4.5 Article

A new thermal analysis model with three heat conduction layers in the nuclear waste repository

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
卷 371, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2020.110929

关键词

Nuclear waste repository; Three layer model; Three-dimensional heat conduction; Analytical solution; Peak buffer layer temperature

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41630633, 42077229]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mathematical model for three layer media with different thermal conductivities was presented to analyze the three-dimensional heat conduction in the repository. Analytical solutions for temperature distribution in different layers were derived and a parametric study was conducted to assess the effects of geometry dimension and thermal conductivity on thermal performance. The results showed that the thickness of the bentonite pellet layer significantly increased the peak buffer layer temperature due to its low thermal conductivity.
A mathematical model for three layer media with different thermal conductivities is presented for analyzing the three-dimensional heat conduction of the repository. The solutions to the temperature distribution in the bentonite block layer, bentonite pellet layer and surrounding rock were derived through applying the Fourier and Laplace transforms upon the heat conduction equations. These analytical solutions can be used to obtain the evolution of temperature fields at the repository site. Finally, a parametric study is carried out to assess the effects of geometry dimension and thermal conductivity on the thermal performance. The results show that the three layer model was demonstrated more accurately to simulate the temperature field in the repository through comparative analysis with the existing double layer model and line heat source model. The thickness of the bentonite pellet layer will lead to a significant increase in the peak buffer layer temperature because of its low thermal conductivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据