698

Network model for hydraulic conductivity of sand bentonite mixtures

Tarek Abichou, Craig H. Benson, and Tuncer B. Edil

Abstract: A network formulation was used to model the hydraulic conductivity of sandbentonite mixtures (SBMs) as a function of bentonite content. The sand particles were assumed to be spheres, and their arrangement was defined using a discrete element model simulating sand particle interactions. Pores between the spheres were approximated as a network of straight capillary tubes. The space defined by the spheres was divided into a collection of neighboring tetrahedrons, and the geometry of the tetrahedrons was used to define tube diameters and lengths in the network. Hydraulic heads throughout the network were computed by solving a system of equations describing flow through the tubes. Hydraulic conductivity of the network was calculated as the rate of flow per unit area for a given network of tubes driven by a one-dimensional hydraulic gradient. Bentonite was introduced into the network in several schemes to simulate SBMs. SBMs prepared with powdered bentonite were modeled as a packing of sand, where the sand particles are coated with bentonite (grain coating model and pipe blocking model), whereas SBMs prepared with granular bentonite were modeled as a packing of sand with bentonite occupying pores between the sand particles (junction blocking model). The relationship between hydraulic conductivity and bentonite content obtained from the grain coating model was similar to that measured on sand powdered bentonite mixtures. A comparable relationship was also obtained for hydraulic conductivities predicted with the junction blocking model using a size-based filling approach and hydraulic conductivities measured on sand granular bentonite mixtures. Key words: sandbentonite mixtures, network models, hydraulic conductivity, degree of bentonation, bentonite distribution. Rsum : On a utilis une formulation de rseau pour modliser la conductivit hydraulique des mlanges de sablebentonite (MBSs) en fonction de la teneur en bentonite. On a suppos que les particules de sable taient sphriques, et leur arrangement a t dfini au moyen dun modle dlments discrets simulant les interactions entre les particules de sable. On a considr que les pores entre les sphres se rapprochaient approximativement dun rseau de tubes capillaires droits. Lespace dfini par les sphres a t divis en une collection de ttradres voisins et la gomtrie des ttradres a t utilise pour dfinir les diamtres et les longueurs des tubes dans le rseau. Les charges hydrauliques dans le rseau ont t calcules en partant de la solution dun systme dquations dcrivant lcoulement travers les tubes. La conductivit hydraulique du rseau a t calcule comme tant le dbit par unit de surface pour un rseau donn de tubes soumis un gradient hydraulique unidimensionnel. On a introduit de la bentonite dans le rseau de diffrentes manires pour simuler des MBSs. Des MBSs prpars avec de la bentonite en poudre ont t modliss comme un bourrage de sable o les particules de sable ont t enrobes de bentonite (Modle denrobage des grains et Modle de blocage des tubes), dans lesquels les MBSs prpars avec de la bentonite en grains ont t modliss comme un bourrage de sable avec la bentonite occupant les pores entre les particules de sable (Modle de jonction de blocage). La relation entre la conductivit hydraulique et la teneur en bentonite obtenue du modle denrobage des grains tait semblable celle mesure sur les mlanges de sable et de poudre de bentonite. On a aussi obtenu une relation comparable pour les conductivits hydrauliques prdites avec le modle de jonction de blocage en utilisant une approche de remplissage base sur les dimensions et les conductivits hydrauliques mesures sur des mlanges de sable et de bentonite en grains. Mots cls : mlanges sable-bentonite, modles de rseau, conductivit hydraulique, degr de caractre bentonitique, distribution de bentonite. [Traduit par la Rdaction] Abichou et al. 712

Received 15 April 2003. Accepted 20 January 2004. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on 25 August 2004. T. Abichou.1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32310, USA. C.H. Benson and T.B. Edil. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2214 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
1

Corresponding author (e-mail: abichou@eng.fsu.edu).

doi: 10.1139/T04-016 2004 NRC Canada

Can. Geotech. J. 41: 698712 (2004)

Abichou et al.

699

Introduction
Almost all studies on the hydraulic conductivity of sand bentonite mixtures (SBMs) focus on their use as hydraulic barriers (Lundgren 1981; Chapuis 1981, 1990; Abeele 1986; Daniel 1987; Garlanger et al. 1987; Kenney et al. 1992; OSadnick et al. 1995; Gleason et al. 1997; Howell and Shackelford 1997; Kraus et al. 1997; and others). The objective generally is to determine the quantity of bentonite required to obtain suitably low hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity of SBMs typically ranges from 1 106 to 1 109 cm/s, with lower hydraulic conductivities generally associated with higher bentonite contents. The traditional approach to determine the required bentonite content is experimental. A series of specimens is prepared, their hydraulic conductivity is measured, and then the bentonite content to achieve the target hydraulic conductivity is obtained from the experimental data. A second approach is to predict the relationship between hydraulic conductivity and bentonite content using a model that simulates pores filling with bentonite. A limited number of tests are then conducted to check that the bentonite content predicted from the model is appropriate. A model of this sort can also be used to understand how the hydraulic conductivity of clean sand transitions to that of clay as the pores in the sand fill with bentonite. A network model is described in this paper that relates the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs prepared with clean uniform sands and powdered or granular bentonite to the bentonite content. The model was developed to understand how the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs is related to changes in microstructure that occur as the pores in the sand are filled with bentonite. The model consists of extracting a pore network from packings of spheres, introducing bentonite into the network using different schemes, and computing the hydraulic conductivity of the network.

all of the water is associated with the bentonite. The matrix of the saturated bentonite is assumed to be continuous and the sand particles are assumed to be impervious inclusions in the bentonite matrix. The fabric of the bentonite is assumed to be unaffected by the presence of sand particles. Under these conditions, the hydraulic conductivity of the mixture is controlled by the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite fraction. Kenney et al. also indicate that the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite is a unique function of its void ratio. Thus, the hydraulic conductivity of ideal SBMs can be computed as the product of the total porosity of the mixture and the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite at its void ratio in the mixture. Sllfors and berg-Hgsta (2002) investigate the effects of degree of compaction on the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs. They use the ideal-mixture concept to derive a new index quantity, k1, which combines the dry unit weight of the mixture and the bentonite content. SBMs were prepared with powdered bentonite and well-graded medium sand. The parameter k1 was calculated for all mixtures and correlated with hydraulic conductivity. Mollins et al. (1996) developed empirical power law relationships between the void ratio of the bentonite in an SBM and the vertical effective stress. The power laws were calibrated using data from one-dimensional swelling and hydraulic conductivity tests on SBMs containing 5%, 10%, and 20% bentonite at varying effective stress. The SBMs were prepared with a silty fine angular quartz sand and sodium bentonite. Mollins et al. indicated that their model cannot be used for mixtures with low bentonite content because the bentonite is not evenly distributed in the SBM.

Network model
Ideal-mixture models can predict the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs reasonably well when the SBMs contain enough bentonite to satisfy the ideal-mixture assumptions. However, the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs with low bentonite content and uneven bentonite distribution cannot be predicted using ideal-mixture models. In contrast, network models can be used to simulate nonideal mixtures associated with low bentonite content because they explicitly account for filling of the pores with bentonite. Network models can also be used to study how the hydraulic conductivity of an SBM changes as the pores in the sand are filled and how the hydraulic conductivity depends on the type of pore filling. A network model was developed in this study to evaluate how the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs transitions from that of sand to that of bentonite. The model was used to examine mechanisms responsible for the decrease in hydraulic conductivity and to identify which of the mechanisms is associated with powdered and granular bentonites. The network model developed in this study employs four steps: (i) generating packings of equal-sized spheres to simulate sand grains, (ii) extracting networks of capillary tubes representing the pore space in the packing of spheres, (iii) calculating the hydraulic conductivity of the entire network using a capillary tube model, and (iv) evaluating how introducing bentonite into the network in different schemes affects hydraulic conductivity. The methods used to introduce the
2004 NRC Canada

Models of SBMs
Models for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs generally assume that the mixture is ideal, i.e., bentonite fills all the pore spaces between the sand particles. The sand particles are assumed to be nonconductive, and the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite controls the hydraulic conductivity of the mixture (Chapuis 1990; Kenney et al. 1992; Mollins et al. 1996; Sllfors and berg-Hgsta 2002). Chapuis (1990) describes an ideal-mixture model where the swollen bentonite is assumed to fill all of the pore space between the sand particles as water becomes available. A portion of the water is assumed to be fixed to the surface of bentonite particles, rendering the water immobile. The remaining water is also associated with the bentonite but is mobile. The mobile water represents the portion of the pore space available for flow, which is referred to as the efficient porosity. Chapuis proposed two empirical equations relating hydraulic conductivity to efficient porosity for ideal mixtures and compared hydraulic conductivities predicted by the equations with data for SBMs prepared with mostly uniform soils having 2%15% nonplastic fines and bentonite. Kenney et al. (1992) theorize that an ideal SBM is a twocomponent mixture of sand and saturated bentonite where

700 Fig. 1. Typical tetrahedron (a) and branches of network (b).

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

bentonite are based on pore-scale observations reported by Abichou et al. (2002). Sand pack generation A three-dimensional discrete element model (DEM) developed by Horner (1997) was used to generate packings of spherical particles representing sand. The objective was to develop a reasonably accurate representation of the packing of sand particles and the pore spaces between these particles. In the DEM, soil particles are modeled as points in space, and each carries with it an estimate of the state of the soil mass within its vicinity (Horner 1997). For the application in this study, particles were randomly selected for placement on a lattice, with the spacing between the centers of particles being large enough to minimize the initial interparticle forces. A simulation was then conducted where the particles were rained into a rigid-wall container until the particles achieved static equilibrium. When denser packings were desired, walls of the simulated container were pushed to new positions, causing the particles to achieve a denser equilibrium state. There is a distinct difference between the DEM approach and an actual SBM which deserves mention. In an SBM, the sand and bentonite are mixed together and then compressed. In contrast, the collection of sand particles is compressed in the DEM, and then bentonite is added. The presence of bentonite may affect friction that develops between the sand grains and to some degree the packing of sand grains. This effect is believed to be small, however, unless the bentonite content is so large that the sand grains become independent inclusions in the bentonite matrix. Data in Mollins et al. (1999) and Goodhue et al. (2001) support this supposition. Both studies show that the shear strength of SBMs remains equal to that of the sand alone at low bentonite contents. This suggests that the intergranular friction is not affected appreciably by the bentonite content until the bentonite content is large. For simplicity, the DEM code developed by Horner was used to generate packings of equal-sized spheres, although the code allows for up to five grain sizes. The output con-

sisted of the coordinates of the center of each sphere in the packing. Packings were obtained for spheres with a diameter of 0.2 mm (fine sand), 1.2 mm (medium sand), and 3.4 mm (coarse sand). Porosities of the packings were 0.29 (dense packing), 0.36 (medium packing), and 0.44 (loose packing). Capillary tube network Once a sphere packing is generated, the space defined by the spheres was divided into tetrahedrons using Voronoi Delaunay (VD) triangulation. Each tetrahedron is formed by the closest neighboring four spheres as illustrated in Fig. 1a and has four faces (i.e., each side of the tetrahedron). Each tetrahedron has four windows (one on each face) formed by the space between the three spheres on each face and one internal pore in the center of the tetrahedron. The window in each face is equivalent to a pore throat, and the internal pore in the center of the tetrahedron is equivalent to a pore. This arrangement can be seen as four tubes (one from each face) forming a junction at the center of the pore (Fig. 1b). This technique transforms the pore space defined by the packing into a network of capillary tubes where the interior of a tetrahedron corresponds to a junction of tubes in the network (Mason 1971), as shown in Figs. 1a and 1b. A code developed by P.K. Sweby of the Department of Mathematics at Reading University (Reading, UK) and modified by Bryant et al. (1993a, 1993b) transforms the centers of spheres into a network geometry. Once the geometry of the network of tubes is defined, the diameter and length of each tube in the network are determined. Bryant et al. (1993a) found that accurate estimates of flow are obtained when the area of each tube is assigned using the arithmetic mean of the radius of the largest circle between the spheres surrounding a pore (rm in Fig. 2a) and the radius of a circle having equivalent area as the pore space between the same adjacent spheres (req in Fig. 2b). This arithmetic mean is referred to as the effective radius (reff) and was used to define the tube radius in this study. Since packings were obtained with equal-sized spheres, the tube diameters are similar in size to the distance between the centroid and the edge of the tetrahedron. This condition
2004 NRC Canada

Abichou et al. Fig. 2. Schematic of largest circle (a) and equivalent circle (b) for pipe sizing.

701 Fig. 3. Distribution of tube radius (a) and length (b) in a network extracted from dense, medium, and loose packings of 1000 spheres with a radius of 0.2 mm.

ings of 1000 spheres with a diameter of 0.2 mm. The distribution of tube radius shifts in the direction of smaller tubes as the packing becomes denser (Fig. 3a). Also, denser packings tend to have more short tubes (Fig. 3b). Network hydraulic conductivity If flow in the network is laminar, then the flow rate (Q) in each tube can be described by the Hagen-Poiseuille equation: [1] Q=
4 Hreff 8L

leads to double counting of the tube length in the central region where the tubes intersect if the tube length is assumed to be equal to the distance between the central pore and the edge of the tetrahedron. This overestimation was corrected by applying an algorithm developed by Bryant et al. (1993a) that shortens the tube length so that the volume of tubes in the network equals the volume of pores in the packing. The tube connecting two adjacent junctions of the network is then comprised of two sections where each has a different length and radius. Examples of the distributions of tube length and diameter are shown in Fig. 3. These distributions were obtained from the networks extracted from dense, medium, and loose pack-

where H is the difference in total head between the two ends of the tube, reff is the effective radius of the tube, L is the length of the tube, and is the viscosity of the fluid. The flow rate can also be written in terms of a hydraulic conductance Kt (units of L2/T) of the tube as [2] Q = Kt H
2004 NRC Canada

702

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 4. Conceptual sketch of network with detail showing a junction, four intersecting tubes, and four adjacent junctions. Upper and lower horizontal surfaces are constant-head boundaries. Vertical surfaces are no-flow boundaries. For clarity, this sketch contains fewer tubes and junctions than that of an actual network.

Hydraulic conductance was used instead of hydraulic conductivity because conductance is easier to work with numerically. Equating eqs. [1] and [2] yields the hydraulic conductance Kt as a function of the tube geometry: [3] Kt =
4 reff 8L

Pathways between two neighboring tetrahedrons are represented by a tube with two contiguous sections having different conductances (K1, K2). The conductance of the pathway is represented by an equivalent tube with hydraulic conductance Ke : [4] 1 1 Ke = + K1 K2
1

tions are applied by assigning hydraulic heads at the ends of the tubes emanating from the influent and effluent faces of the network (upper and lower surfaces shown in Fig. 4). The head at each junction of the network is obtained by solving the system of equations defined by application of eq. [5] to each junction. The system was solved iteratively by Gauss Sidel successive over-relaxation. Once the heads are determined at each junction, the flow rate through the entire network (QT) is estimated by summing the flows in the tubes emanating from the up-gradient or down-gradient faces of the network. The hydraulic conductivity of the entire network (Kn) is estimated by applying Darcys law to the entire network: [7] Kn = QTLn Hn A

The hydraulic head at the end of each tube in the network is determined by applying conservation of mass at each junction. Conservation of mass requires the net flow rate at each junction to be zero, i.e., [5] Qij + Qik + Qil + Qim = 0

where Ln is the linear length of the network (influent face to the effluent face), Hn is the drop in total head across the network, and A is the gross area of the soil at the effluent face (see Fig. 4). Introduction of bentonite Grain coating model (GCM) Bentonite is introduced into the network in a manner consistent with observations of the microstructure of mixtures of glass beads and bentonite (powdered and granular) made by Abichou (1999) and Abichou et al. (2002) using optical and scanning electron micrographs. For mixtures prepared with powdered bentonite, bentonite coats the grains at low bentonite content and, in the presence of water, the bentonite swells and fills some of the pore spaces between the grains.
2004 NRC Canada

where Qij, Qik, Qil, and Qim are flow rates through the four tubes (ij, ik, il, and in) that meet at junction i and emanate from junctions j, k, l, and n as shown conceptually in Fig. 4. The flow rate through tube Qij is [6] Qij = Kij(Hi Hj)

where Hi is the total head at junction i, Hj is the total head at the other end of the tube (junction j), and Kij is the conductance of tube ij defined by eqs. [3] and [4]. Boundary condi-

Abichou et al.

703 Fig. 5. Illustration of method used to reduce area of flow in grain coating model (a) and scanning electron micrograph showing coating of grains with powdered bentonite (b). Unshaded portion of sphere in (a) corresponds to original sand grain. Shaded ring around sphere corresponds to bentonite coating.

As the bentonite content increases, the thickness of the coating increases and more of the area available for flow is blocked by swollen bentonite. The pores are filled by a continuous matrix of bentonite only at relatively high bentonite contents (>8%). The grain coating model (GCM) was developed to simulate the pore structure of SBMs prepared with powdered bentonite. Radii of the spheres in the original packing were increased to account for the bentonite coating without changing the location of the centers of the spheres, i.e., [8] Rib = Ri + Ri

where Ri is the radius of the ith sphere, Rib is the radius of the ith sphere coated with bentonite, and Ri is the thickness of the swollen bentonite coating (Fig. 5a). As the sphere size increases because of the bentonite coating, the area available for flow in each window of each tetrahedron decreases. The similarity between the observed structure and the idealized scenario assumed in the model is shown in Fig. 5b. After adjusting the sphere radii using eq. [8], a new tube is fitted to each window of each tetrahedron as described in the previous section. The total volume of coating in the network equals the total volume of hydrated bentonite in the mixture, and the ratio of the total volume of hydrated bentonite to the volume of the pore space in the original packing (i.e., pore space without bentonite) is defined as the degree of bentonation. The degree of bentonation (B) is a measure of how much of the original pore space is occupied by hydrated bentonite, whereas conventional bentonite content is the ratio of weight of dry bentonite to weight of the sand particles. As grains are coated with more bentonite, B increases. The upper bound on B is 1, indicating that the entire pore space in the sand matrix is occupied by bentonite. The coated tubes are composed of two zones. An equivalent hydraulic conductance (Keq) of the coated tube is calculated by equating the flow through the coated tube, Q, to the sum of the flow rate through the coating (Qc) and the flow rate through the remainder of the tube (Qp): [9] Q = kc k H Ac + K H = c Ac + K H = Keq H L L pores and the degree of bentonation. Both will affect the amount of swelling that can occur in the pore space and the void ratio of bentonite. Given the lack of knowledge on how pore size and bentonite content affect the void ratio and the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite fraction in SBMs, the simplification of constant hydraulic conductivity was considered to be warranted. Tube blocking model (TBM) In the GCM, tube blocking is a direct result of increasing the thickness of the bentonite coating around each sphere. Another alternative to model SBMs prepared with powdered bentonite is to assume that bentonite fills the window between three adjacent spheres, resulting in tubes that are either blocked or unblocked. When a tube is blocked with bentonite, the tube is assumed to be entirely filled with bentonite.
2004 NRC Canada

where kc and Ac are the hydraulic conductivity and crosssectional area, respectively, of the bentonite coating; K is the conductance of the inner uncoated portion of the tube (as calculated in eq. [4]); and H is the difference in total head across the tube. As the bentonite content increases, the area Ac increases until it reaches the area of the original tube (i.e., without bentonite). When this occurs, the tube is said to be blocked with bentonite. When four intersecting tubes are blocked, the junction where they meet is blocked. Tube and junction blocking are a direct result of the coating of the sand grains with bentonite and are not independent mechanisms, as is the case in other models described in the next sections. In the GCM, and in all other models, the hydraulic conductivity of bentonite was assumed to be constant. This assumption was made for simplicity. In reality, the hydraulic conductivity of bentonite will be affected by the size of the

704

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 6. Scanning electron micrograph of SBM prepared with glass beads (diameter = 1.2 mm) and granular bentonite (bentonite content = 5%).

The tube blocking model (TBM) was developed to simulate this condition. The probability of being blocked is assumed to be independent of the size and location of the tube, and a tube cannot be partially blocked. A Bernoulli random number generator was used to define whether a tube was blocked or unblocked. The Bernoulli generator returns a 0 (empty tube) or 1 (blocked tube) depending on the probability of blockage (p) for a given tube. If a network has Nt tubes and Ft is the number of tubes blocked with bentonite, then the probability of success (p) of the Bernoulli random variable is Ft/Nt. The volume of hydrated bentonite in the network is calculated as the sum of the volume of the tubes containing bentonite. The ratio of the volume of tubes containing bentonite to the volume of all tubes in the network is the degree of bentonation (B). Junction blocking model (JBM) The junction blocking model (JBM) was developed to simulate SBMs prepared with granular bentonite. Based on observations reported by Abichou et al. (2002), bentonite granules occupy the space between the grains (Fig. 6) and then swell to fill the available space when hydrated. As the bentonite content increases, the number of granules increases, leading to more spaces being filled with bentonite. The GCM and the JBM do not provide good physical representations of mixtures with granular bentonite because the

bentonite does not coat the sand grains as reported by Abichou et al. The JBM simulates pore filling by granular bentonite by filling the four tubes that meet at a junction with bentonite. Therefore the conductance of each tube connected to a blocked junction is assigned the hydraulic conductance of a tube filled with bentonite. The degree of bentonation (B) equals the volume of the tubes filled with bentonite divided by the total volume of tubes in the network, which is equivalent to the volume of blocked junctions divided by the original volume of pore space. Two scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, the bentonite is assumed to occupy larger pores first and then fills smaller and smaller pores. This scenario is referred to as the size-based filling scenario (JBM-SB). This scenario can also represent the case where the bentonite granules are large and cannot fit in smaller pores. The pore volume in each tetrahedron is calculated, and then the pores are sorted based on their volume. The largest pore (i.e., junctions in the network) is blocked first, followed by sequentially smaller pores. The second scenario assumes that the distribution of bentonite is independent of the size of the pore and that the probability of a pore being filled with bentonite is equal for all pores. This scenario is referred to as the random filling scenario (JBM-R). The Bernoulli random number generator was used for this model as well. Tubes meeting at the junc 2004 NRC Canada

Abichou et al.

705

Fig. 7. Hydraulic conductivity of clean sands (no bentonite) versus median sand grain diameter. Predictions made with network model are shown as solid circles. Hydraulic conductivities computed with Hazen, Harleman, and KozenyCarmen equations are shown as lines.

tions where the Bernoulli random number generator returns a 1 were blocked with bentonite and their conductance was assigned to that of a tube filled with bentonite. Tubes meeting at junctions where the Bernoulli random number generator returns a 0 were free of bentonite.

measured hydraulic conductivities (Fig. 7). As the size of the particles gets smaller, however, hydraulic conductivities predicted by the model are slightly lower than the measured hydraulic conductivities and the hydraulic conductivities predicted using the equations from the literature. Grain coating model The general relationship between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation for a packing with a sphere diameter of 0.2 mm and a porosity of 0.36 (i.e., porosity of spheres without bentonite) is shown in Fig. 8a. The percentage of blocked tubes and junctions in the network is also shown in Fig. 8a as a function of degree of bentonation B. The same relationships for packings with sphere diameters of 0.2 mm (fine sand) and 3.4 mm (coarse sand) and porosities ranging from 0.29 (dense sand) to 0.44 (loose sand) are shown in Fig. 8b. There are three distinct zones in Fig. 8a. In zone 1, as the volume of bentonite coating increases, the effective size of the tubes in the network decreases, leading to a slight reduction in hydraulic conductivity. All the tubes are still unblocked in zone 1, however, and the hydraulic conductivity remains high. In zone 2, tubes start to become blocked at B = 0.5, and the hydraulic conductivity begins decreasing appreciably as more tubes become completely filled with bentonite. Zone 3 corresponds to the region where B > 0.8. At this high degree of bentonation, tubes continue to get blocked with bentonite at a higher rate. At the same time, the additional coating starts to block entire junctions, i.e., four tubes get blocked at the same time.
2004 NRC Canada

Simulation results
Particles in the simulations were chosen to simulate fine, medium, and coarse sands based on the mean grain diameter for these grain sizes in the Unified Soil Classification System (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). Porosities of the packings were chosen to simulate loose, medium, and dense sand as described by Mitchell (1993). Packings without bentonite Simulations were first performed on packings with identical porosities but comprised of 10, 100, and 1000 spheres. The hydraulic conductivity predicted using the model was the same for each of these packings, indicating that a packing with 1000 spheres was more than adequate to represent the network. All subsequent simulations were conducted with packings of 1000 spheres. Hydraulic conductivities of 1000 sphere packings without bentonite are shown in Fig. 7 for several sphere diameters. Also shown in Fig. 7 are hydraulic conductivities of glass spheres (measured by Chu and Ng 1989) and uniform fine sand (measured by Abichou 1999). Hydraulic conductivities predicted by the Hazen, Harleman, and KozenyCarmen equations are also shown in Fig. 7 as smooth curves. At large grain size the model predictions are very similar to

706

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 8. (a) Hydraulic conductivity, percent blocked tubes, and percent blocked junctions predicted with grain coating model (GCM) versus degree of bentonation for a packing with porosity of 0.36 and sphere diameter of 0.2 mm. (b) Variation of hydraulic conductivity with degree of bentonation for packings with porosity varying from 0.29 to 0.44 and sphere diameter of 0.2 and 3.4 mm.

The faster rate of tube blocking and the start of junction blocking (both caused by grain coating) cause the hydraulic conductivity to drop dramatically in zone 3 as more and more of the permeable pathways through the network are eliminated. When B > 0.8, only a few continuous flow paths exist in the network that are not blocked with bentonite and the hydraulic conductivity becomes very low (dropping to 7.1 1010 cm/s) when complete filling occurs (B = 1.0). This hydraulic conductivity is lower than that of the benton-

ite alone because a portion of the gross area of flow is blinded by the spheres. Figure 8b shows similar trends of decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing degree of bentonation B. Packings of smaller spheres and lower porosity have lower hydraulic conductivities for a given B. Denser packings also reach low hydraulic conductivity at a slightly lower degree of bentonation. Packings of smaller spheres also reach low hydraulic conductivity at a lower degree of bentonation. At
2004 NRC Canada

Abichou et al.

707

Fig. 9. (a) Hydraulic conductivity and percent blocked tubes predicted with tube blocking model (TBM) versus degree of bentonation for a packing with porosity of 0.29 and sphere diameter of 0.2 mm. (b) Variation of hydraulic conductivity with degree of bentonation for packings with porosity varying from 0.29 (dense packing) to 0.44 (loose packing) and sphere diameter of 0.2 (simulating fine sand) and 3.4 mm (simulating coarse sand).

full bentonation (B = 1.0), all hydraulic conductivities are equal to that of bentonite corrected for the blinding spheres. Figure 8b also shows that the hydraulic conductivities of SBMs with coarse packings are almost four orders of magnitude higher than those of fine packings, when the degree of bentonation is below 0.6. The difference in hydraulic conductivity between coarse and fine packings decreases, however, as

the degree of bentonation increases beyond 0.6. The hydraulic conductivities of all packings are in the same order of magnitude when the degree of bentonation approaches 1.0. Tube blocking model The relationship between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation predicted with the TBM is shown in
2004 NRC Canada

708

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 9a for spheres with a diameter of 0.2 mm and a porosity of 0.36. The percent blocked tubes in the network is also shown in Fig. 9a as a function of degree of bentonation B. The same relationships for packings with sphere diameters of 0.2 mm (fine sand) and 3.4 mm (coarse sand) and porosities ranging from 0.29 (dense sand) to 0.44 (loose sand) are shown in Fig. 9b. Three distinct zones exist in Fig. 9a. In zone 1 (B = 0.0 0.25), tubes in the network begin to become blocked with bentonite, leading to a gradual decrease in hydraulic conductivity. Most of the pathways through the network are unblocked, however. As B increases in zone 2 (B = 0.250.45), more tubes are blocked with bentonite and the number of unblocked flow paths decreases dramatically, leading to a sharp decrease in hydraulic conductivity. For B > 0.45 (zone 3), the hydraulic conductivity approaches that of bentonite because only a few flow paths through the network exist that are unblocked. For B > 0.45, the hydraulic conductivities are of the same order of magnitude and gradually decrease to that of bentonite corrected for blinding by the spheres (7.1 1010 cm/s). In the limiting case (B = 1.0), all the flow paths are filled with bentonite and the hydraulic conductivity is 7.1 1010 cm/s. Similar trends of decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing B are shown in Fig. 9b for packings with different porosities and grain sizes. Denser packings or packings with smaller spheres reach low hydraulic conductivities at slightly lower degrees of bentonation than the other packings. Comparison of Figs. 8 and 9 shows that bentonite is used more efficiently in the TBM than in the GCM. The hydraulic conductivity predicted using the TBM reaches low values at B = 0.45, whereas B > 0.8 was required to reach this condition with the GCM. The presence of bentonite always induces pipe blocking in the TBM. In contrast, the bentonite coats the grains in the GCM but does not block tubes only until the coating becomes adequately thick. Junction blocking model Hydraulic conductivity, percent blocked junctions, and degree of bentonation obtained from the JBM with size-based filling are shown in Fig. 10a for spheres with a diameter of 0.2 mm and a porosity of 0.36. The percentage of blocked tubes and junctions in the network is also shown in Fig. 10a as a function of B. A similar graph for random filling is shown in Fig. 10b. Results obtained using packings with different porosities and grain sizes are not shown for this model but are presented in Abichou (1999). The results for other porosities and grain sizes follow the same general trends as those shown in Figs. 8 and 9. As with the TBM, the relationships between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation B have three zones. The hydraulic conductivity decreases slightly in zone 1 as B increases to 0.5. Blocking the large pores does not affect the hydraulic conductivity greatly because the hydraulic conductivity is controlled by smaller tubes in the network. In zone 2 (B = 0.50.8), the hydraulic conductivity decreases more rapidly with increasing B (about two and one half orders of magnitude). In zone 3 (B > 0.8), an abrupt decrease in hydraulic conductivity occurs as enough junctions controlling the hydraulic conductivity are blocked to prevent continuous pathways without bentonite through the network. Ultimately,

at B = 1.0, the hydraulic conductivity reaches that of the ideal mixture (7.1 1010 cm/s). Three zones exist for random filling as shown in Fig. 10b. In zone 1 (B = 0.00.32), the hydraulic conductivity decreases more rapidly than in size-based filling because smaller junctions in the network, which are bottlenecks to flow, are being blocked at lower B with random filling. With size-based filling, B must be >0.5 before these bottlenecks are filled. In zone 2 (B = 0.51), the hydraulic conductivity abruptly drops four orders of magnitude. It appears that, at B = 0.51, the network becomes devoid of pathways that are not blocked with bentonite. In zone 3, the hydraulic conductivity stays constant until the degree of bentonation reaches 0.8 and then gradually reaches the limiting case (B = 1.0) where the hydraulic conductivity is equal to 7.1 1010 cm/s.

Comparison with experimental data

A comparison was made between hydraulic conductivity predicted with the model and measured hydraulic conductivities of SBMs to ascertain whether the trends observed in Figs. 810 are realized for SBMs prepared with powdered and granular bentonite. The mixtures were prepared with CETCO SS-100 (American Colloid Co., Arlington Heights, Ill.), a powdered sodium bentonite ground to 70% passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm), and Benseal (Baroid Corp., Houston, Tex.), a granular sodium bentonite with a median particle size of 1.1 mm. The free swell, as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D5890, is 25 mL for the powdered bentonite and 32 mL for the granular bentonite. Two uniformly graded sands were used. One was a fine sand with a median particle diameter of 0.2 mm and a coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of 4. The other was a medium sand with a median grain diameter of 1.2 mm and Cu of 4.5. Prior to mixing the sands and bentonite, the sands were lightly sprayed with water to simulate the natural moisture that commonly exists in the field. This moisture also caused the bentonite to stick to the surfaces of the sand grains. A known mass of bentonite (powdered or granular) was then added to achieve the desired bentonite content (ratio of the weight of dry bentonite to that of dry sand). The bentonite was added in increments to the sand as the mixture was blended in a large container using a hand trowel. Once all of the bentonite was added, the entire mixture was mixed thoroughly in the same container until it appeared uniform. The specimens were compacted in rigid-wall permeameters (100 mm in diameter and 50 mm high). The desired dry unit weight (sand porosity of 0.36) was achieved by compacting a known weight of the mixture into the permeameter mold (having known volume) in two equal lifts using a standard Proctor hammer. The hydraulic conductivity tests were performed directly in the compaction mold using rigid-wall permeameters. The falling-head method was used in accordance with ASTM Standard D5856. The inflow and outflow burettes were covered with thin plastic film to minimize evaporation. Tests were terminated when no trend existed in the hydraulic conductivity data, the last four hydraulic conductivity values were within 25% of the mean, and inflow equaled outflow. Hydraulic gradients were maintained between 28 and 32,
2004 NRC Canada

Abichou et al.

709

Fig. 10. Hydraulic conductivity and percent blocked junctions versus degree of bentonation predicted with junction blocking model (JBM) for a packing having and original porosity of 0.36 and sphere diameter of 0.2 mm: (a) size-based filling scenario; (b) random filling scenario.

and tap water was used as the permeant liquid. The permeameters did not include swell rings, so bentonite in these mixtures could only swell into the pore space in the sand matrix. Details of the hydraulic conductivity tests can be found in Abichou et al. (2002). After the hydraulic conductivity tests were terminated, a 100 cm suction was applied by a hanging column to drain off excess water held by capillarity (i.e., water not adsorbed

by either sand or bentonite). The remaining volume of water was assumed to be associated with the swollen bentonite. Degree of bentonation was calculated as the sum of the volume of dry bentonite and the volume of water remaining in the specimen divided by the original volume of pores in the sand matrix. This assumption tends to overestimate the amount of swell because some of the water that remains in the specimen may be associated with the sand matrix and
2004 NRC Canada

710

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004

Fig. 11. Hydraulic conductivity ratio versus degree of bentonation predicted with grain coating model (GCM) and tube blocking model (TBM) and measured for SBMs prepared with powdered bentonite and fine and medium sands (sand porosity = 0.36).

not available for swelling of bentonite. Additionally, some of the water may also be adsorbed onto the bentonite without inducing any volume change. The magnitude of the overestimation is believed to be small, however. SBMs prepared with powdered bentonite A comparison of the predicted and measured relationships between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation is shown in Fig. 11. The results are presented in terms of a hydraulic conductivity ratio (Kr), which is defined as the ratio of the hydraulic conductivity of the SBM to the hydraulic conductivity of the sand without bentonite. The measured hydraulic conductivity of the samples prepared with fine sand varied from 0.045 cm/s when B = 0.0 to 1.5 108 cm/s when B = 1.0. The measured hydraulic conductivity of the samples prepared with medium sand varied from 0.68 cm/s when B = 0 to 2 108 cm/s when B = 1.0. Predictions are only shown for the GCM and TBM because these network models were developed for powdered bentonite. Similar relationships exist between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation for the actual SBMs and the predictions made with the GCM. The degree of bentonation at which the hydraulic conductivity reaches lower values is slightly overestimated by the GCM for the fine sand and is estimated closely for medium sand. In contrast, the hydraulic conductivity predicted with the TBM reaches a low value at a degree of bentonation significantly lower than occurs for the actual SBMs. The closer agreement obtained with the GCM is consistent with the microstructural observations made by Abichou et al. (2002), i.e., powdered bentonite

coats the grains in an SBM rather than directly blocks the pores as assumed in the TBM. The effect of sand size in both models may reflect an artifact of the model formulation, which assumes that bentonite has constant hydraulic conductivity regardless of the size of the pores or the degree of bentonation. In reality, the bentonite may have lower conductivity in fine sand because smaller pores will restrict swelling, resulting in a bentonite fraction with lower hydraulic conductivity. As a result, the fine and medium sands could have comparable Kr at a high degree of bentonation. Moreover, if higher bentonite contents had been used in the tests with fine sand, the measured Kr of the fine sand may have dropped below that of the medium sand at a similar degree of bentonation. SBMs prepared with granular bentonite Predicted hydraulic conductivities obtained with the JBM (size-based and random filling) and the measured hydraulic conductivities of the SBMs prepared with fine and medium sand mixed and granular bentonite are shown in Fig. 12 versus degree of bentonation. The measured hydraulic conductivity of the samples prepared with fine sand varied from 0.045 cm/s when B = 0 to 1.9 108 cm/s when B = 1.0. The measured hydraulic conductivity of the samples prepared with medium sand varied from 0.68 cm/s when B = 0 to 1.8 108 cm/s when B = 1.0. The relationship between hydraulic conductivity and degree of bentonation predicted with the JBM using size-based filling is similar to those measured on the SBMs (especially the SBM with fine sand). The comparison is poorer for the medium sand. Neverthe 2004 NRC Canada

Abichou et al.

711

Fig. 12. Hydraulic conductivity ratio versus degree of bentonation predicted with junction blocking model (JBM) with size-based filling and random filling along with measured hydraulic conductivities of SBMs prepared with granular bentonite and fine and medium sand (porosity of sand = 0.36).

less, the similarity of the predicted and measured hydraulic conductivity ratios suggests that the JBM with size-based filling captures key mechanisms controlling the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs prepared with granular bentonite. Much poorer agreement is obtained with random filling. The JBM with random filling predicts a large drop in hydraulic conductivity at B = 0.51, whereas the hydraulic conductivity of the SBMs only dropped appreciably for B > 0.75. Apparently, assuming an independent distribution of bentonite does not reflect the bentonite distribution in SBMs prepared with granular bentonite. Rather, the distribution of bentonite in SBMs prepared with granular bentonite probably depends on the size of the granules, the size of the grains of the sand, and maybe the bentonite content.

Summary and conclusions

A network model was developed to predict the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs prepared with powdered and granular bentonite. The model is based on a packing of equal-size spheres created using a three-dimensional discrete element model. The space occupied by the spheres is divided into a collection of neighboring tetrahedrons, and the geometry of the tetrahedrons is used to define tube diameters and lengths in a pore network. The hydraulic conductivity of the network is calculated by applying conservation of mass at each junction in the network. Bentonite was introduced into the network in several schemes to simulate SBMs prepared with powdered and granular bentonite. The quantity of bentonite in the network is characterized by the degree of bentonation,

B, which is the volume of swollen bentonite divided by the volume of pores between the sand grains. The schemes used to introduce the bentonite were selected to mimic microstructural observations reported previously. Mixtures of sand and powdered bentonite were modeled as a packing of sand with each sand grain coated with a layer of bentonite (grain coating model or GCM) or as a random distribution of bentonite occupying the pore throats between the sand particles (tube blocking model or TBM). Mixtures of sand and granular bentonite were modeled as a packing of sand with bentonite granules occupying the pores between the sand particles (junction blocking model or JBM). Predictions made with the GCM show that bentonite reduces the hydraulic conductivity of an SBM in three steps. Initially, the tube diameters decrease as the thickness of the bentonite coating increases, leading to a gradual reduction in hydraulic conductivity. However, all tubes remain unblocked. In the second step (B > 0.5), the hydraulic conductivity decreases appreciably as B increases because the grain coatings are thick enough to cause blockage of some tubes. In the third step (B > 0.8), additional coating induces blocking of entire junctions (blocking four tubes at a time), which decreases the hydraulic conductivity abruptly. Predictions made with the TBM also show that bentonite reduces the hydraulic conductivity of an SBM in three similar steps. First, the hydraulic conductivity decreases slightly as B increases to 0.5. As the degree of bentonation increases from 0.5 to 0.8, the hydraulic conductivity suddenly decreases by two and a half orders of magnitude. At a degree of bentonation greater than 0.8, enough junctions controlling the hydraulic
2004 NRC Canada

712

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 41, 2004 Daniel, D. 1987. Earthen liners for land disposal facilities. In Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal 87. Edited by R.D. Woods. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 13, pp. 2139. Garlanger, J., Cheung, F., and Bishar, S. 1987. Quality control testing for sandbentonite liners. In Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal 87. Edited by R.D. Woods. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 13, pp. 488499. Gleason, M., Daniel, D., and Eykholt, G. 1997. Calcium and sodium bentonite for hydraulic containment applications. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(5): 438445. Goodhue, M., Benson, C., and Edil, T. 2001. Interaction of foundry sands with geosynthetics. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(4): 353362. Holtz, R., and Kovacs, W. 1981. An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Horner, D. 1997. Application of DEM to micro-mechanical theory for large deformation of granular media. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Howell, J., and Shackelford, C. 1997. Hydraulic conductivity of sand admixed with processed clay mixtures. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, 612 September 1997. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 307310. Kenney, T.C., Van Veen, M.A., Swallow, M.A., and Sungaila, M.A. 1992. Hydraulic conductivity of compacted bentonitesand mixtures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29: 364374. Kraus, J., Benson, C., Erickson, A., and Chamberlain, E. 1997. Freezethaw cycling and the hydraulic conductivity of bentonitic barriers. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123(3): 229238. Lundgren, T. 1981. Some bentonite sealants in soil mixed blankets. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 1519 June 1981. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 349354. Mason, G. 1971. A model for the pore space in a random packing of equal spheres. Journal of Colloidal Interface Science, 35: 279287. Mitchell, J. 1993. Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Mollins, L., Stewart, D., and Cousens, T. 1996. Predicting the hydraulic conductivity of bentonitesand mixtures. Clay Minerals, 31: 243252. Mollins, L.H., Stewart, D.I., and Cousens, T.W. 1999. Drained strength of bentonite enhanced sands. Gotechnique, 49(4): 523528. OSadnick, D., Simpson, B., and Kasel, G. 1995. Evaluation and performance of a sandbentonite liner. In Geoenvironment 2000. Edited by Y.B. Acar and D.E. Daniel. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 46, pp. 688701. Sllfors, G., and berg-Hgsta, A. 2002. Determination of hydraulic conductivity of sandbentonite mixtures for engineering purposes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 20: 6580.

conductivity are blocked to prevent continuous pathways (without bentonite), leading to a steep decrease in hydraulic conductivity. Predictions made using the GCM compare reasonably well with hydraulic conductivities measured on SBMs prepared with fine and medium sand and powdered bentonite. In contrast, the TBM predicted decreases in hydraulic conductivity at much lower B than was measured. Predictions obtained with the JBM with size-based filling compare reasonably well with hydraulic conductivities measured on SBMs prepared with granular bentonite. The favorable comparisons obtained with the GCM and the JBM (with size-based filling) suggest that these models capture key mechanisms controlling the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs prepared with granular and powdered bentonite.

Acknowledgments
The DEM simulations were performed by Dr. David Horner. Dr. Steve Bryant provided assistance in developing the codes for the original network model (no bentonite). Their efforts are greatly appreciated. Financial support for the study described in this paper was provided by the State of Wisconsin Solid Waste Research Program (SWRP). The findings described in this paper are solely those of the authors. Endorsement by the SWRP is not implied and should not be assumed.

References
Abeele, W.V. 1986. The influence of bentonite on the permeability of sandy silts. Nuclear and Chemical Waste Management, 6: 8188. Abichou, T. 1999. Hydraulic properties of foundry sands and their use as hydraulic barriers. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisc. Abichou, T., Benson, C., and Edil, T. 2002. Micro-structure and hydraulic conductivity of simulated SBMs. Clays and Clay Minerals Journal, 50(5): 537545. Bryant, S., King, P., and Mellor, D. 1993a. Network model evaluation of permeability and spatial correlation in a real random sphere packing. Transport in Porous Media, 11: 5370. Bryant, S., Mellor, D., and Cade, C. 1993b. Physically representative network models of transport in porous media. AIChE Journal, 39(3): 387396. Chapuis, R. 1981. Permeability testing of soilbentonite mixtures. In Proceeding of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 1519 June 1981. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 744745. Chapuis, R. 1990. Sandbentonite liners: predicting permeability from laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27: 4757. Chu, C., and Ng, K. 1989. Flow in packed tubes with a small particle diameter ratio. AIChE Journal, 35: 148158.

2004 NRC Canada