Yucca Mountain Project thermal and mechanical codes first benchmark exercise: Part 3, Jointed rock mass analysis; Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project
Author(s) -
L.S. Costin,
S.J. Bauer
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
osti oai (u.s. department of energy office of scientific and technical information)
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Reports
DOI - 10.2172/138245
Subject(s) - benchmark (surveying) , finite element method , rock mass classification , joint (building) , structural engineering , nonlinear system , computer science , phase (matter) , thermal , thermal conduction , benchmarking , engineering , geology , geotechnical engineering , physics , meteorology , thermodynamics , geodesy , quantum mechanics , marketing , business
Thermal and mechanical models for intact and jointed rock mass behavior are being developed, verified, and validated at Sandia National Laboratories for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. Benchmarking is an essential part of this effort and is one of the tools used to demonstrate verification of engineering software used to solve thermomechanical problems. This report presents the results of the third (and final) phase of the first thermomechanical benchmark exercise. In the first phase of this exercise, nonlinear heat conduction code were used to solve the thermal portion of the benchmark problem. The results from the thermal analysis were then used as input to the second and third phases of the exercise, which consisted of solving the structural portion of the benchmark problem. In the second phase of the exercise, a linear elastic rock mass model was used. In the third phase of the exercise, two different nonlinear jointed rock mass models were used to solve the thermostructural problem. Both models, the Sandia compliant joint model and the RE/SPEC joint empirical model, explicitly incorporate the effect of the joints on the response of the continuum. Three different structural codes, JAC, SANCHO, and SPECTROM-31, were used with the above models in the third phase of the study. Each model was implemented in two different codes so that direct comparisons of results from each model could be made. The results submitted by the participants showed that the finite element solutions using each model were in reasonable agreement. Some consistent differences between the solutions using the two different models were noted but are not considered important to verification of the codes. 9 refs., 18 figs., 8 tabs
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom