DOE OSTI2024
The Full-scale Emplacement (FE) heater experiment at the Mont Terri Underground Rock Laboratory (URL) was designed and conducted by Nagra to replicate an emplacement tunnel of Nagra’s reference repository design at 1:1 scale. Alongside testing the technical feasibility of constructing disposal tunnels, emplacing waste containers in the tunnels and then backfilling them, the main goals of the FE experiment are (1) to obtain a better understanding of the coupled effects of induced thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) processes that may occur and (2) to validate existing coupled THM models (Müller et al., 2017). A key aspect of ensuring safety for repositories located in low-permeability rock involves minimizing any damage to the rock itself, thereby preserving its integrity and promoting a stable environment Amongst a number of processes that could damage the rock is the increase in pore pressure due to thermal loading caused by heat emitted from the waste. To reduce the potential damage of the rock, it is important to analyse the evolution of heat over time due to the heat load of the containers and assess possible consequences by coupled THM models. The aim of Task C of DECOVALEX-2023 was to build 3D numerical models of the FE experiment, focussing in particular on the heating induced pore pressure change in the Opalinus Clay. Data from a large number of sensors were available from the FE experiment for model comparison. These sensors measured temperature and relative humidity in the bentonite around the heaters, and temperature, pressure and displacement/strain in the surrounding Opalinus clay. Data were available from the start of excavation (April 2012) up to August 2020 for most sensors (more than 5 years from the start of heating in December 2014). To fulfil the overall aim of the task, the work was broken down into a number of steps, starting with simpler models to build confidence in each team’s approach and then moving to more complex models that better represent the FE experiment. Step 0 consisted of 2D benchmark models, gradually increasing the number of processes that are represented from thermal (T) only models in Step 0a, to coupled thermal hydraulic (TH) models in Step 0b with a representation of changing porosity, to coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) models in Step 0c, where porosity changes are calculated by the mechanical model. A detailed specification of processes, parameters, initial and boundary conditions was provided for this step, with the ambition that all teams would work towards close agreement in their model results, thus building confidence in the model implementations. vi It was not straightforward to achieve agreement between the teams, so additional steps (Step 0b2, 0b3, 0c2, 0c3) were added along with derivation of some analytical solutions against which the models could be compared. The reasons for the differences between teams were investigated and found to be caused primarily by different conceptual model assumptions (including temperature dependence of the thermal expansion of water), different model formulations (including porosity evolution) and differences in modelled domain sizes, boundary conditions and grid discretisation. This demonstrates that comparisons between multiple modelling teams and/or comparison with analytical results and experimental data are highly beneficial in providing an indication of uncertainty in model predictions. At the conclusion of Step 0, almost all teams had achieved a close agreement in model results and those that had not achieved an agreement knew the reason for this. Step 1 moved from 2D models to 3D models of the FE experiment without adding technical features like shotcrete or EDZ, and only considering the heating phase. Initially the 3D model was tightly specified to continue to build confidence in the model implementations (Step 1a). The results of Step 1a were compared to the data from the FE-experiment without the teams seeing the data. The teams were then provided with a sub-set of the data from the FE-experiment and invited to consider how best to use the large dataset for model comparison (Step 1b). Teams were then asked to use the data provided to calibrate their models, only changing material property values rather than adding features or processes to their models (Step 1c). In Step 1, teams were asked to only model the heating phase of the experiment, so pressure in the Opalinus Clay was reported as change in pressure since the initial conditions were specified rather than modelled. The change from 2D to 3D models was accompanied by an increase in the dispersion of results between the teams. Some of this was resolved during the task, but some remained and is potentially due to model discretisation. Calibration of parameters was useful in improving the fit of the models to the data but the remaining differences indicated that the models were missing features or processes. In Step 2, the teams were asked to update their models with additional features and processes as well as calibrating parameters to try and improve the fit of the models to the data. Teams were encouraged to represent ventilation of the open FE tunnel prior to backfilling with heaters and bentonite and in Step 2, the absolute pressure in the Opalinus Clay was compared between the teams. Teams took different approaches, but there was consideration of adding shotcrete and an EDZ into the model, representing stress change during excavation and different approaches to modelling ventilation of the FE tunnel. Overall, the documented results showed a very good agreement for temperature. The results for porewater pressure evolution showed a significant improvement for most teams compared to Step 1c with a good agreement to the measurements for several teams whereas some teams overpredicted the pressure increase and others overpredicted the drainage effect especially for the sensors close to the heater. Step 3 was an opportunity for teams to use the models developed in Step 1 and Step 2 to make predictions about the temperature and pressure changes that will be expected at the FE experiment over the next few years in light of the planned changes in thermal output of the heaters.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗