skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Evaluation of design feature No.20 -- Ground support options

Abstract

Ground support options are primarily evaluated for emplacement drifts while ground support systems for non-emplacement openings such as access mains and ventilation drifts are not evaluated against LADS evaluation criteria in this report. Considerations include functional requirements for ground support, the use of a steel-lined system, and the feasibility of using an unlined ground support system principally with grouted rock bolts for permanent ground support. The feature evaluation also emphasizes the postclosure effects of ground support materials on waste isolation and the preclosure aspects such as durability, maintainability, constructibility, safety, engineering acceptability, and cost. This evaluation is to: (A) Review the existing analyses, reports, and studies regarding this design feature, and compile relevant information on performance characteristics. (B) Develop an appropriate evaluation approach for evaluating ground support options against evaluation criteria provided by the LADS team. (C) Evaluate ground support options not only for their preclosure performance in terms of drift stability, material durability, maintenance, constructibility, and cost, but also for their postclosure performance in terms of chemical effects of ground support materials (i.e., concrete, steel) on waste isolation and radionuclide transport. Specifically, the scope for ground support options evaluation include: (1) all steel-lined drifts (no cementitious materials), (2) unlinedmore » drifts with minimum cementitious materials (e.g., grout for rockbolts), and (3) concrete-lined drifts, with the focus on the postclosure acceptability evaluation. In addition, unlined drifts with zero cementitious materials (e.g., use of frictional bolts such as split sets, Swellex bolts) are briefly discussed. (D) Identify candidate ground support systems that have the potential to enhance the repository performance based on the feature evaluation. and (E) Provide conclusions and recommendations. Much of the input information to this design feature evaluation is based on (1) the current knowledge of loading scenarios, material properties and physical parameters for the rock mass; (2) analyses and study reports involving the use of a mixture of existing, accepted and qualified data; (3) necessary assumptions; and (4) discussions and communications with affected M and O organizations. Therefore, the outputs from this evaluation may not be used directly for procurement, fabrication, or construction.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas, Nevada (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
US Department of Energy (US)
OSTI Identifier:
759924
Report Number(s):
BCAA00000-017172200-00003/Rev.00
TRN: US0004179
DOE Contract Number:  
AC08-91RW00134
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: 29 Mar 2000
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; YUCCA MOUNTAIN; RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES; SUPPORTS; STRATA CONTROL; DESIGN; ROOF BOLTS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL; RADIONUCLIDE MIGRATION; CONCRETES; STEELS; ROCK MECHANICS

Citation Formats

F. Duan. Evaluation of design feature No.20 -- Ground support options. United States: N. p., 2000. Web. doi:10.2172/759924.
F. Duan. Evaluation of design feature No.20 -- Ground support options. United States. doi:10.2172/759924.
F. Duan. Wed . "Evaluation of design feature No.20 -- Ground support options". United States. doi:10.2172/759924. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/759924.
@article{osti_759924,
title = {Evaluation of design feature No.20 -- Ground support options},
author = {F. Duan},
abstractNote = {Ground support options are primarily evaluated for emplacement drifts while ground support systems for non-emplacement openings such as access mains and ventilation drifts are not evaluated against LADS evaluation criteria in this report. Considerations include functional requirements for ground support, the use of a steel-lined system, and the feasibility of using an unlined ground support system principally with grouted rock bolts for permanent ground support. The feature evaluation also emphasizes the postclosure effects of ground support materials on waste isolation and the preclosure aspects such as durability, maintainability, constructibility, safety, engineering acceptability, and cost. This evaluation is to: (A) Review the existing analyses, reports, and studies regarding this design feature, and compile relevant information on performance characteristics. (B) Develop an appropriate evaluation approach for evaluating ground support options against evaluation criteria provided by the LADS team. (C) Evaluate ground support options not only for their preclosure performance in terms of drift stability, material durability, maintenance, constructibility, and cost, but also for their postclosure performance in terms of chemical effects of ground support materials (i.e., concrete, steel) on waste isolation and radionuclide transport. Specifically, the scope for ground support options evaluation include: (1) all steel-lined drifts (no cementitious materials), (2) unlined drifts with minimum cementitious materials (e.g., grout for rockbolts), and (3) concrete-lined drifts, with the focus on the postclosure acceptability evaluation. In addition, unlined drifts with zero cementitious materials (e.g., use of frictional bolts such as split sets, Swellex bolts) are briefly discussed. (D) Identify candidate ground support systems that have the potential to enhance the repository performance based on the feature evaluation. and (E) Provide conclusions and recommendations. Much of the input information to this design feature evaluation is based on (1) the current knowledge of loading scenarios, material properties and physical parameters for the rock mass; (2) analyses and study reports involving the use of a mixture of existing, accepted and qualified data; (3) necessary assumptions; and (4) discussions and communications with affected M and O organizations. Therefore, the outputs from this evaluation may not be used directly for procurement, fabrication, or construction.},
doi = {10.2172/759924},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {2000},
month = {3}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: