2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0169-7722(02)00139-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of the mode of matrix porosity determination on matrix diffusion calculations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The process of drilling and subsequent sample treatment for laboratory testing can create new cracks and microcracks through stress release and disturbance (e.g., Autio et al, 1998;Bradbury and Stephen, 1986; Skagius and Neretnieks, 1986; Tullborg and Larson, 2006;Vilks et al, 2003). Increased porosity values in laboratory samples due to artificially disturbed conditions compared to in situ conditions have been well documented in previous studies (e.g., Jokelainen et al, 2013;Ota et al, 2003; Tullborg and Larson, 2006). These differences are even more pronounced in laboratory experiments when using smaller and thinner samples (Tullborg and Larson, 2006;Valkiainen et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The process of drilling and subsequent sample treatment for laboratory testing can create new cracks and microcracks through stress release and disturbance (e.g., Autio et al, 1998;Bradbury and Stephen, 1986; Skagius and Neretnieks, 1986; Tullborg and Larson, 2006;Vilks et al, 2003). Increased porosity values in laboratory samples due to artificially disturbed conditions compared to in situ conditions have been well documented in previous studies (e.g., Jokelainen et al, 2013;Ota et al, 2003; Tullborg and Larson, 2006). These differences are even more pronounced in laboratory experiments when using smaller and thinner samples (Tullborg and Larson, 2006;Valkiainen et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Estimates by Skagius and Neretnieks [1986] indicated a 2–3 times higher porosity in the drill core samples compared to intact rock at repository depth in situ conditions. Ota et al [2003] claim that 30 to 60% of the porosity measured by conventional laboratory techniques is an artifact by stress release and physical disturbance. No estimates of the changes in properties caused by the stress release have been made within this project, thus measured porosities and diffusivities can be regarded as maximum values.…”
Section: Overview Of the Site And Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…%) compared to the granodiorite host rock [11]. The core was drilled with a special 11 cm ring and 3 cm over-coring and resin polymerization technique, which however cannot completely prevent expansion of the over-cored natural fracture due to host rock pressure release [12]. The uneven core edges resulting from tearing out the core were sawed and flattened.…”
Section: Laboratory Core Experimental Set-upmentioning
confidence: 99%