표제지
요약문
Abstract
목차
1. 서론 17
1.1. 연구 배경 17
2. 처분 개념 18
2.1. 고준위방사성폐기물 정의 18
2.2. 심층처분개념 20
2.2.1. 심층처분방식 22
2.2.2. KBS-3V와 KBS-3H 비교 22
2.3. 국내 심층처분 연구 24
2.4. 해외 심층처분 연구 26
2.4.1. 핀란드 26
2.4.2. 스웨덴 29
2.4.3. 스위스 32
2.4.4. 중국 35
2.4.5. 일본 38
3. 굴착손상대 41
3.1. 굴착손상대 정의 41
3.2. 굴착손상대 형성요인 44
3.3. 굴착손상대 영향 45
3.4. 굴착손상대 평가 방법 47
3.4.1. 현장시험 방법 47
3.4.2. 실내 실험 방법 48
3.4.3. 경험적 방법 50
3.4.4. 수치해석적 방법 54
3.4.5. EDZ 코드해석 사례 55
4. EDZ 영향 평가 모델링 58
4.1. FLAC 58
4.2. FLAC2D를 이용한 수리-역학적 영향 평가 59
4.2.1. 2차원 모델링 59
4.2.2. 역학적 물성 61
4.2.3. 수리적 물성 63
4.3. 수리-역학적 영향 평가 결과 64
4.3.1. 변위 64
4.3.2. 응력 67
4.3.3. 투수계수 72
4.3.4. 지하수 유입량 74
4.3.5. 안전율 75
4.4. 무작위 모델 내에서 측압계수 변화에 따른 영향 비교 76
4.4.1. 변위, 주응력, 투수계수, 유입량 변화 결과 76
5. FLAC3D 역학적 영향 평가 80
5.1. 3차원 역학적 영향 평가 결과 81
5.1.1. 변위 81
5.1.2. 응력 82
5.1.3. 변위, 주응력 그래프 84
6. FLAC3D 열해석 88
6.1. 3차원 열해석 결과 91
6.1.1. 온도 91
7. 결론 94
참고 문헌 98
Appendices 111
Appendix A. The Three Cases of Hydro-Mechanical Analysis FLAC2D Command. 111
Appendix B. The Hydro-Mechanical Analysis Code That Changes the Stress Ratio in a Random Case. 117
Appendix C. The Mechanical Analysis Code in Uniform EDZ Case Used by FLAC3D. 118
Table 1. Saturation of spent nuclear fuel storage facilities in Korea. 18
Table 2. Operational reactors in Finland. 26
Table 3. Swedish Nuclear Power Plant Operations Status. 29
Table 4. Factors influencing on the generation of EDZ. 44
Table 5. EDZ size measured by various test methods at different URLs. 49
Table 6. Rock properties at KURT. 61
Table 7. Changes in mechanical properties in laboratory rock core test before and after blasting with distance from tunnel. 62
Table 8. Mechanical properties in EDZ 1,2,3 and undisturbed rock. 63
Table 9. Hydraulic properties in EDZ 1,2,3 and undisturbed rock. 63
Table 10. Thermal properties in EDZ 1,2,3 and undisturbed rock. 90
Table 11. Classification of convection coefficients. 90
Table 12. Temperature pattern that changes with increasing convection coefficient depending on the presence or absence of EDZ... 93
Fig. 1. Disposal Method by Radioactive Waste Level. 19
Fig. 2. Oklo mine natural reactor. 21
Fig. 3. Concept of KBS-3. 23
Fig. 4. Left: Vertical emplacement of the canisters(KBS-3V), Right: Horizontal emplacement of the canisters(KBS-3H). 23
Fig. 5. Rock distribution area in Korea. 25
Fig. 6. KAERI for HLW disposal technology development. 25
Fig. 7. Layout of LILW repository. Left: Olkiluoto(Posiva, 2019a), Right: Loviisa. 27
Fig. 8. Layout of the ONKALO URL. 28
Fig. 9. The main components of the Swedish system for final disposal of radioactive waste. 30
Fig. 10. Disposal concept of the deep geological repository in Sweden. 31
Fig. 11. The Swiss radioactive waste management. 32
Fig. 12. The GTS is located at an altitude of 1730 meters within the granitic rock of the Aar Massif in central Switzerland, (a) Grimsel Test... 33
Fig. 13. Geological profile along the motorway tunnel showing the location of the Mont Terri Rock Laboratory. 34
Fig. 14. Schematic illustration of the repository for SF/HLW/ILW. 35
Fig. 15. China nuclear power plants. 36
Fig. 16. The main structure schematic diagram of the URL in Beishan. 37
Fig. 17. Overview of the disposal methods for the radioactive wastes from the commercial NPPs. 38
Fig. 18. Disposal concept of the deep geological repository in Japan. 39
Fig. 19. Layout of the Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory. 40
Fig. 20. A map showing the two URL of Japan. 41
Fig. 21. Term for EDZ according to excavation method. 43
Fig. 22. Conceptual model of coupled processes in near-field EDZ. 46
Fig. 23. Influence of charge on the depth of the blasting-induced damaged zone. 51
Fig. 24. Prediction of EDZ from blasting design factor. 54
Fig. 25. Distribution of hydraulic head in the case of underground water flow analysis before and after considering the mathematical... 56
Fig. 26. (a) Deterministic fractures and (b) Discrete fracture network for the two-dimensional modeling. 57
Fig. 27. 3 cases for investigating the influence of EDZ. 59
Fig. 28. Model mesh, geometry of the tunnel and boundary condition in FLAC2D. 60
Fig. 29. Numbering method according to grid points and zones around the tunnel. 64
Fig. 30. Comparison of the X-direction displacement contour according to three cases. 65
Fig. 31. Comparison of the X-direction displacement plot according to three cases. 65
Fig. 32. Comparison of the Y-direction displacement contour according to three cases. 66
Fig. 33. Comparison of the Y-direction displacement plot according to three cases. 67
Fig. 34. Comparison of the YY-stress contour according to three cases. 68
Fig. 35. Comparison of the YY-stress plot according to three cases. 68
Fig. 36. Comparison of the maximum principal stress contour according to three cases. 69
Fig. 37. Comparison of the maximum principal stress plot according to three cases. 70
Fig. 38. Comparison of the minimum principal stress contour according to three cases. 71
Fig. 39. Comparison of the minimum principal stress plot according to three cases. 71
Fig. 40. The permeability contours before and after FISH iteration calculation in Uniform EDZ and Random EDZ. 73
Fig. 41. Graph comparing the amount of water flowing into the tunnel for 20 days in three cases. 74
Fig. 42. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope shown in coordinate. 75
Fig. 43. The factor of safety in three cases. 76
Fig. 44. A Comparison of the maximum displacement vector for different stress ratios. 77
Fig. 45. A Comparison of the X-displacement contours for different stress ratios. 77
Fig. 46. A Comparison of the Y-displacement contours for different stress ratios. 77
Fig. 47. A Comparison of the maximum principal stress contours for different stress ratios. 78
Fig. 48. Comparison of the permeability contours for different stress ratios. 78
Fig. 49. Comparison of the water inflow in 15 days for different stress ratios. 79
Fig. 50. Model mesh, geometry of the tunnel and boundary condition in FLAC3D. 80
Fig. 51. Comparison of the X-direction displacement contours for the cases in 3D model. 81
Fig. 52. Comparison of the Z-direction displacement contours for the cases in 3D model. 82
Fig. 53. Comparison of the plastic zone developments for the cases in 3D model. 82
Fig. 54. Comparison of the ZZ-direction stress contour for the cases in 3D model. 83
Fig. 55. Comparison of the maximum principal stress contour for the cases in 3D model. 83
Fig. 56. Comparison of the minimum principal stress contour for the cases in 3D model. 84
Fig. 57. Specify a plot point for each excavation stage and EDZ layers. 85
Fig. 58. The Y-direction displacement graph measured during 5 stages of excavation for each EDZ layer at a fixed plot point. 85
Fig. 59. The Z-direction displacement graph measured during 5 stages of excavation for each EDZ layer at a fixed plot point. 86
Fig. 60. The maximum principal stress graph measured during 5 stages of excavation for each EDZ layer at a fixed plot point. 87
Fig. 61. The minimum principal stress graph measured during 5 stages of excavation for each EDZ layer at a fixed plot point. 87
Fig. 62. Model of grouping the inner surfaces of the tunnel. 91
Fig. 63. Contours of the temperature change with or without EDZ in natural and forced convection. 92
Fig. 64. Single layer and multi-layer temperature gradient. 93