Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:59:54.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Three Small-Scale Devices for the Investigation of the Electrical Conductivity/Resistivity of Swelling and Other Clays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

S. Kaufhold*
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, D-30655, Hannover, Germany
C. Grissemann
Affiliation:
LBEG, Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie, Stilleweg 2, D-30655, Hannover, Germany
R. Dohrmann
Affiliation:
BGR, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Stilleweg 2, D-30655, Hannover, Germany LBEG, Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie, Stilleweg 2, D-30655, Hannover, Germany
M. Klinkenberg
Affiliation:
Institute of Energy and Climate Research (IEK-6) — Nuclear Waste Management and Reactor Safety, Research Centre Jülich GmbH, 52425, Jülich, Germany
A. Decher
Affiliation:
SandB Industrial Minerals GmbH, Schmielefeldstr. 78, D-45772, Marl, Germany
*
*E-mail address of corresponding author: s.kaufhold@bgr.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Electrical measurements are used in various fields of geoscience and technology, e.g. gas/oil exploration or landslide-barrier monitoring. Although clays are amongst the most conducting geomaterials their electrical properties are not yet fully understood. For example, in a recent high-level-radioactive-waste repository large-scale test, a bentonite barrier was monitored geoelectrically. To facilitate interpretation of the results, the reasons for the observed differences in the electrical conductivity must be understood (e.g. changes in water content, temperature, salinity of pore water, etc.). To improve understanding of the electrical properties of clay minerals, in situ measurements must be combined with laboratory measurements. In situ measurements allow the characterization of the material in its natural state and laboratory measurements, for small sample amounts, allow the user to vary relevant parameters systematically such as water content, temperature, the salinity of the pore water, or even the cation population if swelling clay minerals are present. In situ measurements using different electrode distances, from m to cm range, proved that small-scale investigations are essential because of small-scale material heterogeneities. In the laboratory, all the relevant parameters mentioned above can be controlled more easily for small sample amounts. In the present study three different small-scale devices (SSM1–SSM3) were compared. The geometry factor, K, was determined both by calculation and by a calibration against solutions of different conductivity. Calculated and measured geometry factors were in good agreement. SSM1 and SSM2 — both with four pin-shaped electrodes — were found to be particularly applicable for in situ measurements. SSM2, with point contacts at the tips of the pins, was considered to be an improvement over SSM1 because the effects of both water content and temperature gradients (which are particularly relevant near the surface) were less pronounced using SSM2. SSM3, in which the contacts are placed at the bottom of a 4.5 mL trough, proved to be useful when systematically varying all of the parameters influencing the electrical properties in the laboratory.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Clay Minerals Society 2014

References

Binley, A. Henry-Poulter, S. and Shaw, B., 1996 Examination of solute transport in an undisturbed soil column using electrical resistance tomography Water Resources Research 32 763769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, N.J. and Bazán, J.C., 2009 Electrical conductivity of montmorillonite as a function of relative humidity: Lamontmorillonite Clay Minerals 44 8188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igel, J., 2007 On the small-scale variability of electrical soil properties and its influence on geophysical measurements Dissertation der Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany 188 pp..Google Scholar
Ishida, T. Makinoo, T. and Wang, C., 2000 Dielectricrelaxation spectroscopy of kaolinite, montmorillonite, allophane, and imogolite under moist conditions Clays and Clay Minerals 48 7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufhold, S. and Dohrmann, R., 2003 Beyond the Methylene Blue method: determination of the smectite content using the Cu-triene method Zeitschrift für angewandte Geologie 49 1317.Google Scholar
Kaufhold, S. and Dohrmann, R., 2013 The variable charge of dioctahedral clay minerals Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 390 225233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufhold, S. and Penner, D., 2006 Applicability of the SER method for quality control of clays from the German ‘Westerwald’ Applied Clay Science 32 5363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufhold, S. Decher, A. and Dohrmann, R., 1998.Verfahren zur Bestimmung des Gehaltes an Tonmineralien in einem tonmineralhaltigen Material Deutsches Patent DE 19839531Google Scholar
Kaufhold, S. Dohrmann, R. Ufer, K. and Meyer, F.M., 2002 Comparison of methods for the quantification of montmorillonite in bentonites Applied Clay Science 22 145151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufhold, S. Dohrmann, R. and Decher, A., 2003 The SER method: A new technique for the in situ estimation of the montmorillonite content of bentonites Zeitschrift für angewandte Geologie 49 26.Google Scholar
Kesten, H., 2006 What is percolation? Notices of the AMS 53 572573.Google Scholar
Lagaly, G., 1994 Layer charge determination by alkylammonium ions Layer Charge Characteristics of 2:1 Silicate Clay Minerals 6 242.Google Scholar
Meier, L.P. and Kahr, G., 1999 Determination of the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of clay minerals using the complexes of copper (II) ion with triethylenetetramine and tetraethylenepentamine Clays and Clay Minerals 47 386388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mojid, M.A. and Cho, H., 2006 Estimating the fully developed diffuse double layer thickness from the bulk electrical conductivity in clay Applied Clay Science 33 278286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rücker, C. and Günther, T., 2011 The simulation of finite ERT electrodes using the complete electrode model Geophysics 76 227238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulmeister, M.K. Butler, J.J. Healey, J.M. Zheng, L. Wysocki, D.A. and McCall, G.W., 2003 Direct-push electrical conductivity logging for high-resolution hydrostratigraphic characterisation Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 23 5262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, L. and Lesmes, D.P., 2002 Electrical-hydraulic relationships observed for unconsolidated sediments Water Resources Research 38 31−131−13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddeth, K.A. Kitchen, N.R. Drummond, S.T. et al. ,Robert, P.C. 1999 et al. , Soil conductivity sensing on claypan soils: comparison of electromagnetic induction and direct methods Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Precision Agriculture Madison, Wisconsin, USA ASA Miscellaneous Publication, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA 971990.Google Scholar
Tabbagh, A. and Cosenza, P.h., 2006 Effect of microstructure on the electrical conductivity of clay-rich systems Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 154160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taioli, F. Gallas, J.D.F. Ribeiro, V. Toledo lezzi, P.B. and Nascimento, D.P.V., 2006 Desenvolvimento e testes de mini-sonda Wenner para avaliacao de contaminiacoes rasas Revista Brasileira de Geoofisica 24 525534.Google Scholar
Telford, W.M. Geldart, L.P. Sheriff, R.E. and Keys, D.A., 1976 Applied Geophysics New York Cambridge University Press 860 pp..Google Scholar
Waxman, M. and Smits, L., 1968 Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 8 107122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, R.A. and Chaussidon, J., 1968 Surface conductivity and dielectrical properties of montmorillonite gels Clays and Clay Minerals 16 147155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar