 2000. Liang, H., Li, L., Poor, N. D., and Sagues, A. A. 2003. “Nitrite diffusivity in calcium nitrite-admixed hardened concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 33, pp. 139-146, 2003. Licastro, P. H., Roy, D. M. and Malek, R. I. A. 1985. Saltstone Physical and Mechanical Properties, Materials Research Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. December 1985. Logan, W. R., and G. M. Euler, 1989, Geology and Groundwater Resources of Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties and Part of Aiken County, South Carolina, South Carolina Water Resources Commission Report 155, 113p. Looney, B. B., M. W. Grant, and C. M. King, 1987, Estimation of geochemical parameters for assessing subsurface transport at the Savannah River Plant, DPST- 85-904. Lunne, T., P. K. Robertson, and J. J. M. Powell, 1997, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Blackie Academic and Professional, U.K, 352 p. Luping, T. and Nilsson, L., 1992. “A Study of the Quantitative Relationship Between Permeability and Pore Size Distribution of Hardened Cement Pastes,” Cement and Concrete Research, v. 22, no. 4, pp. 541-550, July 1992. McAllister, C., H. Beckert, C. Abrams, G. Bilyard, K. Cadwell, S. Friant, C. Glantz, R. Mazaika, K. Miller, 1996, Survey of Ecological Resources at Selected U. S. Department of Energy Sites, DOE/EH-0534, PNNL, 148p. McDowell-Boyer, L., Yu, A. D., Cook, J. R., Kocher, D. C., Wilhite, E. L., Holmes-Burns, H., and Young, K. E. 2000. Radiological Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility, WSRC-RP-94-218, Revision 1, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Maerki, M., B. Wehrli, C. Dinkel, and B. Muller, 2004, The Influence of Tortuosity on Molecular Diffusion in Freshwater Sediment of High Porosity, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v68, n7, 1519-1528.


296

Naik, T. R., Singh, S. S., and Ramme, B. W. 2001. “Performance and Leaching Assessment of Flowable Slurry,” Journal of Environmental Engineering, Volume 127, Issue 4, pp. 359-368. April 2001. Neville, A. M. 1973. Properties of Concrete, John Wiley and Sons, New York Nichols, R. L., B. B. Looney, G. P. Flach and J. Rossabi, 2000, Recommendations for Phase II Vadose Zone Characterization and Monitoring at the E-Area Disposal “Slit” Trenches and Mega-Trench (U), WSRC-TR-2000-00059. Nimmo, J. R., Perkins, K. S., and Lewis, A. M. 2002. Steady-State Centrifuge, SSSA Method 3.6.1.1.b in SSSA Book Series: 5, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-Physical Methods. Dane, J. H. and Topp, G. C. (co-editors). Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. 2002. Osborne, G. J., 1989. “Carbonation and Permeability of Blast Furnace Slag Cement Concretes from Field Structures,” American Concrete Institute SP 114-59, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, ed., Malhotra, V. M., Trondheim, Norway, v. 2, pp. 1209-1237. Peregoy, W. 2006a. Structural Evaluation of Intermediate Level Waste Storage Vaults for Long-Term Behavior, T-CLC-E-00024, Rev. 0. Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June 27, 2006 Peregoy, W. 2006b. Structural Evaluation of Component-in-Grout Trenches, T-CLC-E-00026, Rev. 0. Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. August 3, 2006. Perry, R.H., and D. W. Green, D.W., 1997, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook (7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2581 p. Phifer, M. A., F. C. Sappington, B. E. Pemberton, and R. L. Nichols, 1996, Interim Report D-Area Interceptor Well, DIW-1 Water Table Aquifer (U), WSRC-TR-99-00017, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. Phifer, M. A., F. C. Sappington, and M. E. Denham, 1998, TNX GeoSiphon Cell (TGSC-1) Phase 1 Deployment/Demonstration Final Report (U), WSRC-TR-98-00032, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808. Phifer, M. A., F. C. Sappington, and W. E. Jones, 2000, DCB-8C Step and Constant Rate Pump Tests D-Area Unconfined Aquifer Hydraulic Parameter Estimation, SRT-EST-2000-00226, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken SC 29808.


297

Phifer, M. A. and Wilhite, E. L. 2001. Waste Subsidence Potential Versus Supercompaction, WSRC-RP-2001-00613, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. September 27, 2001. Phifer, M. A. and Nelson, E. A. 2003. Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Configuration and Degradation Base Case: Institutional Control to Pine Forest Scenario (U), Revision 0, WSRC-TR-2003-00436, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Phifer, M. A. 2003. Saltstone Disposal Facility Mechanically Stabilized Earth Vault Closure Cap Degradation Base Case: Institutional Control to Pine Forest Scenario (U), Revision 0, WSRC-TR-2003-00523, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Phifer, M. A., 2004a. Preliminary E-Area Trench Closure Cap Closure Sequence, Infiltration, and Waste Thickness (U), WSRC-TR-2004-00119, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. March 2004. Phifer, M. A., 2004b. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Low Strength Containers with Compressible Waste in Component-In-Grout Trenches, WSRC-TR-2004-00475, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. September 21, 2004. Phifer, M. A., 2005. Vault #4 Closure Cap Estimated Infiltration for Years 50,000 to 1,000,000, SRNL-EST-2004-00103, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. Phifer, M. A. and Jones, W. E., 2006. CIG-1 Segments 1 through 8 Infiltration Estimates, WSRC-TR-2006-XXXX, Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina (draft) Popovics, S. 1992. Concrete Materials Properties, Specifications and Testing, 2nd edition, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Powers, T. C., Copeland, L. E., Hayes, J. C., and Mann, H. M., 1954. Permeability of Portland Cement Paste, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, vol. 51, pp. 285-298. November 1954. Powers, T. C., Copeland, L. E., Hayes, J. C., and Mann, H. M., 1955. Permeability of Portland Cement Paste, Portland Cement Association Bulletin 53, April 1955. Robinson, R. A. and R. H. Stokes, 1955, Electrolyte Solutions: The Measurement and Interpretation of Conductance, Chemical Potential and Diffusion in solutions of Simples Electrolytes, Academic Press, New York, New York, 512 p.


298

Rockhold, M. L., Fayer, M. J., and Heller, P. R. 1993. Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Sediments and Engineered Materials Associated with Grouted Double-Shell Tank Waste Disposal at Hanford, PNL-8813, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. September 1993. Appendix J within Performance Assessment of Grouted Double-Shell Tank Waste Disposal at Hanford, WHC-SD-WM-EE-004, Rev. 0, Volume 2, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. October 1993. Safiuddin, M. and Hearn, N. 2005. “Comparison of ASTM saturation techniques for measuring the permeable porosity of concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 35, pp. 1008-1013, 2005. Sanchez-Vila, X., J. P. Giradi and J. Carrera, 1995, A synthesis of approaches to upscaling of hydraulic conductivities, Water Resources Research, v31, n4, 867-882. Sappington, F. C. and Phifer, M. A. 2005. Moisture Content and Porosity of Concrete Rubble Study (U) WSRC-TR-2005-00054, Revision 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. October 7, 2005. (Draft) Sarris, T. S. and E. K. Paleologos, 2004, Numerical investigation of the anisotropic hydraulic conductivity behavior in heterogeneous porous media, Journal of Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment, v18, 188-197. Savage, B. M. and Janssen, D. J. 1997. “Soil Physics Principles Validated for Use in Predicting Unsaturated Moisture Movement in Portland Cement Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 94, No. 1, January-February 1997, pp. 63-70. Seitz, R. R. and Walton, J. C. 1993. Modeling approaches for Concrete Barriers Used in Low-Level Waste Disposal, NUREG/CR-6070, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Serne, R. J., Lokken, R. O., and Criscenti, L. J. 1992. “Characterization of Grouted Low-Level Waste to Support Performance Assessment,” Waste Management, Vol. 12, pp. 271-287, 1992. Sinclair, A. J., 1989, Applications of Probability Graphs in Mineral Exploration, Special Volume 4, Association of Exploration Geochemists, Vancouver, Canada, 95 p. Siple, G. E., 1967, Geology and Ground Water of the Savannah River Plant and Vicinity, South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1841, 113p. Snyder, K. A., 2003. Condition Assessment of Concrete Nuclear Structures Considered for Entombment, NISTIR 7026, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Version 20030108:1545. July 14 2003.


299

Soroushian, P. and Alhozaimy, A. 1995. Fly Ash Effects on Mortar Permeability in Concrete and Grout in Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Disposal, ACI Special Publication 158, Al-Manaseer A. A. and Roy, D. M. (editors), American Concrete Institute, Detroit Michigan. Stanish, K. and Thomas, M. 2003. “The use of bulk diffusion tests to establish time-dependent concrete chloride diffusion coefficients,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 33, pp. 55-62, 2003. Syms, F. H., M. R. Lewis, and T. J. Temples, 2001, Calibration of the Piezocone Penetrometer Test for Predicting Soil Character, WSRC-MS-2001-00887, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC, 29808. Swingle, R. F. and Phifer, M. A. 2006. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Increased Disposal Volume in Slit and Engineered Trenches (U), WSRC-TR-2006-00186, Rev. 0, Washington Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June, 26 2006. Thibodeau, L. J., 1979, Chemodynamics: Environmental Movement of Chemicals in Air, Water and Soil, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 501 p. Truc, O., Ollivier, J. P., and Carcasses, M. 2000. “A new way for determining the chloride diffusion coefficient in concrete from steady state migration test,” Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 30, pp. 217-226, 2000. USACE 1970. Engineering and Design Laboratory Soils Testing, Engineer Manual, EM 1110-2-1906, Change 2, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. August 20, 1986. USACE 1992. Test Method for Water Permeability of Concrete using Triaxial Cell, CRD-C 163-92, in Handbook for Concrete and Cement, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. September 1992. USDA 1998. RETC for Windows, 1998, Version 1.0.0.1, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8952. USDOI 1981. Concrete Manual, 8th ed., U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1975 reprinted 1981. US EPA.1994a. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model User’s Guide for Version 3, EPA/600/R-94/168a, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC., 94 p.


300

US EPA 1994b. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Engineering Documentation for Version 3, EPA/600/R-94/168b, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 116 p. USGS, 1987, Digital Line Graphs from 1:24,000 Scale Maps, 10-ft intervals, United States Geological Survey. Van Genuchten, M. Th., 1980, A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils, Soil Science Society of America Journal, v44, 892-898. Van Genuchten, M. Th., F. J. Leij, and S. R. Yates, 1991, The RETC Code for Qualifying the Hydraulic Functions of Unsaturated Soils, Version 1.0, EPA Report 600/2-91/065, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Riverside, California. Verbeck, G. 1966. Hardened Concrete Pore Structure, in Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM STP 169-A, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 211-219 Walpole, R. E. and R. H. Meyers, 1978, Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed, MacMillan Publishing, New York, New York. Walton, J. C., Plansky, L.E. and Smith R. W., Models for Estimation of Service Life of Concrete Barriers in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, NUREG/CR-5542, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. September, 1990 Webb, E. K., and M. P. Anderson, 1996, Simulation of preferential flow in three-dimensional heterogeneous conductivity fields with realistic internal architecture, Water Resources Research, v32, n3, 533-546. WHC 1993. Performance Assessment of Grouted Double-Shell Tank Waste Disposal at Hanford, WHC-SD-WM-EE-004, Rev. 0, Volume 1, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. October 1993. WSRC 1992. Radiological Performance Assessment for the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (U), WSRC-RP-92-1360, Revision 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. December 18, 1992. WSRC 1994. Furnishing and Delivery of Concrete (U), C-SPS-G-00041, Revision 2, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. September 15, 1994. WSRC 2002. Saltstone Landfill Design Equivalency Demonstration (U), WSRC-TR-2002-00236, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. August 30, 2002.


301

WSRC 2004. Furnishing and Delivery of Concrete, GS, PS, and SS (U), C-SPS-G-00085, Revision 5, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. August 13, 2004. WSRC 2005a. Response to Request for Additional Information on the Draft Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site, CBU-PIT-2005-00131, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June 30. 2005. WSRC 2005b. Response to Action Items from Public Meetings between NRC and DOE to Discuss RAI for the Savannah River Site, CBU-PIT-2005-00203, Rev. 1, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. September 2005. WSRC 2006a. Storage Tanks (U), C-SOW-Z-00001, Revision 1, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. January 11, 2006. WSRC 2006b. Furnishing and Delivery of Concrete, GS, PS, and SS (U), C-SPS-G-00085, Revision 6, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. January 31, 2006. Wyatt, D. E. and M. K. Harris, 2004, Overview of the History and Geology of the Savannah River Site, Environmental Geosciences, v.11, no.4, 181-190. Yu, A. D., Langton, C. A., and Serrato, M. G. 1993. Physical Properties Measurement Program (U), WSRC-RP-93-894, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina. June 30, 1993. Zhang, D., 2002, Stochastic methods for flow in porous media: coping with uncertainties, Academic Press, San Diego, California, 350 p.


302



303

APPENDIX A: DETAILED DATA AND CALCULATIONS – 1986 AND 1987 SALTSTONE DIFFUSIVITY TESTING (LANGTON 1986; LANGTON 1987)


304

All Appendix A nitrate diffusivity calculations conducted in accordance with ANS 1986. Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1986 Sample No. 4A 418 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% D-Area Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)

Nitrate in Sample (wt%)

Nitrate in Sample, Ao

(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)


Sample Surface Area, S (cm2)

Leachate Volume, VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.3 7.7 1.67 210.50 5.01 10.55 127.97 1.64 144.51 500.00 3.46

Times Leachate Changed

(days)

Time Leachate

Changed, t (seconds)

Duration between Leachate Change,

(∆t)n (seconds)

Time Interval Nitrate

Concentration in Leachate

(mg/L)

Time Interval Mass of Nitrate

Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)

T (seconds)

Intrinsic Diffusivity, D (cm2/s)

Finite Cylinder

Time Factor, G


0 0 0.00 1 86400 86400 783 0.39 0.39 3.71 2.16E+04 9.82E-09 2 172800 86400 261 0.13 0.52 4.95 1.26E+05 6.36E-09 3 259200 86400 182 0.09 0.61 5.81 2.14E+05 5.25E-09 7 604800 345600 696 0.35 0.96 9.11 4.14E+05 9.30E-09 14 1209600 604800 507 0.25 1.21 11.52 8.81E+05 3.43E-09 21 1814400 604800 364 0.18 1.40 13.24 1.50E+06 3.00E-09 28 2419200 604800 321 0.16 1.56 14.76 2.11E+06 3.28E-09 35 3024000 604800 247 0.12 1.68 15.93 2.71E+06 2.51E-09 42 3628800 604800 202 0.10 1.78 16.89 3.32E+06 2.05E-09 76 6566400 2937600 836 0.42 2.20 20.86 4.99E+06 2.24E-09 1.46E-03 4.71E-09 105 9072000 2505600 632 0.32 2.52 23.85 7.77E+06 2.74E-09 1.95E-03 4.54E-09


305

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1986 Sample No. 4B 418 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% D-Area Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume, VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.3 7.7 1.67 213.20 5.01 10.68 127.97 1.67 144.51 500.00 3.46


(days)

Time Leachate

Changed, t (seconds)

Duration between Leachate Change,

(∆t)n (seconds)



(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)

T (seconds)


Finite Cylinder

Time Factor, G


0 0 0 1 86400 86400 691 0.35 0.35 3.23 2.16E+04 7.46E-09 2 172800 86400 305 0.15 0.50 4.66 1.26E+05 8.47E-09 3 259200 86400 202 0.10 0.60 5.61 2.14E+05 6.31E-09 7 604800 345600 746 0.37 0.97 9.10 4.14E+05 1.04E-08 14 1209600 604800 536 0.27 1.24 11.61 8.81E+05 3.74E-09 21 1814400 604800 363 0.18 1.42 13.31 1.50E+06 2.91E-09 28 2419200 604800 320 0.16 1.58 14.81 2.11E+06 3.18E-09 35 3024000 604800 245 0.12 1.70 15.95 2.71E+06 2.40E-09 42 3628800 604800 185 0.09 1.80 16.82 3.32E+06 1.68E-09 76 6566400 2937600 813 0.41 2.20 20.62 4.99E+06 2.06E-09 1.46E-03 4.71E-09


306

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 1A 723 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% Marshall Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.7 1.49 178.00 4.72 8.40 106.56 1.67 126.53 500.00 3.95


(days)

Time Leachate Changed (seconds)

Duration between Leachate

Change, (∆t)n (seconds)



(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)

T (seconds) Intrinsic Diffusivity, D

(cm2/s)

0 0 0.00 1 86400 86400 197 0.10 0.10 1.17 2.16E+04 8.86E-10 2 172800 86400 84 0.04 0.14 1.67 1.26E+05 9.39E-10 3 259200 86400 56 0.03 0.17 2.01 2.14E+05 7.09E-10 7 604800 345600 160 0.08 0.25 2.96 4.14E+05 7.00E-10 14 1209600 604800 181 0.09 0.34 4.03 8.81E+05 6.23E-10


307

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 1B 723 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% Marshall Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.5 1.44 175.00 4.73 8.28 103.38 1.69 123.70 500.00 4.04


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0 1 86400 86400 152 0.08 0.08 0.92 2.16E+04 5.35E-10 2 172800 86400 160 0.08 0.16 1.88 1.26E+05 3.46E-09 3 259200 86400 50 0.03 0.18 2.19 2.14E+05 5.73E-10 7 604800 345600 143 0.07 0.25 3.05 4.14E+05 5.67E-10 14 1209600 604800 172 0.09 0.34 4.09 8.81E+05 5.71E-10


308

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 2A 723 Saltstone Formulation: 47 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 24 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 24% Marshall Fly Ash (Class F); 5 wt% Type II Cement

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.8 1.51 189.00 4.94 9.34 108.15 1.75 127.94 500.00 3.91


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0 1 86400 86400 456 0.23 0.23 2.40 2.16E+04 3.78E-09 2 172800 86400 252 0.13 0.35 3.73 1.26E+05 6.73E-09 3 259200 86400 159 0.08 0.43 4.57 2.14E+05 4.55E-09 7 604800 345600 395 0.20 0.63 6.65 4.14E+05 3.40E-09 14 1209600 604800 396 0.20 0.83 8.74 8.81E+05 2.37E-09


309

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 2B 723 Saltstone Formulation: 47 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 24 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 24% Marshall Fly Ash (Class F); 5 wt% Type II Cement

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.9 1.53 192.00 4.94 9.48 109.74 1.75 129.36 500.00 3.87


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0 1 86400 86400 437 0.22 0.22 2.30 2.16E+04 3.47E-09 2 172800 86400 284 0.14 0.36 3.80 1.26E+05 8.55E-09 3 259200 86400 166 0.08 0.44 4.68 2.14E+05 4.96E-09 7 604800 345600 380 0.19 0.63 6.68 4.14E+05 3.14E-09 14 1209600 604800 401 0.20 0.83 8.79 8.81E+05 2.43E-09


310

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 3A 723 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% Belews Creek Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.1 1.36 164.00 4.73 7.76 97.02 1.69 118.05 500.00 4.24


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0.00 1 86400 86400 137 0.07 0.07 0.88 2.16E+04 4.79E-10 2 172800 86400 63 0.03 0.10 1.29 1.26E+05 5.90E-10 3 259200 86400 43 0.02 0.12 1.57 2.14E+05 4.67E-10 7 604800 345600 112 0.06 0.18 2.29 4.14E+05 3.83E-10 14 1209600 604800 133 0.07 0.24 3.15 8.81E+05 3.76E-10


311

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 3B 723 Saltstone Formulation: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% Belews Creek Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.3 1.40 170.00 4.72 8.02 100.20 1.70 120.87 500.00 4.14


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0 1 86400 86400 164 0.08 0.08 1.02 2.16E+04 6.52E-10 2 172800 86400 65 0.03 0.11 1.43 1.26E+05 5.97E-10 3 259200 86400 44 0.02 0.14 1.70 2.14E+05 4.65E-10 7 604800 345600 122 0.06 0.20 2.46 4.14E+05 4.32E-10 14 1209600 604800 129 0.06 0.26 3.27 8.81E+05 3.36E-10


312

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 4A 723 Saltstone Formulation: 47 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 24 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 24% Belews Fly Ash (Class F); 5 wt% Type II Cement

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.5 1.44 179.00 4.94 8.84 103.38 1.73 123.70 500.00 4.04


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0.00 1 86400 86400 325 0.16 0.16 1.84 2.16E+04 2.14E-09 2 172800 86400 217 0.11 0.27 3.06 1.26E+05 5.57E-09 3 259200 86400 132 0.07 0.34 3.81 2.14E+05 3.50E-09 7 604800 345600 345 0.17 0.51 5.76 4.14E+05 2.89E-09 14 1209600 604800 303 0.15 0.66 7.48 8.81E+05 1.55E-09


313

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Sample No. 4B 723 Saltstone Formulation: 47 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts) (129.184 g/L Nitrate); 24 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 24% Belews Fly Ash (Class F); 5 wt% Type II Cement

Sample Radius (cm)

Sample Length (cm)

Length to Diameter

Ratio

Sample Mass (g)



(g)

Sample Volume, V

(cm3)



Leachate Volume,

VL (mL or cm3)

VL / S (cm)

2.25 6.6 1.47 180.00 4.93 8.87 104.97 1.71 125.11 500.00 4.00


(days)






(mg/L)


Leached, aNO3 (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (g)

Cumulative Nitrate

Leached (percent)


(cm2/s)

0 0 0 1 86400 86400 395 0.20 0.20 2.23 2.16E+04 3.17E-09 2 172800 86400 204 0.10 0.30 3.38 1.26E+05 4.93E-09 3 259200 86400 122 0.06 0.36 4.06 2.14E+05 2.99E-09 7 604800 345600 346 0.17 0.53 6.01 4.14E+05 2.91E-09 14 1209600 604800 314 0.16 0.69 7.78 8.81E+05 1.67E-09

Saltstone Wet Bulk Density and Nitrate Diffusivity from Langton 1987 Saltstone Formulation of Sample made with Bowen Fly Ash; 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% D-Area Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2 ; Reported Effective Nitrate Diffusivity of Bowen Fly Ash Sample = 8.5E-10 cm2/s Saltstone Formulation of Sample made with D-Area Fly Ash: 45 wt% Salt Solution (29 wt% salts); 26 wt% Blast Furnace Slag (NewCem); 26% D-Area Fly Ash (Class F); 3 wt% Ca(OH)2 ; Effective Nitrate Diffusivity of D-Area Fly Ash Sample = 1.9E-9 cm2/s


314



315

APPENDIX B: DETAILED DATA AND CALCULATIONS – 1993 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES MEASUREMENT PROGRAM (YU ET AL. 1993)


316

Dry Bulk Density from Dry Weight (Yu et al. 1993): Sample Length

(cm) Diameter

(cm) Volume (cm3)

Dry Weight (g)


E-Area Vault Concrete 1E 5.07 3.64 52.76 112.08 2.12 2E 5.456 3.701 58.70 123.47 2.10 4E 5.352 3.687 57.14 122.62 2.15 7E 4.442 3.694 47.61 100.47 2.11

Average 2.12 Saltstone Vault Concrete

1B 6.244 3.751 69.00 141.13 2.05 3B 5.285 3.679 56.18 134.81 2.40 5B 5.772 3.765 64.26 140.23 2.18 7B 5.046 3.760 56.03 125.30 2.24

Average 2.22 Saltstone Waste Form

S1 4.279 3.751 47.29 62.40 1.32 S4 4.738 3.793 53.54 70.26 1.31

Average 1.32 Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-78 for 2E Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-79 for 5B Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-80 for 1B Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-81 for 4E Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-91 for 7B Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-92 for 7E Length, diameter, and dry weight from page 2-93 for S4 Length and diameter from page 4-67 for 1E and 3B Dry weight from page 4-86 for 1E Dry weight from page 4-87 for 3B Dry weight from page 4-88 for S1 Length and diameter from page 4-109 for S1 Samples S1 and S4 were saturated with the brine solution and permeability tests were run prior to drying the sample and determining its dry weight; it is likely that the salts precipitated out in the sample causing the bulk density to appear greater than actual; therefore will only utilize the dry bulk densities for Saltstone samples which were determined from the saturated weights minus the weight of the pore fluid.


317

Dry Bulk Density from Saturated Weights Minus Pore Fluid Weight (Yu et al. 1993): Sample Length

(cm) Diamete

r (cm)

Volume

(cm3)

Saturated Weight

(g)

Saturated Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Average

Porosity (%)

Fluid Densit

y (g/cm3)

Dry Bulk

Density

(g/cm3)E-Area Vault Concrete

3E 5.285 3.679 56.18 126.529 2.252141 18.38 0.9995 2.07

5E 5.204 3.68 55.35 127 2.294462 18.38 0.9995 2.11

Average 2.09 Saltstone Vault Concrete

2B 4.947 3.756 54.81 131.027 2.39044 18.13 0.9995 2.21

6B 5.384 3.756 59.65 141.415 2.370551 18.13 0.9995 2.19

Average 2.20 Saltstone Waste Form

S1 4.279 3.751 47.29 84.217 1.781039 42.29 1.2606 1.25

S2 4.488 3.759 49.81 88.9 1.784902 42.29 1.2606 1.25

S3 4.786 3.778 53.65 96.571 1.799949 42.29 1.2606 1.27

S4 4.729 3.773 52.87 95.523 1.806655 42.29 1.2606 1.27

Average 1.26 Fluid densities from pages 2-47 and 2-48 Length, diameter, and saturated weight from page 5-72 for 3E, 5E, 2B, and 6B Length, diameter, and saturated weight from page 5-75 for S1, S2, S3, and S4 Dry Bulk Density Summary (Yu et al. 1993):




E-Area Vault Concrete Saltstone Vault Concrete Saltstone Waste Form 1E 2.12 1B 2.05 S1 1.25 2E 2.10 2B 2.21 S2 1.25 3E 2.07 3B 2.40 S3 1.27 4E 2.15 5B 2.18 S4 1.27 5E 2.11 6B 2.19 7E 2.11 7B 2.24

Average 2.11 Average 2.21 Average 1.26


318

Porosity from Saturated Fluid Weight (Yu et al. 1993): Sampl

e Lengt

h (cm)

Diameter

(cm)

Volume

(cm3)

Saturated Fluid Weight

(g)

Fluid Densit

y (g/cm3

)

Saturated Pore

Volume (cm3)

Calculated

Porosity (%)

Reported

Porosity (%)

E-Area Vault Concrete 1E 5.07 3.64 52.76 8.66 0.9995 8.66 16.42 na 2E 5.456 3.701 58.70 10.60 0.9995 10.61 18.07 18.1 4E 5.352 3.687 57.14 11.00 0.9995 11.01 19.26 19.3 7E 4.442 3.694 47.61 9.40 0.9995 9.40 19.76 18.6

Average 18.38 18.67 Saltstone Vault Concrete

1B 6.244 3.751 69.00 12.00 1.2606 9.52 13.80 17.4 3B 5.285 3.679 56.18 12.28 0.9995 12.29 21.87 na 5B 5.772 3.765 64.26 12.90 0.9995 12.91 20.08 18.9 7B 5.046 3.760 56.03 9.40 0.9995 9.40 16.79 16.8

Average 18.13 17.85 Saltstone Waste Form

S1 4.287 3.754 47.45 26.70 1.2606 21.18 44.64 44.6 S3A 4.351 3.787 49.01 25.70 1.2606 20.39 41.60 41.6 S4 4.738 3.793 53.54 27.43 1.2606 21.76 40.64 40.6

Average 42.29 42.27 Brine solution density not taken into consideration for 1B reported porosity; therefore it is incorrect Reported porosities from page 2-2 for 2E, 4E, 7E, 1B, 5B, 7B, S1, S3A, and S4 Fluid densities from pages 2-47 and 2-48 Length and diameter from page 2-43 for S1 Length and diameter from page 2-44 for S3A Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-78 for 2E Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-79 for 5B Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-80 for 1B Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-81 for 4E Saturated fluid weight from page 2-82 for S3A Saturated fluid weight from page 2-83 for S1 Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-91 for 7B Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-92 for 7E Length, diameter, and saturated fluid weight from page 2-93 for S4 Length and diameter from page 4-67 for 1E and 3B Saturated fluid weight from page 4-86 for 1E Saturated fluid weight from page 4-87 for 3B


319

Porosity Summary (Yu et al. 1993): Sample Calculated

Porosity (%)

Sample Calculated Porosity

(%)

Sample Calculated Porosity

(%) E-Area Vault Concrete Saltstone Vault Concrete Saltstone Waste Form

1E 16.42 1B 13.80 S1 44.64 2E 18.07 3B 21.87 S3A 41.60 4E 19.26 5B 20.08 S4 40.64 7E 19.76 7B 16.79 Average 18.38 Average 18.13 Average 42.29


320

Saturated Intrinsic Permeability and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Yu et al. 1993):

E-Area Vault Concrete Sample Flow

(cm3/min) Flow

(cm3/s) Length (cm)

Diameter (cm)

Area (cm2)

Applied Differential

Pressure (psi)

Permeant Permeant Density, ρ

or SG (g/cm3)

2E 3.00E-07 5.00E-09 5.456 3.701 10.76 50.0 Tap Water 0.9995 4E 5.00E-07 8.33E-09 5.352 3.687 10.68 50.0 Tap Water 0.9995 7E 6.20E-07 1.03E-08 4.442 3.694 10.72 50.0 Tap Water 0.9995 Differential

Pressure (cmpermeant)

Permeant Viscosity, µ

(cp)


(g/cm s)

Acceleration of Gravity,

g (cm/s2)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


3517.19 0.998 0.00998 980.6 7.44E-10 7.21E-13 3517.19 0.998 0.00998 980.6 1.23E-09 1.19E-12 3517.19 0.998 0.00998 980.6 1.26E-09 1.22E-12

Average 1.08E-09 1.04E-12


321

Saltstone Vault Concrete

Sample Flow (cm3/min)

Flow (cm3/s)

Length (cm)

Diameter (cm)

Area (cm2)


Pressure (psi)


or SG (g/cm3)

1B 3.20E-05 5.33E-07 6.244 3.751 11.05 50.0 Brine Solution 1.2606

5B 9.40E-04 1.57E-05 5.772 3.765 11.13 50.0 Tap Water 0.9995 7B 5.90E-04 9.83E-06 5.046 3.760 11.10 50.0 Tap Water 0.9995 Differential



(cp)


(g/cm s)


g (cm/s2)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


2788.70 2.390 0.0239 980.6 2.12E-07 2.07E-10 1.08E-10 3517.19 0.998 0.00998 980.6 2.38E-06 2.31E-09 3517.19 0.998 0.00998 980.6 1.31E-06 1.27E-09

Average 1.85E-06 1.79E-09


322

Saltstone Waste Form

Sample Flow (cm3/min)

Flow (cm3/s)

Length (cm)

Diameter (cm)

Area (cm2)


Pressure (psi)


or SG (g/cm3)

S1 1.50E-06 2.50E-08 4.287 3.754 11.07 50.0 Brine Solution 1.2606

S3A 1.20E-06 2.00E-08 4.351 3.787 11.26 50.0 Brine Solution 1.2606

S4 7.50E-07 1.25E-08 4.738 3.793 11.30 50.0 Brine Solution 1.2606

Differential



(cp)


(g/cm s)


g (cm/s2)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


2788.70 2.390 0.0239 980.6 6.80E-09 6.66E-12 3.47E-12 2788.70 2.390 0.0239 980.6 5.43E-09 5.31E-12 2.77E-12 2788.70 2.390 0.0239 980.6 3.68E-09 3.60E-12 1.88E-12

Average 5.30E-09 5.19E-12 2.71E-12


323

Saturated Intrinsic Permeability and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Summary (Yu et al. 1993):

E-Area Vault Concrete Sample Saturated

Intrinsic Permeability

(water) (darcy)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


2E 7.44E-10 7.21E-13 4E 1.23E-09 1.19E-12 7E 1.26E-09 1.22E-12

Average 1.08E-09 1.04E-12

Saltstone Vault Concrete

Sample

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


1B 2.12E-07 2.07E-10 1.08E-10 5B 2.38E-06 2.31E-09 7B 1.31E-06 1.27E-09

Average 1.85E-06 1.79E-09

Saltstone Waste Form Sample Saturated

Intrinsic Permeability

(water) (darcy)

Saturated Intrinsic


Saturated Hydraulic


Saturated Hydraulic


S1 6.80E-09 6.66E-12 3.47E-12 S3A 5.43E-09 5.31E-12 2.77E-12 S4 3.68E-09 3.60E-12 1.88E-12

Average 5.30E-09 5.19E-12 2.71E-12


324

• Calculated from measured Intrinsic Permeability (brine) • Permeant densities and viscosity from pages 2-47 and 2-48 • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-33 for 1B • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-34 for 5B • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-35 for 7B • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-38 for 2E • Flow, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-39 for 4E (length and

diameter incorrect on this page) • Length and diameter from page 2-81 for 4E • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-40 for 7E • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-43 for S1 • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-44 for

S3A • Flow, length, diameter, applied differential pressure, and permeant from page 2-45 for S4


325



326

Distribution: W. T. Goldston, 705-3C M. J. Ades, 705-3C D. F. Sink, Jr., 704-56E S. R. Reed, 704-56E K. L. Tempel, 704-56E W. C. Miles, Jr., 704-28S J. W. Ray, 704-S D. C. Sherburne, 704-S T. E. Chandler, 704-Z K. R. Liner, 704-S T. C. Robinson, Jr., 766-H K. H. Rosenberger, 766-H J. L. Newman, 766-H M. H. Layton, 766-H T. W. Coffield, 776-H J. C. Griffin, 773-A W. E. Stevens, 773-A B. T. Butcher, 773-43A E. L. Wilhite, 773-43A L. B. Collard, 773-43A R. A. Hiergesell, 773-43A G. A. Taylor, 773-43A R. F. Swingle, 773-43A D. I. Kaplan, 773-43A K. P. Crapse, 773-43A R. S. Aylward, 773-42A M. A. Phifer, 773-42A M. R. Millings, 773-42A G. P. Flach, 773-42A W. E. Jones, 773-42A K. L. Dixon, 773-42A L. L. Hamm, 773-42A S. E. Aleman, 773-42A J. R. Cook, subcontractor L. McDowell-Boyer, subcontractor WPT file (2 copies), 773-43A, Rm. 213

Documents

WSRC-STI-2006-00198, Rev. 0, 'Hydraulic Property Data ...HYDRAULIC PROPERTY DATA PACKAGE FOR THE E-AREA AND Z-AREA SOILS, CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS, AND WASTE ZONES SEPTEMBER 2006 Prepared