Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Rev 00A, ICN 00 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A December 2003 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The Yucca Mountain Project is entering a the license application (LA) stage in its mission to develop the nation’s first underground nuclear waste repository. After a number of years of gathering data related to site characterization, including activities ranging from laboratory and site investigations, to numerical modeling of processes associated with conditions to be encountered in the future repository, the Project is realigning its activities towards the License Application preparation. At the current stage, the major efforts are directed at translating the results of scientific investigations into sets of data needed to support the design, and to fulfill the licensing requirements and the repository design activities. This document addresses the program need to address specific technical questions so that an assessment can be made about the suitability and adequacy of data to license and construct a repository at the Yucca Mountain Site. In July 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published an Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report (NRC 2002). Included in this report were the Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) Key Technical Issues (KTI). Geotechnical agreements were formulated to resolve a number of KTI subissues, in particular, RDTME KTIs 3.04, 3.05, 3.07, and 3.19 relate to the physical, thermal and mechanical properties of the host rock (NRC 2002, pp. 2.1.1-28, 2.1.7-10 to 2.1.7-21, A-17, A18, and A-20). The purpose of the Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report is to present an accounting of current geotechnical information that will help resolve KTI subissues and some other project needs. The report analyzes and summarizes available qualified geotechnical data. It evaluates the sufficiency and quality of existing data to support engineering design and performance assessment. In addition, the corroborative data obtained from tests performed by a number of research organizations is presented to reinforce conclusions derived from the pool of data gathered within a full QA-controlled domain. An evaluation of the completeness of the current data is provided with respect to the requirements for geotechnical data to support design and performance assessment. 1.2 BACKGROUND In 1997, the DOE issued the Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report (SGR), Rev. 01 (CRWMS M&O 1997d). The purpose of this report was to integrate the available qualified geotechnical data and nonqualified (corroborative) data gathered to support engineering design, safety analysis and performance assessment. Included in the SGR are the data resulting from field and laboratory testing that were available through June 1996. Most of the data in the SGR were derived from surface-based testing activities, primarily surface mapping and borehole exploration. In addition the SGR included some subsurface data references and a limited amount of the actual Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) geologic mapping data from the North Ramp and Main Drift that were available through mid-March of 1997. The SGR, Section 2.5 (CRWMS M&O 1997d), also evaluated the sufficiency of the existing geotechnical data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report available in the geoengineering database for a viability assessment (mostly adequate) of constructing a repository at Yucca Mountain and for license application (not adequate). The SGR constituted the most comprehensive summary of geotechnical information available up to the early 1997 time period. Subsequent reviews and use of SGR information revealed the need for additional rock testing and updating the data, such as the need to better characterize lithophysae-rich lithostratigraphic units. Subsequent activities have focused on acquiring the additional data considered necessary to support the license application. These characterization activities include field measurements, laboratory testing, in situ testing, numerical modeling and analytical assessment. The current version of the SGPR incorporates data available as of July 2003. Some geotechnical data are qualified based on its adherence to the Project-approved set of QA procedures. Other data are undergoing a qualification process or are being corrected within the Technical Data Management System (TDMS). Where available, additional (corroborative) data are also presented, regardless of their QA status. This inclusion is intended to make information about the properties of any lithostratigraphic unit as complete as possible. The SGPR is conceptualized to be a living document that will continue to be updated by newly acquired and developed information through the preclosure life of the repository. 1.3 OBJECTIVES The specific objectives of this Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report are to: • Provide an up-to-date summary of site-specific subsurface geotechnical parameters on the Yucca Mountain project, • Assess the quality of the source technical data, • Summarize all important contextual information associated with particular parameters in order to ensure appropriate use of the parameters by users, • Systematically identify and quantify the uncertainties and spatial and temporal variability of the geotechnical parameters, • Evaluate the adequacy of data for LA activities, and • Propose any additional work required to ensure the adequacy of data or to reduce uncertainties related to the geotechnical parameters. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1.4 SCOPE Activities documented in this report involve developing rock property data, using analytical methods, and performing calculations and statistical analyses to determine the ranges and magnitude distributions of the existing laboratory and field data. This report provides a summary of geotechnical data developed to support engineering design and performance assessment. Site geology, stratigraphy, stratigraphic nomenclature, and lithostratigraphic structural features, are included to provide a framework for presentation of the rock and rock mass property data. This report focuses on physical rock property data; intact rock physical, mechanical and thermal parameters; rock mass quality estimates; and estimated rock mass physical, thermal, and mechanical properties. Data for each parameter are summarized, and implications of the geotechnical data impact on engineering design and performance assessment are reviewed. This report presents an initial attempt to evaluate the data variability and the level of completeness to support repository design and performance assessment. Revision 00A of this report contains data available through July 2003. The scope of work involved in developing the SGPR includes: • Compile all relevant subsurface geotechnical data from the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) needed to develop the identified rock parameters; • Evaluate and sort the above TDMS data according to significant rock material conditions (e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, fracture set, etc.) and method of testing; • Perform computations and analyses of the compiled data to determine the developed rock parameters supporting the LA; • Perform the appropriate statistical data analyses of the acquired and developed parameter database; • Provide comprehensive reference tables of intact rock mechanical parameters by combining all the qualified and analyzed test data in one central location; • Describe and demonstrate the range of applicability of the novel use of numerical modeling techniques, which when used in combination with limited data, enhance engineers’ understanding of rock behavior, processes, and descriptions; • Developing a combined statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data uncertainty, variability, and representativeness that will be used to produce recommended statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. • Provide a preliminary definition and assessment of data adequacy for the license application; and • Propose additional characterization work needed for the LA submittal. Revision 00A of this report presents the first attempt at providing a common source of parameter data to be used by various engineering disciplines in the process of designing underground components of the future repository. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1.5 ANALYSIS/MODEL APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS While the data presented in this report focuses primarily on the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock units of the repository host horizon, additional data characterizing other lithostratigraphic units located above and below the repository host horizon are also provided. All the existing subsurface geotechnical data will be summarized in the next revision of this report. It will also include enhancements to the existing database, as proposed in Section 11.3 of this report. The lithostratigraphic data summaries presented in this report are believed to be valid and applicable for LA design activities. Some data in this report are qualified, however, due to errors discovered in some data, on-going data qualification efforts, and incomplete analyses and modeling activities, many of the parameters are currently based on unqualified data, and should be used for reference only or with a “to be verified” (TBV) status. The quality status of the parameters is clearly indicated in each section of the report where data are reported. The next revision of this report will include comprehensive parameter uncertainty information and qualified rock parameters for all LA products that require it. Prior to the release of the next revision of the SGPR, a statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data uncertainty, variability, and representativeness will be developed that will be used to produce recommended statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE This document has been prepared with a QA:QA status and all technical tasks supporting this report are subject to the requirements of the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (QARD) (DOE 2003). The subsurface rock descriptions and parameters developed and presented in this report will be used as inputs in a number of analysis and modeling activities that support performance assessment (PA), and to design ground support systems in emplacement drifts and all other underground openings. Some of these activities are associated with the Waste Package Emplacement and Waste Retrieval System subsystems, which are classified as “Safety Category (SC)” in the Q-List (BSC 2003g, p. A-4) in accordance with procedure AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. The “SC” classification requires compliance with the QARD requirements. This report and its supporting technical analyses and calculations have been prepared in accordance with the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)-approved quality assurance (QA) program. The report was developed in accordance with procedures AP- 3.12Q, Design Calculations and Analyses, AP-SI.1Q, Software Management, AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical Product Inputs, and reviewed following AP-2.14Q, Document Review. Problems with data that were discovered in the process of producing this report were reported in compliance with AP-16.1Q, Condition Reporting and Resolution, and the resolution of these data conditions will be incorporated in the next revision of this report. All electronic data used as inputs in the preparation of this document were obtained from the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project (YMP) Technical Data Management System (TDMS), as appropriate, in accordance with AP-SV.1Q, Control of the Electronic Management of Information. AP-SV.1Q was also used to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information generated by this report by: (1) controlling access to the information stored on personal computers with password protection, and (2) employing authorized process controls to ensure error-free data transfers. These process controls included verification of data by examining file check sums, file size and date, and/or making a thorough visual check of file contents or printouts. The personal computer files used in preparation of this report were stored on a network drive that is backed up daily per YMP standards. During the checking process, the accuracy and completeness of the data retrieved from the TDMS, developed during report activities, and reported in this document were verified, as applicable. Upon completion of this work, all files (including the information residing in DTNs created while preparing this report) were transferred to DVDs/CD-ROMs, appropriately labeled, and verified by using the above process controls. The DVDs/CD-ROMs were then transmitted to Document Control for transfer to the Records Processing Center, according to AP-17.1Q, Records Management, which is the primary repository for all OCRWM records. Also, the output data/results developed in this report have been submitted to the TDMS in accordance with AP- SIII.3Q, Submittal and Incorporation of Data/Technical Information to the Technical Data Management System. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report It is recognized that the Quality Assurance program currently in place at the Yucca Mountain Project has undergone evolution. An initial simple adherence to the common testing and reporting standards has subsequently been modified a number of times to satisfy increasingly stringent quality standards adopted by the Project. In this context, the initial studies to determine mechanical properties of rock were performed under the existing guidelines and standards in effect at the time, and, therefore, not all of the data were gathered under what is today referred to as a fully qualified QA program. The data used in the development of this report were obtained and developed during one of three time periods: 1) prior to the existence of an approved QA program, 2) under an approved QA program in effect prior to June 30, 1999, and 3) under an approved QA program in effect on or after June 30, 1999. Data developed during the first period were initially classified as unqualified or non-Q. Much of these data, including their documentation, has subsequently been examined in accordance with AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data and it was found that most could be reclassified as qualified or Q. However, it was found that some could not be reclassified and they will remain as unqualified. Such unqualified data are used for corroborative purposes only. The data developed during the second period were initially classified as qualified. At some time after June 30, 1999, all data developed during this period were reclassified as qualified – needs verification and/or qualification. As the need arose, such data sets, including their documentation, were examined in accordance with AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical Product Inputs to determine if they could be verified and reclassified as qualified. Most of the data sets so examined, were verified and thus reclassified as qualified. Those data that could not be verified generally were then examined in accordance with AP- SIII.2Q, and some of them were then reclassified as qualified. See Cikanek et. al 2003a, 2003b, and 2003c for results of the verification and qualification efforts. Data developed during the third period are classified as qualified once their source documents are approved. If these data are used prior to such approval, they are classified as qualified – to be verified (TBV). Their classification is changed to qualified upon approval of the source document. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) position on data qualification for data not initially collected under a 10 CFR 60, Subpart G Quality Assurance (QA) program at Yucca Mountain is identified in NUREG-1298 Qualification of Existing Data for High-Level Waste Repositories. This NUREG was issued in 1988 (Altman et al. 1988) in recognition of the then- existing data that might be needed or used to support a DOE license for a repository but that had not been generated (or collected) under the auspices of a 10 CFR 60, Subpart G compliant QA program. NUREG-1298 consists primarily of four pages of descriptive text, although the complete document includes a substantial amount of additional information on comment resolution. NUREG-1298 establishes the position that data are in one of the following categories: • Qualified Data–Data initially collected under a compliant QA program • Existing Data–Data collected prior to establishment of or outside of the auspices of a compliant QA program • Corroborating Data–Existing data used to support or substantiate other existing data. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Information accepted by the scientific and engineering community as established facts (such as engineering handbooks, density tables, gravitational laws, etc.) are recognized by NUREG-1298 as not falling into the category of existing data. NUREG-1298 establishes that data that is important to safety and waste isolation must be qualified and provides four approaches to qualifying existing data: • Peer review • Use of corroborating data • Use of confirmatory testing • Demonstration that data were collected under an equivalent QA program. The project’s data confirmation effort is ongoing and continues to identify and correct transparency and traceability issues. Some aspects of this are discussed in the Root Cause Determination for Corrective Action Report BSC(B)-03-B-107 Repeating Deficiencies in the Management and Utilization of Data (Williams 2003). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3. USE OF SOFTWARE 3.1 GENERAL All software documented in this section is appropriate for applications used in this calculation. The software is managed under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management and was obtained from Software Configuration Management (SCM) in accordance with AP-SI.1Q. Software used for data processing and presentation in this calculation is described in the following subsections. 3.2 EXCEL Microsoft Excel was used to perform data manipulation and some arithmetic and statistical calculations. Only standard functions of Excel were used, and the results are not dependent on the use of Excel. Spreadsheet software, such as Excel, is controlled under the Software Configuration Management System, and it is not required that this report’s use of Excel software be qualified or documented under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management, Section 2.1. Results obtained using Excel were checked independently of the Excel software. 3.3 GOLDSIM GoldSim 7.50.1 (GoldSim Technical Group 2002) is a simulation program that allows stochastic calculations to occur, allowing a probabilistic answer to be determined. Properties may have a stochastic distribution, not a standard discrete input such as a mean value, and therefore when used as an input for a calculation will have a distribution of probabilistic results. Allowing the input distributions of data to interact allows the entire range of results to be explored and gives insight on the probability of the occurrence of the combination of inputs. GoldSim randomly selects a probabilistic value for each input of a calculation and carries the selected set of values through to final values and repeats the process a specified number of times. Each occurrence of data selection and calculation is referred to as a realization. After many realizations have occurred, a distribution of results is developed. This distribution can be analyzed to select the appropriate frequency of occurrence for reporting or design. For example, rock mass strength and elastic properties were determined using laboratory measured values analyzed for mean and distribution that allowed input distributions to be developed for subsequent calculations. Result distributions were developed after 10,000 realizations, and results were selected at specific cumulative frequencies of occurrence. These specific selections reflect rock mass categories presented within this report. 3.4 MATHCAD MathCAD is a standard technical calculation tool used worldwide. MathCAD 2001i Professional was used to generate a best-fit general relationship among sets of data for determining intact rock Hoek-Brown failure criteria. Only standard functions of MathCAD were used, and the results are not dependent on the use of MathCAD. Software, such as MathCAD, is controlled under the Software Configuration Management System, and it is not required that this report’s use of MathCAD software be qualified or documented under AP-SI.1Q, Software 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 3-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Management, Section 2.1 Results obtained using MathCAD were checked independently of the MathCAD application. MathCAD was specifically used to fit a general best-fit curve to several points of data. The MathCAD sheets are presented in Attachment II in their entirety. The “genfit” function is discussed in the MathCAD 2001 manual (MathSoft 2001 p. 350). A calculation loop was developed to perform this fitting routine over approximately 500 sets of data. Other components of interest used in MathCAD were “reading a data file into a matrix” (MathSoft 2001 p. 205), and “programming operators” (MathSoft 2001 pp. 469-471). 3.5 PFC Two PFC (Particle Flow Code) software codes were used in this analysis: PFC in 2 Dimensions (PFC2D) Version 2.0 (BSC 2002d) and PFC in 3 Dimensions (PFC3D) Version 2.0 (BSC 2002e). The PFC modeling approach is to represent rock as a number of small, rigid, spherical grains that are bonded together at their contacts by tensile and shear strengths, as well as a grain- to-grain friction if the contact bond is broken due to loading. Details on the mechanics of the PFC programs are provided in Itasca Software – Cutting Edge Tools for Computational Mechanics (Itasca Consulting Group 2002). Both PFC2D Version 2.0 and PFC3D Version 2.0 were obtained from SCM in according with the AP-SI.1Q procedure, and are the qualified software codes. The software codes are appropriate for the applications used in this analysis, and were used only within the range of validation, as specified in the software qualification documentation. 3.6 UDEC UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code) Version 3.1 (BSC 2002f) is a two-dimensional numerical program based on the distinct element method for use in a discontinuum modeling approach (Itasca Consulting Group 2002). The program simulates the response of discontinuous media subjected to thermal, static, or dynamic loading. In UDEC, a discontinuous medium is numerically represented as an assemblage of discrete blocks. The discontinuities such as joints and fractures between blocks are treated as boundaries that are governed by force-displacement relations. Both normal and shear displacements take place at these boundaries. UDEC was used to help examine the behavior of the lithophysal rock within the repository host horizon. UDEC Version 3.1 was obtained from SCM in according with the AP-SI.1Q procedure, and is a qualified software code. The software was appropriate for the applications used in this analysis, and used only within the range of validation, as specified in the software qualification documentation. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 3-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4. INPUT, CRITERIA, AND REQUIREMENTS 4.1 INPUT This Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report presents a summary of numerous rock parameter data along with their supporting modeling, analyses, and calculations. The direct inputs for these parameter summaries, and for any related calculations, are presented in the various individual sections of the report that follow. The geotechnical parameters summarized here include data and information collected by field mapping, field testing, and laboratory testing. In addition, the directly measured rock dataset is supplemented by results using numerical and empirical approaches, which are individually presented and documented in the appropriate sections of this report. In general, the primary source of input data presented in this report consists of acquired and developed data that have been previously submitted to the YMP Technical Data Management System. Data Tracking Numbers (DTNs) are cited to reference this information. Newly acquired and developed data that are pertinent to this data summary continues to be submitted to the TDMS. However, the most recent DTN parameter data incorporated into this report is from mid-summer of 2003. Additional inputs referenced in this report are derived from various sources. One source of this input data is the YMP Record Information System (RIS), for example, scientific notebooks or analysis-modeling reports. Other input data are preliminary in nature and are referenced either by attachments provided in this report or as references in the Record Information System. The rock parameter data or approaches that are preliminary in nature are clearly indicated as such in the appropriate sections of this report. The final means of documenting inputs and their use in this report occurs through file attachments. For example, Excel and MathCAD files are attached that document how some data inputs are further developed or displayed. The data inputs included in these supporting files are clearly referenced in the appropriate sections of this report where the individual calculations are described. Limited uncertainty information relating to parameters summarized in this report are addressed in individual sections of this report and in Section 10. The next revision of the SGPR will include comprehensive parameter uncertainty information. Section 10 also provides a preliminary discussion regarding the overall adequacy of the described parameter data. 4.2 REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE A number of statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as guidance from regulatory agencies involved with the Yucca Mountain Project, were consulted as part of this effort to update the project’s summary of subsurface geotechnical parameters. This section presents the requirements and guidance that are considered relevant at this time. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4.2.1 Statutory Background The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended in 1987 (Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act, 1987), directed the DOE to investigate Yucca Mountain, Nevada exclusively to determine whether it is a suitable site for locating the Nation’s first geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NWPA established the framework for evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site, and designated the following responsibilities to federal agencies: The DOE will site, construct, operate, and close the repository; The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will set public health and safety standards for releases of radioactive materials from the repository; and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will promulgate regulations governing the construction, operation, and closure of the repository. In addition to the NWPA, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law No. 102-486) provided additional direction to EPA in establishing public health and safety standards for the protection of the public from possible releases of radioactive materials stored in a repository at Yucca mountain; the specific direction was to ensure that the standards are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The Energy Policy Act also provided direction to NRC to modify its licensing regulations so as to be consistent with the established EPA standards. 4.2.2 EPA Safety Standard Requirements In response to the NWPA, as amended in 1987, and the Energy Policy Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated 40 CFR 197 to establish the environmental radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain. These standards apply to the storage and management of radioactive materials above and below ground at the site, during both the preclosure and postclosure periods. Preclosure Requirement: 40 CFR 197.4 of Subpart A requires that no member of the public in the general environment receive an annual committed effective dose (as defined in the regulation) of more than 15 millirem. Postclosure Requirement: 40 CFR 197.20 of Subpart B requires that DOE use a performance assessment to demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that for 10,000 years following disposal, the reasonably maximally exposed individual would receive no more than an annual committed effective dose equivalent of 15 millirem from releases from the undisturbed Yucca Mountain disposal system. The foregoing EPA safety standards have been incorporated by NRC into Subparts K and L of 10 CFR 63 for regulating repository licensing requirements. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4.2.3 NRC Licensing Requirements/ Guidance 4.2.3.1 10 CFR 63 In response to the NWPA, as amended in 1987, and the Energy Policy Act, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission promulgated 10 CFR 63 to regulate licensing requirements for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Among other topics, this regulation specifies the preclosure and postclosure performance objectives of the geologic repository operations area that must be met for licensing the repository. Sections of 10 CFR 63 that are directly relevant to geotechnical parameters that might affect repository design and performance are the following: • 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1)(ii) requires that information regarding the geomechanical properties and conditions of the host rock be included in the Safety Analysis Report of the License Application. • 10 CFR 63.111(d) requires that a Performance Confirmation Program be implemented within the geologic repository operations area through permanent closure. • 10 CFR 63.132(a) states that a specific requirement of this Performance Confirmation Program is to provide a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, testing, and geologic mapping during repository construction and operation to confirm geotechnical and design parameters, and to ensure that appropriate action is taken to inform the Commission of design changes needed to accommodate actual field conditions encountered. • 10 CFR 63.132(b) states that subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated against design assumptions. • 10 CFR 63.132 (c) states that specific geotechnical and design parameters to be measured or observed, including any interactions between natural and engineered systems and components, must be identified in the performance confirmation plan. • 10 CFR 63.132(d) states that the measurements and observations of geotechnical and design parameters must be compared with the original design bases and assumptions. If significant differences exist between the measurements and observations and the original design bases and assumptions, the need for modifications to the design or in construction methods must be determined and these differences, their significance to repository performance, and the recommended changes reported to the Commission. • 10 CFR 63.132(e) states that in situ monitoring of the thermomechanical response of the underground facility must be conducted until permanent closure, to ensure that the performance of the geologic and engineering features is within design limits. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The foregoing requirements would include the monitoring of ground control performance parameters such as opening convergence, ground support and rock temperatures, and ground support loads. 4.2.3.2 Regulatory Guide 1.28 (Rev. 3, 1985) All work associated with the acquisition of geotechnical parameters for repository design purposes will comply with the general guidance provided in this regulatory guide in regards to Quality Assurance Program requirements. 4.2.3.3 Yucca Mountain Review Plan (Rev. 2) This NUREG-1804 establishes a format for the review of DOE’s license application (NRC 2003). Its objective is to ensure quality and uniformity of the individual NRC staff licensing reviews. It presents the areas of review, review methods, acceptance criteria, evaluation findings, and references that the staff will use for its review. Consequently, this document provides guidance in regards to what constitutes an acceptable technical content for a successful license application. This document supports determining compliance with specific regulatory requirements from 10 CFR Part 63, and with the final rules of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency applicable to Yucca Mountain. Specific items in NUREG-1804 that are directly relevant to subsurface geotechnical parameters are the following: Site Characterization 1) Section 1.5.2 – (Review Method 2) - The General Information Section of the license application will contain a summary of site characterization results. An acceptable summary of site characterization data should include an overview of geology and geotechnical properties and conditions consistent with other site characterization summaries. This overview should include: • A discussion of geology describing the principal rock units in the subsurface and a description and location of potentially important stratigraphic and structural features (such as faults, fractures, and joint sets and systems) involved in the operation and performance of the proposed repository; • A description of geotechnical properties of stratigraphic units involved in the operation and safety of the proposed repository; • A discussion of the results of site investigations necessary to characterize the engineering properties of the rock types present at the site, with particular emphasis on the host rock and its immediate environs necessary for the underground excavation of the geologic repository; • A discussion and description of other site characterization work conducted to define the relevant geotechnical properties and anticipated response/performance of both surface and subsurface facilities; and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2) Section 1.5.3 – (Acceptance Criteria 1 and 2) – A sufficient description of site characterization should include: • An adequate overview of site characterization activities related to geology and geotechnical properties and conditions of the host rock; and • An adequate description of site characterization results providing a sufficient understanding of current features and processes present in the Yucca Mountain region. Preclosure Safety Analysis 1) Section 2.1.1 – The Safety Analysis Report Section of the license application will contain a Preclosure Safety Analysis. Preclosure safety analysis is a systematic examination of the site, the design, the potential hazards and initiating events and their consequences, and the potential dose consequences to workers and the public. As part of developing a risk- informed, performance-based review plan for preclosure safety evaluation, preclosure safety analysis considers the probability of potential hazards, taking into account the range of uncertainty associated with the data that support the probability calculations. The adequacy of the site description will be assessed in the context of the information required to conduct the preclosure safety analysis and design the geologic repository. 2) Section 2.1.1.1.2 – (Review Method 5) - The preclosure safety analysis should include a description of geology and geoengineering properties that are relevant to the design of subsurface facilities. This description will be reviewed for: • An adequate discussion of site characterization data including geomechanical properties and conditions of host rock, based on in situ and laboratory test results for the rock formations, where major construction activities will take place; • Confirmation that the collection and processing of these data are based on accepted industry techniques and standards; and • Verification that rock mechanics testing data supports the license application analyses of the stability of subsurface materials. Evaluation of the sufficiency of data and appropriateness of design parameters will be conducted using the appropriate subsection of Section 2.1.1.7. 3) Section 2.1.1.1.3 – (Acceptance Criterion 5 and 8) – An adequate license application should provide: • Sufficient data on the geology of the site to support the preclosure safety analysis including the stratigraphy and lithology for the entire subsurface construction area; • Site characterization data that adequately includes rock mechanics properties based on in situ and laboratory test results for the rock formations where major construction activities will take place. Collection and processing of these data are based on accepted industry techniques; 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Rock mechanics testing data that adequately supports the license application analyses of the stability of subsurface materials; and • Adequate characterization of potential geochemical alterations to the rock fractures and the rock matrix, through heating or other processes that might significantly alter geomechanical rock mass properties. 4) Section 2.1.1.5.1.2 – (Review Method 2) – As part of the consequence analysis methodology resulting from hazards and initiating events, the LA will need to provide adequate technical bases (1) to support selection of input data and information consistent with site-specific data and (2) explaining how uncertainty in the input data is appropriately considered in the consequences analyses. 5) Section 2.1.1.7.2.3.II – (Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria 1,4,5) – The geologic subsurface design and design analyses that are part of the Preclosure Safety Analysis will be reviewed to: • Confirm that the applicable design codes, standards, or other detailed criteria used for the design of the subsurface facility are specified. Codes and standards should be equivalent to, and consistent with, those accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for design of nuclear facilities with similar hazards and functions. If nonstandard approaches are used, confirm that the license application has provided adequate technical bases to justify why they are used; • Verify that the assumptions made for the data inputs to the design of the subsurface facility are technically defensible; • Verify that thermal analyses have an appropriate technical basis; use site-specific thermal property data; consider temperature dependency and uncertainties of thermal property data; • Ensure that uncertainties and spatial and temporal variation are considered in the descriptions of site-specific properties of the host rock; • Verify that the values for the rock-mass thermal expansion coefficient are consistent with properly interpreted site-specific data, and that such interpretation accounts for likely scale effects and temperature dependency. Verify that uncertainty in the thermal expansion coefficient has been adequately assessed; • Confirm that values for rock-mass elastic parameters (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) and strength parameters (friction angle and cohesion) are consistent with properly interpreted site-specific data. If the parameter values are obtained through empirical correlations with a rock quality index, verify that the empirical equations used are appropriate for the site, and are applied correctly. Confirm that the values of the index are consistent with site-specific data. If intact-rock-scale values are used, verify that the bases for application of the values to the rock-mass scale are adequate; 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Confirm that the interpretation of fracture modeling results adequately considers effects of the representation of the characteristics of the modeled fracture network, compared with those of the in situ fracture network; • Confirm that the selection of stiffness and strength parameters for rock blocks between any fractures that are explicitly represented in the model is appropriate and accounts for fractures that are not explicitly represented. • Verify that the values for fracture stiffness and strength parameters are consistent with properly interpreted site-specific data; • Verify that the bases for the magnitude and rate of mechanical degradation of the rock mass, fractures and ground support are appropriately established and technically defensible; and • Confirm that uncertainties in rock mass and fracture mechanical properties are adequately estimated, and considered in both continuum and discontinuum modeling. Repository Safety After Permanent Closure 1) Section 2.2.1– The postclosure safety evaluation provides for a risk-informed, performance- based review of the DOE performance assessment. The performance assessment is a systematic analysis to quantify repository performance with respect to risk information (i.e., the dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual). The potential for risk dilution – the lowering of the risk, or dose, from an unsupported parameter range and distribution – will be examined. Parameter ranges and distributions will be evaluated to see whether they are technically defensible, whether they appropriately represent uncertainty, and the potential for risk dilution. The intentional use of conservatism to manage uncertainty is an approach that DOE may use to simplify its approaches and data collection needs. However, DOE must provide the technical basis that supports the conservative use of parameter ranges or distributions. DOE should be aware that approaches designed to overestimate a specific aspect of repository performance (e.g., higher temperatures within the drifts) may be conservative with respect to temperature but could lead to non-conservative results with respect to dose. An evaluation of the adequacy of technical bases supporting models and parameter ranges or distributions will consider whether a given DOE approach results in calculated doses that would overestimate, rather than underestimate, the dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual. This review will evaluate assertions that a given model or parameter distribution is conservative from the perspective of overall system performance (dose). 2) Section 2.2.1.3.1.1 – (Areas of Review for the Degradation of Engineered Barriers) – The degradation of the underground openings (drifts) where waste packages will be stored has the potential to affect drip shield integrity, waste package integrity, and thermal-hydrologic environments within drifts. The following aspects of geological data and geotechnical parameters will be reviewed for their role in the degradation of engineered barriers: 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Sufficiency of the data and parameters used to justify the total system performance assessment (TSPA) model abstraction; and • Methods the DOE uses to characterize data uncertainty, and propagate the effects of this uncertainty through the TSPA model abstraction. 3) Section 2.2.1.3.1.2 – (Review Methods 2 and 3) – For justification of data sufficiency and data uncertainty involving the degradation of engineered barriers, the following aspects will be reviewed: • Evaluate the sufficiency of the experimental and site characterization data used to support parameters used in conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models, considered in the TSPA abstraction of degradation of engineered barriers; • Verify whether sufficient data have been collected to adequately model degradation processes. For example, mechanical property data should cover the range of anticipated temperatures and microstructural conditions; • Evaluate and confirm that data used to support the DOE TSPA are based on appropriate techniques, and are adequate for the accompanying sensitivity/uncertainty analyses. Evaluate the need for additional data, based on the sensitivity analyses; • Evaluate the technical bases of the uncertainty of the data for parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding values used in modeling. Verify that the technical bases support the treatment of uncertainty and variability of these parameters in the performance assessment. If conservative values are used as a method for addressing uncertainty and variability, verify that the conservative values result in conservative estimates of risk and do not cause unintended results; • Verify that appropriate statistical correlations between parameters are established. Verify that an adequate technical basis or bounding argument is provided for neglected correlations; and • Evaluate the methods used in conducting expert elicitation to define parameter values. 4) Sections 2.2.1.3.2 and 2.2.1.3.2.1 – (Areas of Review for the Mechanical Disruption of Engineered Barriers) – As a result of loading and/or degradation of rock properties, a man- made or natural rockfall could cause a mechanical disruption of a waste package, which is defined as a partial or total mechanical failure of the waste package. For example, a rock fall may cause a container to rupture or may cause a dent in its structure, which could lead to an accelerated rate of corrosion and failure sooner than under normal conditions. The following aspects of geological data and geotechnical parameters will be reviewed for their role in the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers: • Sufficiency of the data and parameters used to justify the TSPA model abstraction; and • Methods the DOE uses to characterize data uncertainty, and propagate the effects of this uncertainty through the TSPA. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5) Section 2.2.1.3.2.2 – (Review Methods 2 and 3) – For justification of data and data uncertainty involving the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, the following aspects will be reviewed: • Evaluate the sufficiency of the geological and engineering data used to support parameters for mechanical disruption modeling of engineered barriers. Evaluate the basis for the data on physical phenomena, couplings, geology, and engineering used in the abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. This basis may include a combination of techniques, such as laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analog research, process-level modeling studies, and expert elicitation; • Verify that sufficient data have been collected to adequately characterize the geology of the natural system related to the abstraction modeling of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers; • Evaluate and confirm that data used to support the DOE abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers are based on appropriate techniques, and are adequate for the accompanying sensitivity/uncertainty analyses. Evaluate the need for additional data based on sensitivity analyses; • Evaluate the technical bases of the uncertainty of the data for parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding values, used in conceptual and process-level models that pertain to the abstraction of the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. Verify that the technical bases support the treatment of uncertainty and variability of these parameters in the performance assessment. If conservative values are used as a method for addressing uncertainty and variability, verify that the conservative values result in conservative estimates of risk and do not cause unintended results; • Verify that the parameter values are adequately constrained by Yucca Mountain site data, such that the effects of mechanically disruptive events on engineered barrier integrity are not underestimated; • Verify that appropriate statistical correlations between parameters are established. Verify that an adequate technical basis or bounding argument is provided for neglected correlations; and • Evaluate the methods used by the DOE in conducting expert elicitation to define parameter values. 6) Section 2.2.1.3.2.3 – (Acceptance Criteria 2 and 3) – Requirements relating to the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers model abstraction are to: • Ensure that the geological and engineering values, used in the license application to evaluate mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, are adequately justified. The review should consider whether adequate descriptions are provided of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Ensure that sufficient data have been collected on the geology of the natural system to establish initial and boundary conditions for the TSPA abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers; • Ensure that the data obtained on the geology of the natural system, used in the TSPA abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, are based on appropriate techniques. These techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analog research, and process-level modeling studies; • As appropriate, ensure sensitivity or uncertainty analyses used to support the DOE TSPA abstraction are adequate to determine the possible need for additional data; • Ensure that models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties and variabilities, and do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate; • Ensure that uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development used for the abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or use of conservative limits; and • Where sufficient data do not exist, the definition of parameter values and conceptual models is based on appropriate use of expert elicitation, conducted in accordance with NUREG1563. If other approaches are used, the DOE must ensure their use is adequately justified. Performance Confirmation Program 1) Section 2.4.1 – (Areas of Review) - The Performance Confirmation (PC) plan establishes a program for measuring, testing, geologic mapping, and analyses to confirm geotechnical and design parameters, and otherwise evaluate the adequacy of the information used to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in Subpart E (refer to 10 CFR 63.2). The need for a PC program is unique to high-level radioactive waste disposal and reflects the uncertainties in estimating geologic repository performance over thousands of years. The general requirements at 10 CFR 63.131 focus on subsurface conditions, as well as the natural and engineered systems and components required for repository operation andthat are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure. The review and acceptance criteria related to performance confirmation are performance-based, but also risk- informed when PC focuses on those parameters and natural and engineered barriers important to waste isolation. The U.S. Department of Energy will implement the program during repository construction and operation. At permanent closure, 10 CFR 63.51(a)(1) requires the DOE to present an update of the postclosure performance assessment, including any PC data collected and relevant to postclosure performance. The following aspects of the performance confirmation program relating to subsurface rock behavior and parameter data need to be addressed: 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • General requirements of the PC program, including objectives of acquiring data by identified in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, and in situ experiments; overall schedule; and plans to implement the PC program; and • Confirmation of geotechnical and design parameters, including the plans for measuring, testing, and geologic mapping; monitoring, in situ, the thermomechanical response of the underground facility until permanent closure to ensure the performance of the geologic and engineering features is within design limits; and surveillance to evaluate subsurface conditions against design assumptions. 2) Section 2.4.2 – (Review Method 1) – Compliance with the general requirements for the performance confirmation program requires that the performance confirmation plan: • Identifies specific geotechnical and design parameters, pertaining to natural systems and components that are assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, that DOE has selected to measure or observe, including the method used to select the parameters. • Includes specific in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing and in situ experiments to acquire the needed data. • Specifies which in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, or in situ experimental methods DOE will apply to: (i) geotechnical and design parameters, including natural processes, (ii) engineered systems and components, and (iii) interactions between natural and engineered systems and components; • Contains sufficient baseline information to implement the PC program. Includes the expected changes (that is, design bases and assumptions) from the baseline for the selected geotechnical and design parameters, including natural processes, that will result from construction and waste emplacement operations; • Includes a schedule for planned activities and assess that the schedule is sufficient to meet the general requirements for the PC program. 3) Section 2.4.2 – (Review Method 2) - Criteria that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the performance confirmation program to (1) perform measuring, testing, and geologic mapping to confirm geotechnical and design parameters during repository construction and operation, including natural processes and (2) to monitor, in situ, the thermomechanical response of the underground facility until permanent closure are based on: • Evaluation that adequate DOE methods were used to select the geotechnical and design parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters to monitor and analyze; • Verification that the DOE list of selected geotechnical and design parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters is reasonable and complete; • Evaluation of the adequacy of the DOE method used to establish the baseline of the selected geotechnical and design parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters; 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Verification that the baseline of the selected geotechnical and design parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters are reasonable, and that estimates of expected changes from baseline are reasonable; • Verification that the monitoring, testing, or experimental methods are suitable for each geotechnical or design parameter or in situ thermomechanical response parameter that will be monitored and analyzed. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5. GEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 5.1 INTRODUCTION An understanding of the regional geologic setting and the local geology of the Yucca Mountain area is necessary to fully understand the development of the different geotechnical properties exhibited by the various tuffaceous rock units comprising Yucca Mountain. This section of the report presents an overview of the regional geologic framework and local geology of Yucca Mountain, as well as some terminology definitions of observed lithostratgraphic features. 5.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN The geologic framework of the Yucca Mountain region is described in detail in Section 4 of the Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and some salient aspects are summarized here (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.10). The Yucca Mountain region lies in the north-central part of the Basin and Range physiographic province, within the northernmost subprovince commonly referred to as the Great Basin that encompasses nearly all of Nevada, as well as adjacent parts of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and California. The mountain ranges of the Great Basin, including Yucca Mountain, are mostly tilted fault-bounded blocks that may extend for more than 80 km in length, and are generally 8 to 24 km wide. Relief between valley floors and mountain ridges is typically 300 to 1,500 m, and valleys occupy approximately 50 to 60 percent of the total land area. The current geologic setting of Yucca Mountain results from extensional tectonism and volcanism active during the middle and late Cenozoic Era, which is fundamentally controlled by plate tectonic interactions at the western margin of the North American continent. Past explosive volcanism resulted in the formation of six major calderas in the vicinity of Timber Mountain north of Yucca Mountain between about 15 to 7.5 Ma years ago, which were the sources of the silicic volcanic rock materials comprising Yucca Mountain. These silicic Mid-Tertiary volcanic rocks, consisting mostly of variably welded pyroclastic-flow and fallout tephra deposits with minor lava flows and reworked materials, dominate the exposed stratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain. The central portion of Yucca Mountain is essentially a dip slope formed by rocks of the Paintbrush Group dipping gently to the east, generally less than 10 degrees. The potential repository horizon, and the access to it, is located entirely within the Paintbrush Group, which consists of four formations. In descending order, the formations are the Tiva Canyon, Yucca Mountain, Pah Canyon, and Topopah Spring Tuffs. Each of these formations is composed primarily of pyroclastic-flow deposits (also referred to as ash flows or ignimbrites) that are interstratified with small-volume pyroclastic flow and fallout tephra deposits, and locally, lava flows and secondary volcaniclastic deposits from eolian and fluvial processes. The lowermost formation is the Topopah Spring Tuff, which forms the host rock for the radioactive waste repository, and therefore is one of the most intensely studied formations at Yucca Mountain. Underlying the Topopah Spring Tuff is the Calico Hills Formation, which consists of a complex series of rhyolitic tuffs and lavas that resulted from an episode of volcanism approximately 12.9 Ma years ago. The Calico Hills Formation overlies older Tertiary volcanic rocks of similar composition that comprise the Crater Flat Group. In turn, the Crater Flat Group overlies pre- 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tertiary basement rocks, which consist mostly of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that range from approximately 225 to 570 million years in age. Overlying the youngest Tiva Canyon Tuff of the Paintbrush Group at Yucca Mountain are unconsolidated surficial Quaternary deposits. These deposits consist mainly of valley-fill alluvium, but also include veneers of hillslope colluvium and localized eolian deposits. Most unconsolidated deposits exposed at the surface at Yucca Mountain were deposited during the last 100,000 years. The fundamental elements of the structural geology of Yucca Mountain are the spatial and temporal patterns of faulting and fracturing of the volcanic bedrock. The structural geology of Yucca Mountain is controlled by block-bounding normal faults spaced 1 to 4 km apart. In the site area, these north-striking faults include (from west to east) the Windy Wash, Fatigue Wash, Solitario Canyon, Bow Ridge, and Paintbrush Canyon faults. The Dune Wash and Midway Valley faults are also block-bounding faults, but differ from the other block-bounding faults in that they have no evidence of Pleistocene movement. The block-bounding faults commonly dip 50o to 80o to the west. A subordinate component of left-lateral displacement is commonly associated with these block-bounding normal faults, as determined from slickenside orientations. The orientation, amount of offset, and nature of the associated deformation varies from north to south (and to some degree from west to east) within the site area. Displacement is transferred between block-bounding faults along relay faults, which intersect block-bounding faults at oblique angles, providing an intrablock kinematic link between the bounding structures. As such, the relay faults are significant components of the block-bounding fault systems, particularly, but not exclusively, in the southern half of Yucca Mountain. Within structural blocks, small amounts of strain are accommodated along intrablock faults. In many cases, intrablock faults appear to represent local structural adjustments in response to displacements on the block-bounding faults. Fracture data at Yucca Mountain are used in hydrologic flow modeling, to characterize the fracture networks for evaluating the mechanical stability of the repository, and to better understand the paleostress history of Yucca Mountain. Fractures are generally of three types: early cooling joints, later tectonic joints, and late joints caused by erosional unloading. Cooling and tectonic joints have similar orientations, but can be distinguished because cooling joints are smoother. These joints form two orthogonal sets of steeply dipping fractures, as well as a subhorizontal set of fractures. The parameters of fracture intensity and connectivity have the strongest influence on groundwater flow within the volcanic rocks. Values for these variables are greatest in the densely welded tuffs, least in the nonwelded units, and intermediate in the lithophysal zones. The southern Great Basin is a favorable geologic province for several types of economic deposits. Consequently, the potential for economic resources in the Yucca Mountain area at present, or in the foreseeable future, has been evaluated. Based on this evaluation, the potential for industrial minerals and rocks, as well as for energy resources including geothermal resources, is low for the Yucca Mountain area. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5.3 LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN The lithostratigraphy of the Yucca Mountain site is described in detail in Section 4.5 of the Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and some major aspects are summarized here. References for specific aspects of this description are cited in the Yucca Mountain Site Description. 5.3.1 General Characteristics The Tertiary volcanic rocks comprising Yucca Mountain have been differentiated into lithostratigraphic units based on three principal criteria: 1) Lithology and rock properties, 2) Mineralogy, and 3) Geophysical log characteristics. Based on these criteria, the rocks have been divided into progressively thinner units ranging from Groups, to Formations, Members, Zones, Subzones, and Intervals. Identification of lithostratigraphic units is based on changes in depositional features, development of zones of welding and devitrification, and, in some rocks, the development of vapor-phase and fumarolic alteration products, such as the formation of clay and zeolite minerals. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 illustrate the lithostratigraphic sequence comprising Yucca Mountain. These lithostratigraphic units have been defined on the basis of the foregoing criteria. Also shown on Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 are the correlations of the lithostratigraphic units with defined thermo/mechanical units based on the thermal and mechanical properties of the rocks, as well as defined hydrogeologic units based on the hydrologic or groundwater-transmitting properties of the rock units. The sources of these three systems of stratigraphic nomenclature are footnoted on Table 5-1. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3) The distribution of rock physical properties, such as bulk density, porosity, and pore size, are controlled largely by variations in grain size and sorting, the abundance of volcanic glass, degree of welding, types and abundance of crystallization, amount and type of alteration to clay or zeolite, lithophysal content, and fracture characteristics. High-silica rhyolite and quartz latite tuffs are the two most common compositions of the rocks at Yucca Mountain. The matrix density of high-silica rhyolite and quartz latite is typically 2.35 and 2.40 g/cm3, respectively. The degree of welding in these rocks ranges from nonwelded to densely welded rock. Most rocks at Yucca Mountain contain some phenocrysts and lithic clasts, and most have devitrified during cooling or exhibit some alteration to clay or zeolite minerals. Lithophysae resulting from escaping gases during cooling are found in rocks that are densely welded, and infrequently in rocks that are moderately welded. Lithophysae consist of a cavity, which is commonly coated with vapor-phase minerals on the inner wall. This is surrounded by a fine-grained zone, which, in turn, is surrounded by a thin, very fine-grained border. The lithophysae range in size from about 1 cm to as much as 1 m in diameter, and range in shape from nearly spherical to extremely oblate. Associated with the lithophysae are light gray to grayish-orange pink spots 1 to 5 cm in diameter. Some spots may represent the cross sections of rims on lithophysae, whereas others have a crystal or lithic clast in the core that could have acted as a nucleation site. Lithophysae commonly occur in concentrated zones; specific zones are distinguishable on the basis of a combination of lithophysae, spots, and fracture characteristics. Lithophysal zones have fewer fractures compared to nonlithophysal zones, and the fractures are typically irregular in profile and have rough surfaces with few high-angle, planar, and smooth fractures. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.1) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In addition to the stratigraphic variations of the physical rock properties discussed above, the volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain show variations in mineralogy resulting from crystallization and alteration that also contribute to the identification of individual lithostratigraphic units. High-temperature devitrification forms rocks composed mostly of feldspar and silica minerals (quartz, cristobalite, or tridymite) with a variety of minor amounts of other minerals, which texturally form the groundmass that has crystallized within the glass particles. Grain sizes and shapes are typically small (less than 1 mm), intricately intergrown, and referred to as microgranophyric. As the temperature cools, vapor-phase mineralization occurs and precipitates minerals such as tridymite or cristobalite, sanidine, and minor amounts of other minerals. Vapor-phase mineralization also reduces pore-size geometry and distribution. In the unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain, the dominant low-temperature alteration products are clay and zeolite minerals (smectite, clinoptilolite, and mordenite). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.2) The volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain also show stratigraphic variations in their chemical and isotopic compositions. Such variations between different ignimbrite sheets are the result of igneous differentiation and assimilation processes within the magma chamber. Compositionally, the most important chemical constituents of both vitric and devitrified tuffs are SiO2 and Al2O3. The relative abundances of these two constituents in unaltered representatives of the major rock types at Yucca Mountain are the following: high-silica rhyolites (more than 75 percent SiO2), low silica rhyolites (72 to 75 percent SiO2), and quartz-latitic rocks (less than 75 percent SiO2). In the Yucca Mountain lithostratigraphic sequence, the Calico Hills Formation, Yucca Mountain Tuff, and crystal-poor members of the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs are predominantly high-silica rhyolites. The Pah Canyon tuffs consist mainly of low silica rhyolites, and the crystal-rich members of the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs are largely quartz latites. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.3) The lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain also illustrates some systematic variations in the distribution and concentrations of rare earth and trace elements with stratigraphic position. Variations in these elements, reflecting differences in magma sources and differentiation histories, are useful for stratigraphic correlation and for the identification of altered zones. Some isotopic ratios, such as Sr isotopes, also illustrate stratigraphic variations that are useful for inferring the history of rock alteration and fluid migration within the lithostratigraphic units. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 5-1. Comparison of Several Stratigraphic Subdivisions of Mid-Tertiary Volcanic Rocks at Yucca Mountain. Thermal-Mechanical Hydrogeologic Lithostratigraphic Unitsa,e,f,g Unitsa,b Unitsc Timber Mountain Rainier Mesa member (Tmr) Group (Tm) Pre-Rainier Mesa bedded tuff (Tmbt1) PAINTBRUSH GROUP (Tp) Undifferentiated Unconsolidated Surficial rhyolite of Comb Peak (Tpk); includes the overburden (UO) Materials (UO) pyroclastic flow deposit (TpKi) that is informally referred to as tuff unit “X” (Tpki) Post-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt5) crystal-rich member (Tpcr) vitric zone (Tpcrv) -nonwelded subzone (Tpcrv3) -moderately welded subzone (Tpcrv2) -densely welded subzone (Tpcrv1) Tiva Canyon welded Tiva Canyon welded nonlithophysal zone (Tpcrn) (TCw)d (TCw)d lithophysal zone (Tpcrl) crystal-poor member (Tpcp) upper lithophysal zone (Tpcpul) Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) middle nonlithophysal zone (Tpcpmn) lower lithophysal zone (Tpcpll) lower nonlithophysal zone (Tpcpln) -hackly subzone (Tpcplnh) -columnar subzone (Tpcplnc) vitric zone (Tpcpv) -densely welded subzone (Tpcpv3) -moderately welded subzone (Tpcpv2) Paintbrush nonwelded Paintbrush nonwelded -nonwelded subzone (Tpcpv1) (PTn) (PTn) pre-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt4) Yucca Mountain Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) Tuff (Tpy) pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff (Tpbt3) Pah Canyon Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) Tuff (Tpp) pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt2) Topopah Spring crystal-rich member (Tptr) Tuff (Tpt) -vitric zone (Tptrv) -nonwelded subzone (Tptrv3) -moderately welded subzone (Tptrv2) -densely welded subzone (Tptrv1) Topopah Spring welded. Topopah Spring welded nonlithophysal zone (Tptrn) Lithophysae-rich (TSw1) (TSw) lithophysal zone (Tptrl) crystal-poor member (Tptp) upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) [upper part] REPOSITORY upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) [lower part] HOST middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) Topopah Spring welded. HORIZONe lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) Lithophysae-poor (TSw2) lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) vitric zone (Tptpv) Topopah Spring welded Topopah Spring basal -densely welded subzone (Tptpv3) vitrophyre (TSw3) vitrophyre (TSbv) -moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2) -nonwelded subzone (Tptpv1) pre-Topopah Spring bedded tuff (Tpbt1) Calico Hills (Tac) Calico Hills Formation (Tac) Calico Hills Calico Hills pre-Calico Hills bedded tuff (Tacbt) Nonwelded (CHn) Nonwelded (CHn) Source: Modified from CRWMS M&O (2000, Table 4.7-1) NOTES: abBuesch et al. (1996b, Table 4). Ortiz et al. (1985, Table 1) cdArnold et al. (1995, Table 2-1) Where preserved, the base of the crystal-poor densely welded subzone (Tpcpv3) forms the base of the TCw thermal-mechanical and hydrogeologic units (Buesch et al. 1996b, Table 4) efMoyer et al. (1995) CRWMS M&O (SGR 1997d, Table 3-1) gGeslin et al. (1995, Table 2) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Source: CRWMS M&O 1997b, Figure 5 Figure 5-1. General Stratigraphic Column for Yucca Mountain NOTES: The detailed lithostratigraphic and thermal/ mechanical nomenclature are shown for the Topopah Spring Tuff, including lithostratigraphic positions of the Repository Host Horizon, the ESF main drift, and the repository 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5.3.2 Description of Lithostratigraphic Units The following descriptions pertain to the lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain, which is presented in Table 5-1 and illustrated in Figure 5-1. The individual units range in age from the oldest Calico Hills Formation (approximately 12.9 Ma years) at the base of the sequence, to the youngest Timber Mountain Group (approximately 11.5 Ma years) at the top of the sequence. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Sections 4.5.4.6 and 4.5.4.9) 5.3.2.1 Calico Hills Formation The Calico Hills Formation (Tac), which underlies the Paintbrush Group, is a complex series of rhyolite tuffs and lavas. Five pyroclastic units, overlying a bedded tuff unit and a locally occurring basal sandstone unit, have been distinguished in the Yucca Mountain area. The formation thins southward across the potential repository site area, from composite thicknesses of as much as 460 m (1,500 ft) to only about 15 m (50 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.6) The basal volcaniclastic sandstone unit of the Calico Hills Formation is interbedded with rare reworked pyroclastic flow deposits; thicknesses of the unit range from 0 to 5.5 m. The overlying bedded tuff (unit Tacbt), 9 to 39 m thick, is composed primarily of pyroclastic fall deposits with subordinate, primary, and reworked pyroclastic-flow deposits. Each of the five pyroclastic units forming the bulk of the Calico Hills Formation (units Tac1 to Tac5) consists of one or more pyroclastic flow deposits with similar macroscopic characteristics. The flow deposits are separated by locally preserved fall horizons; these pumice-fall and lithic-fall deposits are grouped arbitrarily with the superjacent pyroclastic unit. Ash falls and ash flows beneath the potential repository block give way to lava flows to the north and east. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.6) There is an abundance of authigenic zeolites in all units of the Calico Hills Formation, except in the southwest part of the central block of Yucca Mountain, where the entire formation is vitric. As a result of its zeolitic content, the sorption capabilities of the Calico Hills Formation and the underlying bedded tuffs comprise one of the most potentially significant barriers to waste migration at Yucca Mountain. Despite its great heterogeneity, the Calico Hills Formation has a consistently high matrix porosity (average 28 to 35 percent) and poor fracture development, resulting in an important role for matrix flow and interaction. Other properties, particularly permeability, are extremely variable and strongly dependent on mineralogy; permeability drops by about two orders of magnitude, and sorption by cation exchange rises by up to five orders of magnitude, in the transition from vitric to zeolitic character within the formation. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.6) The Calico Hills Formation is overlain by a bedded tuff unit (Tpbt1) that occurs at the base of the Topopah Spring Tuff of the Paintbrush Group. The unit can also be distinguished from the Topopah Spring Tuff by differences in mineralogy and chemical composition. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.6) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5.3.2.2 Paintbrush Group The Paintbrush Group (Tp) consists of four formations. In ascending order, the formations include the Topopah Spring (Tpt), Pah Canyon (Tpp), Yucca Mountain (Tpy), and Tiva Canyon (Tpc) tuffs. This group is one of the most widespread and voluminous caldera-related assemblages in the southwestern Nevada volcanic field. The Paintbrush Group is dominated by the Topopah Spring and Tiva Canyon tuffs. The Yucca Mountain and Pah Canyon tuffs are volumetrically minor, but are of potential hydrologic importance because of their high matrix porosity compared to the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs, which are largely densely welded with low matrix porosity. The welded tuffs also have higher fracture abundances and connectivities, providing stratified contrasts in unsaturated hydrologic properties in the Paintbrush Group rocks above the potential repository. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7) Topopah Spring Tuff -The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) includes the host rock units for the potential repository, and as such, its characteristics are of direct importance to repository design, unsaturated zone hydrologic flow and radionuclide transport, and total system performance assessment. Consequently, it is probably the most extensively characterized unit of the lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain, and is described in more detail in Section 5.3.3. In the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, the Topopah Spring Tuff has a maximum thickness of about 380 m (1,250 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.1) Pah Canyon Tuff -The Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) is composed of multiple flow units. The formation reaches its maximum thickness of about 70 m (225 ft) in the northern part of Yucca Mountain, and thins southward to zero. The Pah Canyon Tuff is rhyolitic and varies from nonwelded to moderately welded. Throughout much of the area, vitric pumice clasts are preserved in a nondeformed matrix that was sintered or lithified by vapor-phase mineralization. Large pumice clasts contain distinctive clusters of phenocrysts. Phenocrysts in the matrix and in most pumice clasts comprise 5 to 10 percent of the rock, with a high ratio of feldspars to mafic (biotite and clinopyroxene) phenocrysts. Lithic clasts (up to 5 percent of the rock) of devitrified rhyolite are common, and clasts of porphyritic obsidian occur in some horizons. Shards occur either as poorly preserved clear glass or as devitrified material. The Pah Canyon Tuff typically alters to smectite. A bedded tuff unit (Tpbt3) intervenes between the Pah Canyon Tuff and the overlying Yucca Mountain Tuff where these two formations are present in the Yucca Mountain area. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.2) Yucca Mountain Tuff -The Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) is a high-silica rhyolite cooling unit that varies in thickness from 0 to 45 m (0 to 150 ft), thickening toward the northern and western parts of Yucca Mountain. It is typically nonwelded and vitric, but becomes increasingly more welded and more devitrified in the thicker areas. The formation is nonlithophysal throughout Yucca Mountain, but it contains lithophysae where it is densely welded in northern Crater Flat. Although the formation is rhyolitic, it contains both plagioclase and sanidine phenocrysts. A bedded tuff sequence (unit Tpbt4) overlies the Yucca Mountain Tuff. Thin beds of pyroclastic fallout tephra deposits interbedded with thin, oxidized, weathered zones characterize this sequence. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tiva Canyon Tuff -The Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) is a large-volume, regionally extensive tuff sequence that forms most of the rocks exposed at the surface of Yucca Mountain. The unit is compositionally zoned, ranging from a high-quartz rhyolitic glass at its base upward to a quartz latite. The thicknesses of the formation penetrated in boreholes or observed in outcrops range from less than 50 m to as much as 175 m (165 to 575 ft). The formation is divided into a lower crystal-poor member (Tpcp) and an upper crystal-rich member (Tpcr), and into zones within each of these two members. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) The lower rhyolitic crystal-poor member (unit Tpcp) is divided into five zones: vitric (unit Tpcpv), lower nonlithophysal (unit Tpcpln), lower lithophysal (unit Tpcpll), middle nonlithophysal (unit Tpcpmn), and upper lithophysal (unit Tpcpul). Division into subzones is based on vitric versus devitrified rocks, degree of welding, differences in pumice clasts, presence or absence of lithophysae, and fracture morphology. The crystal-poor member and overlying crystal-rich member are separated by a thin transitional subzone in which there is an upward increase in crystal content and an increase in the ratio of mafic to felsic phenocrysts. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) The upper quartz-latitic crystal-rich member (unit Tpcr) is divided into three zones. It consists primarily of a devitrified, nonlithophysal zone (Tpcrn), which is locally underlain by a lithophysal zone (Tpcrl), and is capped by a thin (less than 1 m) vitric zone (Tpcrv) that is only locally preserved and typically has been eroded from most of Yucca Mountain. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) 5.3.2.3 Post Tiva Canyon Units A sequence of pyroclastic flow and fallout tephra deposits occurs between the top of the Tiva Canyon Tuff and the base of the Rainier Mesa Tuff of the Timber Mountain Group in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain (units Tpbt5, Tpk, and Tmbt1). Rocks in this stratigraphic position occur in the subsurface beneath alluvial deposits in Midway Valley, on the east flank of Yucca Mountain. The sequence ranges in thickness from 0 to 61 m (0 to 200 ft) and is intermediate in composition between the Tiva Canyon and Rainier Mesa tuffs. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.8) The overlying Timber Mountain Group (Tm) includes all of the quartz-bearing pyroclastic flow and fallout tephra deposits that were erupted from the Timber Mountain caldera complex about 11.5 Ma. The oldest unit of the Timber Mountain Group is the Rainier Mesa Tuff (Tmr). This unit is a compositionally zoned compound-cooling unit consisting of high-silica rhyolite tuff overlain with a partial cooling break by a considerably thinner quartz latite tuff that is restricted to the vicinity of the Timber Mountain caldera. The unit does not occur across much of Yucca Mountain, but is locally present on the downthrown blocks of large faults in valleys on either side of the mountain. In localities near Yucca Mountain, a maximum thickness of 240 m (787 ft) for the Rainier Mesa Tuff was observed in the southwestern part of Crater Flat. Thicknesses reported from studies of boreholes on the east side of Yucca Mountain are generally less than 30 m (100 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.9) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5.3.3 Topopah Spring Tuff Characteristics The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) encompasses the host rock units for the repository, and its characteristics have been studied in detail. A detailed description of this formation is presented in Buesch et al. (1996b) and in the Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and its major features are summarized here (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.1). 5.3.3.1 General Description The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) is divided into a lower crystal-poor member (Tptp) and an upper crystal-rich member (Tptr) as illustrated in Figure 5-2. Each member is divided into numerous zones, subzones, and intervals based on variations in depositional features, such as crystal content and assemblage, lithophysal content, size and abundance of pumice and lithic clasts, distribution of welding and crystallization zones, and fracture characteristics. The Topopah Spring Tuff is compositionally zoned, with an upward change from high-silica rhyolite in the crystal-poor member to quartz latite in the crystal-rich member; these two members are also clearly distinguishable on the basis of mineralogy and trace element concentrations. The lower crystal-poor member (Tptp) of the Topopah Spring Tuff, which encompasses the potential repository horizon, is one of the most chemically homogeneous rock types in the region. The homogeneity of the major-element chemistry within the high-silica rhyolite also extends to trace elements. Somewhat greater chemical variability is seen in the quartz latites. These characteristic chemical differences result in variable devitrification, vapor- phase, and low-temperature alteration minerals that account for differences in rock texture and mineralogy between the rhyolitic and quartz-latitic rocks. The crystal-poor member (unit Tptp), which is characterized by less than 3 percent felsic phenocrysts, is divided into vitric rocks of the vitric zone near the base (unit Tptpv) and devitrified rocks of the upper lithophysal (unit Tptpul), middle nonlithophysal (unit Tptpmn), lower lithophysal (unit Tptpll), and lower nonlithophysal (unit Tptpln) zones; the latter four zones form the host rock for the potential repository. The vitric zone (Tptpv) is divided into three subsystems primarily on the basis of degrees of welding, which range upward from a nonwelded subzone (Tptpv1) at the base, that includes partially welded rocks near the top, through a moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2), to a densely welded subzone (Tptpv3) that caps the sequence. The vitric, densely welded subzone (Tptpv3), commonly referred to as the vitrophyre, is also identified as an important thermal-mechanical unit (unit TSw3). Within the repository host rock units (i.e., the devitrified, rhyolitic portion of the Topopah Spring Tuff), phenocrysts are minor constituents (less than 5 percent) of the rock, with the remaining more than 95 percent consisting of fine-grained devitrification minerals. These devitrification products are principally feldspars plus a variable combination of the silica polymorphs tridymite, cristobalite, and quartz. The silica polymorph distributions are particularly important because of their thermal stability, dissolution properties, and properties as inhalation hazards. A transitional zone, commonly referred to as the vitric-zeolitic transition, extends downward from the base of the lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) into the crystal-poor vitric zone (Tptpv) through a stratigraphic interval ranging from about 3 to 30 m in thickness. This zone is 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report composed of partly devitrified vitrophyre, in which devitrification is sporadic and localized around fractures. The most common alteration features within this zone are fractures with devitrified borders of alkali feldspar and cristobalite up to 0.3 m thick. Some of the devitrified borders are downward extensions from the overlying, completely devitrified tuff. The outermost margins of devitrified fracture borders contain zeolites, smectite, and minor silica. Quartz, chalcedony, and opal are locally abundant as fracture and void fillings. There are discontinuous distributions of secondary minerals both vertically and horizontally, as well as substantial variation in the abundances and proportions of alkali feldspar, smectite, henlandite-clinoptilolite, and silica that comprise the characteristic secondary-mineral assemblage. In many parts of Yucca Mountain, the moderately welded and nonwelded subzones at the base of the crystal-poor vitric zone are overprinted by zeolite alteration. Accordingly, a “vitric-zeolitic boundary” has been drawn that varies within a narrow range of stratigraphic positions, but generally coincides closely with the contact between the moderately welded subzone and the overlying densely welded subzone. This boundary is further defined as the contact between the Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) and the underlying Calico Hills nonwelded hydrogeologic unit (CHn). The upper crystal-rich member (unit Tptr), which overlies the potential repository host horizon, is characterized by greater than 10 percent phenocrysts, with a crystal-transition subzone at the base where the abundance of phenocrysts increases upward from 3 to 10 percent. In ascending order, the crystal-rich member is divided into lithophysal (unit Tptrl), nonlithophysal (unit Tptrn), and vitric (unit Tptrv) zones. Rocks in both the lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones are devitrified, so the division is based on the presence or absence of lithophysae. The vitric zone (unit Tptrv), which caps the member, is distinguished by preservation of the volcanic glass to form rocks with a vitreous luster; the zone typically grades upward from a densely welded subzone (unit Tptrv1) to a nonwelded subzone (unit Tptrv3). This vitric zone is a particularly important geochemical subunit because it is relatively impermeable. Matrix materials comprise the bulk of the Topopah Spring Tuff, exclusive of open fractures, fracture fillings larger than about 0.2 mm, and lithophysal cavities and xenoliths larger than about 5 mm. Texture (phenocrysts, lithic fragments, cryptocrystalline groundmass, etc.) is the most variable parameter. Microveinlets observed in thin sections are almost always filled with silica minerals and alkali feldspar, and they commonly connect with those in lithophysal cavity linings. Granophyric pumice is a significant matrix constituent because of the larger size of its crystals (up to 0.5 mm) and because the crystals commonly line cavities in the interiors of pumice. A sequence of bedded tuffaceous rocks (unit Tpbt2) occurs between the Topopah Spring Tuff and the overlying Pah Canyon Tuff. The lower part of this unit, 5 to 15 m thick, consists of moderately well sorted pumiceous tephra with a thin (2 cm) lithic-rich fallout tephra overlying a thin (2 cm) very fine-grained ash bed at the base. This thin unit occurs across Yucca Mountain, in core from boreholes and in surface exposures, from the southwestern flank of the mountain along Solitario Canyon to north of Yucca Wash near Fortymile Wash. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SOURCE: BSC 2003a, FIGURE 5 Figure 5-2. Schematic Illustration of the Structure of the Topopah Spring Tuff 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 5.3.3.2 Primary Lithostratigraphic Features The rocks of the repository host horizon are within the crystal-poor member of the Topopah Spring Tuff, and geochemically these rocks have a very uniform geochemical composition of rhyolite. Lithostratigraphic features in the crystallized rocks of the Topopah Spring Tuff include the matrix-groundmass, lithophysal cavities, rims (developed on lithophysal cavities and some fractures), spots, vapor-phase mineral coatings or linings, and vapor-phase corroded or mineralized areas (Figure 5-3). The matrix-groundmass is a combination of sedimentary and igneous petrologic terms applicable to crystallized pyroclastic-flow deposits (or ignimbrites). "Matrix" is used here as a sedimentological term that refers to the finer-grained material between larger grains. In ignimbrites, the matrix material has vitroclastic textures formed by shards, crystal, pumice, and lithic clasts that are typically less than a few millimeters in size, and this material is between the larger clasts of pumice, lithic, and even crystal fragments. "Groundmass" is used here as an igneous term that refers to the fine-grained interstitial minerals between coarse-grained minerals. The “high” temperature crystallization of ignimbrites (typically about 550 to 900° C, depending on the geochemical composition) results in fine-grained textures of feldspar and quartz (or cristobalite). Lithophysae are the gas cavities in a rock formed where the vapor pressure was great enough to inflate a cavity; most lithophysae have various components including the cavity, rim, and a vapor-phase mineral coating (or lining). A spot is similar in texture and mineralogical composition to a rim, except there is not a cavity; some spots have “cores” of crystal fragments, lithic clasts, or small areas of crystallized matrix-groundmass. Fractures at Yucca Mountain are generally of three types: cooling joints, later tectonic fractures, and late joints caused by erosional unloading. Unlike the earliest assessments, the current understanding is that the majority of fractures and associated features mapped underground are cooling joints; however, there also are localized tectonic fracture zones related to faults. The cooling joints typically form two orthogonal sets of steeply dipping fractures, as well as a subhorizontal set of fractures. Some cooling joint fractures and incipient fractures are characterized by four major features, depending on the size and type of rock and fracture described: veinlets, streaks, stringers, and vapor-phase partings. Early cooling fractures may have formed while the rock was still glassy, and some cooling fractures served as pathways that transferred vapor during cooling and welding of the ignimbrite. These pathways led to either porous rim material along the open fractures or, later in time, surface deposits of vapor phase minerals. Vapor Phase Partings (VPP) are subhorizontal cooling fractures that are typically long and rougher than the above fractures; in some cases VPP zones did not form distinct fractures. Changes in the numbers and roughness of fractures typically coincide with the boundaries of lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones. In general, although nonlithophysal zones have VPP fractures, the zones are dominated by high-angle fractures with smooth surfaces. In contrast, lithophysal zones contain some low-angle fractures with rough surfaces, except possibly near zone boundaries. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Source: Modified from Buesch, et. al 1996b, Figure 3. NOTES: Porosity values (f) for the matrix-groundmass are from Flint (1998) and the values for rims, borders, and vapor-phase mineral coatings are estimates by Buesch (2003). Note that there are two types of matrix- groundmass. The nomenclature for color (e.g., pale red purple – 5RP6/2) is based on soil color charts (Munsell Color Company 1994). Figure 5-3. Lithostratigraphic Features Related to Lithophysae and Fractures Some of the geological terms related to lithophysae are defined as follows: Lithophysa – A hollow, bubblelike cavity in a volcanic rock that is typically surrounded by a porous rim formed by fine-grained alkali feldspar, quartz, and other minerals. Lithophysae are typically a few centimeters to a few decimeters in diameter; however, they can be as small as 1 mm in diameter to as large as 1 m or more in diameter (the largest measured at Yucca Mountain is 1.8 m across). Lithophysae occur in vitric (glassy) and crystallized volcanic rocks and result from the local accumulation of vapor (gas) in glassy rocks prior to cooling to form a rock. Many lithophysal cavities have a thin (less than a few mm) coating of vapor-phase minerals on the inner walls of the cavity. Lithophysal Rock – A volcanic rock that contains lithophysae. Lithophysal Zone – A lithostratigraphic unit within a formation (typically a lava flow or densely welded tuff) that contains lithophysae. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Lithostratigraphic Unit or Zone – In the hierarchical lithostratigraphic nomenclature used at Yucca Mountain, a zone is a subunit of a formation or member that is identified by one or more lithostratigraphic features such as lithophysae, spots and fracture characteristics. Zones can contain subzones. Spots – A more or less spherical feature that is similar in texture and mineral composition to a lithophysal rim, but has no central cavity. Spots occur with varying frequency in lithophysal rocks and occur in some nonlithophysal rocks. Vitric Zone – A deposit of volcanic ash or pyroclastic flow material dominated by glassy (noncrystalline) fragments. Vitric zones occur at the top and bottom of otherwise crystallized (devitrified) zones such as in the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring Tuffs. Welding – Consolidation (compaction) of “high” temperature vitric tuffaceous deposits due to the self-weight of the rock material (lithostatic stress) and possibly rheomorphic flow of the rock. During the welding of an ignimbrite, hot gasses are typically squeezed out of the rock. The ignimbrites of the Paintbrush Group are divided into four welding categories: nonwelded, partially welded, moderately welded and densely welded. Nonwelded rocks are porous vitric rocks containing glass shards and pumice clasts that are not deformed. On the other extreme, in densely welded rocks the matrix, shards and pumice are fused, and macroscopic porosity is absent. 5.3.3.3 Description of Repository Horizon Units Site-specific characteristics of the rock units of the Topopah Spring Tuff that constitute the host rock at the repository horizon have been described in detail through the geologic mapping of those units in both the Main Drift/ Ramps of the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and the ECRB Cross Drift. These studies, which have been summarized for the ESF (Beason et al. 1996; Barr et al. 1996; Albin et al. 1997; and Eatman et al. 1997), and for the ECRB Cross Drift (Mongano et al. 1999), are the sources for the site-specific unit descriptions presented here. The locations of the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift, and the lithostratigraphic units excavated by the tunnels, are illustrated by a geologic cross section (Figure 5-4). The units that comprise the host rocks of the repository horizon are all zones of the crystal-poor member (Tptp) of the Topopah Spring Tuff. In descending order, the host rocks consist of the lower part of the upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the lower TSw1 thermal/ mechanical unit, and all of the TSw2 thermal/ mechanical unit which includes the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) (see Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). In terms of the repository design layout, Board (2003, p. 4-1) evaluated that the emplacement drifts would be located primarily within the Tptpll and the Tptpmn units. Based on the report by Mongano et al. 1999, the site-specific characteristics of the repository horizon units from tunnel mapping are summarized as follows: Tptpul–The crystal-poor upper lithophysal zone is exposed in both the ESF and ECRB Cross- Drift. The ECRB Cross-Drift begins in the upper central portion of the zone and it exposes rocks of the central and lower portions of the zone from Station 0+00 to 10+15. The upper portion of 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report the upper lithophysal zone is also exposed in the hanging wall of the eastern strand of the Solitario Canyon fault zone from Station 25+90 to 26+57.5. In both exposures, the unit is moderately to densely welded, devitrified, and vapor-phase altered. In general, the rock appears grayish red-purple (5RP4/2) and contains 10 to 40 percent vapor-phase spots, stringers, and partings. The central and lower parts of the zone (Station 0+00 to 10+15) are composed of 0 to 15 percent pumice, 1 to 3 percent phenocrysts, 0 to 5 percent lithic fragments, 10 to 60 percent lithophysae, and 40 to 90 percent matrix. The upper part of the zone (Station 25+90 to 26+57.5) is composed of 5 to 15 percent pumice, 2 to 5 percent phenocrysts, less than 1 percent lithic fragments, 3 to 20 percent lithophysae, and 60 to 90 percent matrix. Tptpmn–The ESF is excavated in the middle nonlithophysal zone from Stations 27+21 to 57+29, from 58+78 to 63+08, and from 70+58 to 71+68. The ECRB Cross-Drift exposes the middle nonlithophysal zone from Station 10+15 to 14+44. In general, the moderately to densely welded, devitrified and variably vapor-phase altered unit is composed of less than 5 to 10 percent pumice (locally 25 to 35 percent), 1 to 2 percent phenocrysts, 1 to 2 percent lithic fragments, 0 to 1 percent lithophysae, and 85 to 93 percent matrix. Vapor-phase spots, stringers, and partings comprise from 1 to 15 percent of the rock. Smooth, high-angle fractures are typical of the zone, but it also contains occasional low-angle, continuous shears and cooling joints. Another feature characteristic of the Tptpmn is the presence of low-angle concentrations of vapor-phase minerals. These features appear as continuous partings subparallel to the dip of the unit. Tptpll–The ESF exposes a small portion of the upper contact of the lower lithophysal zone from Station 57+29 to 58+78. The lower lithophysal zone is exposed along the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+44 to 23+26. In general, the moderately to densely welded, devitrified, and vapor-phase altered unit is composed of 3 to 7 percent pumice (locally 10 to 35 percent), 1 to 2 percent phenocrysts, 1 to 5 percent lithic fragments (locally 12 to 15 percent), 5 to 30 percent lithophysae (locally 1 to 5 percent), and 56 to 90 percent matrix. Lithophysae vary in size from ten centimeters to greater than 1 meter in diameter. Throughout most of the unit, vapor-phase spots, stringers, and wisps comprise between 3 and 12 percent of the rock. In several intervals, however, vapor-phase alteration products form 15 to 40 percent of the rock. Tptpln–The Tptpln, exposed only in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 23+26 to 25+85, comprises moderately to densely welded, devitrified pyroclastic-flow material. It is generally composed of 3 to 20 percent pumice, 1 to 2 percent phenocrysts, 3 to 7 percent lithic fragments, 0 to 5 percent lithophysae, and 66 to 93 percent matrix. Vapor-phase alteration products form a minor component of the rock in some portions of the unit. Rocks of the lower nonlithophysal zone vary from a heterogeneous mix of grayish red and grayish orange pink (5YR7/2) to comparatively homogeneous pale red, light brown, pale brown, or grayish brown (5YR6/4). Near the Solitario Canyon fault zone, this unit is brecciated and altered. In this area, the breccia matrix varies from moderate reddish brown to grayish orange pink to pale red; breccia clasts are locally bleached to very light gray adjacent to the fault plane. Rock Mass Structural Features – Internal structures within the tuffaceous host rocks of the repository horizon are among the most important features in determining their thermomechanical properties, their geotechnical strength, and their structural response to repository- related stresses. Among the most important internal structures are fracture characteristics and lithophysal content (and associated porosity). These structures have been extensively mapped in 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report the ESF and the ECRB Cross Drift (CRWMS M&O 1998d, Section 7.4, and Mongano et al. 1999, pp. 12-46), and various relationships have been observed (Figures 5-2 and 5-4). The two basic types of repository host rock units are nonlithophysal units (Tptpmn, Tptpln) and lithophysal units (Tptpul, Tptpll), based on their relative proportion of lithophysal cavities (see Figure 5-2). As noted by Board (2003, Section 5.2.1), the nonlithophysal units are generally hard, strong, fractured rocks with matrix porosities of 10 percent or less. Fractures that formed during the cooling process are the primary structures in these units. In contrast, the lithophysal units have significantly fewer fractures of significant continuous length (i.e., trace length greater than 1 m), but have relatively uniformly distributed porosity in the form of lithophysal cavities. Lithophysal porosity in the Tptpul and Tptpll is on the order of 10 to 30 percent by volume. The groundmass that makes up the rock matrix in the lithophysal units is heavily fractured with small scale (lengths on the order of 1 cm) inter-lithophysal fractures in the Tptpll, but is relatively fracture-free in the Tptpul. As shown in Figure 5-5, detailed line mapping in the ECRB Cross Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, p. 76 and Figure 13) has demonstrated an inverse relationship between fracture density and lithophysal porosity in the repository host rock units. The density of fractures with trace length greater than 1 m is significantly higher in the Tptpmn and Tptpln (20-35 fractures/10 m), as compared to 5-fractures/10 m or less in the Tptpul and Tptpll where lithophysal porosities are higher. The fractures and lithophysae are among the dominant rock structures that will probably largely determine the thermal-mechanical responses of the rock mass during repository construction and operation. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Source: After Mongano et al. 1999, Drawing OA-46-345 Figure 5-4. Geologic Cross Section through the ECRB Cross Drift (approximately Northeast-Southwest, looking Northwest) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Source: Mongano et al. 1999, Figure 13 Note: Observe the inverse relationship within individual lithostratigraphic units. Figure 5-5. Composite Plot of Fracture Frequency and Lithophysal Porosity as a Function of Distance Along the ECRB Cross-Drift 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A5-20December 20035.4 UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY LAYOUTThe repository will consist of four construction panels (Panels 1-4) that will cover about 5.0 sqkm (1.9 sq miles) within the Topopah Spring Formation, as shown in Figure 5-6. The repositoryfootprint extends about 5 km in length with the widest part being about 2 km. The total length ofall excavated openings, including the emplacement drifts, turnouts, exhaust mains, exhaust shaftsand raises, and other miscellaneous openings is about 110 km (68 miles). Emplacement driftswill have a diameter of 5.5 m (18 ft). Microsoft Excel was used to determine the percent ofdrifts within each lithostratigraphic unit (see the file “PanelUnitPercentage_SGPR.xls” inAttachment VIII). Approximately 66 km (41 miles) of the emplacement drifts are foundprimarily within the Tptpll (red, 81 percent), and the Tptpmn (green, 12 percent). The remaininggeological units comprise about 7 percent (Tptpul about 4 percent and Tptpln about 3 percent) ofthe emplacement drift area. Overall, the nonlithophysal rocks comprise roughly 15 percent ofthe emplacement area, whereas the lithophysal rocks comprise approximately 85 percent. Details of the repository layout are presented in the Underground Layout Configuration (BSC2003i, Section 8.4, Attachment II, Table II-2). Source: BSC 2003i, after Figure II-2Figure 5-6.Overlay of the Lithostratigraphic Units on the Planned Repository Layout Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 6. DATA NEEDS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN 6.1 GENERAL Geomechanical data and thermal properties are primary design input parameters for analyzing the stability of repository openings; assessing the need, type, and dimension of ground support for the preclosure period; and predicting the drift degradation during the postclosure period (BSC 2003a). In addition, other project analyses involving thermal and mechanical computations involving the rock mass properties require the same lithostratigraphic properties and parameters. The Ground Control for Emplacement Drifts for LA (BSC 2003d), Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2003c), Drift Scale THM Model (BSC 2003b), Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) (BSC 2003f), Repository Subsurface Waste Emplacement and Thermal Management Strategy (CRWMS M&O 1998e), Two-dimensional Repository Thermal Design Calculations (BSC 2003h), Ventilation Model and Analysis Report (BSC 2003j), Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability (BSC 2003k), and Shaft Liner Design (under development) are some examples of such analyses and models. 6.2 DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY OPENINGS 6.2.1 Opening Types The subsurface repository includes the following types of openings: 1) emplacement drifts, 2) emplacement drift turnouts, 3) access ramps and mains, 4) exhaust mains, 5) shafts, 6) portals, and 6) other ancillary openings (e.g. the TBM launch chambers, monitoring niches, and PC drifts). Except for shafts, portals, and ramps, all other openings will be located within the repository host horizon (RHH), namely in the TSw2 thermal/mechanical unit. This unit consists of both nonlithophysal and lithophysal lithostratigraphic units. 6.2.2 Opening Design Elements Engineering design of these openings involves the following elements: • Dimensioning of all members of underground structures • Pillar stability analyses • Assessment of interactions between adjacent underground openings • Intersections • Assessment of opening stability during excavation stage • Initial (temporary) ground support • Final (permanent) ground support • Numerical analyses based on the continuum modeling approach • Numerical analyses based on the discontinuum modeling approach 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 6.2.3 Design Input Results from numerical modeling aid in developing design solutions and verification. The following input data and parameters are required for performing numerical analyses: • joint geometry • porosity • joint mechanical properties • intact rock physical and mechanical properties • rock mass mechanical properties • vibratory ground motion time history • rock thermal properties • rock temperature time histories • repository layout information Joint Geometry. The joint geometry data includes the identification of the major joint set orientation, joint trace length, and joint intensity. The development of joint geometry parameters is based on mapping data collected from the ESF, including the main loop (which is composed of the North Ramp, Main Drift, South Ramp) and the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift. Mapping data from the ESF being used in the analysis includes both USGS/USBR full periphery geologic maps (FPGMs) and the detailed line survey (DLS). Rock Porosity The rock porosity data includes total porosity (matrix and lithophysal) and its spatial variation in lithophysal rock. These data are developed based on the panel mapping data collected from the ECRB. Joint Mechanical Properties. Joint strength is characterized by cohesion, friction angle, dilation, and stiffness. The parameter values were developed based on laboratory shear strength test data from core specimens. Intact Rock Physical and Mechanical Properties Intact rock properties are required to represent the block material properties for the nonlithophysal rockfall. The mean rock density and mean elastic rock properties were used in the analysis for modeling nonlithophysal rock. Rock Mass Properties Rock mass mechanical properties include the unconfined compressive strength, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, friction angle, and tensile strength for lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock units, and for various thermal-mechanical rock units. Empirical rock mass classification systems, based on the experience of a large number of case histories of underground excavations in nonlithophysal rock, are required for ground support design and to estimate rock mass properties. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Rock Mass Quality Rating (Q) classification systems are two such empirical systems. Both systems consist of an empirical model that involves the calculation of several input rock parameters to estimate the index parameters RMR (range 0 to 100) and Q (range 10-3 to 103). These index parameters are then used to estimate the rock mass parameters. Seismic Ground Motion Seismic ground motion time history data are required for dynamic simulation. Both preclosure and postclosure ground motions data are needed. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Rock Thermal Properties The following thermal properties data are required for the regional thermal-mechanical calculation: • Thermal conductivity • Specific heat • Coefficient of thermal expansion • Heat decay curve. Rock Temperature Time Histories Rock temperature time histories for both preclosure and postclosure periods are required. These data are considered design output and are generated by other design groups. Repository Layout Information Repository layout information, including emplacement drift diameter and azimuth, is required for proper analysis configuration. This information is considered design output and is generated by other design groups. 6.2.4 Support of Preclosure Safety Analyses Adequate prediction of rockfall scenarios, particularly in emplacement drifts, and in nonemplacement openings in general, provides essential input to preclosure safety analyses and waste package/drip shield design. Such predictive analyses requires the same input as those for engineering design of the repository openings. 6.2.5 Support of Postclosure Safety Analyses Degradation of underground openings as a function of time is a natural and expected occurrence for any subsurface excavation. Over time, changes occur to both the stress condition and the strength of the rock mass due to several interacting factors. Once these factors contributing to degradation are characterized, the effects of drift degradation can typically be mitigated through appropriate design and maintenance of the ground support system. However, for the emplacement drifts of the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, it is necessary to characterize drift degradation over a 10,000-year time period, which is well beyond the functional period of the ground support system. The Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a) document provides an analysis of the amount of drift degradation anticipated in repository emplacement drifts for discrete events and time increments extending throughout the 10,000-year regulatory period for postclosure performance. The drift degradation analysis was developed to support the license application and fulfill specific agreement items between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 6.3 SUPPORT OF MANAGER/CONTRACTOR – CONSTRUCTION PHASE Typically, the cost and method of excavation are derived utilizing a range of input data. The progress of excavation and associated excavation schedule are determined utilizing the rock property data. In addition, the cost of tunneling largely depends of the type and quantities of ground support components. These are determined considering both the type and size of excavation and the amount of maintenance foreseen as reasonable for the type of designed excavation. Accurate lithostratigraphic rock unit information provides a base for more accurate 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report cost and schedule predictions, while less accurate data create the need for contingencies and higher costs. The data available and included in this analysis provide a basis for preparation of the baseline case for construction cost and schedule estimates. 6.3.1 TESTING REQUIREMENTS 6.3.1.1 Sampling and Testing Status Sampling and testing that has been completed during 2002 and 2003 includes: • Laboratory mechanical property testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff for uniaxial compression tests by SNL, blocks of lithophysal tuff for extracting cores of various diameters for uniaxial compression tests by SNL and uniaxial compression testing of these cores, uniaxial compression testing of lithophysal tuff from undercoring of 11.4-inch diameter samples from ESF and ECRB boreholes, and blocks of tuff for uniaxial compression testing of cubes by UNLV; • Laboratory thermal property testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff, and small- diameter cores of lithophysal and nonlithophysal tuff (from in situ thermal conductivity tests), for testing by SNL and other laboratories; • Static fatigue testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff for testing by USBR, and blocks of nonlithophysal tuff for extracting small-diameter cores for static fatigue testing by NER; and • Fracture property testing: large-diameter cores of nonlithophysal tuff for direct shear testing by USBR. The following testing activities are currently underway: • Static fatigue testing of nonlithophysal tuff by NER. • Static fatigue testing of lithophysal tuff by USBR. Samples selected for testing from previously drilled boreholes include: • Laboratory mechanical property testing: small-diameter cores for uniaxial compression and Brazilian tensile tests, and lumps for point load tests for testing by UNR; and • Fracture/fracture property testing: small-diameter cores for testing by UNR. Sampling for the following planned testing has not yet been completed: • Laboratory mechanical property testing: additional sampling planned for uniaxial compression testing of large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Static fatigue testing: small-diameter cores for testing by UNR, and • Laboratory thermal property testing: sampling associated with the Cross Drift thermal test (CDTT). Additional sampling and in situ testing that are planned or proposed include: • Plate loading test in nonlithophysal tuff at Drift Scale Test in Alcove 5. • Cross drift thermal test in lithophysal tuff in a new ECRB alcove. 6.3.1.2 Sampling and Testing Plan Modifications Large-diameter coring of the lithophysal tuff to provide samples for uniaxial compression tests with standard length/diameter (L:D) ratio of 2:1 was difficult because of the presence of large lithophysae and inter-lithophysal fractures. As a result, a much fewer number of tests on 11.4- inch diameter cores of lithophysal tuff with standard L:D ratio will be performed than originally planned. From the first batch of large-diameter cores sent to SNL for uniaxial compression testing, 10 of 85 samples met the 2:1 criterion. Testing was completed using ratios between 1:1 and 2:1. As a result, undercoring of shorter samples was used to prepare 6-inch diameter specimens with standard 2:1 ratio from some 11.4-inch diameter cores. Static fatigue testing has also encountered a problem with early failure of the large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff. A fewer number of large-diameter samples are available for continued testing with sustained loads than originally planned. Also, the blocks of tuff sent to NER for static fatigue arrived broken up after transport, so surplus ECRB borehole cores are being sent. 6.4 TIMELINE FOR DATA NEEDS 6.4.1 LA Data Needs Engineering design of the repository for LA is considered to be preliminary (conceptual). The objective of this design phase is to demonstrate the technical adequacy, the meeting of functional requirements, and the compliance with the YMRP acceptance criteria. On the other hand, detailed, post-LA design will result in all design documents necessary for construction, fabrication, and procurement. Design input parameter data must be adequate for such a detailed design. 6.4.2 Post-LA Data Needs Field measurements and observations performed during construction will be a continuous source of a variety of rock property and construction progress information. The data needs description and acquisition schedule will be determined as a part of Performance Confirmation planning and resulting activities. These data will be used to verify and refine the conceptual models developed to predict lithostratigraphic rock unit performance. In addition, the data will be used to refine construction and ground support techniques such that optimum performance of the future repository will be assured. The range of construction activities and associated program of data gathering and analysis will be used to enhance the data adequacy. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 7. METHODOLOGY OF GEOTECHNICAL DATA ACQUISITION AND ENHANCEMENT 7.1 INTRODUCTION As outlined in Section 6, an outstanding issue for License Application is the production of an adequate summary of thermomechanical properties that are needed for subsurface design, pre- closure repository safety analysis, and repository safety analysis after permanent closure. An intimately related outstanding issue is the development of rock behavioral models and approaches to adequately capture: (1) the sample size (scale) dependency of rock properties and prediction of parameters at the rock mass scale, (2) the spatial variation or heterogeneity of rock parameters across the proposed repository storage volume, and (3) the predicted variation of rock behavior and parameters over the proposed post-closure period of 10,000 years. The methodology of resolving these issues was progressively developed from a series of Geotechnical Review Panel meetings held in 2001 and 2002, and from work proposals prepared and reviewed by its participants. The Review Panel consisted of BSC personnel as well geomechanics experts from SNL, USBR, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), UNLV, UNR, New England Research (NER), and consultants from the Itasca Consulting Group and Nick Barton and Associates. The general YMP approach for resolving these geomechanical issues are summarized in the Resolution Strategy for Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) (Board 2003, Section 2.2.1). The overall approach for resolving these geomechanical issues consists of utilizing a combination of analyses, studies and calculations to maximize site-specific data: 1) Evaluation and geotechnical analysis of the existing, extensive geological mapping and geotechnical characterization data from surface and underground mapping of lithology, structure, and rock quality; 2) Additional laboratory and in situ thermomechanical testing, primarily of lithophysal rocks, to provide information for confirmation of the material models and property ranges to be used in design and performance sensitivity studies; 3) Development, calibration and validation of numerical models capable of representing the thermomechanical behavior of lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks; 4) Use of the validated numerical models to supplement the material properties database and explore the impact of geologic variability (porosity, lithophysae shape and distribution, and fracture density) on the geomechanical response, primarily of lithophysal rocks; and 5) Numerical model sensitivity studies to further explore the impact of parameter uncertainty on pre-closure ground support and post-closure drift degradation and seismic stability issues (Board 2003, Section 2.2.1). 7.1.1 Scaling of Rock Properties When discussing mechanical and thermal properties of rock, it is important to include a discussion of the scale or size of the rock under consideration for property determination. Three useful categories of rock can be distinguished for mechanical and thermal testing purposes: rock matrix, bulk rock, and rock mass. Larger size rock samples typically behave differently than smaller size rock samples due to the presence of lithophysae, discontinuities and other features. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The rock matrix scale represents behavior of the tuff matrix-groundmass (ranging from cm3 to 3 m for nonlithophysal rock and cm3 to dm3 for lithophysal rock). Properties or parameters reported at the rock matrix scale are ideally assumed to be free of any large features causing anisotropy or nonhomogeneity such as varying mineral type, lithophysae, rims, spots, and fractures. The ignimbrite matrix material contains shards, crystal, pumice, and lithic clasts that are typically less than a few millimeters in size. Matrix-groundmass material typically has a mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 (10 percent) total porosity and ranges from approximately 0.08 to 0.13 cm3/cm3 (see Section 8.2.3 for more information). Bulk rock is a term referring to whole tuff rock at a laboratory or field scale (bulk rock is generally not used for nonlithophysal rock and ranges from cm3 to m3 for lithophysal rock). Bulk rock properties represent the behavior of rock samples that may include lithophysae, rims and spots, yet still exist as an “intact” piece of rock. In general, bulk rock data excludes tests of rock samples known to have fractures or planes of weakness that would influence the property being tested. Since all reported properties are assumed to be of isotropic and homogeneous rock, ideally, bulk rock properties should be tested at an appropriate representative elementary volume (REV), which is large enough to include a sufficient number of representative lithophysae, rims and spots. On the other hand, since such a large REV size is not practical for either sampling or laboratory testing, an approach has been adopted to test a sufficient number of the largest intact rock samples feasible to collect and test. Experimental data indicate that a number of mechanical and thermal properties correlate well with porosity, therefore, the total and lithophysal porosity of these samples are measured and reported with the bulk rock properties. Rock mass properties apply to a scale large enough to include all the rock imperfections present in the field at the scale of interest, including rock fractures (ranging from m3 to dam3 for both lithophysal and nonlithophysal). The structure of the rock mass plays what is perhaps the most important role in defining the structural response of the repository to thermal and mechanical loading. In particular, fractures and the lithophysal porosity are the primary geologic structures of importance. For a given lithostratigraphic zone of rock, which is typically assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous, the rock mass properties are the appropriate and representative scale to use for design and analysis work. For the homogeneous case, the spatial variability in rock mass properties is included as part of the uncertainty associated with a given rock mass property. For lithostratigraphic zones modeled as nonhomogeneous rock, the vertical and horizontal spatial variability of the rock properties are described explicitly and separately, usually as a function of porosity. The volume of rock tested as part of in situ field tests may not be adequate to represent the rock mass REV. In such cases, further analysis or application of empirical methods will be necessary to estimate rock mass properties that appropriately consider joint sets or other appropriate large-scale features. 7.1.2 Approach for Nonlithophysal Rock Parameter Data Analysis A relatively large number of laboratory tests have been performed on intact samples of nonlithophysal rock. In the field, a large database of meter-scale fracture geometry and rock quality data was produced from extensive mapping of the ESF and ECRB tunnels. Although evaluation and geotechnical analysis of these data needs to be carried out, the general mechanical and thermal behavior of nonlithophysal rock was considered to be adequately understood, along with the geometry of representative fracture patterns. Still lacking was an adequate 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report characterization of the mechanical behavior of fractures by fracture set, a characterization of the small-scale fractures in nonlithophysal rock, and the effect of these small-scale fractures on rock mass behavior. The rock mass behavior of nonlithophysal rock is controlled largely by the fracture geometry that separates the relatively strong and stiff pieces of intact rock. Even though the fracture geometry was well known along the two mapped tunnels, it was realized that a representative fracture model of the repository site was needed for design and modeling purposes. Time-dependent degradation of rock fracture properties also required better understanding. 7.1.3 Approach for Lithophysal Rock Parameter Data Analysis Until recently the YMP had not focused much effort on understanding the behavior of lithophysal rock. This changed with the realization that most of the repository would reside in lithophysal rock and that nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock behaviors were significantly different. Several important mechanical and thermal rock properties are strongly dependent on rock porosity and sample size. Deformability of rock, rock strength parameters and thermal conductivity were some of the key parameters identified for further study. Additional site- specific testing at the laboratory and field scales was undertaken to better characterize the porosity and size dependencies on these properties. However, because of practical limitations, these effects could not be fully studied in the field and laboratory. It was considered necessary to supplement this testing with numerical testing of lithophysal rock, where behavioral mechanisms could be carefully studied along with the full range of the sample size effect. Before the spatial variability of these properties could be quantified, it was necessary to model the variation of rock porosity in the field. Once a picture emerged of how porosity varied across the site, property correlations could be used to predict the spatial variation of rock parameters at the site for use in design and safety analysis. The rock mass behavior of lithophysal rock is controlled largely by stress conditions and lithophysae in the rock that can lead to failure of the bulk lithophysal rock. 7.2 FIELD CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM For nonlithophysal rock, the major component of the field characterization program consisted of adequate mapping of repository host horizon (RHH) fracture geometries from tunnels, boreholes and outcrops. A secondary aspect of the program was to collect rock quality data for rock classification purposes in RHH units and perform limited index testing across the site. The existing database will be supplemented by large-scale field roughness estimates that will be used in empirical relations for estimating shear strength and dilation for each major joint set. For lithophysal rock, the primary aspect of field characterization was an adequate mapping of the shape, size and abundance of lithophysae, spots and rims in RHH lithophysal rock. This mapping could be carried out along the ESF and ECRB tunnels, in existing site boreholes, and where RHH units outcrops have been located. A secondary component of lithophysal rock field characterization is an adequate mapping of RHH fracture geometries. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report For all lithostratigraphic zones, an additional field characterization activity carried out was geophysical logging of boreholes to indirectly determine vertical variation of bulk density and porosity data. This existing data will be further evaluated and summarized. 7.3 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A large number of thermomechanical tests has been performed on intact small cores of RHH nonlithophysal rock and other rock units from outside the RHH. The mechanical testing program using samples from boreholes scattered around the repository site is considered adequate for project purposes in describing the behavior of intact nonlithophysal rock. However, to better understand the effect of various physical and environmental factors known to impact thermomechanical properties, the existing set of laboratory test results needed to be broken down and analyzed. The required additional data included better estimates of fracture shear constitutive behavior. The fracture shear response was augmented by conducting laboratory direct shear tests on large and small samples of nonlithophysal rock by joint set. For lithophysal rocks within the RHH, a fairly extensive testing program was required based on testing of large diameter core samples. A laboratory program of thermomechanical testing of large diameter core samples (from 30.5 cm [12 in.] boreholes) will be conducted to derive mechanical and thermal properties of rock samples large enough to contain many lithophysae. It is hoped these large laboratory samples will provide useful information regarding porosity and size effects. These laboratory tests are also needed for calibrating the numerical models of mechanical lithophysal rock behavior. One aspect that has not been sufficiently looked at is studying how the mechanical and thermal properties of the rock change as a function of time. Of most importance is the time-related mechanical degradation of intact rock and fractures under expected stress and thermal loading conditions. 7.4 IN SITU TESTING PROGRAM The next step beyond laboratory testing was gathering as much in situ site-specific rock behavior information as possible. This program extends from small-scale borehole testing of thermal and mechanical behaviors to meter-scale mechanical and thermal testing of rock blocks (e.g., Single Heater Test, Plate Loading Tests, Slot Tests) to drift scale tests in both RHH nonlithophysal (Drift Scale Test) and lithophysal rock. In particular it was necessary to carry out in situ testing in lithophysal rock to help confirm models and ranges of behavior. Rock mass scale testing of both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock was also required under thermal loading conditions to validate numerical models and empirical approaches to characterizing behavior. Some long-term mechanical loading tests of meter-scale rock were also deemed useful for characterizing time effects. Another aspect of the in situ testing program is the information gathered from Tunnel Boring Machine pressure and mining rate data as well as periodic surveying of the ESF and ECRB tunnels and drifts to study tunnel deformation over time. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 7.5 NUMERICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ROCK BEHAVIOR AND TO GEOSTATISTICALLY MODEL KEY ROCK FEATURES Even after conducting all the testing in the above two sections, only a limited database will exist relative to thermal and mechanical lithophysal rock behavior. The approach adopted to extrapolate the mechanical behavior to a larger-size scale was to perform additional testing using numerical models capable of representing lithophysal rock behavior. These numerical models must be developed, calibrated and validated by using the site-specific laboratory and field-testing of lithophysal rock. Two- and three-dimensional numerical modeling has the advantage of allowing a rock sample to be created and “tested” at any scale considered necessary, plus holes of any convenient size and shape can then be inserted at any desired location within the rock sample. These numerical approaches also have been shown to reproduce observed complex rock behavior, such as allowing for the development of interlithophysal fracturing, thus providing a methodology for representing and understanding the basic mechanical response of lithophysal rocks through back-analysis of actual testing. This full methodology involves five steps: (1) development of approach to model cavities within existing numerical codes, (2) calibration of the numerical model by adjusting numerical model properties to reproduce the behavior of actual laboratory and field tests, (3) use of the software to further study and understand mechanisms of behavior by simulating tests at the laboratory and field scale to assure that all significant aspects of lithophysal rock behavior have been reasonably reproduced, (4) use of the software to extrapolate lithophysal rock behavior by simulating samples at larger spatial scales, and (5) validation of the modeling in steps (3) and (4), to the extent possible, by predicting the behavior of boundary-value in situ tests and other analyses. The validated numerical simulations, based on PFC (Section 9.1) and UDEC software (Section 9.2), will be judiciously used to supplement site-specific test data by relying on professional judgment that is explained by means of documented technical reasoning. Any limitations in approach will also be clearly stated, such as, the current assumption that Tptpul (upper lithophysal) and the Tptpll (lower lithophysal) rock behavior is identical, even though the Tptpll is much more fractured (most likely due to higher in situ stresses found at the Tptpll depth). In addition, time-dependent strength properties (i.e., static fatigue) need to be determined for both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock. Again, the pertinent rock-testing database will be limited, so a program similar to the one used for modeling of size effects, using numerical modeling, will be carried out to understand and enhance the time-related mechanical behavior of nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock. The conceptual and numerical modeling of thermal behavior of lithophysal rock is more established. This effort has continued to be refined in order to gain an acceptable level of understanding of thermal behavior and characterization of thermal parameters. Evaluation of the extensive existing database of the tunnel full-periphery structure maps will produce a statistical database, by fracture set, of fracture geometry data such as fracture orientation, spacing, and trace length. Geostatistical approaches will be applied to this tunnel database, the borehole fracture data, and the outcrop fracture measurements as a basis for development of statistically representative fracture volumes using the FracMAN software 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report program (Section 9.3). These fracture volumes will contain fracture geometry data by RHH units that adequately captures the ranges of fracture geometry parameters expected at the site. Finally, a simplified geostatistical approach will also be used to model lithophysae volumes (Section 9.4) in the repository area. The simplified geostatistical analysis considers only the mapped lithophysal tunnel data, but a more complete geostatistical treatment will also include borehole geophysics data, mapped borehole lithophysal data, and outcrop data. Like the fracture volumes, these lithophysal volumes will describe the spatial variation of lithophysal cavities expected across the site at various degrees of reliability. This variation will then be translated into a variation of mechanical and thermal properties as described in Section 10.2. 7.6 EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO ESTIMATE ROCK BEHAVIOR Nonlithophysal behavior at the rock mass scale cannot be studied in the laboratory; rather, traditional empirical rock characterization techniques are usually relied upon to describe the mechanical rock mass behavior. However, these empirical approaches have never been applied to a lithophysal rock mass. The originator of the Q rock characterization system (Barton et al. 1974), Nick Barton, has suggested modifications to the Q rock characterization technique in order to extend the Q technique to lithophysal rocks (see Duan 2003, Sections 1 and 3). This approach for lithophysal rocks will be pursued as a secondary method to numerical modeling as a way to determine rock mass mechanical properties. 7.7 PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE DATA, CONFIRM PARAMETER RANGES, AND VALIDATE BEHAVIORAL MODELS The final step in the characterization effort is to sufficiently evaluate and integrate all of the above sources of rock behavior data using geotechnical judgment. For example, the numerical modeling program must be intimately tied to the testing programs to be justifiable. This global analysis of the data will be carried out for all rock parameters in the next revision of this report, in order to produce defensible parameter summaries that include discussions on parameter ranges or distributions, uncertainty, spatial variability and temporal variability. Professional judgment will be required to assess and combine the considerably different sources of data into one best picture of the state of current knowledge. Judgment will also be required to assess whether parameter descriptions are adequate for project purposes. Part of this objective is doing what can be practically accomplished to understand and then reduce the level of uncertainty in the geomechanical parameters, particularly those of the RHH. Related to the above, confidence must be demonstrated that the thermomechancial behaviors of the rock, at all scales of interest, are sufficiently understood. In particular, a number of numerical and empirical models and approaches are being relied upon heavily to understand and describe rock behavior and parameters. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8. SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND PARAMETERS 8.1 GENERAL Over the past two decades a great amount of data has been collected on the mechanical properties of intact tuff from site characterization efforts at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The majority of data collected has been determined from rock specimens obtained from the Topopah Spring Tuff formation. These efforts were focused on maximizing data and information about the lithostratigraphic rock units located within the planned future repository host horizon (RHH). The majority of data in RHH comes from specimens recovered from the Tptpmn, as this tuff layer was previously planned to be the primary host of the repository drift system. More recently, the design has focused on primary emplacement in the Tptpll, located directly below the Tptpmn. The analyses of the intact rock mechanical properties presented in this Section primarily focus on the RHH units (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln), but also includes the properties summary for other rock units (See Figure 5-1). Initial studies to determine mechanical properties of rock were performed under quality assurance guidelines existing at the time. No matter what the pedigree of the data, however, we can gain a great deal of insight from examining all of the Yucca Mountain data related to the physical and thermomechanical properties of tuff. Analysis of the earlier data has shown that there is some lateral and vertical variability; however, the variabilities in the elastic and strength properties of the tuffs are predominantly a function of porosity (Price and Bauer 1985 and Price 1993). In a broad sense, the properties are a function of a more general concept called the functional porosity. It is defined as pore space plus the volume fraction of montmorillonite, a very low strength clay mineral (Price and Bauer 1985). While this factor has been shown to be real by Price (1983), porosity alone is still shown to be an excellent predictor of the mechanical properties (e.g., Price et al. 1994a). In addition, because the montmorillonite content data have not been collected on most of the test samples, the remainder of the discussions of this issue will focus on the effects of porosity, only. Furthermore, while mineralogy, average grain density, bulk density and other properties have an effect on the scatter in the elastic property and strength data at a given porosity, the most predominant secondary factor is the distribution of the size and shape of the pores (Price et al. 1993). In Busted Butte samples of the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff, the vast majority of pores were found to be intergranular openings (usually less than 5 µm across) (Price et al. 1987). However, for the lithophysal welded tuffs, a study on Busted Butte samples of the upper lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff (Tptpul) (Price et al. 1985) found there are four classes of pore sizes. They are: large lithophysal cavities (from few millimeters on up), small pores in the vapor-phased-altered zones (up to 0.2 mm), intergranular pores in vapor-phased-altered zones (in the range of 1-5 µm), and submicroscopic intergranular pores in the devitrified matrix. Historically, the studies discussed above were driven by project plans that initially investigated all of the tuffs within Yucca Mountain and gradually focused on the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) within the Topopah Spring tuff for most of the data requirements. Recent examination of the amount of data considered to be QA and changes in the project perspective on what rock zones would be considered for the placement of the repository have resulted in some concerns 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report about adequate data in the units that would be involved in the construction of the potential repository and subsequent emplacement of waste. As a result, data have been collected in the last couple of years to address potential issues related to spatial variability of rock properties and sufficiency of data in all units affected by the repository. These experiments were designed to allow the repository design and ground support system to be based on a thorough understanding of rock properties. The recent experiments producing the required data have been focused on samples from the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) and the upper lithophysal (Tptpul) zones of the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. Because of the substantially different nature of the lithophysal units in comparison to the nonlithophysal units, laboratory-scale testing of rock from these two categories have somewhat different end purposes. For nonlithophysal rock, laboratory tests to determine elastic moduli and strength properties can be used to estimate equivalent in situ properties and, thus, be directly incorporated into design calculations using commonly-accepted ground support methodologies. In situ tests are then used to calibrate models and validate results. For the lithophysal units, laboratory-scale tests are used to develop a basic understanding of the rock properties and develop models for the rock-mass behavior. In situ tests in the lithophysal zones are conducted to obtain in situ properties and develop scaling relationships (from laboratory to field scale) that can be used to support the design process. In addition to the standard mechanical and thermal properties, time-dependent deformation (creep) could play an important role in the design process and ultimate performance assessment, given the extended lifetime of the repository. Beginning in the early stages of these investigations, the indications of the primary importance of porosity on mechanical properties and general understanding of rock mechanics issues led to a general philosophy of gathering the bulk of the data at a set of test conditions considered to be the “baseline conditions” and then the effect of changes in the conditions could be studied one at a time off of this baseline set of data. The initial set of baseline conditions was defined in the early 1980’s as the following (all sizes/conditions are considered to be “nominal” – in other words, each individual sample may vary somewhat from these exact values, but that the exact sizes/conditions would be reported with the data): a test specimen in the shape of a right-circular cylinder with a diameter of 25 mm and a 2:1 length-to-diameter ratio would be saturated and then tested at room temperature, ambient pressure (unconfined) conditions at a constant axial -1 strain rate of 10-5 s. In the mid-1980’s, more and larger samples were available, so the baseline diameter was changed to 51 mm at that time. For many years, this baseline data was considered appropriate because the potential repository was being planned in the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff and in general, the inhomogeneities in these rocks are quite small and could be well characterized in this size sample. However, when data are gathered in the lithophysal zones, a much larger sample size is necessary because of the size of the inherent inhomogeneities (i.e., the lithophysal cavities and the relatively weak, altered zones) within these rocks. The data gathered during these experiments are relatively straightforward. For calculating specimen stress, the force being applied along the axis of the sample is measured and then the stress is calculated by dividing by the initial sample cross-sectional area. The displacements from the elastic and permanent deformation of the sample in an axial direction are measured, with the axial strain calculated by dividing by the initial length over which the deformation is measured. In most cases, a similar measurement is made in a lateral (diametral) direction for the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report determination of lateral strain. In addition, the sample dimensions and saturation state are measured and noted, as well as the environmental conditions of the experiment: temperature, confining and pore pressures (if appropriate), and time. A comprehensive series of mechanical property measurements has been conducted on specimens prepared from NRG (North Access Ramp Geologic), SD (Systematic Drilling), UE (Underground Exploratory), USW-G drillholes, ESF (Exploratory Studies Facility), and ECRB (Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block) drilling operations. Testing to determine elastic constants, strengths, and deformation characteristics has been performed on specimens from all rock units encompassed by the current repository design. Much of the data collected are from the units close to or at the planned repository host horizon (RHH), the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and the Tptpln units. Data has been collected on all units from the surface through several rock units below the planned RHH. Experiments were also performed to determine the effect of temperature, saturation, pressure, strain rate, and specimen size. Testing on tuff from Yucca Mountain began in the late 1970’s and is continuing. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF INTACT ROCK 8.2.1 General Physical properties of intact rock include density and porosity. Measurements of rock density are performed utilizing a standardized approach, whereby the weight of rock fragment is determined both under dry and saturated conditions. Typically two types of densities are determined; 1) grain or matrix density and 2) bulk material density. While the first accounts for solid particles of rock material only, the second density includes intergranular voids and often assumed regular geometry of the rock sample. As indicated earlier, rock porosity appears to play an important part in assessing a broad range of rock parameters. This rock material property generally accounts for micro and macroscopic voids within rock structure. Typically, rock porosity estimate accounts for pores existing within the rock matrix and fractures common to the specific rock type. In addition to these two common types of material discontinuities/voids Topopah Spring tuff within its volume includes lithophysae, which are spherical voids varying in size and distribution. Its upper and lower lithophysal zones include an abundance of lithophysae, and their presence necessitates an assessment of porosity to develop a better understanding of the behavior of the lithophysae-rich TSw2 rock zones. Discussions of the lithostratigraphic rock unit properties presented earlier already indicate possible correlation between rock porosity and other rock parameters. An evaluation of the impact of lithophysae on the relevant lithostratigraphic rock unit behavior is presented in this section. 8.2.2 Assessment of Factors Impacting Physical Properties of Intact Rock In general, deformation and material characteristics change in response to variation in physical and environmental conditions. Examples of physical characteristics are bulk properties (including mineralogy, grain density, bulk densities and porosity), sample size which yields information about scale effects, and sample orientation in relation to anisotropy. Environmental conditions of concern include sample saturation, temperature, confining pressure, and loading rate or time-scale changes. Much is known about these effects on rocks in general (e.g., see Jaeger and Cook 1979; Goodman 1980) and the Yucca Mountain Project has collected large amounts of data on the tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada (e.g., Boyd et al. 1996a and 1996b; Martin et al. 1994 and 1995a and Nimick et al. 1985). Porosity: An important aspect of repository modeling is knowing the extent and magnitude of inherent variability (variability in results for samples at a specific location or specific porosity), as well as the variability resulting from a change in position within the rock mass (i.e., lateral and vertical variability). It has been frequently observed, that the total porosity is a strong indicator of the relative magnitude of Young’s modulus and strength properties. Therefore, more detailed knowledge of the variability and distribution of porosity is indicative of the variability in these key mechanical properties. Sample Size: The issue of scale effect is important because of the application of the properties of the lab-sized samples to the in situ conditions within Yucca Mountain. Small specimens are 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report expected to have different behavior than large specimens. One solution for addressing this scaling process is to test lab samples of different sizes to develop a predictable way to calculate the elastic and strength properties of larger rocks more relevant to the conditions in place. Sample Orientation (Anisotropy): The variation in mechanical properties with different orientations of the axis of the test specimen is the measure of the mechanical anisotropy in a material. Because of the known tuff depositional emplacement processes (ash fall and ash flow), there are some anisotropic petrologic features in the welded, nonlithophysal tuffs. If the mechanical anisotropy were found to be significant, the complexity of the design and performance confirmation modeling of the repository would be increased. Saturation: The proposed repository horizon within Yucca Mountain is planned for rock units that are partially saturated; however, as more of the repository openings are excavated and exposed to air circulation due to ventilation systems and as a result of elevated temperatures from the stored nuclear waste, the rock mass will begin to dry out. The effect of this drying process on the elastic and strength properties is important to stability issues about the potential repository openings. Temperature: Because of the nature of a nuclear waste repository, the environment will be heated above ambient conditions, so an understanding of the effects of these elevated temperatures on mechanical properties is also important. Confining Pressure: Most laboratory property experiments are gathered on tests at ambient pressure, but the repository is at depth within Yucca Mountain. Therefore, appropriate modeling efforts require information concerning the effect of the appropriate stress magnitudes around the potential repository and their impact on the mechanical properties. Rate or Time-Scale: While the lab experiments are performed in a relatively short span of time (most tests are less than 30 minutes in duration), the repository is being designed as viable for a very long time (because of the long decay and cooling times for the nuclear waste). Methodology must be developed to determine the long-term behavior of the tuffs through the running of short-term experiments and applying appropriate techniques to extrapolate the results to very long periods of time. The effect of varying porosity, sample size, sample orientation (i.e., anisotropy), saturation, temperature, confining pressure and rate/time will be discussed, when appropriate, in the following two sections on elastic and strength properties. To facilitate the display of data in summary tables, a code system was developed that allows for a concise display of sample characteristics and testing conditions. Information pertaining to the rock unit from which the sample originated, the sample diameter, saturation, temperature, length to diameter ratio, strain rate, and confining pressures are included in this code. Table 8-1 presents an explanation and guide to using the code system shown in the summary tables for the data describing results of testing of cores from the RHH rock units. Several other rock units exist above and below the four RHH rock units and it is difficult to incorporate a system to accommodate these units. Data presented outside of the four RHH are presented exclusive of the first digit of the code presented below. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A discrepancy in the method confining pressures have been reported was investigated for the compilation of the summary tables included herein. Some reports have reported confining pressures in terms of total pressure, while others have included confining pressures reported as gage. An experiment that is performed with no hydrostatic pressure being applied by the testing machine has the atmospheric pressure acting as a confining pressure. Inclusion of the atmospheric pressure (0.1 MPa) allows the investigator to report the total pressure. However, this pressure is also internal to the specimen (i.e., there is an equal pore pressure), and so the effective confining pressure (confining pressure minus pore pressure) is zero (Terzaghi 1943, p. 12). Knowing that atmospheric pressure will be present for all tests allows the use of gage pressure for recording of the pressure condition. Gage pressure is an additional pressure applied above atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the reported test conditions “unconfined” and “confining pressure of 0.1 MPa” are, in fact, the same pressure condition. Unconfined intact rock compressive elastic and strength results are summarized with some values of 0.1 MPa confining pressure in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. The summary tables of results show all codes, for which strength and/or elastic property testing was performed. Subsequent elastic parameters may have been omitted while testing or not included in testing records. Data is also sorted by the magnitude of total porosity. In the summary tables shown hereafter an 11% total porosity threshold is used as a sorting criterion for breakdown of additional data where appropriate. Unlike the data tabulation that is provided in the data qualification reports (Cikanek et al. 2003a, Cikanek et al. 2003b), Busted Butte test results are not weighted differently than test results from specimens collected from surface and subsurface drilling operations. Data is presented in proper lithostratrigraphic and thermomechanical sequence as described in Section 5.3. Statistical values presented in Table 8-6, Tables 8-28 through 8-32, and Tables 8-35 through 837 are simple statistical measures consisting of the mean, standard deviation, standard error, minimum value, maximum value, and range. These values were determined within Microsoft Excel using the functions of “AVERAGE” to determine the mean. This function simply sums the selected data and divides this summation by the number of selected points. The “STDEV” function calculates the standard deviation which is a measure of how widely values are dispersed from the average value (the mean). The standard deviation calculated assumes that a sample of the overall population is representative of the entire population. Often there is limited comparative data, so this assumption may not be easily verified. The standard error is calculated by taking the square root of the standard deviation squared divided by the number of data. The “COUNT” function is used to determine the number of selected data in a range. The “MIN” and “MAX” function reports the minimum and maximum values, respectively, of the selected data. Finally, the range is simply the mathematical difference of the maximum and minimum values. The functions are standard functions of Microsoft Excel and are not subject to qualification under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management; see Section 3.2. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-1. Explanation of Code System for Static Data Strain Rate 1 2 3 4 O Unit Tptpul Tptpll Tptpmn Tptpln Other units 1 2 3 4 5 Size (mm) 25 38 41 51/57/60 82 1 2 3 Saturation Dry Saturated Ambient 1 2 3 4 T Temperature (C) 20/22/24 150 195/200 250 unknown 1 2 3 4 5 L/D Ratio 1.7 to 2.4 <1.7 2.4 to 3.0 0.75 0.5 2 3 4 5 6 (s-1) 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 0 1 2 3 4 6 127 6 <0.4 7 1.E-07 5 7 8 267/238 290 7 8 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 4.5 8 9 1.E-08 1.E-09 6 7 9 228.6 013/15 9 4.5 to 5 NN/A N N/A 8 Example Example Confining Pressure (Mpa) 0, 0.1 5 6 10 15 20 24 50 100 3121153 1st number = 3 = Middle Non-Lithophysal 2nd number = 1 = 25mm 3rd number = 2 = saturated 4th number = 1 = room temp 5th number = 1 = 1.7 to 2.4 L/D Ratio 6th number = 5 = 1x10-5 strain rate 7th number = 3 = 10 Mpa confining pressure 4412530 1st number = 4 = Lower Non-Lithophysal 2nd number = 4 = 50/57 mm 3rd number = 1 = dry 4th number = 2 = 150 C 5th number = 5 = L/D Ratio of 0.5 6th number = 3 = 1x10-3 strain rate 7th number = 3 = 10 Mpa confining pressure Table 8-2. Explanation of Code System for Dynamic Data Strain Rate 1 2 3 4 O Unit Tptpul Tptpll Tptpmn Tptpln Other units 1 2 3 4 5 Size (mm) 25 38 41 51/57/60 82 1 2 3 Saturation Dry Saturated Ambient 1 2 3 4 T Temperature (C) 20/22/24 150 195/200 250 unknown 1 2 3 4 5 L/D Ratio 1.7 to 2.4 <1.7 2.4 to 3.0 0.75 0.5 2 3 4 5 6 (s-1) 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 0 1 2 3 4 6 127 6 <0.4 7 1.E-07 7 8 267/238 290 7 8 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 4.5 8 9 1.E-08 1.E-09 9 0 228.6 13/15 9 N 4.5 to 5 N/A N N/A Example Example Dynamic Data Confining Pressure (Mpa) 0 0.7 2.1 4.1 6.9 O13T2N3 1st = O = Other unit 2nd = 1 = 25mm 3rd = 3 = Ambient Saturation 4th = T = Temperature Unknown 5th = 2 = Length to Diamater Ratio < 1.7:1 6th = N = Strain Rate Not Applicable 7th = 3 = Confining Pressure of 4.1 MPa 213T2N4 1st = 2 = Topopah Spring Lower Lithopysal 2nd = 1 = 25mm 3rd = 3 = Ambient Saturation 4th = T = Temperature Unknown 5th = 2 = Length to Diamater Ratio < 1.7:1 6th = N = Strain Rate Not Applicable 7th = 4 = Confining Pressure of 6.9 MPa NOTES: Data in the summary tables is color coded and indicates the following: 1) data on a white background indicates that less than six unconfined points of data are available for comparison, 2) yellow background indicates six or more unconfined data points exist for the represented condition of that test, 3) light green background indicates less than six confined data values are available for analysis, and 4) dark green color indicates that there are six or more data points available for the condition represented for the confined test. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Specimens such as indirect tensile strength do not include strain rate or confining pressure values, as these tests were all done at the same strain rate and were perfomed in unconfined stress conditions. Most tests did not explicitly state what temperature the test was performed, but was most likely done at room temperature. Table 8-2 provides a code description for dynamic Young’s modulus and dynamic Poisson’s ratio data found in this report. Summaries of results presented in Section 8.4 of this report are comprised of rock specimens that qualify as both matrix and bulk rock specimens. The classification of rock matrix material, bulk rock, and rock mass is discussed in Section 7.1.1. In order to physically recover the specimen and perform mechanical tests on rock, it must be intact and have no complete fractures passing through the specimen. Rock inclusive of fractures on a great scale is classified as rock mass and would not have been possible to test mechanically in the laboratory. The rock that was tested was either consisting wholly of rock matrix, or rock matrix, vapor phased altered material, small or partial discontinuity, and lithophysae. The differentiation between these conditions for historical specimens is difficult as the inclusion of porosity measurements and detailed laboratory condition of the specimen, both externally and internal is difficult to review. Specimens may have contained some degree of lithophysae, regardless of what unit they were sampled from. An illustration of the effect of lithophysae and vapor phase altered material on porosity and sample recovery is further develped in Section 8.2.3.4. 8.2.3 Measured Sample Porosity 8.2.3.1 General In the welded, devitrified tuffs of the Topopah Spring Member (TSM) of the Paintbrush Tuff within Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Price et al. (1985) identified three components as being distinctly different in their mechanical properties. These components are the matrix (also referred to as matrix-groundmass), the lithophysae (or lithophysal cavities) and the vapor-phase- altered material (also referred to as rims and/or spots). Figure 8-3 show the sketch identifying and illustrating the relative location of these components. The explanation of lithophysae is general and also applies to the lithophysae found in the Tiva Canyon lithophysal zones (Buesch et. al 1996b, p. 12, 16-21.). In order to determine the total porosity of a specimen when the abundance of components has been measured, it is necessary to know the porosity of each of the components. The USGS determined the porosity of component material found in the RHH tuff of Yucca Mountain. Core samples (actually end-member pieces from core samples used for other tests) were obtained from the Tptpul and Tptpll rock units in order to determine the porosity of the matrix-groundmass and rim/spot material, both of which contribute to a determination of total rock porosity. Forty-seven core samples from ESF and ECRB boreholes were cut into three component parts (matrixgroundmass, rims, spots, and lithophysae) and analyzed (DTN: GS030483351030.001). The data from this DTN was assigned appropriate lithostratigraphic units and statistically summarized. The results can be found in Tables 8-3 through 8-5. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In carrying out this analysis, ideally a sufficient number of end-member samples could be identified that were 100 percent composed of one type of material component. However, this was generally not the case, and so a threshold value of 98 percent or greater one type of material component was adopted as an approximation. A comparison of results was also made using a threshold of 90 percent or greater end-member component as shown in Tables 8-3 through 8-5. Comparison of the summary statistics for material components using both of the threshold percentages indicated that they are essentially identical to two significant figures. Therefore, either the 98 or 90 percent and above threshold values are considered representative of the actual component porosities. A limited number of samples were available at a sufficient percent of component material from the Tptpul. Comparing Tables 8-3 and 8-5 shows that, in general, matrix-groundmass (MGM) and rim porosities from the Tptpul and Tptpll are essentially the same. Also, the porosity of rim and spot samples were indistinguishable and are represented as one set of properties. Summarizing the component porosities using the those samples having 98 percent or greater proportion of the targeted material, the measured porosity values of 31 matrix-groundmass samples range from 0.08 to 0.13 cm3/cm3 and have a mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 (Table 8-3). The rim and spot (R&S) porosity for 18 samples ranges from 0.23 to 0.36 cm3/cm3 with a mean of 0.30 cm3/cm3. 8.2.3.2 Matrix Porosity The matrix material in the lithophysal and nonlithophysal tuffs of the Topopah Spring Member is moderately to densely welded (Price et al. 1985 and 1987). The porosity of the matrix has been described by Price and others (1985 and 1987) as consisting of pores less than 2 µm in size and generally falling in the range of 0.08 to 0.12 cm3/cm3 void fraction (although smaller matrix porosities have been measured down to about 0.05). This range was confirmed by the recent component testing reported in the previous section where a mean matrix porosity value of 0.10 cm3/cm3 was determined. For modeling purposes it is useful to isolate and report the properties of the matrix-groundmass. Unfortunately, good physical descriptions of many of the tested samples are not available. In an effort to screen out both lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock samples containing lithophysae and vapor phase altered material (rims and spots), a porosity of 0.11 cm3/cm3 (11%) was selected as a sorting criterion for calculation of matrix material summary statistics. Justification for using the 11 percent value comes from the fact that it lies just above the mean porosity of matrix- groundmass material and the other components have significantly higher values of porosity (see Table 8-3). 8.2.3.3 Lithophysal Porosity The lithophysal cavities are relatively large (ranging from a centimeter to a meter in size) pores within the tuffs that were formed by separation of a vapor-rich phase from the solid components of the tuff during welding and devitrification process (Price et al. 1985). The volume fraction of lithophysae within the tuffs can range from 0.00 up to 0.40 or even higher. The mineralogic distinction between the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock is minimal, with the differentiation in the material being most apparent when lithophysae are considered. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-3. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpul and Tptpll Samples (cm3/cm3) All Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 98 to 100% MGM 31 0.102 0.002 0.010 0.098 0.100 0.081 0.134 90 to 100% MGM 39 0.103 0.002 0.012 0.117 0.101 0.081 0.138 98 to 100% Rims 9 0.295 0.009 0.026 0.088 0.291 0.257 0.347 90 to 100% Rims 24 0.303 0.006 0.028 0.092 0.296 0.257 0.372 98 to 100% Spots 9 0.298 0.011 0.034 0.114 0.295 0.234 0.362 90 to 100% Spots 11 0.292 0.010 0.034 0.116 0.294 0.234 0.362 98 to 100% R&S 18 0.296 0.007 0.030 0.101 0.294 0.234 0.362 90 to 100% R&S 35 0.300 0.005 0.030 0.100 0.294 0.234 0.372 Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 Table 8-4. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpul Samples (cm3/cm3) Tptpul Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 98 to 100% MGM 6 0.098 0.005 0.013 0.133 0.095 0.081 0.115 90 to 100% MGM 11 0.103 0.004 0.012 0.117 0.101 0.081 0.117 98 to 100% Rims NA 90 to 100% Rims 5 0.288 0.007 0.015 0.052 0.282 0.274 0.311 98 to 100% Spots NA 90 to 100% Spots NA 98 to 100% R&S NA 90 to 100% R&S 5 0.288 0.007 0.015 0.052 0.282 0.274 0.311 Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 Table 8-5. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpll Samples (cm3/cm3) Tptpll Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 98 to 100% MGM 25 0.102 0.002 0.010 0.098 0.100 0.092 0.134 90 to 100% MGM 28 0.104 0.002 0.011 0.106 0.101 0.092 0.138 98 to 100% Rims 9 0.295 0.009 0.026 0.088 0.291 0.257 0.347 90 to 100% Rims 19 0.307 0.007 0.029 0.094 0.306 0.257 0.372 98 to 100% Spots 9 0.298 0.011 0.034 0.114 0.295 0.234 0.362 90 to 100% Spots 11 0.292 0.010 0.034 0.116 0.294 0.234 0.362 98 to 100% R&S 18 0.296 0.007 0.030 0.101 0.294 0.234 0.362 90 to 100% R&S 30 0.302 0.006 0.031 0.103 0.294 0.234 0.372 Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The lithophysae in the Tptpul generally tend to be smaller, roughly 1 cm to 10 cm in diameter, than the lithophysae in the Tptpll, which tend to have lithophysae which are highly variable. The lithophysae found in the Tptpll range roughly from less than 1 cm to 1.8 m in size. The lithophysae in the Tptpul tend to be more uniform in size and distribution than the lithophysae in the Tptpll, which tends to have shapes that are highly variable and are of simple geometry to irregular, cuspate, and merged. The lithophysae have varying infilling and rim thickness. The lithophysae in both units have a volume percentage that varies consistently with stratigraphic position and are stratigraphically predictable. The porosity of a lithophysal cavity is 1.0 cm3/cm3 void fraction or 100% as expressed as a percentage. The lithophysae are often filled or lined with vapor phase altered material having porosity between the rock matrix porosity and the porosity of the lithophysae (1.0). The vapor phase altered material generally has porosity between .30 and .80, while rim material generally has porosity between 0.20 and 0.40 (Buesch 2003). 8.2.3.4 Total Porosity The total porosity of a specimen is either calculated by saturating the specimen and determining what volume of the sample is occupied by water, by drying the samples and using the dry bulk and average grain densities, or by an approximation method using a point count of the exterior of the specimen in combination with the porosity of the components encountered. The total porosity in a rock is defined as the summation of the volume fraction of all open (pore) spaces contained within the solid material constituents. Therefore, the total porosity in the welded, devitrified of the Topopah Spring is calculated by adding together the volume fraction of pores contained within each of the three material components. The porosity data associated with mechanical strength properties are currently in various levels of quality. A data qualification plan has been approved to gather and qualify data that meets the requirements of AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data. The porosity data presented in this report are either currently qualified and verified, or is associated with strength data that has been recently qualified. It is assumed that if the necessary documents for qualification were in order for the strength parameters, they will also be adequate for associated porosity data. The porosity data qualification effort is expected to occur in the fall if 2003. All porosity data plotted in Section 3.5 are total porosity determined from laboratory calculation techniques. The total porosity of a specimen is size dependant. Small samples cannot capture lithophysae in their entirety. Figure 8-1 is a photograph of the right tunnel wall between stations 14+93 and 14+96 in the ECRB from the Tptpll. The one-meter high by three-meter long section of wall was then analyzed for the abundance and location of lithophysae and altered material. The lithophysae (voids) are outlined in red, spot material (solid) is outlined in lavender, rim material is outlined in green, and clasts are outlined in yellow. This panel map and accompanying information is available in DTN GS021008314224.002. The illustration from the DTN was further manipulated for illustration purposes. The ability to capture a specimen of the rock mass is impractical, as the specimen must be of several lithophysae in diameter, which in this case the specimen would be on the order of meters, and because the rock mass includes fractures, a complete and intact specimen for testing would 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report be nearly impossible to obtain. Bulk rock consists of lithophysae, vapor phase altered material, cracks (healed), and matrix material. The largest specimens mechanically tested in the laboratory are 290 mm cylindrical cores obtained from the lithophysal zones and the smallest specimens mechanically tested were 25.4 mm in diameter. Figure 8-2 is the same panel map as shown in Figure 8-1 with six randomly located sets of specimen outlines. The rectangles at each of the six locations indicate the outline of theoretical core specimens with length to diameter ratios of 2:1. The outlines are of vertical cores with diameters of 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, 82 mm, 127 mm, 228 mm, 267 mm, and 290 mm with corresponding lengths of twice the diameter of the specimen. The geometric centers of each set of concentric rings are common. If one assumes that the plane of the photograph shown in Figures 8-1 and 8-2 is representative of the conditions perpendicular to the page, then the area of the theoretical specimens can be roughly assumed to represent the volumes of the specimens as well. The total porosity of a specimen is dependant on the volume that is sampled, and this is best illustrated in Figure 8-3, which is the same panel map in Figures 8-1 and 8-2 with the photograph removed and the theoretical specimens outlined. Figure 8-3 is an illustration of the difficulty in obtaining specimens that are representative of the bulk rock. Of the six sets of theoretical specimens, four of the six 25.4 mm specimens are composed entirely of matrix material (second, fourth fifth and sixth from the left), one is primarily lithophysae (furthest left), and one primarily of spot material (third from left). The porosity of the recoverable material would be representative of matrix material. The specimen primarily composed of lithophysae (first from left) would be unrecoverable from the borehole intact, and therefore would be unable to be tested. The four specimens that are composed entirely of matrix material are from a lithophysal zone, but contain no lithophysae, therefore are comparable to specimens recovered from nonlithophysal zones. Because of their size, it is difficult to capture lithophysae having an impact on total porosity in small specimens, in particular 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, and even 82 mm diameter specimens, and samples from all lithostratigraphic units can be compared. The first set of theoretic specimens (furthest to the left) most likely would not be able to be recovered as the lateral dimension of the large lithophysae located in the center of the specimen would make recovery difficult. Recovery of specimens depends on the size and location of the sample in relation to the lithophysae. To capture the effective total porosity of the rock, sample specimens of sufficient size must be obtained. Laboratory measurements of specimen total porosity are summarized in Table 8-6. Various methods of porosity determination were used. The qualification of porosity data is planned and will incorporated into a DTN that will compile all data. The presentation in Table 8-6 is from various DTNs associated with mechanical strength testing. Some DTNs were qualified, and others were not. Table 8-6 is not a table of complete qualified source data and each example should be investigated before use. Table IX-2 of Attachment IX provides the measured porosity for each laboratory specimen summarized in Table 8-6. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 100 mm 10 cm 200 mm 20 cm 500 mm 50 cm 1000 mm 1 m Source: GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-1. Panel Map Photograph and Stenciled Lithophysae and Vapor Phase Altered Material at Station 14+93 Through Station 14+96 Right Wall 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 100 m m 10 cm 200 mm 20 cm 500 mm 50 cm 1000 mm 1 m SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-2. Panel Map of Lithophysal Zone at Station 14+93 Through Station 14+96 Right Wall and Randomly Located Specimen Outlines 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10 cm 20 cm 500 mm 50 cm 1 m 1000 mm 200 mm 100 mm Source: Adapted from GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-3. Panel Map of Station 14+93 through 14+96 Right Wall Including Outline of Lithophysae and Randomly Selected Specimen Outlines 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results Thermo-Litho- Porosity (%) 5 3.74 44.2 35.8 i 7 3.11 47.8 44.6 11 7.74 27.6 31.7 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 3.23 23.7 1 N/A 13.3 13.3 5 3.69 15.7 14.2 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 7.75 4 7.15 7 14.3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 6.12 1.71 1 N/A 10.4 10.4 1 8.40 N/A 17 8.39 2.73 11.2 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 8.80 N/A 2 N/A 17.9 l1 N/A 16.1 16.1 Tpcpv2 4 9.54 21.6 Tpcpv1 3 0.31 37.8 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A 54 54 54 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A Tpy 3 3.79 30.5 1 N/A 38 38 38 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 3.78 51.2 42.6 11.9 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 54.7 54.7 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 39.8 39.8 6 7.28 15.5 2.36 15.4 12.1 2.07 13.8 3.51 14.4 22.1 19.2 5 1.18 14.3 12.4 5 2.36 14.4 11.1 5 0.11 18.2 18.2 3 1.97 18.7 17.2 1 N/A 14.9 14.9 5 1 2 N/A () 1 8.90 N/A iUnit ll UO TCw Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range Tmr O421150 42.46 1.7 44.5 8.7 TpkO421150 47.84 1.2 52.8 8.2 O421150 26.41 2.3 10 41.7 O431150 N/A N/A N/A Tpcrn2 O421150 25.97 1.3 24.95 32.4 8.7 Tpcrn1 O421150 13.30 N/A 13.3 N/A O421150 17.64 1.6 22.6 8.4 O431143 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431146 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431147 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A O121151 8.33 1.56 0.8 7.2 10.6 3.4 O121153 7.15 0.06 0.0 7.1 7.2 0.1 O421150 9.93 2.57 1.0 8.6 7.4 6.9 O421151 N/A N/A N/A O421153 N/A N/A N/A O431144 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431146 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431147 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A O421150 0.4 5.50 4.50 10.20 5.7 O421151 10.40 N/A 10.4 N/A O421153 N/A 8.4 8.4 8.4 N/A O421150 0.7 7.5 5.2 16.4 O421151 N/A N/A N/A N/A O421153 N/A N/A N/A O431140 8.80 N/A 8.8 8.8 8.8 O431143 N/A 8.8 8.8 8.8 N/A O431145 17.75 N/A 17.75 8.8 26.7 Tpcpnc O421153 16.10 N/A 16.1 N/A O421150 29.80 4.8 32.00 16.80 38.40 O421150 38.07 0.2 38 38.4 0.6 O421150 57.10 N/A 57.10 57.10 57.10 O431140 54.00 N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A N/A O421150 32.93 2.2 31 37.3 6.8 O421150 38.00 N/A O421151 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A O421150 50.56 1.3 54.5 O421153 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A O421150 54.70 N/A 54.7 N/A O431150 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tptrv3 O421150 39.80 N/A 39.8 N/A O121150 10.22 3.0 10.15 2.9 18.4 O121151 13 15.36 0.7 19.2 7.1 O121153 11 13.72 0.6 11 16.4 5.4 O421150 52 14.37 0.5 2.9 O421151 14.26 0.5 15.5 3.1 O421153 14.30 1.1 16.6 5.5 O431150 18.28 0.0 18.4 0.2 O421150 19.00 1.1 21.1 3.9 O421151 14.90 N/A 14.9 N/A O121150 7.56 0.40 0.2 7.5 7.1 8.1 O121170 8.90 N/A 8.9 8.1 9.7 1.6 continuedO421150 N/A 8.9 8.9 8.9 N/A Mechanical Unit stratgraphic TSw1 Tpcpmn Tpcpul Tpcpln Tpbt2 Tpbt3 TpcpPTn Tpbt4 Tpcrn Tptf Tptrl Tptrn Tpp ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: SNL02000000011.000, SNL02030193001.001, SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003, SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.007, SNL02030193001.008, SNL02030193001.012, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014, SNL02030193001.015, SNL02030193001.016, SNL02030193001.018, SNL02030193001.019, SNL02030193001.020, SNL02030193001.021, SNL02030193001.022, SNL02030193001.028, SNL02040687003.001, SNL02072983001.001, SNL02072983003.001, SNSAND80145300.000, SNSAND82048100.000, SNSAND82105500.000, SNSAND82131400.000, SNSAND82131500.000, SNSAND83164600.000, SNSAND84086000.000, SNSAND84110100.000, SNSAND85070300.000, SNSAND91089400.000, SN0305L0207502.006 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results (continued) Thermo-Litho-Porosity (%) 7 3.99 15.3 11.4 11.9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 3.03 30.9 3 42.8 25.3 3 38.9 38.7 38.7 6 9.14 31.6 25.6 1 40.9 N/A 40.9 40.9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0.00 10.3 10.3 0 14 0.77 10.4 10.3 6 0.81 11.1 10.4 6 1.01 10 12.2 2 N/A 10.3 10.3 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 1.76 8 15.2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 13.6 12.6 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 1.11 10.6 9 12 3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 1.57 11.6 13.9 6 1.75 5 1.38 10.6 12.6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 4.01 12.9 24.7 17 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 14.5 14.5 0 2 N/A 12.9 12.9 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 2.46 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 26.4 N/A 26.4 23.6 1 25.7 N/A 25.7 25.7 () 3 3.52 32.4 30.6 Unit iUnit ) ll l Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 1421150 15.61 1.5 23.3 1421151 N/A N/A N/A 1421153 N/A N/A N/A 1431150 N/A N/A N/A 1613150 N/A N/A N/A 1621150 N/A N/A N/A 1631150 N/A N/A N/A 1721150 35.21 1.0 34.95 40 9.1 1813250 41.63 15.78 9.1 56.8 31.50 1821150 0.35 0.2 39.3 0.60 1831150 34.95 3.7 51.7 26.10 1831250 N/A 40.9 N/A 3111350 N/A N/A N/A 3121130 10.30 0.0 10.3 3121150 10.79 0.2 12.2 1.9 3121151 11.23 0.3 12.2 1.8 3121153 11.13 0.4 11.05 2.2 3121170 10.30 N/A 10.3 3231150 N/A N/A N/A 3231350 N/A N/A N/A 3331350 N/A N/A N/A 3411150 N/A N/A N/A 3411151 N/A N/A N/A 3411153 N/A N/A N/A 3411170 N/A N/A N/A 3412130 N/A N/A N/A 3412150 N/A N/A N/A 3412153 N/A N/A N/A 3412170 N/A N/A N/A 3412180 N/A N/A N/A 3421130 N/A N/A N/A 3421150 10.31 0.4 10 7.2 3421151 N/A N/A N/A 3421153 13.60 N/A 14.6 3421155 N/A N/A N/A 3421170 N/A N/A N/A 3421190 10.65 0.5 3422150 N/A N/A N/A 3422151 N/A N/A N/A 3422162 11.52 0.7 9.7 4.2 3422163 11.22 0.7 11.35 8.7 13.9 5.2 3422164 10.70 0.6 9.3 3.3 3521150 N/A N/A N/A 3621150 N/A N/A N/A 3631150 N/A N/A N/A 3921150 N/A N/A N/A 2121150 13.43 0.8 7.7 2121151 N/A N/A N/A 2121153 14.50 N/A 14.5 2121170 12.90 N/A 12.9 2131150 N/A N/A N/A 2411150 N/A N/A N/A 2412150 N/A N/A N/A 2421150 12.68 0.9 12.05 9.9 17.6 7.7 2421153 N/A N/A N/A 2431150 N/A N/A N/A 2512150 N/A N/A N/A 2531150 N/A N/A N/A 2613150 N/A N/A N/A 2621150 N/A N/A N/A 2631150 N/A N/A N/A 2813250 N/A 29.2 5.60 2821150 N/A 25.7 N/A continued2831150 33.47 2.0 37.4 6.80 TSw2 Mechanical stratgraphic (cont. from previous pageTptpTSw1 Tptpmn Tptpu ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: SEE SOURCE DTNS ON PREVIOUS PAGE 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results (continued) Thermo-Litho-Porosity (%) Mechanical Unit stratigraphic Unit Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range (cont. from previous page) Tptpln 4121120 4121140 4121150 4121160 4421150 0 0 5 0 5 N/A N/A 12.40 N/A 10.44 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 1.55 N/A N/A 0.0 N/A 0.7 N/A N/A 12.4 N/A 9.8 N/A N/A 12.4 N/A 9.6 N/A N/A 12.4 N/A 13.2 N/A N/A 0 N/A 3.6 TSw2 4421151 4421153 4422164 4431150 1 1 1 0 6.90 5.70 7.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.9 5.7 7.6 N/A 6.9 5.7 7.6 N/A 6.9 5.7 7.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TSw3 Tptpv3 O421150 O421151 O121153 O421153 0 0 3 0 N/A N/A 3.03 N/A N/A N/A 1.27 N/A N/A N/A 0.7 N/A N/A N/A 3.5 N/A N/A N/A 1.6 N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 2.4 N/A Tptpv2 O121150 O431150 O431150 O121130 1 2 2 3 13.9 14.9 7.83 38.1 N/A N/A N/A 0.00 N/A N/A N/A 0.0 13.9 14.9 7.83 38.1 13.9 13.9 7.45 38.1 13.9 15.9 8.20 38.1 N/A 2 0.75 0 Tptpv1 O121151 O121150 O121153 2 5 2 35.2 36.94 35.2 N/A 1.59 N/A N/A 0.7 N/A 35.2 38.1 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 38.1 35.2 0 2.9 0 CHn Tpbt1 O121150 O121170 O121170 O421150 O111150 O121130 0 0 2 0 2 2 N/A N/A 38.1 N/A 37.80 36.70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38.1 N/A 37.8 36.7 N/A N/A 38.1 N/A 37.8 36.7 N/A N/A 38.1 N/A 37.8 36.7 N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 Tac O121155 O121170 O121150 O121153 O131153 O421150 6 2 34 8 2 0 39.53 36.70 39.03 38.83 37.80 N/A 1.34 N/A 1.90 1.73 N/A N/A 0.5 N/A 0.3 0.6 N/A N/A 40.4 36.7 39 39.1 37.8 N/A 37.8 36.7 36.7 36.7 37.8 N/A 40.4 36.7 43 40.4 37.8 N/A 2.6 0 6.3 3.7 0 N/A 1 N/A 36.6 36.6 36.6 3 2.70 32.2 29.5 34.9 8 3.93 32.5 28.7 36.4 4 0.29 23.5 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 17 2.00 5 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 17.7 8 1.62 22.7 24.4 11 1.83 5 18 1.14 25 28 3 1 N/A 21.9 21.9 21.9 Tcpbt 4 0.06 28 28.1 4 0.00 0 1 N/A 16.7 16.7 16.7 Tcplv 0 NA icallO431140 36.60 N/A N/A O431165 32.20 1.6 5.4 Tacbt O121150 32.53 1.4 7.7 Tcbbt O121150 23.75 0.1 23.75 24 0.5 O113141 N/A N/A N/A N/A O113143 N/A N/A N/A N/A O113145 N/A N/A N/A N/A O121150 24.59 0.5 24 23 28 O123143 N/A N/A N/A N/A O123145 N/A N/A N/A N/A O123146 N/A N/A N/A N/A O431145 19.85 N/A 19.85 22 4.3 Tcblv O121150 22.70 0.6 21 3.4 Tcbuv O121150 35.65 0.6 36 34 39 O121150 26.92 0.3 27.15 O431147 21.90 N/A N/A O121150 28.05 0.0 28.05 0.1 O121150 32.00 0.0 32 32 32 O431140 16.70 N/A N/A O431140 Undifferentiated Listed Alphabety, Not in Depositional Sequence Tcplc Tcpm Tcbm Tcbuc /N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 14.5 1 N/A 19.1 19.1 19.1 4 0.23 23.2 23.4 4 0.29 20.5 29 7.33 25.5 17.6 24.4 4 0.23 21.2 21.4 7 2.66 32.9 27.9 N/A N/A N/A O431145 16.25 N/A 16.25 18 3.5 O431148 19.10 N/A N/A Tctuc O121150 23.20 0.1 23 0.4 Tctlc O121150 20.75 0.1 20.75 21 0.5 Tctlv O121150 24.49 1.4 42 Tctm O121150 21.20 0.1 21 0.4 Tctuv O121150 30.81 1.0 33 5.1 ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: SNL02000000011.000, SNL02030193001.001, SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003, SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.007, SNL02030193001.008, SNL02030193001.012, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014, SNL02030193001.015, SNL02030193001.016, SNL02030193001.018, SNL02030193001.019, SNL02030193001.020, SNL02030193001.021, SNL02030193001.022, SNL02030193001.028, SNL02040687003.001, SNL02072983001.001, SNL02072983003.001, SNSAND80145300.000, SNSAND82048100.000, SNSAND82105500.000, SNSAND82131400.000, SNSAND82131500.000, SNSAND83164600.000, SNSAND84086000.000, SNSAND84110100.000, SNSAND85070300.000, SNSAND91089400.000, SN0305L0207502.006 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.2.4 Density 8.2.4.1 General Rock densities are used in the thermal mechanical calculation of stresses at Yucca Mountain due to heating and cooling of the repository. Density data is commonly presented in terms of the following properties: 1) dry grain density or matrix density data, 2) dry bulk density data, and 3) saturated bulk density data. Included below are the existing Yucca Mountain density data in the format as shown. Density and porosity information derived from geophysical data will be added in the next version of this report. 8.2.4.2 Dry Bulk Density The data presented in Table 8-7 include dry bulk density values for the various lithostratigraphic and thermal-mechanical units of the Yucca Mountain lithostratigraphic rock units. The mean values for thermal-mechanical units are determined by averaging the densities of the lithostratigraphic units within each thermal-mechanical unit, weighted according to the thickness of each lithostratigraphic unit. Additional details are provided in the Microsoft Excel file, thermal properties TM units v1.xls (BSC 2003a, Attachment I). 8.2.4.3 Saturated Bulk Density The saturated bulk density data are provided in Table 8-8. The mean density value for these data is 2.41 g/cc. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-7. Density Data for Various Thermal Mechanical Units and Associated Lithostratigraphic Units Thermal Mechanical Unit Stratigraphic Unit Thicknessa (m) DryBulk Density (kg/m3) DTNb TCw / PTn Tpcpv3 0.0 2310 SN0307T0503102.009 Tpcpv2 5.1 1460 Tpcpv1 2.4 1460 Tpbt4 0.5 1460 Tpy 3.8 1460 Tpbt3 3.8 1460 Tpp 5.1 1460 Tpbt2 8.3 1460 Tptrv3 1.9 1460 Tptrv2 1.2 1460 Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1460 TSw1 Tptrv1 1.2 2310 Tptrn 35.6 2190 Tptrl 6.1 2190 Tptpul 66.8 1834 SN0208T0503102.007 Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1974 TSw2 / TSw3 Tptpmn 38.3 2148 Tptpll 95.6 1979 Tptpln 55.1 2211 Tptpv3 12.0 2310 SN0307T0503102.009 Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 2095 CHn Tptpv2 4.7 1460 Tptpv1 15.4 1460 Tpbt1 2.0 1460 Calico 45.5 1670 Calicobt 15.9 1670 Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1614 NOTES: aThickness of units extracted from DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002. The details of this extraction are provided in Drift Degradation Analysis, BSC 2003a. bMean values are calculated in this report and not provided by the DTNs listed in this table. Data extracted from DTN: SN0208T0503102.007 are summarized in BSC 2002h, Table 7-10. Source: BSC 2003a 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-8. Density Data from the Tptpln Unit Borehole Sample Number Saturated Bulk Density (g/cc) NRG-7a NRG-7a-1230.2-SNL 2.395 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1236.7-SNL 2.393 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1252.3-SNL 2.369 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1257.8-SNL 2.421 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1259.1-SNL 2.420 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1265.2-SNL 2.426 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1314.8-SNL 2.418 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1399.1-A-SNL 2.409 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1400.5-B-SNL 2.428 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1230.2-SNL 2.339 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.416 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.396 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.421 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1307.0-SNL 2.414 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1307.0-SNL 2.411 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1348.8-SNL 2.440 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1348.8-SNL 2.424 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1353.7-SNL 2.388 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1363.5-SNL 2.442 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1385.0-SNL 2.424 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1385.0-SNL 2.419 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1402.7-SNL 2.358 NRG-7a NRG-7a-1409.0-SNL 2.450 SD-12 SD-12-1073.3-SNL 2.415 SD-12 SD-12-1077.1-SNL 2.426 SD-12 SD-12-1107.1-SNL 2.416 SD-12 SD-12-1112.1-SNL 2.400 SD-12 SD-12-1118.9-SNL 2.372 SD-12 SD-12-1209.0-SNL 2.423 SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1243-SNL 2.418 SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1298-SNL 2.439 SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1346.5-SNL 2.419 Mean Density Value 2.411 DTN: SNL02030193001.027 Source: BSC 2003a 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3 THERMAL PROPERTIES OF LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC ROCK UNITS 8.3.1 General A unique feature of the repository design is to assess the performance of the repository subjected to a large amount of heat that will be generated by waste packages emplaced in emplacement drifts. The performance of the repository is largely determined by energy transport within the rock mass adjacent to the emplacement drifts. The energy transport involves the processes of heat transfer, fluid migration and phase changes, and volumetric changes. These processes are directly controlled by the rock mass thermal properties such as thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and thermal expansion. Use of laboratory and field measurements to determine thermal properties of the Yucca Mountain tuff has been a significant part of the Yucca Mountain Office of Repository Development (YMP) Site Characterization Efforts (DOE 1988 [100282], Section 8.3.1.15). These measurements are essential in providing not only the site-specific values of thermal properties among other parameters but also the information of their spatial variability and dependencies on temperature, porosity and/or fracture, and moisture content. Additionally, these testing efforts have also assisted in development of theoretical models that describe spatial correlation of thermal properties and correlation between rock mass thermal properties, intact rock thermal properties, and other rock properties such as porosity. Use of theoretical models to estimate rock mass thermal properties, for example thermal conductivity, is an important alternative to field measurements when such measurements are either unfeasible or unavailable. The data collected so far cover a number of lithostratigraphic units of the Yucca Mountain tuff. Majority of the data are for the upper lithophysal (Tptpul), the middle nonlithophysal (Tptpmn), the lower lithophysal (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) units. These four units have been the primary focus of site characterization efforts in recent years because the proposed repository host horizon will be located within these four units (BSC 2003i, Attachment II, Table II-2). These four units can be grouped into the lithophysal (Tptpul and Tptpll) and nonlithophysal (Tptpmn and Tptpln) rocks based on their dominant features such as voids or fractures. The dominant features of lithophysal rocks are the presence of large-scale air-filled voids, while those of nonlithophysal rocks are fractures. Numerous laboratory tests using small specimens containing few voids and/or fractures show that intact rock thermal characteristics of these two types of rocks are similar (CRWMS M&O 1997d, Tables 5-11, 5-13, 5-15, and 5-16), indicating that similar methods may be used for acquiring intact rock thermal properties. However, rock mass characteristics of these rocks are quite different due to their different dominant features, large-scale voids or fractures. These impacting factors will be reflected in the difference in their rock mass thermal properties, suggesting for example the use of different methods of acquiring rock mass thermal properties for the lithophysal rocks versus those methods used for the nonlithophysal rocks. Due to the associated relatively high cost and logistics involved, only a limited number of field thermal tests have been conducted (BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.3.5, 6.3.1.4, and 6.3.3.6.5), estimation of rock mass thermal properties and their spatial variations based solely on the available field testing data may not be sufficient. This may point to a necessity of developing theoretical models that 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report can aid in describing the correlation between intact rock and rock mass thermal properties and the spatial variations. 8.3.2 Assessment of Factors Impacting Thermal Rock Properties Thermal properties may be affected by many factors such as temperature, porosity, fracture, moisture content, specimen size or scale, mineral content, and loading condition. A brief discussion regarding the dependencies of thermal properties on these factors is provided below. Temperature. Thermal properties of both lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks are highly temperature dependent. This dependency is primarily related to mineralogical phase changes, liquid phase changes, and volumetric changes when the rocks experience variations in temperature. This may also include the effect of heating and cooling cycles because rock may behave differently during a heating phase than during a cooling phase. Heat and resulting changes in temperature due to waste emplacement play an important role in the physical processes in the rock mass surrounding the emplacement drifts. Understanding of the temperature effect on thermal properties has been an essential part of the investigation within the scope of YMP site characterization activities. Porosity. A large number of voids exist in the Yucca Mountain tuff. Most of these voids are air-filled and some of them, called lithophysae, are of large scale. Porosity, a measure of volumetric fraction of void space, in the lithophysal rock may be as high as 40 percent (BSC 2002i, Figure 6-5). Since the thermal energy transport rate and expansion are different in solid than in air, the porosity including both matrix and lithophysae will affect the effective thermal properties of rock mass, especially the lithophysal rock. According to the subsurface layout for the License Application (LA), about 81 percent of the emplacement drifts will be excavated in the Tptpll unit (BSC 2003i, Table II-2). This makes the understanding of the effect of porosity on rock mass thermal and mechanical properties a primary area of investigation in recent years. Fracture. The observation concerning the effect of porosity on thermal properties also applies to the effect of fractures as long as fractures are not completely closed. In case fractures are completely closed with no filling materials, they may have insignificant effect on thermal energy transport and expansion. Moisture Content. Moisture content, measured in terms of degree of saturation, contained in voids may also affect the effective thermal energy transport rate and expansion. This effect is sometime reflected in the dependency of thermal properties on temperature because pore water will experience phase changes at the boiling temperature, followed by a dry out in the rock. A dry rock has a lower thermal conductivity compared to a saturated or partially saturated rock since air thermal conductivity is much lower than water. Specimen Size or Scale. The size dependency of thermal properties reflects the effect of heterogeneity or discontinuities in rock. With increasing size of rock specimens, the degree of heterogeneity or discontinuities increases and so does the effect on thermal properties. Investigation of the size effect should lead to an improved understanding of the effect of porosity or fracture on the rock mass effective thermal properties. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Mineral Content. The effect of mineralogy on thermal properties is related to the presence of certain minerals such as tridymite and cristobalite and their phase changes at a certain “transition temperature”. Loading Condition. By definition, thermal properties are measured under stress-free conditions. In a field thermal/mechanical test at a drift scale, however, rock is subjected to confining stresses, and achieving a stress-free condition in the field test is not feasible. The confining stresses usually cause rock to deform, which in turn results in a reduction in fracture apertures or porosity, and are expected to mainly affect the thermal expansion. Investigation of the loading condition effect should lead to an improved understanding of the effect of confining stresses on the rock mass thermal expansion properties. 8.3.3 Thermal Conductivity Energy transport within the rock mass surrounding an emplacement drift is dominated by heat conduction, which is governed by Fourier’s law of heat conduction (Holman 1997 [101978], Eg. 1-1). .Q - = kA .T (Eq. 8-1) .t .x Where: .Q/.t is the heat transfer rate, .T/.x is the temperature gradient in the direction of the heat flow, A is the cross-sectional area, and k is the thermal conductivity of the material. As defined in Fourier’s law, thermal conductivity (k) is a proportionality constant that relates the heat transfer (conduction) rate per unit area in a material to the normal temperature gradient. Equation 8-1 can also be used to calculate the value of thermal conductivity from laboratory measurements, given that the following assumptions are valid: 1) the heat flow is one- dimensional, 2) the testing material is homogeneous and isotropic, and 3) the thermal conductivity is independent of the changes in temperature and moisture content. These conditions are generally achievable in laboratory measurements by using small right circular cylindrical specimens, controlling heat flow in one-dimension, and measuring heat transfer rate over a small temperature change. In field measurements, these conditions are, however, difficult to achieve. Hence, the Equation 8-1 cannot be directly used to calculate thermal conductivity, and other theoretical and/or numerical approaches are desired to estimate the rock mass thermal conductivity from the field measurements (Section 8.3.3.2). Due to the heterogeneity and discontinuities in the rock units that will host the repository, thermal conductivity of the rock of interest is both scale and direction dependent. When increasing the size of testing specimens, the degree of heterogeneity and the impact of discontinuities increase, thus affecting the thermal conductivity of the rock specimen. Since the temperature changes in the rock mass due to heat originating from waste packages in the emplacement drift are largely determined by the rock mass thermal conductivity, it is important to understand the effect of scale on the rock thermal conductivity and the difference between the intact rock and the rock mass, so a correct value of thermal conductivity can be used in the design. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3.3.1 Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity The thermal conductivity of intact rock can be determined based on laboratory thermal conductivity measurements using small specimens that are assumed to contain few or no discontinuities. The test specimens used in the laboratory thermal conductivity measurements by the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) for the Yucca Mountain tuff were right circular cylinders, cored to nominal dimensions of 50.8 mm in diameter and 12.7 mm in length (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 2.1, Table 2-1). These rock specimens usually contain few voids or fractures, and behave like an intact rock. Therefore, the results from the laboratory thermal conductivity measurements using these small rock specimens can be considered to represent properties of intact rock. Laboratory thermal conductivity measurements obtained by SNL were conducted using a guarded heat flow meter following the SNL technical procedure SNL TP-202, Rev 01. Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Samples Using the Guarded Heat-Flow Meter Method (TP-202 [108553]). Moisture contents were either air dry, oven dry, vacuum saturated, or partially saturated (intermediate between air dry and vacuum saturated). Tests were conducted over a temperature range of 30°C to 300°C (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). The test specimen was placed between two heater plates controlled at different temperatures and heat flow was measured (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.1). The thermal conductivity was calculated using Equation 8-1. In order to apply Fourier’s law of heat conduction (Equation 8-1) for calculating thermal conductivity of intact rock, k must remain a constant over a given time interval and temperature change. Depending on the characteristics of rock specimens, k may change even with a very small change in temperature. For example, vaporization of moisture over a regional trans- boiling temperature zone will dry out rock, resulting in a reduction in thermal conductivity. On the other hand, though laboratory thermal conductivity measurements were made on small specimens, voids and/or fractures may still exist in these specimens. The presence of any voids and/or fractures, no matter how few or small they are, may still have some impact on the measured temperature gradient and heat flow rate. The thermal conductivity determined based on these measured data may not be the upper bound for intact rock. Characterization of the thermal conductivity of Yucca Mountain tuffs has been continuing since 1980. The data collected in early 1980s from boreholes USW G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 were reviewed and summarized by Nimick (1989, Appendix A). Analysis of the data for the welded, devitrified portion of the Topopah Spring member was given in Nimick (1990a, Section 3). Experimental results for core specimens from Yucca Mountain were analyzed in Nimick (1990b, Section 3) and Sass et al. (1988). Significant number of laboratory thermal conductivity tests using small specimens taken from the Yucca Mountain tuff have been performed since the late 1990s. Most of the tests were conducted by SNL under a fully qualified QA program (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], p. ii). The specimens were taken from the UE25 NRG-4, UE25 NRG-5, USW NRG-6, and USW NRG-7/7A drillholes. A total of 95 specimens were tested and 143 thermal conductivity tests were run (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). These cores covered various 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report lithostratigraphic rock units, including the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln units. The intact rock thermal conductivities at the below and above 100 °C of the four repository units are presented in Tables 8-9 and 8-10, receptively (DTN: SNL01A05059301.005). Tables 8-11 and 8-12 summarize the intact rock thermal conductivities at the below and above 100 °C of available thermal mechanical units (DTN: SNL01A05059301.005). Detailed description of the data was presented in Brodsky et al. (1997 [100653], Sections 3.1 and 4.1) and CRWMS M&O (1997d, Section 5.2.1). Additional intact rock thermal conductivity tests were conducted on Tptpmn specimens taken from the Single Heater Test (SHT) block and the Drift Scale Test (DST) area (BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3) (DTN: SNL22080196001.001 [109722]; DTNs: SNL22100196001.006 [158213] and SN0203L2210196.007 [158322], respectively). The specimens were either air dry, oven dry, vacuum saturated, or partially saturated, and the thermal conductivity tests were followed the SNL technical procedure SNL TP-202, Rev 01 Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Samples Using the Guarded Heat-Flow Meter Method [TP-202, 108553]. Detailed description of the intact rock thermal conductivity data was presented in BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3). Supplementary tests of the intact rock thermal conductivity were performed on Tptpll specimens from various locations including the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) thermal test hole cores. The supplementary tests were a part of the field thermal testing program in the ECRB drift, and examined effects of temperature, saturation and artificial porosity on the intact rock thermal conductivity. Details of the intact rock thermal conductivity data were presented in DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001. Sensitivity of intact rock thermal conductivity to temperature, porosity, moisture content, and specimen size has been evaluated based on these laboratory tests. The evaluation was carried out by comparing the results of tests on specimens at these different conditions. Measured data presented in most test reports and the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) are grouped according to either the thermal/mechanical or lithostratigraphic unit for each saturation state or specimen size. For each rock unit, saturation state, or specimen size, the data are presented as a function of temperature. Statistical analyses of the data within each group have been limited to the information of mean and standard deviation about the mean. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-9. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Below 100 °C for Repository Units Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Stratigraphic Units Saturated Partially Saturated Air Dry Dry Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Tptpul 1.97 0.11 12 N/A N/A N/A 1.20 0.21 6 1.07 0.12 9 Tptpmn 2.33 0.45 42 N/A N/A N/A 1.68 0.12 15 1.51 0.49 39 Tptpll 2.13 0.13 9 N/A N/A N/A 1.65 0.08 9 1.45 0.03 9 Tptpln N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-11; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 Table 8-10. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Over 100 °C for Repository Units Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Stratigraphic Units Dry Mean Std. Dev. N Tptpul 1.06 0.22 32 Tptpmn 1.60 0.11 101 Tptpll 1.54 0.04 19 Tptpln N/A N/A N/A Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-13; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 Table 8-11. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Below 100 °C for Thermal Mechanical Units Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Stratigraphic Units Saturated Partially Saturated Air Dry Dry Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N TCw 1.89 0.12 18 1.39 0.56 18 1.58 0.16 9 1.17 0.35 18 PTn 0.92 0.13 42 0.57 0.12 33 0.35 0.13 12 0.38 0.10 49 TSw1 1.70 0.19 50 1.23 0.46 11 1.21 0.12 30 0.98 0.26 59 TSw2 2.29 0.42 51 N/A N/A N/A 1.66 0.10 24 1.49 0.44 48 Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-12; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 Table 8-12. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Over 100 °C for Thermal Mechanical Units Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Stratigraphic Units Dry Mean Std. Dev. N TCw 1.53 0.17 57 PTn 0.42 0.14 102 TSw1 1.15 0.15 173 TSw2 1.59 0.10 125 Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-14; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Effect of Temperature Intact rock thermal conductivity for oven dried specimens either increases or remains constant with increasing temperature (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.1; CRWMS M&O 1997d, Section 5.2.1). Decreases in thermal conductivity with increasing temperature as observed in saturated specimens are attributed to dehydration (Figure 8-4). Increases in thermal conductivity observed near a temperature of 100°C for some oven dried specimens may be associated with the vaporization of remaining water. Thermal conductivity increases with temperature for plagioclase and glasses; however, it decreases with temperature for quartz (Lappin 1980 [102973], Figure 3). Overall, if a constant moisture content is maintained during a test, the effect of temperature on intact rock thermal conductivity is insignificant. This was observed in over hundreds of tests using specimens taken from both the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.1; BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). Table 8-13 presents averaged values of the oven-dried and saturated thermal conductivity from DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, Tables 8 and 9. Effect of Porosity Investigation on the effect of porosity including both matrix and lithophysal on thermal conductivity has been primarily focused on the lithophysal rock. Recent tests conducted by SNL on the 38.1 mm Tptpll core specimens obtained from the ECRB indicate that intact rock thermal conductivity decreases with increasing natural or matrix porosity for both saturated and oven-dried specimens, as shown in Figure 8-5 (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The effect of porosity on thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock were also investigated using laboratory tests on oven-dried specimens, which were drilled to add about 8 percent additional artificial porosity (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, Tables 10 and 11). The artificial porosity results indicate that thermal conductivity decreases between 0.5 to 0.65 W/m·K per 10 percent increase in porosity over a limited range of porosity. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity Specimen ID: NRG-6-987 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 livi()Therma Conductty W/mKOven Dry Air Dry Saturated Temperature (oC) Source: DTN SNL01A05059301.005 Figure 8-4. Thermal Conductivity for Tptpll Specimens NGR-6-987.0-SNL-A (Saturated) and NGR-6- 987.0-SNL-B (Air and Oven Dry) Table 8-13. Thermal Conductivities for Oven Dried and Saturated Specimens from Tptpll for Repository Units Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/mk); Oven-Dried 30 oC 50 oC 70 oC 110 oC 150 oC 175 oC N 38 38 38 38 38 38 Mean 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Std. Dev. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/mk); Saturated 30 oC 50 oC 70 oC N 38 38 38 Mean 2.1 2.1 2.1 Std. Dev. 0.2 0.2 0.1 Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity Tptpll at 70 oC 0 1 2 3 / i0.5 1.5 2.5 Thermal Conductivity (Wmk) Oven dred Saturated 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Porosity Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 Figure 8-5. Porosity Versus Thermal Conductivity for Tptpll Specimens (Saturated and Oven Dried) Effect of Moisture Content The effect of moisture content on the intact rock thermal conductivity was studied extensively based on laboratory tests using specimens from various lithostratigraphic units (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.1; BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). The results indicate that thermal conductivity measured on saturated specimens is higher than that measured on dried specimens. For example, in Table 8-13, the average thermal conductivity for saturated specimens from the Tptpll rock is about 2.1 W/m·K at a temperature ranging from 30°C to 70°C, while for oven-dried specimens it is about 1.7 W/m·K, a decrease of about 19 percent from saturated to oven-dried conditions (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). Additionally, the tests on the Tptpll specimens also show that the difference between saturated and dry values of thermal conductivity increases with increasing porosity (BSC 2002i). Effect of Specimen Size The diameter of most specimens used in laboratory thermal conductivity measurements is 50.8 mm (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Table 2-1; BSC 2002i, Section 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). To investigate the effect of specimen size on thermal conductivity, recent laboratory tests on thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock were also conducted on specimens with a diameter of 38.1 mm (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). The results indicate that though the values for the smaller specimens appeared slightly higher than those for the larger ones (Table 8-14). However, it is difficult to conclude that the two different specimen diameters produced a systematic difference in thermal conductivity, since the effect of porosity was not included in this comparison between diameters of 50.8 and 38.1 mm specimens. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-14. Thermal Conductivities from 38.1 mm and 50.8 mm Diameter Specimens of Tptpll Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) of Tptpll at 70 oC 38.1 mm Diameter 50.8 mm DiameterOven Dried Saturated Oven Dried Saturated N 20 20 18 18 Mean 1.83 2.20 1.64 2.02 Std. Dev. 0.18 0.13 0.29 0.11 Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 Uncertainties on intact rock thermal conductivity obtained from laboratory thermal conductivity tests are associated with errors from measurements and variations of specimens taken from different borehole cores. Among them, the latter is the primary contributor and more difficult to quantity. Errors in the laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity are caused by equipment calibration and precision, variations of test environment such as temperature and insulator control, and operation of equipment by different testers. Since laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity were conducted under a controlled environmental condition, and equipment used was calibrated to the requirements specified by test procedures or manufacturers, the uncertainties associated with measurements are relatively insignificant. Uncertainty of data from laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity is mainly caused by variations of specimens. The specimens used were collected from various boreholes drilled at various locations. Difference in the test results from different specimens reflects in part the spatial variations in rock properties. Quantification of uncertainties associated with spatial variations requires the development of correlations between rock properties and spatial variables. This task can be accomplished by collecting samples from various locations of interest and then applying the approach of geostatistics. This approach is considered more comprehensive and requires complete information about locations of samples collected, and related sample property values such as porosity and moisture content associated with the locations. 8.3.3.2 Rock Mass Thermal Conductivity Thermal conductivity of rock mass is the effective value of thermal conductivity that relates the heat conduction rate to the normal temperature gradient in a rock mass. It accounts for the effects of voids, fractures, and any heterogeneity or discontinuity that affect thermal conductivity. Significant efforts have been made recently to develop some correlations between intact rock or rock matrix thermal conductivity, porosity including both matrix and lithophysae, and rock mass thermal conductivity. These efforts included both developing theoretical approaches and conducting experimental tests. Determination of rock mass thermal conductivity is more difficult than that of intact rock because of the scale requirement in a test. It is difficult to conduct laboratory testing using a specimen with a size at drift scale. Field measurements are usually used and require more efforts and resources. To compensate for the lack of field measurements, use of either laboratory measurements with large specimens or analytical calculations based on the correlation between intact rock thermal conductivity, rock mass 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report thermal conductivity, and key controlling factors such as porosity may serve as alternatives to estimate the rock mass thermal conductivity. The correlation, if used, needs to be validated using available field measured data or laboratory data measured based on large specimens. Field measurements are considered the most effective and valuable methods to determine rock mass thermal conductivity. The measurements can be made using a thermal probe consisting of a heat source and several temperature sensors. During measurements, a certain amount of heat is transferred to the rock, and temperature differences caused by the heat are measured. To evaluate the effects of porosity, fracture, and moisture content on the rock mass thermal conductivity, mapping voids or fractures of testing boreholes and measuring in situ moisture content are needed. Additionally, to evaluate spatial variations of rock mass properties, tests at several different locations within the same rock unit are also necessary. Two major field tests that involve the measurements of rock mass thermal conductivity are the Drift Scale Test (DST) and the In Situ Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the ECRB. The DST measurements are made on the Tptpmn rock, while the ECRB measurements are on the Tptpll rock. The DST is conducted in a block of rock of approximately 60 m wide, 50 m deep, and 50 m high. The test includes 9 floor/canister heaters in a 5 m diameter drift and 50 wing heaters installed in horizontal boreholes drilled perpendicular to the drift into the rock (Figure 6.3-2 of BSC 2002i). The heating of the DST lasted for over four years. The test is on-going for a planned cooling phase of four years. The maximum drift wall temperature at the end of the heating phase was about 200°C. For measurements of the rock mass thermal conductivity, five locations were selected based on the competency of the wall rock, including minimal fracturing, sufficient separation from rock bolts installed, and similarity of density. The testing boreholes were drilled in random directions to average the effects of unseen physical phenomena (faulting, stress relief, etc.). The temperatures during the heating phase in these boreholes, measured using the Rapid Estimation of thermal conductivity (k) and thermal diffusivity (a, Alpha), REKA, probe developed at the University of Nevada, Reno, and were used to determine the rock mass thermal conductivity (BSC 2002i, Section 6.3.1.4; CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 10.2). The REKA used a two-dimensional optimization procedure based on the least-squares-fit of simulated temperature field to the measured temperature field (CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 10.2) to evaluate the best prediction for thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity. Rock mass thermal conductivity of the Tptpmn rock was measured from the DST during the heating phase (Table 8-15). The mean value was about 1.8 W/m·K, which is lower than that observed in the laboratory measurements on the saturated specimens from the same rock unit but higher than that for the oven-dried specimens (Table 8-9). Generally rock mass thermal conductivity obtained from the field measurements fall within the same range as that from the laboratory measurements, indicating that the effect of discontinuities in the Tptpmn on thermal conductivity is not as significant as anticipated. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-15. REKA Results with and without Background Temperature Correction REKA Location No Background Temperature Correction With Background Temperature Correction Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Error of Fita (oC) Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Error of Fita (oC) 1 1.69 0.033 1.72 0.015 2 1.95 0.037 1.92 0.010 3 1.86 0.024 1.89 0.018 4 1.88 0.039 1.93 0.015 5 1.70 0.025 1.76 0.025 Average: 1.82 1.84 Source DTNs: LL980411104244.061, LL980902104244.070, UN0106SPA013GD.004, UN0201SPA013GD.007 aError of fit is the root mean square between the simulated and measured temperature fields, all having 35 readings with time and 6 readings along the length of the Sierra Science REKA probe The in situ measurements of rock mass thermal conductivity in the ECRB consisted of three tests. The first test involved a single heater and single instrumentation borehole (Two-hole test in Table 8-16). The heater was 5 m long and inset approximately 3 m from the ECRB drift wall. The second borehole, perpendicular to the first and about 12 cm above it contained 30 thermocouples. The second test comprised an array of three heaters and three instrumentation boreholes and sampled a much larger test volume (Six-hole test in Table 8-16). The other dimensions were similar to the first test. The third test used a single heater, but had instrumentation holes both above and below the heater to measure any effect of convection on temperature distribution (Three-hole test in Table 8-16). Other dimensions were also similar to the first test. Details on the configurations of these three field tests are provided in the Field Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the Topopah Spring Lower Lithophysal Unit (Tptpll) (Kalia 2001 [165092], Section 2). The rock mass thermal conductivity was determined by a “back calculation” method based on a relationship for heat conduction in a heated sphere (Carslaw and Jaeger 1959 [100968], Eq. 4). In this method, predicted temperatures are calculated using initial guesses for thermal conductivity and diffusivity. The measured and predicted temperatures are compared, and the error is taken as the sum of the squares of the differences between measured and predicted values. The values of thermal conductivity and diffusivity are adjusted until the error is within the specified criterion. Rock mass thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock was measured from three field tests in the ECRB (Table 8-16). The mean values ranged from 1.74 to 2.18 W/m·K. Similar to what was indicated in the field measurements of the DST for the Tptpmn rock, the in situ values are within the same range as that observed in the laboratory measurements on specimens with natural porosity in Table 8-9. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-16. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivity Values from ECRB Thermal K Tests ECRB Thermal K Test 1 ECRB Thermal K Test 2 ECRB Thermal K Test 3 (Two-hole test)1 (Six-hole test)2 (Three-hole test)3 Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) Borehole Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) Borehole Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) 1.75a TMK6 2.18 TMK10 1.73 1.74b TMK7 2.09 TMK11 1.76 TMK8 2.03 Average: 1.74 Average: 2.10 SOURCES: 1DTN: SN0206F3504502.012 2DTN: SN0208F3504502.019 3DTN: SN0206F3504502.013 aA single value of each thermal property was calculated using all the data shown in DTN: SN0206F3504502.011. bA single value of each thermal property was calculated using the data shown in DTN: SN0206F3504502.011 from an elapsed time of 2.665 days through 28.63 days. The earlier time data were scattered. An analytical approach may serve as one of the alternatives to estimate rock mass thermal conductivity as well as to assess its spatial variations when data from only a limited number of field tests are available. With the analytical approach, a correlation that relates rock mass thermal conductivity to porosity and intact rock thermal conductivity must be developed. Various analytical approaches have been developed for estimating the effective value of rock mass thermal conductivity taking into account of the effects of matrix, fracture, and lithophysal porosity (Kaviany 1991). Most of the approaches are capable of assessing the effective thermal conductivity of two-phase media (e.g., solid and fluid) using deterministic approaches assuming or idealizing microstructures of the media (spheres, disks, thin crack, and etc.). The so-called effective-medium approximation could not accurately predict the microstructure-sensitive conductivity of most real two-phase media (Torquato 1987) because of its simple assumption on the microstructures. Torquato (1987) discussed statistical approaches by defining the upper and lower bounds of the effective thermal properties in order to deal with the limitation of the effective-medium approximation. However, since the deterministic approaches could simulate a homogeneous and isotropic porous solid saturated with a fluid, either air or fluid, utilizing the calculations should be reasonable for the dry and wet effective thermal conductivity of rock mass. Estimating the effective thermal conductivity of a partially saturated rock (three-phase medium with solid, air, and fluid) is a more complicated task. The simplest approach currently available is the linear interpolation from the dry and wet effective thermal conductivities from the analytical calculations. If the dry and wet effective thermal conductivity were predicted reasonably well, the linear interpolation approach might be suitable for estimating the unsaturated effective thermal conductivity taking into account of the complexity of three-phase media and the variability of testing data. Primary focus of the investigations of rock mass thermal conductivity within the YMP is on the effect of lithophysae, air-filled large-scale voids found to varying degrees in both lithophysal and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report nonlithophysal rocks. A comprehensive study on this topic is based on the Hsu et al. three- dimensional cubic model presented in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report (BSC 2002h, Section 6.1.7). In this model, the rock mass is conceptualized as a porous medium composed of matrix and voids. The matrix component consists of solid minerals and their associated intergranular pore space. Matrix thermal conductivity is a function of matrix porosity, the thermal conductivity of the saturating fluid, the thermal conductivity of the solid minerals, and the geometry and connectivity of the solid. The thermal conductivity of the saturating fluid is treated as constant, but the remaining model parameters are treated as spatially uncertain random functions. The geostatistical method known as sequential Gaussian simulation is used to develop spatially independent, realizations of these uncertain properties. Available measurements from core samples, borehole petrophysical logs, or the ECRB mapping can be used to derive models of spatial continuity and to condition the geostatistical simulations. These 3D property sets then serve as inputs to the matrix thermal conductivity model yielding 3D geostatically-based realizations of matrix thermal conductivity. The spatial heterogeneity and uncertainty of lithophysal porosity can be addressed in a similar manner. Detailed description of the analytical model based on the Hsu et al. model is provided in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report (BSC 2002h, Section 6.1.7). Rock mass or called bulk thermal conductivity is calculated by considering that the matrix and lithophysae act in parallel with respect to energy transport. Applying Fourier’s equation of heat conduction to a parallel system yields the following relation (BSC 2002h, Eq. 6-1): kb =fLk +(1-f )k (Eq. 8-2) a Lm Where kb and km are the bulk or rock mass and matrix thermal conductivities, respectively; fL is the lithophysal porosity; ka is the thermal conductivity of air. Note that the volume average model expressed in Equation 8-2 represents a physical system of a series of parallel solid plates sandwiched by pore space, and gives a higher bound estimate of the effective rock mass thermal conductivity since the system represented is the most efficient configuration of solid and pore space. To get a lower bound estimate for the rock mass thermal conductivity, other models, such as the model developed by Torquato (1987) or a model for a physical system of solid and pore space in series, may be used. The analytical approach based on the Hsu et al. model was validated (BSC 2002h, Section 7) using data from various measurements including laboratory and field. The validation was performed by comparing calculated values with measured ones on matrix and lithophysal porosity, intact rock or matrix thermal conductivity, and rock mass thermal conductivity. The results indicate that the spatially independent realizations of rock mass thermal conductivity are valid and appropriate for their intended use. Estimated spatial variation and uncertainty of rock mass thermal conductivity of four lithostratigraphic units, Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln, using a developed analytical model are presented in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report (BSC 2002h, Section 7.5). It is indicated that rock mass thermal conductivity is substantially less in the lithophysal rock than in the nonlithophysal rock, confirming the expected influence of 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-35 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report lithophysae on thermal conductivity. The effect of moisture content on thermal conductivity is also indicated. The mean values of dry bulk thermal conductivity vary from 1.18 to 1.28 W/m·K for the lithophysal rock and from 1.42 to 1.49 W/m·K for the nonlithophysal rock, while the mean values of wet bulk thermal conductivity range from 1.77 to 1.89 W/m·K for the lithophysal rock and from 2.07 to 2.13 W/m·K for the nonlithophysal rock. The standard deviations of these means are about 0.25 W/m·K, with a slightly higher value for the nonlithophysal rock than for the lithophysal rock, which contradicts what would be expected. This may be due to the fact that uncertainty in matrix thermal conductivity instead of lithophysal porosity plays an important role in the uncertainty estimate of bulk thermal conductivity using this model. A summary of bulk thermal conductivity is presented in Tables 8-17 for the repository units. In addition, Table 8-18 shows a summary of bulk thermal conductivity for the non-repository units. Note that since lithophysal porosity was not applied to the calculation of the thermal conductivity, the bulk thermal conductivity is as same as the matrix thermal conductivity. Details of the thermal conductivity for the non-repository units are presented in DTN: SN0307T0503102.009. Table 8-17. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivities for Repository Stratigraphic Units Stratigraphic Unit Dry Bulk Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Wet Bulk Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Tptpul 1.18E+00 2.44E-01 1.77E+00 2.47E-01 Tptpmn 1.42E+00 2.65E-01 2.07E+00 2.52E-01 Tptpll 1.28E+00 2.51E-01 1.89E+00 2.48E-01 Tptpln 1.49E+00 2.84E-01 2.13E+00 2.68E-01 SOURCE: DTN SN0208T0503102.007 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-36 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-18. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivities for Non-Repository Stratigraphic Units Stratigraphic Unit # of Points Dry Bulk Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Wet Bulk Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Crystal-Rich Tiva/Post-Tiva 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 Tpcp 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 TpcLD 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 Tpcpv3 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 Tpcpv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tpcpv1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tpbt4 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Yucca 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tpbt3_dc 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Pah 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tpbt2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tptrv3 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tptrv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tptrv1 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 Tptrn 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 Tptrl 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 Tptf 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 Tptpv3 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 Tptpv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tptpv1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Tpbt1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 Calico 5 5.95E-01 1.12E-01 1.26E+00 1.41E-01 Calicobt 5 5.95E-01 1.12E-01 1.26E+00 1.41E-01 Prowuv 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 Prowuc 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 Prowmd 17 1.06E+00 1.83E-01 1.63E+00 1.68E-01 Prowlc 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 Prowlv 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 Prowbt 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 Bullfroguv 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 Bullfroguc 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 Bullfrogmd 17 1.30E+00 2.39E-01 1.81E+00 1.98E-01 Bullfroglc 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 Bullfroglv 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 Bullfrogbt 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 Tramuv 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 Tramuc 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 Trammd 17 1.06E+00 1.83E-01 1.63E+00 1.68E-01 Tramlc 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 Tramlv 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 Trambt 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 SOURCE: DTN SN0307T0503102.009 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-37 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The primary uncertainties of the rock mass thermal conductivity are dependent on the methods of data acquisition. Field measurements and analytical estimation usually yield different uncertainties. These uncertainties are in general difficult to quantify. In addition to these uncertainties, spatial variations of rock mass characteristics can also contribute to the uncertainty of the data since the field measurements were made only at limited locations. The physical system of porous media like the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks may or may not be accurately represented by the developed model. This model represents an upper bound of rock mass thermal conductivity of a porous medium because it describes the system of solid and pore space configured in parallel. This may contribute to the greatest uncertainty of estimated rock mass thermal conductivity. Quantification of this uncertainty can be achieved by comparing the estimated values with those measured from field tests or by comparing the estimated values from different models. Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is based on the stochastic, geostastically simulated rock properties of porosity and matrix thermal conductivity. There is some degree of uncertainty in determination of these properties because their simulations are conditioned to measured data. For example, use of the well-log petrophysical measurements of bulk density and neutron porosity or those from the ECRB mapping may yield different estimates of the lithophysal porosity. These differences will consequently be carried over in the prediction of rock mass thermal conductivity. Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is only for the dry and fully saturated wet conditions, which may not cover the range of application. It is the user’s responsibility to determine whether the estimated data are appropriate for use and to assess any associated uncertainty if used outside the range of application. Any errors in laboratory or field measurements of rock properties that are used in the estimates of rock mass thermal conductivity will also contribute to the uncertainty. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3.4 Heat Capacity 8.3.4.1 General Heat capacity of a material (Cp, J/kg•K) is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a unit mass of the substance by one-degree (Nimick and Connolly 1991, p.5). For solid materials, heat capacity is virtually independent of changes in pressure, but is strongly dependent on temperature. The equation defined and used to calculate the heat capacity at constant pressure is (Brodsky et al. 1997, p.20) is as follows: C = 1 .Q (Eq. 8-3) p m .T where m is the mass of the specimen (kg), .Q is the increment of heat added to the subject (J), and .T is the change of specimen temperature (K). Heat capacity is a major component of the accumulation term in the energy balance equation, and as such is a significant contributing parameter in modeling heat transport (Incropera and Dewitt 2002, p. 63) [163337]: .. .T . ...T . ...T ..T . k .+ . k .+ q =.Cp .x ..x ..y .k .y .+ .z ..z ..t (Eq. 8-4) .. Where: q is the heat energy generated per unit volume of the medium (W/m3) and . is the density of medium (kg/m3). The rock grain heat capacity is defined to be the heat capacity of the rock minerals that doesn’t consider the effect of water in the rock’s pores (water saturation, Sw), while the rock mass heat capacity considers the heat capacity of both solids and pore water in Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion Coefficients Analysis Report (BSC 2003e, p. 6). To determine the rock heat capacity, three temperature ranges of 25-94 °C, 95-114 °C, and 115-325 °C are established from the temperature range of interest, 25-325 °C, corresponding to the pre-boiling, trans-boiling, and post-boiling regimes (BSC 2003e, p. 6). For temperatures in the trans-boiling regime, 95-114 °C (Nimick and Connolly 1991, Section 3.4), the additional energy required to vaporize the pore- water is accounted for in the rock mass heat capacity. The term specific heat is often used synonymously with heat capacity; however, the latter term is used in this document. 8.3.4.2 Rock Matrix Heat Capacity Laboratory measurements for heat capacity of rock specimens were conducted using an adiabatic pulse calorimeter following the SNL technical procedure, SNL-TP-204 entitled “Measurement of Specific Heat of Geologic Samples by Adiabatic Pulse Calorimetry” (TP-204 [108538]). The heat capacity was measured for three Tptrn specimens from UE25 NRG-4 and seven Tptpmn specimens from UE25 NRG-5 (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 3.3)[DIRS 100653]. The specimens were right circular cylinder approximately 57 mm in length and 51 mm in diameter (Brodsky et al. 1997, Table 2-1)[100653], and were tested in the air-dried saturation status. The 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-39 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report measurements were conducted at atmospheric pressure and over a temperature range of 25°C to 300°C with 5°C intervals. The laboratory-measured heat capacities are presented in Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7 (DTN SNL01C12159302.002) calculated from the three Tptrn specimens from UE25 NRG-4 and the seven Tptpmn specimens from UE25 NRG-5, respectively. Uncertainty for the mean and standard deviation values presented in those figures might be relatively high because of the limited specimen numbers. However those specimens present consistent values of the laboratory measured heat capacity (small standard deviation), in spite of the limited specimen number and the widely separated sampling depth for each specimen (approximately 10m). The thermal capacitance data (heat capacity multiplied by density, .Cp) are presented in Table 819 (CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-20). The thermal capacitance data were determined from the laboratory measurement using two-segment, least squares polynomial curve-fit at the 25 °C intervals (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 3.3). The thermal capacitance data were compared and discussed with calculated values of thermal capacitance from Nimick and Connolly (1991, Section 3.5) in the Section 4.3.2 of Brodsky et al. (1997). Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from UE25 NRG-4 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 (J/) lHeat CapacitygKMean Cp 1 Std. Dev. ess 1 Std. Dev. more 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Te m eparature (oC) SOURCE: DTN SNL01C12159302.002 Figure 8-6. Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from Three Specimens of UE25 NRG-4 (Tptrn). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-40 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from UE25 NRG-5 Heat Capacity (J/gK) 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 lMean Cp 1 Std. Dev. ess 1 Std. Dev. more 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temeparature (oC) SOURCE: DTN SNL01C12159302.002 Figure 8-7. Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from Seven Specimens of UE25 NRG-5 (Tptpmn). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-41 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-19. Thermal Capacitance or Volumetric Heat Capacity (.Cp) from Laboratory Measurements Temperature (oC) Mean .Cp (J/cm3K) Standard Deviation (J/cm3K) No. of Tests Temperature (oC) Mean .Cp (J/cm3K) Standard Deviation (J/cm3K) No. of Tests 25 1.58 0.04 3 25 1.79 0.11 3 50 1.68 0.05 3 50 1.88 0.11 3 75 1.80 0.05 3 75 2.00 0.11 3 100 1.91 0.05 3 100 2.16 0.11 3 125 2.03 0.06 3 125 2.32 0.11 3 150 2.14 0.11 3 150 2.45 0.13 3 175 2.13 0.10 3 175 2.43 0.18 3 200 2.09 0.07 3 200 2.40 0.16 3 225 2.07 0.06 3 225 2.39 0.17 3 250 2.05 0.05 3 250 2.39 0.19 3 275 2.03 0.05 3 275 2.39 0.22 3 300 2.03 0.06 3 300 2.43 0.26 3 Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-20 If laboratory measurements were not available or feasible to take, there were several methods that could be used for determining the rock grain heat capacity. Nimick and Connolly (1991, pp. 5 – 11) summarized three different methods: oxide summation, fictive – oxide mineral- component, and mineral summation. Based on the available essential input data (mineral abundance, mineral heat capacities, rock matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical properties of water), the mineral summation method was selected as the analytical technique for evaluating the rock grain heat capacity in the Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion Coefficients Analysis Report (BSC 2003e, Section 6.2). The mineral summation method was used to estimate heat capacity of mineral composites in each stratigraphic unit defined by the Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002b). The mineral summation method is based on Kopp’s law (Nimick and Connolly 1991, p. 6 - 7). j =n C =. C x p (Eq. 8-5) g p jj , j =1 Where xj and Cpj are the abundance (weight fraction) and heat capacity of mineral j respectively, n is the number of mineral components, and Cp,g is the effective heat capacity of the rock grain. Berryman (1995, p. 219) [159696] has shown that a temperature dependent correction to Kopp’s law is small at temperatures less than 500 ºC. Since the temperature range of interest, 25-325 ºC, is well below 500 ºC, the use of Kopp’s law is deemed to be appropriate. The mineral abundance data are provided by the Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002b, Section 6.3.2). The input abundance data were averaged for each layer and used in determining the rock grain heat capacity. The only exception is the heat capacity values 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-42 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report of the Calico Hills Formation and adjacent layers, since the layers of the Calico Hills and the adjacent bedded tuff layers exhibit a bimodal composition and are characterized as either vitric or zeolitic (BSC 2002b, Section 6.3.2). The equations used to estimate the average and standard deviations of the rock grain heat capacities are given below. These statistical measures were developed following the principles outlined in (Bulmer 1979, pp. 71-73) [111961]. The average and standard deviations calculated are the result of propagating uncertainties in the mineral abundance and mineral heat capacity through Kopp’s law. If the expected (or average) value of C g p over a specified temperature range and the expected , value of xj were denoted as C E ] and x E j ], respectively, [ g p [ , The expected or average value of the rock grain heat capacity can be expressed in terms of the expected mineral abundance and the expected weight fraction (BSC 2003e, Eq. 6-9a). [ g p j =n , [ j [ C E ]=. x E ]· C E pj ] (Eq. 8-6) j =1 Similarly, the standard deviation of C g p , denoted as s[C ], can be written as (BSC 2003e, Eq. , g p , 6-13a): j =n 2 s[C ]= .((C E ]·s[xj ]) +(x E , [ pj 2 []·s[C pj ]) ) (Eq. 8-7) g p j j =1 Where s[C ] is the standard deviation of the heat capacity of mineral j ands[x ] is the standard pj j deviation of the abundance of mineral j . Equations 8-6 and 8-7 were used to estimate the rock grain heat capacities statistics (average and standard deviation). The rock grain heat capacity was determined for four temperature intervals: 25-325°C (temperature range of interest), 25-94°C (pre-boiling), 95-114°C (trans-boiling), and 115-325°C (post-boiling). The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3-7 (BSC 2003e and DTN: SN0307T0510902.003). A limitation of the rock grain heat capacity is associated with the nature of the input data; the type of data available determines the calculation method that can be used (i.e., mineral abundance, mineral heat capacities, rock matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical properties of water). Additionally, the input data are averaged for the layer. The exception to this is the heat capacity values of the Calico Hills formation and adjacent layers of bedded tuffs that are separated into vitric and zeolitic regions. In general, the developed values of heat capacity are appropriate because the layers are compositionally and mechanically homogeneous. However, the user needs to be aware of this limitation if a location-specific estimate of heat capacity or spatial variability within a layer is required. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-43 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-20. Rock Grain Heat Capacities for Lithostratigraphic Units MineralogicModel Unit Avg Rock Grain Heat Capacityfor T = 25-325°C J/g K Std Dev of Rock Grain Heat Capacity T = 25-325°C J/g K Avg Rock Grain Heat Capacityfor T = 25-94°C J/g K Std Dev of Rock Grain Heat Capacity T = 25-94°C J/g K Avg Rock Grain Heat Capacityfor T = 95-114°C J/g K Std Dev of Rock Grain Heat Capacity T = 95-114°C J/g K Avg Rock Grain Heat Capacityfor T = 115-325°C J/g K Std Dev of Rock Grain Heat Capacity T = 115-325°C J/g K Tpc_un 0.93 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.99 0.10 Tpcpv3-0.95 0.11 0.83 0.09 0.90 0.09 1.00 0.10 Tpcpv2 PTn 0.96 0.23 0.84 0.20 0.90 0.22 1.00 0.24 Tptrv1 0.95 0.10 0.84 0.08 0.90 0.08 0.99 0.10 Tptrn-Tptrl-0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 Tptf Tptpul 0.93 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 Tptpmn 0.93 0.14 0.78 0.11 0.87 0.11 0.99 0.13 Tptpll 0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 Tptpln 0.93 0.10 0.78 0.07 0.87 0.07 0.99 0.09 Tptpv3 0.98 0.24 0.86 0.21 0.93 0.23 1.02 0.25 Tptpv2 0.98 0.19 0.86 0.16 0.93 0.17 1.02 0.19 Tptpv1-Tpbt1 1.08 0.42 0.95 0.37 1.02 0.40 1.12 0.43 Tac4 1.07 0.42 0.93 0.38 1.01 0.40 1.12 0.44 Tac3 1.07 0.38 0.93 0.33 1.01 0.36 1.12 0.39 Tac2 1.07 0.36 0.94 0.32 1.01 0.34 1.12 0.38 Tac1 1.07 0.35 0.94 0.31 1.01 0.33 1.12 0.37 Tacbt 1.02 0.24 0.88 0.21 0.95 0.22 1.07 0.25 Tcpuv 1.04 0.28 0.90 0.24 0.98 0.26 1.09 0.29 Tcpuc-0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 Tcpmd-Tcplc Tcplv-Tcpbt-1.10 0.19 0.96 0.16 1.04 0.17 1.15 0.19 Tcbuv Tcbuc- Tcbmd-Tcblc 0.93 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.10 Tcblv-Tcbbt- Tctuv 1.05 0.22 0.90 0.19 0.98 0.20 1.10 0.22 Tctuc-Tctmd- Tctlc 0.94 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 Tctlv-Tctbt 0.94 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 Tund 0.96 0.13 0.82 0.11 0.90 0.11 1.02 0.13 Source: DTN SN0307T0510902.003 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-44 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3.4.3 Rock Mass Heat Capacity Rock mass heat capacity is the effective value of heat capacity that accounts for the effect of solids and of water that exists in the rock’s pores. Some efforts to measure the rock mass heat capacity were made. Volumetric heat capacity (= .·Cp) of the Tptpll rock was calculated from the temperature measurement of the two-hole, six-hole, and the three-hole tests in the ECRB (DTNs: SN0206F3504502.012, SN0208F3504502.019, and SN0206F3504502.013, respectively). The summary of the volumetric heat capacity values for the tests are presented in Table 8-21. Table 8-21. Summary of Volumetric Heat Capacity for ECRB Thermal K Tests 1, 2,and 3 ECRB Thermal K Test 1 ECRB Thermal K Test 2 ECRB Thermal K Test 3 (Two-hole test)1 (Six-hole test)2 (Three-hole test)3 Volumetric Volumetric Volumetric Heat capacity Borehole Heat capacity Borehole Heat capacity (J/m3K) (J/m3K) (J/m3K) 2.13E+06a TMK6 1.97E+06 TMK10 1.96E+06 2.15E+06b TMK7 1.95E+06 TMK11 2.01E+06 TMK8 2.30E+06 Average: 1.98E+06 Average: 2.07E+06 Source DTNs: 1 SN0206F3504502.012 2 SN0208F3504502.019 3 SN0206F3504502.013 abA single value of each thermal property was calculated using all the dataA single value of each thermal property was calculated using the data shown from an elapsed time of 2.665 days through 28.63 days. The earlier time data were scattered. The volumetric heat capacity values range from 1.96x106 to 2.30x106 J/m3·K. The uncertainties of the rock mass heat capacity are dependent on the methods of data acquisition and spatial variations of rock mass characteristic due to limited locations of field measurements. Again, the information on porosity, fracture, and moisture content at the locations of measurements needs to be analyzed in order to assess the effects of these properties on the rock mass heat capacity. After the rock grain heat capacities have been determined (Section 8.3.4.2), the heat capacity of the rock mass is estimated for the three temperature ranges: 25-94°C (pre-boiling), 95-114°C (trans-boiling), and 115-325°C (post-boiling). For temperatures below boiling (the pre-boiling phase), the Equations 9 and 10 of Nimick and Connolly (1991, Eqs. 9 and 10, p. 31) are presented below as Equations 8-8 and 8-9, respectively. (.Cp)rm = .g(1-fm)(1-fL)Cp,g + .w (1-fL) fm Sw Cp,w + .a[fL + (1-fL) fm(1-Sw)]Cp,a ˜ .g(1-fm)(1-fL)Cp,g + .w(1-fL)fm Sw Cp,w (Eq. 8-8) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-45 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report (. Cp )rm ˜ (. Cp )rm (Eq. 8-9) C = rm p , .. g (1-f L 1)( -f ) - + f f S . (1) rm m Lmww Where,(. Cp)rm is the thermal capacitance of the rock mass, J/m3-K f m is matrix porosity, m3/m3 f L is the volume fraction of lithophysal cavities, m3/m3 Cp,g is the rock grain heat capacity, J/kg•K Sw is the degree of matrix saturation, m3/m3 Cp,w and Cp,a are the heat capacity of water and air, respectively, J/kg•K . g is the rock grain density, kg/m3 . w and . a are the densities of water and air, respectively, kg/m3 Due to the extremely low density of air, the term of . a[f L + (1-f L) f m (1- Sw)]Cp,a is negligible relative to the first two terms of Equation 8-8. Therefore, Equation 8-8 is simplified to Equation 8-9. An approximation is implied in Equations 8-8 and 8-9, namely the fracture porosity (f f) does not significantly contribute to Cp,rm or (. Cp)rm. The fracture porosity is estimated to range from 2.7 x 10-5 to 18 x 10-5 (Klavetter and Peters 1986, Table 2), and the ratio of fracture porosity to matrix porosity, (f f / f m), ranged from 0.006 to 0.149 percent (Nimick and Connolly 1991, Table 6). Therefore, it is assumed that the fracture porosity makes a negligible contribution to calculated values of Cp,rm or (. Cp)rm. Following the pre-boiling phase, pore water begins boiling off at 95° C. In the trans-boiling phase, 95 - 114° C, the water saturation is assumed to decrease linearly from its initial value to zero over the 20° C temperature range. Equation 6-16 from BSC 2003e is reproduced here as Equation 8-10. Sw = Swo (20.376316 – 0.05263T) (Eq. 8-10) Where Swo is the initial water saturation and T is the absolute temperature. The temperature of 105° C used to calculate Sw is selected because 105° C is the approximate midpoint or average temperature over which boiling occur (95 to 114° C). During the trans-boiling phase, a correction is added to the calculation of thermal capacitance, which accounts for the “heat capacity of boiling” (BSC 2003e, Eq.6-17). C rm p =( C rm p ). (1- f f S . H fg . w lmw ,, T = 105 + . ) . . . T . . (Eq. 8-11) rm For temperatures above 114° C, the water is assumed to be completely boiled off. Therefore, the matrix saturation is zero, Sw= 0. In this case Equation 8-8 reduces to (.Cp)rm = . g(1-f m)(1-f L)Cp,g (Eq. 8-12) Substituting Equation 8-12 into Equation 8-9 gives the result that the rock mass heat capacity is equal to the rock grain heat capacity. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-46 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report (.Cp )rmC == C (Eq. 8-13) p ,rm g p , .g (1-fL 1)( -f ) m The rock mass heat capacity was determined and is presented in Table 8-22. The values for rock mass heat capacity given in Table 8-22 are only valid to two significant figures. Uncertainty of the rock mass heat capacity is similar to the limitation of the rock grain heat capacity that is associated with the nature of the averaged input data; i.e., mineral abundance, mineral heat capacities, rock matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical properties of water. In addition to the inputs, the uncertainty of grain density and water saturation should be considered. As discussed before, the values for rock mass heat capacity given in Table 8-22 are only valid to two significant figures because of the uncertainty. The standard deviation for each model layer has been assigned a value of approximately 30 percent of the average value. The 30 percent of the average is selected as the uncertainty associated with the rock mass heat capacity values and is based on the standard deviations calculated for the rock grain heat capacities. The influence of the other properties’ uncertainty (porosities, densities, and saturations) have not been accounted for explicitly in the rock mass heat capacity values given in Table 8-22. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-47 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-22. Rock Mass Heat Capacities for Lithostratigraphic Units MineralogicModel Unit Average Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=25-94°C J/kg K Standard Deviation of Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=25-94°C J/kg K Average Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=95-114°C J/kg K Standard Deviation of Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=95-114°C J/kg K Average Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=115-325°C J/kg K Standard Deviation of Rock Mass Heat Capacity T=115-325°C J/kg K Tpc_un 9.1E+02 3.E+02 3.0E+03 9.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tpcpv3-Tpcpv2 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.4E+03 2.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 PTn 1.3E+03 4.E+02 9.1E+03 3.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 Tptrv1 8.9E+02 3.E+02 1.8E+03 5.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptrn-Tptrl-Tptf 8.9E+02 3.E+02 2.7E+03 8.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptpul 9.4E+02 3.E+02 3.6E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptpmn 9.1E+02 3.E+02 3.0E+03 9.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptpll 9.3E+02 3.E+02 3.3E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptpln 9.0E+02 3.E+02 2.8E+03 8.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tptpv3 9.1E+02 3.E+02 1.7E+03 5.E+02 1.0E+03 3.E+02 Tptpv2 1.1E+03 3.E+02 5.1E+03 1.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 Tptpv1-Tpbt1 1.2E+03 4.E+02 6.4E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tac4 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tac3 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tac2 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tac1 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tacbt 1.2E+03 4.E+02 7.6E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tcpuv 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.7E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tcpuc-Tcpmd- Tcplc 1.0E+03 3.E+02 5.4E+03 2.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tcplv-Tcpbt- Tcbuv 1.3E+03 4.E+02 7.2E+03 2.E+03 1.2E+03 3.E+02 Tcbuc-Tcbmd- Tcblc 9.5E+02 3.E+02 3.7E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tcblv-Tcbbt- Tctuv 1.2E+03 4.E+02 7.1E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 Tctuc-Tctmd- Tctlc 1.3E+03 4.E+02 1.1E+04 3.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tctlv-Tctbt 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.2E+03 2.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 Tund 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.2E+03 2.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 Source: DTN SN0307T0510902.003 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-48 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3.5 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) 8.3.5.1 General Thermal expansion is a mechanical response in the form of displacement to the change of temperature. It is given by (Weast 1974, p. F-112): l t = l0 ( 1+a T ) (Eq. 8-14) Where lt and l0 are the lengths at the temperature of interest and at the reference temperature respectively, a is the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and T is the temperature of interest. If thermal expansion is temperature dependent, a more general form of expression is given by (Weast 1974, p. F-112): 23 l t = l0 ( 1+a T +ß T +. T + L) (Eq. 8-15) Where a , ß , and . are empirically determined constant, related to thermal expansion. Repository emplacement drifts will be subjected to increase of temperature due to decay heat from waste packages following waste emplacement. The increase of temperature in rock adjacent to the emplacement drifts will cause it to expand or result in thermally induced stresses if the rock expansion is restricted. The thermally induced displacements and stresses may adversely affect the stability of emplacement drifts and the performance of ground support installed in the drifts. Therefore the rock mass thermal expansion will have an impact on the repository design and the performance evaluation. 8.3.5.2 Intact Rock Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Intact rock CTE is the change in length of a solid rock when it is subjected to heat. In order for the solid rock to represent a corresponding intact rock, it should contain no discontinuities, such as voids or fractures. In reality, a perfectly intact rock may only be found in a microscopic level. For the purposes of application of the intact rock thermal expansion in repository design, a rock sample that contains few discontinuities and behaves independently on the presence of the discontinuities may well represent an intact rock. Intact rock CTE can be determined based on laboratory thermal expansion measurements using small specimens. The size of most rock specimens used in the laboratory thermal expansion measurements was typically 25.4 mm in diameter and 50.8 mm in length (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Table 2-1; CRWMS M&O 1999, Table 6-3 [129261]; CRWMS M&O 1997a, Table 32). These rock specimens are considered small compared to the size of an emplacement drift with a diameter of 5.5 m. They usually contain few voids or fractures, and behave like an intact rock. Therefore, the results from the laboratory thermal expansion measurements using these small rock specimens are considered as representative for the intact rock. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-49 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made using a push rod dilatometer (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.2; CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 6.2.2.2 [129261]; CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 3.3.2). Test specimens were right circular cylinders, cored to nominal dimensions mentioned above. Moisture contents were either air dry (as received), oven dry, or vacuum saturated. Tests were conducted at ambient pressure over a temperature range of 25°C to over 325°C. Temperature was increased at the rate of 1°C per minute. Specimens under saturated conditions were tested up to 100°C. The tests were conducted in accordance with the SNL procedure SNL TP-203, Rev 01. Measurement of Thermal Expansion of Geologic Supplies Using a Push Rod Dilatometer [145491]. The CTE is defined as the ratio of the change in length of a line segment in a specimen per unit of temperature change to its length at a reference temperature. The mean CTE is the linear thermal expansion per unit change in temperature, and is calculated using Equation 8-16 (Halliday and Resnick 1988, p. 456)[152103]. a= L2 - L1 (Eq. 8-16) m L0 .T Where am is the mean CTE between two temperatures, T1 and T2; L0 is the sample length at reference temperature; L1 is the sample displacement at temperature T1; L2 is the sample displacement at temperature T2; .T=T2-T1 is the temperature increment. Temperatures and displacements of rock specimens were measured throughout a heating and cooling cycle. The mean CTEs were then calculated using Equation 8-16 in 25°C intervals from data obtained at the endpoints of the interval. Because data are not always collected at exact 25°C intervals, a linear least squares fit may be used to calculate the specimen lengths L1 and L2 at temperatures T1 and T2, respectively (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.2; CRWMS M&O 1999 [129261]; CRWMS M&O 1997a). Equation 8-16 applies only to the linear change in specimen length caused by change in temperature. For specimens with high degree of temperature dependency, the temperature interval should be kept small in order to accurately calculate the mean CTE over the temperature interval, or the instantaneous CTE, aT, should be calculated. The instantaneous CTE is the slope of the linear thermal expansion curve at temperature T. The calculation is made at specified temperatures 25°C apart starting at 50°C during heat-up and cool-down. It must be accompanied by the temperature, at which it is determined. The instantaneous CTE is defined as: 1 dL aT = (Eq. 8-17) L0 dT A large number of laboratory thermal expansion tests using small specimens taken from the Yucca Mountain tuff have been conducted since late 1990s. Most of the tests were performed by SNL under a qualified QA program (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). These rock specimens were taken from Alcoves 5 and 7, the Single Heat Test (SHT) block, the Drift Scale Test (DST) area in Alcove 5, and NRG and SD drillhole cores. The cores covered various lithostratigraphic rock units, including the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln units. The mean CTEs for the heating and cooling cycles of the repository units are presented in Table 8-23 (CRWMS M&O 1997d, Tables 5-15 and 5-16; DTN: SNL01B05059301.006). Table 8-24 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-50 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report summarizes the mean CTEs for the heating and cooling cycles of available thermal mechanical units (DTN: SNL01B05059301.006). Detailed description of the data was presented in Brodsky et al. (1997 [100653], Section 4.2) and CRWMS M&O (1997d, Section 5.2.2). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-51 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-23. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Repository Units MCTE on Heat-up (10-6/oC) 25~50 50~75 75~100 100~12 125~15 150~17 175~20 200~22 225~25 250~27 275~30 Units oC oC oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC Tptpul Saturated N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 7.59 7.00 7.91 10.22 10.76 12.95 16.73 25.60 32.83 43.98 53.94 Std. Dev. 0.01 0.33 0.65 0.69 0.32 1.76 3.19 7.08 3.35 8.99 3.49 Dry N 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 Mean 7.41 8.43 8.89 9.52 10.86 13.51 19.38 29.34 32.35 40.16 48.83 Std. Dev. 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.52 1.34 2.57 6.89 10.73 8.56 17.22 18.41 Tptpmn Saturated N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 Mean 7.20 7.78 7.93 8.73 10.11 11.74 12.96 15.53 20.60 31.23 50.39 Std. Dev. 0.84 1.90 0.94 2.04 0.87 0.47 0.70 1.02 2.04 3.75 7.55 Dry N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 17 17 17 Mean 6.89 8.45 8.95 9.50 10.12 10.95 12.09 14.57 19.45 27.24 41.56 Std. Dev. 1.45 0.30 0.24 0.27 0.36 0.52 1.01 2.04 3.47 6.23 7.92 Tptpll Saturated N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 Mean 7.09 7.20 7.03 9.37 9.87 11.73 13.20 15.42 17.80 20.65 26.93 Std. Dev. 0.45 1.09 1.31 2.78 0.69 1.76 1.85 2.22 3.29 4.80 8.26 Dry N 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mean 6.41 8.15 8.77 9.12 9.87 10.75 12.55 15.14 25.19 26.15 33.40 Std. Dev. 0.75 0.47 0.54 0.57 0.68 1.01 1.80 3.26 27.61 13.65 17.99 Tptpln Saturated N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mean Std. Dev. Dry N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 6.55 8.24 8.79 9.58 10.65 11.56 11.90 12.78 13.87 15.28 17.78 Std. Dev. 1.29 0.57 0.47 1.07 2.17 2.75 2.35 1.53 1.11 1.94 4.38 MCTE on Cool-Down (10-6/oC) 275~30 250~27 225~25 200~22 175~20 150~17 125~15 100~12 75~100 50~75 35~50 Unit 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC oC oC oC Tptpul Saturated N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 19.87 28.46 34.81 33.46 35.28 23.61 17.14 13.93 11.91 10.84 9.84 Std. Dev. 2.44 1.92 3.38 2.90 5.21 5.79 2.61 1.30 0.41 0.26 0.01 Dry N 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 Mean 21.56 29.24 34.20 30.06 30.33 22.27 16.63 13.40 10.82 9.68 6.95 Std. Dev. 3.32 9.61 15.44 8.76 11.03 7.57 4.29 2.41 0.91 0.81 1.80 Tptpmn Saturated N 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mean 27.79 38.28 36.20 25.84 17.93 14.51 12.75 11.48 10.65 9.83 9.14 Std. Dev. 1.45 2.14 5.05 4.41 3.02 1.32 0.84 0.63 0.47 0.40 0.52 Dry N 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Mean 24.82 30.08 28.39 22.55 17.20 13.72 11.88 10.73 9.93 9.34 8.38 Std. Dev. 2.25 5.33 6.30 4.27 5.10 3.42 2.78 1.86 1.07 0.45 1.25 Tptpll Saturated N 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mean 17.30 19.71 19.05 17.91 16.75 13.66 12.26 11.56 9.92 9.16 8.50 Std. Dev. 3.93 5.31 4.90 3.92 3.16 1.38 1.65 2.77 0.54 0.64 0.57 Dry N 13 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 Mean 17.15 20.16 22.11 21.69 22.06 15.80 11.47 10.10 8.88 8.12 7.03 Std. Dev. 2.71 4.78 8.25 8.17 14.24 5.54 3.63 2.87 2.50 2.33 2.39 Tptpln Saturated N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mean Std. Dev. Dry N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 15.02 15.52 15.38 15.07 14.08 13.03 11.98 10.85 9.95 9.20 5.24 Std. Dev. 2.70 2.89 2.28 1.63 2.06 2.61 2.56 1.87 1.09 0.63 0.23 Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Tables 5-15 and 5-16, DTN: SNL01B05059301.006 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-52 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-24. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Thermal Mechanical Units MCTE on Heat-up (10-6/oC) 25~50 50~75 75~100 100~12 125~15 150~17 175~20 200~22 225~25 250~27 275~30 T/M unit oC oC oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC Tcw Saturated N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 Mean 7.09 7.62 8.08 10.34 13.17 15.20 16.99 18.99 21.38 27.42 42.99 Std. Dev. 0.43 0.15 0.50 1.52 1.23 1.57 1.41 0.96 1.23 1.94 37.35 Dry N 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 6.60 8.29 9.62 10.53 12.69 14.90 17.03 20.68 29.64 36.49 49.15 Std. Dev. 1.49 0.99 1.06 1.60 1.55 1.91 2.31 5.41 21.88 16.97 34.24 PTn Saturated N 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 Mean 4.46 4.28 -1.45 -30.42 5.54 4.47 0.64 -4.65 -9.79 -13.46 -12.96 Std. Dev. 0.38 1.61 3.63 21.47 0.41 0.79 1.03 4.05 7.85 11.12 12.90 Dry N 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mean 4.55 4.24 3.36 -4.78 6.46 5.69 3.61 0.56 -2.96 -5.81 -7.25 Std. Dev. 0.74 1.46 2.40 11.12 0.96 1.41 2.58 5.81 9.12 11.36 10.80 TSw1 Saturated N 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 Mean 6.56 7.32 6.83 6.92 10.72 14.28 20.98 36.82 41.64 42.76 43.81 Std. Dev. 1.16 0.60 1.60 3.28 1.74 3.26 7.01 20.49 17.35 13.19 13.65 Dry N 33 33 33 28 28 27 26 25 25 25 25 Mean 6.29 7.60 8.39 8.96 10.37 15.51 23.67 34.24 34.00 36.07 38.74 Std. Dev. 1.22 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.38 4.53 11.07 20.30 13.70 13.23 13.78 TSw2 Saturated N 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 16 16 16 16 Mean 7.14 7.47 7.46 9.07 9.98 11.74 13.09 15.47 19.03 25.28 37.19 Std. Dev. 0.65 1.51 1.21 2.41 0.77 1.28 1.40 1.75 3.09 6.87 14.27 Dry N 40 40 40 40 40 38 38 35 35 35 35 Mean 6.67 8.31 8.87 9.37 10.10 10.96 12.22 14.52 20.79 25.13 35.13 Std. Dev. 1.20 0.42 0.40 0.55 0.88 1.16 1.50 2.57 17.03 10.07 14.56 MCTE on Cool-Down (10-6/oC) 275~30 250~27 225~25 200~22 175~20 150~17 125~15 100~12 75~100 50~75 35~50 T/M unit 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC oC oC oC Tcw Saturated N 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mean 14.72 21.97 33.53 37.01 23.81 18.48 15.72 13.51 12.09 10.78 10.85 Std. Dev. 3.76 6.79 16.44 26.18 10.01 3.25 1.96 1.48 1.28 1.36 1.96 Dry N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 Mean 17.46 26.34 36.95 33.72 22.86 17.58 13.89 11.77 10.21 9.35 6.59 Std. Dev. 3.70 6.88 11.50 14.21 3.16 2.00 2.39 2.22 1.56 1.15 2.20 PTn Saturated N 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Mean 15.58 9.12 7.20 6.39 6.98 6.29 5.93 5.36 5.12 4.33 1.94 Std. Dev. 1.04 0.84 0.29 0.17 1.51 0.78 0.47 0.36 0.34 0.84 2.93 Dry N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 Mean 11.22 7.91 6.78 6.45 6.47 6.53 6.11 5.80 5.52 4.82 2.41 Std. Dev. 2.46 1.00 0.81 0.90 1.14 1.35 1.30 1.16 0.89 0.84 0.86 TSw1 Saturated N 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 Mean 15.07 19.87 24.05 26.15 27.57 26.66 28.19 19.89 11.46 9.92 9.35 Std. Dev. 4.68 7.82 9.85 7.37 8.36 9.91 18.04 8.05 2.01 1.54 1.06 Dry N 25 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 33 33 33 Mean 16.68 20.71 24.16 23.26 26.74 25.34 25.55 17.78 10.53 9.22 6.95 Std. Dev. 4.13 7.78 10.61 7.29 9.32 9.35 14.94 8.53 2.15 1.51 2.49 TSw2 Saturated N 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Mean 21.89 27.83 26.55 21.38 17.31 14.06 12.49 11.52 10.27 9.48 8.81 Std. Dev. 6.16 10.36 10.01 5.70 3.07 1.38 1.32 2.00 0.62 0.63 0.62 Dry N 35 35 35 35 38 38 40 40 40 40 40 Mean 20.57 24.31 24.20 21.16 18.45 14.34 11.74 10.51 9.54 8.87 7.48 Std. Dev. 4.88 7.55 8.08 6.24 9.36 4.23 3.03 2.26 1.79 1.56 1.99 Source: DTN SNL01B05059301.006 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-53 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Additional laboratory measurements of CTEs were performed for the specimens from the SHT and DST (CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 6.2.3.2 [129261] and CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 3.4.2, respectively). Summaries for the measurements are presented in Tables 8-25 and 8-26. The laboratory measurements of the mean CTEs from the SHT and DST are localized in Tptpmn unit. Sensitivity of intact rock thermal expansion to temperature, moisture content, specimen size, and confining stress has been evaluated based on laboratory tests. The evaluation was carried out by comparing the results of tests from specimens at different conditions (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.2.1; CRWMS M&O 1997d, Section 5.2.2). Effect of Temperature and Heating and Cooling Cycle Intact rock thermal expansion is highly temperature dependent, and increases with increasing temperatures (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. This can be observed from the mean CTEs for the Tptpmn and Tptpll rock, as shown in Figure 8-8. These results are summarized from about 3,000 and 500 measurements on the specimens with various moisture contents from Tptpmn and Tptpll units, respectively. Over a temperature range from 150°C to 200°C, the CTEs increase more steeply, which is believed to be associated with mineral phase changes occurring in Yucca Mountain welded tuff. It is also observed that the mean CTEs for Tptpmn specimens are greater than those for Tptpll, especially when temperature exceeds 200°C. Table 8-25. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Specimens from the SHTa MCTE on the First Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Mean 8.6 9.9 9.0 9.6 10.6 11.8 12.3 15.4 21.9 33.6 57.1 54.9 Std. Dev. 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.7 5.5 8.6 12.0 8.5 MCTE on the First Cooling Cycle (10-6/oC) 300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mean 16.9 29.4 39.4 37.6 25.6 20.1 15.1 12.7 11.8 10.6 10.0 10.4 Std. Dev. 2.3 1.8 5.1 8.2 4.3 4.4 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 3.0 MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Mean 8.5 9.7 9.0 10.2 11.1 12.2 14.1 19.1 25.2 43.6 49.7 31.8 Std. Dev. 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.1 3.3 4.2 9.3 8.2 2.8 MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mean 17.9 29.5 40.3 38.5 26.1 19.2 14.7 12.3 11.5 10.4 9.8 9.4 Std. Dev. 1.7 1.6 4.7 7.5 3.5 2.5 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 Source: DTN SNL22080196001.003 aAir dried. Lithostratigraphic unit is Tptpmn. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-54 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-26. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Specimens from the DSTa MCTE on the First Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 13 Mean 7.34 8.99 9.73 10.22 10.91 12.20 14.74 22.31 27.34 33.88 54.13 52.28 Std. Dev. 0.57 0.47 0.54 0.58 0.79 1.04 4.79 18.09 15.70 6.94 12.18 13.42 MCTE on the First Cooling Cycle (10-6/oC) 300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC N 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 15 Mean 15.74 24.07 35.63 36.01 26.50 24.19 18.30 14.14 12.36 11.05 10.24 9.67 Std. Dev. 1.88 5.70 8.39 8.32 4.69 9.82 7.37 2.61 1.76 0.84 1.24 0.66 MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 13 Mean 7.22 8.87 9.63 10.24 11.28 13.22 19.37 22.66 24.82 37.84 46.78 34.46 Std. Dev. 0.76 0.59 0.54 0.61 0.98 2.98 14.97 10.66 5.47 9.52 11.63 10.17 MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC N 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Mean 16.50 26.48 37.06 36.39 26.44 23.64 17.46 13.75 12.01 11.36 10.16 9.81 Std. Dev. 1.06 2.32 4.00 3.77 2.14 4.50 2.92 0.99 0.56 0.87 0.31 0.33 Source: DTN SN0203L2210196.007 aAir dried. Lithostratigraphic unit is Tptpmn except for HDFR1-97.9, which may be from Tptpll. Mean CTE (10-6 oC-1) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tptpmn Tptpll 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature (oC) Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15 Figure 8-8. Mean CTEs Measured from Specimens of Tptpmn and Tptpll Units 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-55 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The temperature dependency of thermal expansion was observed on both wet (fully-saturated) and dry (oven-dried) specimens (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. Effect of Moisture Content Effect of moisture content on intact rock thermal expansion was investigated through laboratory thermal expansion measurements using air- or oven-dried and vacuum-saturated specimens (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. The results indicate that the moisture content of specimens has insignificant effect on the CTEs, especially at temperatures below 200°C. Effect of Confining Stress Most of laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made at ambient atmospheric pressure. By definition, CTE is measured at a stress-free condition. This can be achieved in a laboratory test, however, in a drift-scale field thermal expansion measurement, a stress-free condition is difficult to achieve. Adjustment of field measurements for confining stresses is a complex issue as it requires an accurate determination of the magnitude of stresses at the location where the thermal expansion is measured. Sometimes the stress conditions are unknown. Additionally, some mineralogical phase changes are not only temperature dependent but also pressure sensitive. For these reasons, the effect of confining stress on CTE was assessed in laboratory tests using the specimens taken from borehole USW SD-12, covering the rock units of Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln (Martin et al. 1997d, Sections 3 and 4). Tests were conducted at a confining stress ranging from 1 to 30 MPa. At each confining stress, several thermal cycles were performed up to a temperature of about 250°C. It appears that at low temperature, the mean CTEs are slightly lower for tests at lower confining stress than at higher confining stress, while at higher temperatures the mean CTEs are higher for tests at lower confining stress than at higher confining stress. Overall, the mean CTEs are not very sensitive to the confining stress (Martin et al. 1997d, Sections 3 and 4). Effect of Specimen Size Most of laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made on small specimens with a nominal diameter of 25.4 mm (1-in). Since the Yucca Mountain tuff contains features such as voids and fractures, the effect of these features on CTE depends on the size of specimens tested. This effect was investigated for the Tptpll rock unit by comparing the mean CTEs obtained from tests on small 1-in specimens to those on large 12-in (30.5 cm) specimens (DTNs: SN0208L01B8102.001 and SN0211L01B8102.002). A comparison of results is shown in Figure 8-9. The mean CTEs for smaller specimens are generally greater than those for larger specimens, indicating that portion of the space occupied by air in larger specimens is “absorbed” by expanding rock matrix during heating, resulting in a lower CTE. The difference in CTE between two sizes of specimens is diminishing as temperature increases, a result of voids or fractures closing with increase of temperature. A thorough understanding of the correlation between specimen size and thermal expansion may help in selection of right CTE values for use in the repository design and assessment of 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-56 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report uncertainty of or confidence in the data used. To achieve this, additional test data may be required. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 C-1) i iMean CTE (10-6 o Mean for 1 inch specmens Mean for 12nch specimens 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature (oC) Sources: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15; DTNs: SN0208L01B8102.001and SN0211L01B8102.002 Figure 8-9. Mean CTEs Measured on 1-in (25.4 mm) and 12-in (30.5 cm) Specimens Taken from Tptpll Unit Uncertainties on the mean CTEs obtained from laboratory thermal expansion tests are associated with errors from measurements and variations of specimens taken from different borehole cores. Among them, the latter is the primary contributor and more difficult to quantify. Errors from measurements are contributed by equipment precision, variations of test environment, and operation of equipment by different personnel. These errors or uncertainties are either aleatory or epistemic. Quantification of these uncertainties is possible but requires the study of complete test records. Since laboratory thermal expansion measurements were conducted under a controlled environmental condition, and equipment used were calibrated to the requirements specified by test procedures, the uncertainties associated with measurements are relatively insignificant. Uncertainty of data from laboratory thermal measurements is mainly contributed by variations of specimens. The specimens used were collected from various boreholes drilled at various locations. Difference in the test results from different specimens reflects in part the spatial variations in rock properties. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-57 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.3.5.3 Rock Mass Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Rock mass thermal expansion is the effective thermal expansion that rock mass experiences when subjected to a change in temperature. It accounts for the effects of voids, fractures, moisture content, and any heterogeneity or discontinuity that affect the thermal expansion. Determination of rock mass thermal expansion is more difficult than that of intact rock because of the scale considered in a measurement. It is hardly feasible to conduct a laboratory measurement using a specimen with a size of the drift scale. Field measurements are usually used and require more efforts and resources. In the case of a lack of field measurements, use of either laboratory measurements with large specimens or analytical calculations based on the correlation of thermal expansion and key controlling factors such as discontinuity may serve as alternatives to estimate rock mass CTEs. The analytical calculations need to be validated using available field measured data or laboratory data measured based on large specimens. Field measurements are conducted on rock displacements at different temperatures. These displacements are then used to calculate rock mass dimension changes and thermal expansion at the corresponding temperature based on Equation 8-16. Measurements of rock displacements are usually made by multi-point borehole extensometer (MPBX), while those of rock temperatures are by thermal probes. In order to evaluate the effects of porosity, fractures, moisture contents, and confining stresses, mapping voids or fractures of the measuring boreholes and measuring in situ moisture contents and confining stresses are considered necessary. Field measurements are considered the most valuable in terms of rock mass properties. Due to spatial variations of rock properties and uncontrollable conditions at field, uncertainties associated with the field data are usually very high, which makes the interpretation of field data a challenge task. Two major field tests, which involved the measurements of rock mass thermal expansion, are the SHT and the DST. Both of the SHT and the DST are located in the Tptpmn rock unit. The SHT block is approximately 12.9 m wide, 9.5 m deep, and 5.5 m high. The SHT used a heater power of about 4,000 watts for a period of nine months, followed by a cool down period of seven months with the heater off completely. The maximum rock temperature measured at the end of the heating period was about 160°C. MPBX displacements were measured at different temperatures within the rock mass surrounding the SHT. These displacements from MPBX-1, MPBX-3, and MPBX-2 were then used to determine rock mass thermal expansion at the corresponding temperature (BSC 2002i, Table 6.2.3.5-1). Similar to the SHT, MPBX displacements have been measured during the DST. These displacements measurements from boreholes 81 and 82 that are roughly parallel to the Heated Drift and extend over 45 m have been used to estimate rock mass thermal expansion during heating as a function of temperature (Equation 8-16) in Table 6.3.3.6-5 of BSC 2002i(DTN: SN0208F3912298.039). The mean rock mass CTEs, as shown in Figure 8-10, were calculated based on the measured MPBX displacements from both SHT and DST. Similar to those from the laboratory measurements, the mean rock mass CTEs are also highly temperature dependent, but their dependency is less profound than for the intact rock. The rock mass CTEs are lower than the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-58 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report intact rock. The difference is getting smaller with increasing temperature, indicating that the effect of fractures on CTEs is diminishing as more fractures are closed by rock deformation as a result of temperature increase. 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 C-1)Mean CTE (10-6 o Mean from Lab Mean from SHT Mean from DST 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Temperature (oC) Sources: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15; BSC 2002i, Tables 6.2.3.5-1 and 6.3.3.6-5 Figure 8-10. Comparison of Mean Intact Rock CTEs from Laboratory Measurements and Rock Mass CTEs from SHT and DST Measurements for Tptpmn Unit There are no field thermal expansion measurements available in the Tptpll rock unit. The best data available on rock mass thermal expansion for this rock unit are those from laboratory thermal expansion measurements on specimens with a nominal diameter of 12 inches (DTNs: SN0208L01B8102.001 and SN0211L01B8102.002). Only five specimens were tested. No definite conclusion can be drawn in terms of the effects of scaling and lithophysal cavities or fractures on rock mass thermal expansion. The results may still help to shed some light on the understanding of this effect. A comprehensive knowledge of the effect of lithophysal cavities on rock mass thermal expansion may be acquired by conducting additional laboratory tests with specimens of various sizes or some field measurements. The mean CTEs from the laboratory measurements on 12-in specimens are shown in Figure 8-9. Observation similar to those for the rock mass CTEs of Tptpmn unit can be made. The difference between the mean CTEs from small 1-in specimens and those from 12-in specimens (see Figure 8-9 is relatively smaller than that for Tptpmn (see Figure 8-10). There are Three possible reasons behind this. First, for Tptpll unit the comparison is made on the results all from laboratory measurements on specimens with different sizes, while for Tptpmn the results are compared between laboratory measurements and field ones. Laboratory measurements are made 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-59 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report under a better-controlled environment or condition, while field measurements usually involve unknown conditions, resulting in a higher uncertainty. Second, rock mass characteristics of Tptpll and Tptpmn units are quite different. Third, scale effect may be a factor, since the 12-in specimens are still small compared to the drift scale. These differences may also contribute to the effect on rock mass CTE. Analytical approach may be one of the alternatives to estimate rock mass CTEs as well as to assess their spatial variations without conducting costly field tests. With the analytical approach, a correlation that relates rock mass CTE to lithophysal porosity and intact rock CTE must be developed. Some theoretical principles employed in developing various analytical models for estimating rock mass thermal conductivity, as discussed in Section 8.3.3.2.7, may be applicable for developing the analytical models for estimating rock mass thermal expansion. In case field measurements are not either feasible or available, numerical experiments using commercially available software to estimate rock mass CTE unit may be an alternative. This may be achieved by using a similar approach that was used to calculate rock mass deformation modulus of Tptpll based on the PFC code (Board 2003, Section 6.2.4 [165036]). Either FLAC or ANSYS may be a candidate code for this task. In such a numerical experiment, the variables or factors that may affect the results include the size, shape, distribution, and density of voids explicitly modeled. The effect of these factors should be addressed in the numerical experiments. The primary uncertainties of rock mass CTEs are associated with field measurements of MPBX displacements and RTD and thermocouple temperatures. These uncertainties, quantifiable and non-quantifiable, are discussed in BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.3.5.2 and 6.3.3.6.6. The accuracy of the instrumentation and the conversion of the electrical output to engineering units contribute to the errors in the data. These errors are systematic and are generally quantifiable. In addition to these uncertainties, spatial variations of rock mass characteristics can also contribute to the uncertainty of the data since the field measurements were made only at limited locations. As far as the rock mass CTEs of Tptpll units are concerned, the primary uncertainties are associated with the spatial variations of lithophysal cavities. Five 12-in specimens collected from two locations represent a relatively small sample. In addition, 12-in specimens may or may not be representative for the rock mass. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-60 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF INTACT ROCK 8.4.1 General Properties of rocks are determined using specimen sizes ranging from microscopic mineral crystals to large volumes of rock mass, where features such as fractures, may impact rock behavior such that it may no longer be treated as a uniform rock type. For logistic reasons, small rock samples, from which test specimens can be prepared and tested, can be obtained much easier than large-size specimens. For this reason mechanical properties of intact rock provide a basis for comparison of any additional factors and testing methods that may contribute to the specific behavior of rock at various sample sizes and subject to a variety of testing methods. This section provides a summary of testing performed on on intact rock specimens from the YMP. 8.4.2 Assessment of Factors Affecting Properties of Intact Rock The two elastic constants that are routinely determined from measurements in virtually all of the mechanical property experiments are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. These properties are discussed in terms of their variability with changes in the physical characteristics and environmental conditions discussed earlier. Intact rock elastic properties were collected from core samples from surface and subsurface drilling efforts. The data have been collected since the beginning of subsurface exploration in the late 1970’s and includes data that have most recently been collected from additional testing done on specimens collected from drilling operations in the ESF and ECRB. Table 8-16 shows the drill hole or approximate location of the sample collection for all unconfined compressive specimens as well as the associated elastic properties calculated from the strength test. Samples tested range in diameter from 25.4 mm (1 in) to 290 mm (11.4 in). Elastic rock data presented come from many different studies performed by several laboratories. Data were collected and tested under quality assurance programs that were in place at the time of testing. Most recently, in mid 2003, a data qualification effort located data and qualified data that meet the conditions of corroboration set by AP-SIII.2Q Rev 1 ICN 1, Qualification of Unqualified Data. The Data Qualification and Summary Report is available as TDR-MGR-GE- 000004, Rev. 00 (Cikanek et. al 2003c), and the data summary is presented in DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Additional data from recent testing performed by Sandia National Laboratories to explore the effect of lithophysae are found in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, and SN0305L0207502.004. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-61 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-27. Drillhole and Subsurface Location of Test Rock Samples Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln Drillhole/Surface USW NRG-6 USW G-4 USW G-1 USW G-1 Specimens USW NRG-7a USW NRG-7a USW G-2 USW G-4 USW SD-9 USW GU-3 USW G-4 USW GU-3 USW GU-3 UE-25 NRG #5 USW NRG-6 USW NRG-7a Busted Butte USW NRG-6 USW NRG-7a USW SD-9 USW SD-12 USW GU-3 USW SD-12 USW SD-9 Busted Butte UE-25a #1 UE-25a #1 Fran Ridge Busted Butte Subsurface ESF/ECRB ESF 63+50 ESF 12+50 ECRB 21+50 No subsurface Specimens samples from the ESF 65+00 Drift Scale Thermal ESF 22+00 ESF/ECRB Test Area ESF 65+60.5 ESF 19+00 included in this Instrumentation through ECRB 19+22.2 report. Boreholes ESF 65+96 through ECRB 19+28.7 SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-62 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.2.1 Intact Rock Young’s Modulus The magnitude of Young’s modulus depends on several environmental and physical conditions. The effects of the physical and environmental conditions are explored within this section. Young’s modulus was most often calculated between 10 and 50 percent of the ultimate strength. Various laboratories and investigators have performed testing with slightly varying methods of calculating the elastic modulus. The method of calculating Young’s Modulus is generally explained in ASTM D3148-96 Standard Test Method for Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens in Uniaxial Compression. Some modulus results were calculated between 25 and 50 percent or the linear portion of the stress-strain curve. Modulus values were calculated most often by least squares linear regression of all data points collected between the above-mentioned bounds. Generally, Young’s modulus and failure strength depend on the welding of the tuff. Nonwelded tuff is weak and exhibits low Young’s moduli, and welded tuffs have higher moduli (CRWMS M&O 1997d p. 5-119, p. 5-133). A summary of all calculated Young’s moduli for the repository host horizon, as well as units found above and below the RHH is shown in Table 8-28. All codes shown in the summary table below are explained in Section 8.2.2. All static Young’s modulus results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. Porosity: Studies have shown a strong inverse relationship between Young’s modulus and porosity (Olsson and Jones 1980; Price 1983; Price and Bauer 1985; Price et al. 1993, 1994a, and 1994b). Ten large Tptpul samples were tested at baseline conditions (saturated, room temperature). The test specimens had an average porosity of 0.35, with a range from 0.31 to 0.40. Results of this testing are available in DTN SNSAND84086000.000. Samples that were 267 mm in diameter do not show a clear correlation between porosity and elastic modulus because there is a large range of modulus values over a limited range of porosity. A collection of all currently qualified and verified RHH Young’s modulus values that were calculated from stress-strain curves on 50.8 mm diameter, saturated, tested at room temperature, having a length to diameter ratio near 2:1 and tested at a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 are plotted against measured porosity in Figure 8-11. An inverse relationship between Young’s modulus and porosity is apparent. There is no apparent correlation between Young’s modulus and porosity for 25.4 mm specimens because of the narrow range of porosities considered. Sample Size: Two studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of sample size on intact tuff mechanical properties. Price (1986) tested outcrop samples of the Tptpmn zone of the Topopah Spring tuff obtained from large boulders from Busted Butte, just to the southeast of Yucca Mountain. The test specimens were all cylinders with nominal diameters of 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, 82.6 mm, 127.0 mm and 228.6 mm, and tested at the baseline set of conditions. The results from these tests, as shown in Figure 8-12, indicate that Young’s modulus is independent 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-63 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report of sample size. The average Young’s moduli for these five sample sizes range from 35.3 GPa to 43.7 GPa and the Poisson’s ratios from 0.19 to 0.22 (Price 1986). The second study with data on samples also from large boulders retrieved from Busted Butte is available in DTN SN0306L0207502.008. These boulders, however, were taken from the Tptpll zone of the Topopah Spring tuff. The test specimens are cylinders of nominal diameters of 25.4 mm, 51.0 mm, 82.1 mm, and 120.7 mm, and a set of 5 parallelepipeds with a square cross- sectional area samples and an average width of 204 mm. The samples were tested at all baseline conditions except for one: because of the urgency of the experiments to meet project deadlines, the samples were tested room dry instead of saturated. While these samples are from a lithophysal zone, this is a section of the zone with very few lithophysae, and those that are present are quite large and flattened, occurring almost exclusively in the largest samples and at a high (about 45o) angle to the axis of each sample. In spite of some issues about the varying distribution of the rare lithophysal cavities (discussed in the strength section), the Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio data collected so far have shown a similar result as the earlier study: both of these elastic properties seem to be independent of sample size. Actually, the average Young’s moduli values have a smaller span than before, ranging from 32.8 GPa to 36.3 GPa and the Poisson’s ratio means are from 0.17 to 0.19 (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). A plot of the most recent RHH data is shown in Figure 8-13. Temperature: Two studies in the early 1980’s by Olsson and Jones (1980) and Olsson (1982) had a small amount of data and often did not have comparative data (i.e., side-by-side samples) for different temperatures, so quantitative conclusions are not possible. The Young’s modulus data for some non-welded tuff from Ranier Mesa at the Nevada Test Site indicate a distinctly lower value for the 200°C tests than the room temperature tests. No results were recorded for Young’s modulus for welded tuff, nor for Poisson’s ratio, in any tuff type. In a later study by Price and others, Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn zone of the Topopah Spring tuff were tested at room temperature and 150oC, and at unconfined and 5 MPa effective confining pressures (Note: all elevated temperature tests were run with a 2 MPa pore pressure in order to maintain the water in a liquid state). The effectively unconfined test results show a 16% decrease in Young’s modulus, while the test data at 5 MPa effective pressure show a 21% decrease for the stated increase in temperature (Price at al. 1987). No lateral displacement measurements were made on the elevated temperature experiments, so no similar comparison can be made on the Poisson’s ratio values. Experiments have recently been conducted on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpll lithostratigraphic unit. The preliminary results do not indicate a difference in Young’s modulus or Poisson’s ratio with varying temperature. The most recent data are contained in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008 and SN0305L0207502.004. The effect of temperature on Young’s modulus using all currently qualified RHH 50.8 mm saturated specimens at room temperature is shown in Figure 8-14. Testing involving varying the temperature of the specimens and determining the Young’s modulus while at 150°C was only performed on samples collected from the Tptpmn rock unit. Although tests were performed at only two temperatures, an inverse relationship between Young’s modulus and sample 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-64 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report temperature is observed. This relationship is slight, but noticeable for both saturated and dry specimens. Saturation: Unless considering the deformation of a fully saturated rock in an undrained condition, in general changing the amount of water in a rock rarely results in a significant effect on the elastic properties of rocks, and even more specifically on silicic rocks, like tuff. Olsson and Jones (1980) tested both dry and saturated test specimens of tuff from Ranier Mesa on the Nevada Test Site at various strain rates. These test results show a consistent, but small decrease in Young’s moduli values when comparing dry and saturated results at any given strain rate. A very limited study on four room-dry samples and four saturated samples of Calico Hills tuff is presented in Price and Jones (1982). These Young’s modulus data are inconclusive, and contrary to expectations show a slight modulus increase for specimens varying in saturation from room dry to saturated. Forty-four room dry and saturated samples were tested at a range of confining pressures and strain rates. When comparing the same sets of test conditions, neither Young’s modulus nor Poisson’s ratio show a consistent relationship with saturation. The trends in the differences vary with conditions, but more significantly the ranges of values determined within one standard deviation of the mean have large overlapping values, indicating the differences are not significant (Price et al. 1987). An ongoing study on 51 mm diameter samples from Busted Butte outcrop samples of the Tptpll zone is incomplete, although some results are available. The preliminary results show a small decrease (about 6%) when comparing the means for Young’s modulus values from tests on six room dry samples compared to seven saturated samples (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). The level of saturation for the given sample is relatively unknown, as it is uncertain whether internal pores become saturated during the procedure that required vacuum saturation of specimens. For the purpose of testing, saturation was deemed to occur when the change in weight became relatively insignificant. A plot of 50.8 mm diameter samples, tested saturated at a constant strain rate of 10-5s-1, from all RHH specimen testing throughout the years is shown in Figure 8-15. Figure 8-15 suggests that if any trend exists, increasing saturation results in a decrease in Young’s modulus for nonlithophysal specimens. In summary, the data are not absolutely conclusive, but the majority of data indicate that saturation level has a relatively small effect on the elastic properties of the nonlithophysal welded tuffs. It should be noted that there are indications of a greater effect of moisture on lithophysal welded tuff. Rate or Time Scale: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested saturated and oven-dried samples of Grouse Canyon welded tuff from Rainier Mesa, Nevada Test Site, at three strain rates: 10-6 s-1, 10-4 s -1 and 10-2 s. For the oven-dried samples, the average Young’s moduli are essentially equal for all of the strain rates; however, for the saturated samples, a slight trend is evident. The saturated Young’s moduli are found to be inversely related to rate, with the mean Young’s moduli values (the overall change was 26.0 to 23.3 GPa) decreasing by an average of 2.5% per decade increase in rate over the strain rates stated above. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-65 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report There are some limited data on rate effects in three early studies, one on moderately welded Tram tuff (Price and Nimick 1982), one on non-welded Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 1982) and one on highly welded Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al., 1982). In all of these rate studies, saturated samples were tested at room temperature and ambient pressure. The studies by Price and Nimick (1982) and Price et al. (1982) used strain rates of 10-6, 10-4 and 10-2 s-1, while Price -1 and Jones (1982) used 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s. The Price and Nimick (1982) results show no trend in Young’s modulus (overall average of 7.3 GPa) with strain rate; however, the Price and Jones (1982) and the Price et al. (1982) studies show the mean Young’s moduli values decreasing by an average of 6.8% and 3.4%, respectively, per decade increase in strain rate. Similarly, in the study by Price et al. (1987), the Young’s moduli data for the saturated samples tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 show an inverse relationship with rate. The samples were from Busted Butte outcrop samples of the Tptpmn unit. The mean Young’s moduli data decrease (from 40.1 to 32.5 GPa) an average of 4.7% per decade increase in strain rate. A smaller set of data was gathered on oven-dry samples -1 tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s. These data indicate a direct relationship between Young’s modulus and rate, with the average data being 38.0 GPa for the 10-7 s-1 experiments and 40.5 GPa for the 10-5 s-1 experiments. A study conducted to extend the Price et al. (1987) work above was carried out by Martin et al. (1993a and 1993b). Six experiments were performed on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn unit. The test specimens were water saturated and tested at room temperature, -1 ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These results show a reversal of the Young’s modulus trend above, with the average Young’s modulus being 33.9 GPa. A plot of Young’s modulus versus strain rate for all Tptpmn specimens tested saturated at room temperature with length to diameter ratio near 2:1 is shown in Figure 8-16. Sample Orientation (Anisotropy): Elastic anisotropy has not been clearly determined to be observable in the Yucca Mountain tuffs. (Price et al. 1984). A later study investigating both static and dynamic elastic moduli found that the tuff is clearly anisotropic, approximately 7% for dynamic measurements, and 20% static measurements (Martin et al. 1992). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-66 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) Tmr 5 7 11 13.92 2.58 11.50 31.70 3 23.83 1.21 24.20 4.13 5 14.26 1.41 15.00 7.90 1 33.40 N/A N/A 33.40 N/A 6 24.81 2.74 28.15 15.47 1 21.4 N/A 21.4 1 19.17 N/A N/A 19.17 N/A 1 22.8 N/A 22.8 3 23.88 1.00 23.17 3.25 4 35.08 2.76 36.95 12.40 4 37.68 0.56 37.30 2.50 8 35.81 2.60 38.95 21.40 2 35.40 35.40 15.00 1 27.40 N/A N/A 27.40 N/A 1 16.13 N/A N/A 16.13 N/A 1 34.54 N/A N/A 34.54 N/A 1 24.13 N/A N/A 24.13 N/A 4 34.43 2.35 35.21 9.51 17 35.74 0.85 36.70 14.40 1 24.40 N/A N/A 24.40 N/A 1 22.30 N/A N/A 22.30 N/A 20 33.84 1.35 35.75 18.70 3 32.73 4.94 36.10 16.10 3 43.97 5.02 39.20 15.30 1 57.50 N/A N/A 57.5 1 43.90 N/A N/A 43.9 1 58.30 N/A N/A 58.3 1 18.80 N/A N/A 18.80 N/A 5 10.90 3.87 7.70 21.90 4 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 2.9 N/A Tpy 5 2 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 10 0.98 0.21 0.75 1.80 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 6 3 2 N/A 6 30.32 25.90 13 19.80 1.32 20.60 16.40 11 22.58 1.76 25.30 21.00 57 21.24 1.25 19.9 50.70 8 22.36 1.82 24.60 15.00 8 19.65 2.90 20.05 26.40 5 21.32 2.67 19.80 13.50 3 10.30 4.30 1 14.40 N/A N/A 14.40 N/A 5 48.84 46.3 29.70 2 42.00 N/A N/A 42 1 54.70 N/A N/A 54.7 UO Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range O421150 3.36 2.69 1.20 3.70 0.70 7.20 6.50 Tpki O421150 3.77 1.54 0.58 4.00 0.70 5.10 4.40 O421150 8.55 6.50 38.20 O431150 2.09 21.58 25.71 Tpcrn2 O421150 3.16 9.70 17.60 Tpcrn1 O421150 33.40 33.40 O421150 6.72 14.8 30.27 O431143 N/A 21.4 21.4 N/A O431146 19.17 19.17 O431147 N/A 22.8 22.8 N/A O431150 1.74 22.61 25.86 O121151 5.52 27.00 39.40 O121153 1.12 36.80 39.30 O421150 7.35 20.00 41.40 O421151 10.61 7.50 27.90 42.90 O421153 27.40 27.40 O431144 16.13 16.13 O431146 34.54 34.54 O431147 24.13 24.13 O431150 4.71 28.89 38.40 O421150 3.49 24.60 39.00 O421151 24.40 24.40 O421153 22.30 22.30 O421150 6.05 21.40 40.10 O421151 8.56 23.00 39.10 O421153 8.69 38.70 54.00 O431140 57.5 57.5 N/A O431143 43.9 43.9 N/A O431145 58.3 58.3 N/A Tpcplnc O421153 18.80 18.80 Tpcpv2 O421150 8.65 2.10 24.00 Tpcpv1 O421150 2.53 1.67 0.83 2.95 0.30 3.90 3.60 O421150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A O431140 0.41 N/A 0.41 0.41 0.41 N/A O431150 2.90 N/A 2.9 2.9 O421150 5.24 3.05 1.36 4.90 2.30 9.20 6.90 O421150 1.30 N/A 1.30 0.20 2.40 2.20 O421151 N/A N/A N/A O431150 1.80 N/A 1.80 1.20 2.40 1.20 O421150 0.66 0.30 2.10 O421153 N/A N/A N/A O431150 1.05 N/A 1.05 0.80 1.30 0.50 O421150 0.67 0.68 0.28 0.50 0.01 1.70 1.69 O431150 0.90 0.53 0.31 0.70 0.50 1.50 1.00 Tptrv3 O421150 0.99 N/A 0.99 0.07 1.90 1.83 O121150 11.20 4.57 30 17.6 43.5 O121151 4.77 12.30 28.70 O121153 5.83 8.40 29.40 O421150 9.41 9.2 59.9 O421151 5.16 14.00 29.00 O421153 8.19 2.00 28.40 O431150 5.98 14.80 28.30 O421150 9.13 2.38 1.37 6.40 10.70 O421151 14.40 14.40 O121150 11.58 5.18 38.6 68.3 O121170 41.9 42.1 0.20 (continued) O421150 54.7 54.7 N/A Tpcrn Tptf Tptrl Tptrn Tpp Tpbt4 TCw PTn stratigraphic Unit TSw1 Tpcpmn Tpcpul Tpcpln Tpbt2 Tpbt3 Tpcpll Mechanical Unit ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1 SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-67 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values (continued) Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) i8 20.41 9.16 3.24 6.00 33.30 2 25.10 N/A 25.1 17.8 32.4 1 22.30 N/A 22.3 22.3 22.3 2 19.70 N/A 19.70 18.30 21.10 1 6.70 N/A 6.7 6.7 2 11.40 N/A 11.4 15.6 5 12.86 3.86 1.73 14.5 16.9 15.47 3.15 1.00 15.80 10.90 21.50 3 10.30 3.22 1.86 9.90 7.30 13.70 3 5.87 0.85 0.49 5.90 5.00 6.70 6 13.45 5.79 2.36 5.80 20.50 1 14.90 N/A 14.90 14.90 14.90 N/A 24.02 4.13 0.75 25.10 6.80 27.80 3 36.60 2.31 1.33 37.4 38.4 34.90 5.58 1.02 33.8 28.1 47.3 6 37.40 3.85 1.57 35.9 43.6 6 34.23 2.17 0.89 34.05 32 38 2 35.55 N/A 35.55 33.6 37.5 36.76 3.48 0.87 37.6 28.9 43.1 30.01 7.29 1.95 33.7 32.40 2.93 0.62 32.65 25.7 36.7 4 40.55 5.01 2.51 41.4 33.7 45.7 3 37.43 3.52 2.03 37.9 33.7 40.7 3 35.57 4.53 2.62 33.1 32.8 40.8 4 37.98 4.48 2.24 38.8 32.1 42.2 2 26.10 17.11 12.10 14.00 38.20 3 37.30 0.53 0.31 37.5 36.7 37.7 3 36.43 1.59 0.92 37.2 34.6 37.5 4 38.25 2.44 1.22 37.45 36.3 41.8 4 66.70 57.25 28.63 33.10 152.40 4 32.53 4.12 2.06 33.2 26.9 36.8 32.53 6.74 1.05 34.17 13.4 45.7 5 35.56 1.40 0.62 35.5 33.9 37.1 29.65 4.69 1.30 30.75 21.4 35.2 5 28.09 4.80 2.15 29.58 19.8 31.5 4 40.10 3.83 1.91 39.6 36.7 44.5 6 33.85 4.58 1.87 33.85 26.1 38.8 4 30.98 2.21 1.10 31.6 32.7 3 28.60 10.96 6.33 33.9 35.9 5 33.04 4.05 1.81 31.2 29.6 39.9 6 30.83 4.57 1.86 32.4 22.3 5 31.50 3.02 1.35 31 27.7 34.6 9 41.53 4.41 1.47 43.8 32.3 35.31 5.56 1.68 35.7 25.3 45.1 1 32.40 N/A 32.4 32.4 32.4 2 39.75 N/A 39.75 37.4 42.1 28.20 7.63 1.44 30.60 2.44 38.10 3 26.00 8.55 4.94 23.2 19.2 35.6 3 24.13 9.39 5.42 25.6 14.1 32.7 2 27.40 N/A 27.40 22.00 32.80 32.26 2.91 32.55 26 38.1 7 36.09 2.22 0.84 36.7 32.7 38.4 6 37.13 1.42 0.58 37.15 35.3 39.4 29.97 6.43 1.66 31.30 16.90 37.60 1 29.60 N/A 29.6 29.6 29.6 34.52 3.75 0.49 34.80 24.50 41.30 4 34.43 8.07 4.03 37.05 23.1 40.5 35.40 5.00 36.3 41.5 1 7.10 N/A 7.1 7.1 1 10.90 N/A 10.9 10.9 10.9 28.03 11.67 2.83 33.7 41.6 2 6.80 N/A 6.80 6.50 7.10 1 5.30 N/A 5.30 5.30 5.30 N/A () 3 7.57 2.25 1.30 8.50 5.00 9.20 Unit ) Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maxmum Range 1421150 21.90 27.30 1421151 N/A 14.60 1421153 N/A N/A 1431150 N/A 2.80 1613150 N/A 6.7 N/A 1621150 N/A 7.2 8.40 1631150 7.3 9.60 1721150 10 10.60 1813250 6.40 1821150 1.70 1831150 13.05 14.70 1831250 N/A 3111350 30 21.00 3121130 34 4.40 3121150 30 19.20 3121151 34 9.60 3121153 6.00 3121170 N/A 3.90 3231150 16 14.20 3231350 14 11 37 26.00 3331350 22 11.00 3411150 12.00 3411151 7.00 3411153 8.00 3411170 10.10 3412130 26.10 24.20 3412150 1.00 3412153 2.90 3412170 5.50 3412180 40.65 119.30 3421130 9.90 3421150 41 32.30 3421151 3.20 3421153 13 13.80 3421155 11.70 3421170 7.80 3421190 12.70 3422150 28 4.70 3422151 16 19.90 3422162 10.30 3422163 35 12.70 3422164 6.90 3521150 46 13.70 3621150 11 19.80 3631150 N/A N/A 3921150 N/A 4.70 2121150 28 35.66 2121151 16.40 2121153 18.60 2121170 N/A 10.80 2131150 16 0.73 12.10 2411150 5.70 2412150 4.10 2421150 15 20.70 2421153 N/A N/A 2431150 59 16.80 2512150 17.40 2531150 12 1.44 23 18.50 2613150 N/A 7.1 N/A 2621150 N/A N/A 2631150 17 9.6 32.00 2813250 N/A 0.60 2821150 N/A continued2831150 4.20 Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll TSw1 stratigraphic (cont. from previous pageTSw2 Mechanical Unit ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1 SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-68 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values (continued) Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) 2 32.90 N/A N/A 32.9 2 32.60 N/A N/A 32.6 29.72 2.29 32.4 19.70 3 33.00 5.29 35.3 17.90 37.78 1.43 38.8 14.00 3 34.27 1.73 35.9 3 35.50 2.07 34 1 43.90 N/A N/A 43.9 2 35.05 N/A N/A 35.05 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 25.20 N/A N/A 25.20 N/A 1 54.20 N/A N/A 54.20 N/A 1 32.90 N/A N/A 32.90 N/A 2 34.25 N/A N/A 34.25 4.7 1 16.10 N/A N/A 16.10 N/A 2 16.75 N/A N/A 16.75 0.1 3 5 0.35 2.25 3.7 2 N/A 2 N/A N/A 3.745 1.21 2 N/A 3.1 4 3 12.17 1.02 11.2 1 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 33 7.07 0.37 6.6 8 6 2 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 2 13.16 N/A N/A 13.16 1.73 3 8 10.18 4 16.68 1.72 17.8 1 16.50 N/A N/A 16.5 1 15.70 N/A N/A 15.7 2 19.05 N/A N/A 19.05 16 14.18 1.05 14.85 16.98 1 13.10 N/A N/A 13.1 1 17.80 N/A N/A 17.8 1 13.80 N/A N/A 13.8 2 20.67 N/A N/A 20.67 2.86 8 18.64 2.09 18.15 17.30 11 6.58 1.25 5.76 13.77 18 7.67 0.60 8.525 1 18.74 N/A N/A 18.74 N/A 4 4 1 47.90 N/A N/A 47.9 1 N/A 2 29.01 N/A N/A 29.01 3.99 1 21.95 N/A N/A 21.95 N/A 4 14.63 0.25 14.55 4 18.33 2.85 20.35 12.40 29 7.95 0.45 7.92 10.79 4 19.88 0.61 19.95 7 10.32 1.11 10.4 UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically, Not in Depositional Sequence CHn ) Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 4121120 29.2 36.6 7.40 4121140 27.7 37.5 9.80 4121150 10 7.25 16.6 36.3 4121160 9.17 22.9 40.8 4421150 10 4.53 30.4 44.4 4421151 3.00 30.8 36.1 5.30 4421153 3.59 32.9 39.6 6.70 4422164 43.9 43.9 N/A 4431150 34.4 35.7 1.30 O121153 N/A N/A N/A O421150 25.20 25.20 O421151 54.20 54.20 O421153 32.90 32.90 O431150 31.90 36.60 O121150 16.10 16.10 O431150 16.70 16.80 O121130 2.70 0.84 0.48 2.96 1.76 3.37 1.61 O121150 2.402 0.79 1.53 2.17 O121151 3.39 N/A 3.39 3.10 3.68 0.58 O121153 3.745 3.14 4.35 O121170 2.26 N/A 2.255 1.41 1.69 O121150 9.25 2.32 1.16 9.75 6.3 11.2 4.90 O121170 1.76 11.1 14.2 3.10 O421150 3.90 N/A 3.90 3.90 3.90 N/A O111150 7.31 N/A 7.31 6.50 8.12 1.62 O121130 5.43 N/A 5.43 5.41 5.45 0.04 O121150 2.13 3.51 12.8 9.29 O121153 6.76 1.56 0.55 6.51 4.28 8.90 4.62 O121155 7.42 2.13 0.87 7.66 3.92 9.72 5.80 O121170 7.45 N/A 7.45 7.03 7.86 0.83 O131153 7.27 N/A 7.27 7.20 7.34 0.14 O421150 6.50 N/A 6.50 6.10 6.90 0.80 O431140 12.29 14.02 O431165 8.69 0.81 0.47 8.50 7.99 9.57 1.58 Tacbt O121150 6.92 4.13 1.46 6.375 2.52 12.7 Tcbbt O121150 3.44 11.7 19.4 7.70 O113141 16.5 16.5 N/A O113143 15.7 15.7 N/A O113145 17.6 20.5 2.90 O121150 4.19 3.82 20.8 O123143 13.1 13.1 N/A O123145 17.8 17.8 N/A O123146 13.8 13.8 N/A O431145 19.24 22.10 Tcblv O121150 5.90 11.6 28.9 Tcbuv O121150 4.13 2.03 15.8 O121150 2.54 2.64 10.2 7.56 O431147 18.74 18.74 Tcpbt O121150 9.54 1.36 0.68 9.03 8.58 11.5 2.92 O121150 4.13 1.11 0.55 4.06 3.14 5.25 2.11 O431140 47.9 47.9 N/A Tcplv O431140 7.84 N/A 7.84 7.84 7.84 N/A O431145 27.01 31.00 O431148 21.95 21.95 Tctuc O121150 0.51 14.2 15.2 1.00 Tctlc O121150 5.70 10.1 22.5 Tctlv O121150 2.42 2.61 13.4 Tctm O121150 1.23 18.3 21.3 3.00 Tctuv O121150 2.94 6.66 14.5 7.84 Tcbm Tcbuc Tcplc Tcpm Tpbt1 Tac Tptpv2 Tptpv1 Tptpv3 TSw3 Tptpln stratigraphic Unit (cont. from previous pageTSw2 Mechanical Unit ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-69 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Young's M odulus vs Porosity 50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 50 Young's Modulus (GPa) 40 30 20 10 0 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 SNL02030193001.004 SNL02030193001.019 SNL02030193001.026 SNL02030193001.020 SNL02030193001.023 SNL02030193001.012 SNL02072983001.001 SNSAND85070900.000 SN0306L207502.008 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 Por osity (%) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-11. Young's Modulus vs. Porosity (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens Saturated, Ambient Temperature, Unconfined) Young's Modulus vs Sample Diamete r: Saturated, Room Temperature, -1 L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 s 50.00 45.00 40.00 Young's Modulus (GPa) 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Specim en Diam eter (m m) 1986 Middle Non-Lit hophysal Busted Butte Data Figure 8-12. Young's Modulus vs. Sample Size (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens Saturated, Ambient Temperature) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-70 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Temperature Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing (DTN SN0306L0207502.008) 45.0 40.0 35.0 Source DTN(s) SN0306L0207502.008 Young's Modulus (GPa) 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 Specimen Diameter (mm) Cylindrical Specimens Parallelpiped Specimens Figure 8-13. Young's Modulus vs. Sample Diameter From Recent (2003) Busted Butte Specimens (Room-Dry, Ambient Temperature, L:D Approximately 2, Strain Rate 10-5s-1 from Tptpll) Young's Modulus vs Tem pe r atur e 50.8m m Specim ens , Strain Rate = 10-5 50 Young's Modulus (GPa) 40 30 20 10 0 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Specim en Tem pe r atur e (C) Middle Non-Lithophysal Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry Figure 8-14. Young's Modulus vs. Temperature (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-71 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Young's Modulus vs Saturation 50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5 s-1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 lYoung's Moduus Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 Dry Ambient Saturation Saturated Saturation Middle Non-Lithophysal 150C Middle Non-Lithophysal Room Temp Figure 8-15. Young's Modulus vs. Saturation (50.8 mm RHH Room Temperature Specimens) Young's Modulus vs Strain Rate Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, 50 Room Tem per ature, L:D=2:1 40 Young's Modulus (GPa) 30 20 10 0 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 Strain Rate (s^-1) Middle Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-16. Young's Modulus vs. Strain Rate (50.8 mm RHH Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-72 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.2.2 Intact Rock Poisson’s Ratio The majority of the compressive strength tests also had Poisson’s ratio calculated and reported with the strength data. Poisson’s ratio was determined using LVDTs (linear-variable differential transformer) to physically measure the lateral displacement of the specimen or by measuring a change in volume of the fluid in the triaxial cell of a confined compression experiment. Poisson’s ratio results are presented in Table 8-29 and primarily originates from DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and recent DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004. All static Poisson’s ratio results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. The effect of varying porosity, saturation, temperature, specimen size, or changing the loading rate must be analyzed to determine the magnitude of their effect. Porosity: The Poisson’s ratio data do not correlate with porosity, but instead have an overall average value of about 0.20, ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 (see Price 1983; Price et al. 1994a and 1994b). Ten large upper lithophysal (Tptpul) samples were tested at baseline conditions. The test specimens had an average porosity of 0.35, with a range from 0.31 to 0.40, while the average Poisson’s ratio was 0.16. A plot of all measured Poisson’s ratio’s with corresponding sample porosity is shown in Figure 8-17. This plot shows all 50.8 mm saturated, ambient temperature -1 samples with length to diameter ratios near 2:1 and tested at a strain rate of 10-5s. Sample Size: Price (1986) tested outcrop samples of the Tptpmn zone of the Topopah Spring tuff obtained from large boulders from Busted Butte, just to the southeast of Yucca Mountain. The test specimens were all cylinders with nominal diameters of 25.4, 50.8, 82.6, 127.0 and 228.6 mm, and tested at the baseline set of conditions. The results from these tests indicate that Poisson’s ratio is independent of sample size. The average Poisson’s ratios for these sizes range from 0.19 to 0.22 (Price 1986). A plot of all data from the RHH currently qualified is shown in Figure 8-18. Temperature: Limited lateral displacement data were collected on specimens tested at varying temperature, however Poisson’s ratio was primarily determined at room temperature. Figure 819 shows a plot of Poisson’s ratio versus temperature of all 51 mm dry and saturated samples tested at room temperature and 150°C with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) near 2:1, tested at a -1 constant strain rate of 10-5 s. It appears that there is a distinct decrease in modulus with increased temperature, but little data is available to strengthen this statement. A series of experiments has been recently conducted on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpll unit. The preliminary results do not indicate a significant difference in Poisson’s ratio values for a change in temperature. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-73 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Poisson's Ratio vs Porosity 50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature , L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 0.50 0.40 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 SNL02030193001.004 SNL02030193001.019 SNL02030193001.026 SNL02030193001.020 SNL02030193001.023 SNL02030193001.012 SNL02072983001.001 SNSAND85070900.000 SN0306L207502.008 Poisson's Ratio 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 Porosity (%) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-17. Porosity vs. Poisson's Ratio (50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) Pois s on's Ratio vs Sam ple Diam ete r Saturate d, Room Te m per at ur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 0.50 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Poisson's Ratio 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Specim en Diam et er (m m ) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-18. Poisson's Ratio vs. Sample Size (RHH Saturated Samples) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-74 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Pois son's Ratio vs Tem pe rature 50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 s-1 Poisson's R atio 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Te m pe rature (C) Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry Figure 8-19. Poisson's Ratio vs. Temperature (50.8 mm Tptpmn Specimens) Poisson's Ratio vs Satur ation 50.8m m and 38m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 Poisson's Ratio 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Dry Ambient Saturation Saturated 1 Saturation Middle Non-Lithophysal 150C Lower Non-Lithophysal Room Temp Middle Non-Lithophysal Room Temp Middle Non-Lithophysal 38mm Room Temp Figure 8-20. Poisson's Ratio vs. Saturation (RHH 38 mm and 50.8 mm Nonlithophysal Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-75 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Saturation: A recent study involving testing 51 mm diameter samples from Busted Butte outcrop samples of the Tptpll zone is being analyzed, and results are available in DTN SN0306L0207502.008. The Poisson ratio data show a slight increase (less than 9%) when comparing the results from the same room-dry samples to the results from the saturated samples (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). The data are not absolutely conclusive, but the majority of data indicate that saturation level has an insignificant effect on the elastic properties of the nonlithophysal welded tuffs; however, there are indications of a more significant effect on lithophysal welded tuff. Figure 8-20 summarizes the Poisson’s ratio versus saturation results of all 51 mm and 38 mm samples from the RHH tested at room temperature and 150°C with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) near 2:1 tested at a -1 constant strain rate of 10-5s. The effect of saturation and temperature on lithophysal specimens is not clear as samples of the same size and strain rate were not tested under varying saturation and strain rate. The effect of saturation and temperature on lithophysal rock will be further explored in testing recently finished by Sandia National Laboratories. The results of this study are presented in DTN SN0306L0207502.008. Strain Rate or Time Scale: Poisson’s ratio results were collected in these studies, and the results indicate an insensitivity of Poisson’s ratio to changes in strain rate. Similarly, in the study by Price et al. (1987), the Poisson’s ratio data for the saturated samples tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 show no relationship with rate (all had mean Poisson’s ratio values in the range of 0.20 to 0.21), while the results from the oven-dry samples indicate an increase in Poisson’s ratio with increasing rate, with mean values of 0.17 and 0.23 for the strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s-1, respectively. A study conducted to extend the Price et al. (1987) work above was carried out by Martin et al. (1993a and 1993b). Six experiments were performed on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn. The test specimens were water-saturated and tested at room temperature, -1 ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These results show a distinctly lower average Poisson’s ratio than measured in the earlier studies (in the more recent study, the average is 0.13). A plot of Poisson’s ratio versus strain rate for RHH specimens is presented in Figure 821. The effect of strain rate on lithophysal rock is inconclusive, as only two Tptpll specimens -1 were tested at a rate other than 10-5 s. A summary of Poisson’s ratio values determined under a variety of testing conditions on all available rock units is provided in Table 8-29. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-76 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Poisson's Ratio vs Str ain Rate Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 Poisson's Ratio 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 Source DTN(s) MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Strain Rate (s^-1) Middle Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-21. Poisson's Ratio vs. Strain Rate 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-77 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson's Ratio Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration iiTmr 5 7 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.29 3 5 1 N/A N/A 6 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 4 4 7 2 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.32 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.25 3 3 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 5 4 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Tpy 5 1 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.53 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 6 3 2 N/A N/A 6 0.08 0.02 0.13 0.45 0.06 0.02 0.15 0.34 0.06 0.01 0.14 0.43 8 8 4 3 1 N/A N/A 4 0.19 0.3 2 N/A ) 1 N/A N/A UO Unit Code Count Mean Standard Devaton Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range O421150 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.06 Tpki O421150 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.48 0.43 O421150 11 0.21 0.21 0.13 O431150 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.03 Tpcrn2 O421150 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.06 Tpcrn1 O421150 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A O421150 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.2 0.05 O431143 N/A N/A N/A O431146 N/A N/A N/A O431147 N/A N/A N/A O431150 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.04 O121151 0.24 0.04 0.02 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.09 O121153 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.02 O421150 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.05 O421151 0.16 N/A 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.06 O421153 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 N/A O431144 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A O431146 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 N/A O431147 N/A N/A N/A O431150 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.01 O421150 17 0.22 0.22 0.12 O421151 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 N/A O421153 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 N/A O421150 20 0.21 0.20 0.08 O421151 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.05 O421153 0.23 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.05 O431140 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 N/A O431143 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 N/A O431145 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A Tpcplnc O421153 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A Tpcpv2 O421150 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.19 0.13 Tpcpv1 O421150 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.21 0.18 O421150 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 O431140 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A O431150 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A O421150 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.02 O421150 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A O421151 N/A N/A N/A O431150 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.09 O421150 10 0.28 0.27 0.44 O421153 N/A N/A N/A O431150 0.29 N/A 0.29 0.23 0.34 0.11 O421150 0.21 0.10 0.04 0.17 0.13 0.40 0.27 O431150 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.06 Tptrv3 O421150 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.30 0.15 O121150 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.13 0.27 0.14 O121151 12 0.21 0.21 0.32 O121153 11 0.22 0.20 0.19 O421150 57 0.24 0.23 0.29 O421151 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.24 0.10 O421153 0.20 0.08 0.03 0.21 0.02 0.33 0.31 O431150 0.25 0.04 0.02 0.24 0.21 0.30 0.09 O421150 0.40 0.18 0.10 0.31 0.28 0.60 0.32 O421151 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A O121150 0.24 0.05 0.02 0.235 0.11 O121170 0.26 N/A 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 (continuedO421150 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 N/A Tpcrn Tptf Tptrl Tptrn Tpp Tpbt4 TCw PTn stratigraphic Unit TSw1 Tpcpmn Tpcpul Tpcpln Tpbt2 Tpbt3 Tpcpll Mechanical ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-78 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson's Ratio Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration 8 2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 3 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 6 6 2 N/A N/A 4 3 3 4 2 N/A N/A 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 6 5 9 9 1 N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 3 3 2 N/A N/A 7 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A 4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A () 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A ( ) Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 1421150 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.22 0.09 0.46 0.37 1421151 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.42 0.23 1421153 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A 1431150 N/A N/A N/A 1613150 N/A N/A N/A 1621150 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 N/A 1631150 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.21 1721150 10 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.08 1813250 N/A N/A N/A 1821150 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.24 0.21 1831150 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 N/A 1831250 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A 3111350 N/A N/A N/A 3121130 0.27 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.04 3121150 30 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.15 3121151 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.16 0.30 0.14 3121153 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.06 3121170 0.16 0.155 0.11 0.2 0.09 3231150 16 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.19 0.17 0.34 0.17 3231350 14 0.20 0.07 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.39 0.27 3331350 22 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.22 0.07 3411150 0.23 0.07 0.03 0.21 0.18 0.32 0.14 3411151 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.04 3411153 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.06 3411170 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.175 0.12 0.2 0.08 3412130 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.37 0.22 3412150 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.03 3412153 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.03 3412170 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.075 0.04 0.13 0.09 3412180 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.33 0.28 3421130 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.185 0.18 0.23 0.05 3421150 41 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.2 0.07 0.3 0.23 3421151 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.01 3421153 13 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.33 0.22 3421155 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.06 3421170 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.18 0.23 0.05 3421190 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.15 3422150 N/A N/A N/A 3422151 N/A N/A N/A 3422162 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.08 3422163 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.22 0.15 0.26 0.11 3422164 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.05 3521150 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.06 3621150 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.2 0.17 0.27 0.10 3631150 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 3921150 0.22 0.215 0.21 0.22 0.01 2121150 24 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.11 0.36 0.25 2121151 0.25 0.10 0.06 0.30 0.14 0.32 0.18 2121153 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.21 0.30 0.09 2121170 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.20 0.09 2131150 16 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.115 0.202 0.09 2411150 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.173 0.161 0.191 0.03 2412150 N/A N/A N/A 2421150 15 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.40 0.29 2421153 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 2431150 57 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.23 0.09 2512150 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.1605 0.097 0.348 0.25 2531150 12 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.1905 0.161 0.232 0.07 2613150 N/A N/A N/A 2621150 N/A N/A N/A 2631150 15 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.098 0.34 0.24 2813250 N/A N/A N/A 2821150 N/A N/A N/A continued2831150 N/A N/A N/A Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll TSw1 stratigraphic Unit cont. from previous pageTSw2 Mechanical Unit ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-79 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson Ratio (continued) Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration 1 0.31 N/A N/A 0.31 N/A 1 0.25 N/A N/A 0.25 N/A 0.3 3 0.24 0.02 0.25 0.06 3 0.24 0.02 0.22 0.06 3 0.23 0.01 0.23 0.05 1 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 N/A 2 0.22 N/A N/A 0.215 0.2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 2 N/A 0 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 0 4 0.1 2 0.1 1 N/A 2 N/A 1 N/A 24 0.16 0.02 0.12 0.29 6 4 2 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 2 N/A 3 8 4 0.1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.05 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 8 0.11 10 0.09 0.01 0.085 0.15 13 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.05 1 N/A 3 4 1 N/A 0.3 N/A 1 N/A 2 N/A 1 N/A 4 3 22 0.19 0.02 0.175 0.24 4 0.05 7 ln CHn ) Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 4121120 0.31 0.31 4121140 0.25 0.25 4121150 10 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.215 0.18 0.12 4121160 0.03 0.21 0.27 4421150 10 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.28 0.14 4421151 0.03 0.22 0.28 4421153 0.03 0.21 0.26 4422164 0.12 0.12 4431150 0.23 0.03 O121153 N/A N/A N/A O421150 0.39 N/A 0.39 0.39 0.39 N/A O421151 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A O421153 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A O431150 0.18 N/A 0.18 0.18 0.18 O121150 0.21 N/A 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A O431150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.04 O121130 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.26 0.14 O121150 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.07 O121151 N/A N/A N/A O121153 N/A N/A N/A O121170 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 O121150 0.20 0.07 0.03 0.225 0.24 0.14 O121170 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.105 0.11 0.01 O421150 0.11 N/A 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A O111150 0.30 N/A 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.02 O121130 0.33 N/A 0.33 0.33 0.33 N/A O121150 0.08 0.07 0.36 O121153 0.31 0.05 0.02 0.33 0.22 0.36 0.14 O121155 0.26 0.13 0.06 0.22 0.17 0.45 0.28 O121170 0.22 N/A 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.01 O131153 0.28 N/A 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.01 O421150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.09 0.31 0.22 O431140 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.06 O431165 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.06 Tacbt O121150 0.25 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.14 0.37 0.23 Tcbbt O121150 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.135 0.16 0.06 O113141 N/A N/A N/A O113143 N/A N/A N/A O113145 N/A N/A N/A O121150 0.02 0.09 0.14 O123143 N/A N/A N/A O123145 N/A N/A N/A O123146 N/A N/A N/A O431145 0.26 N/A 0.26 0.23 0.28 0.05 Tcblv O121150 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.135 0.08 0.19 Tcbuv O121150 0.04 0.03 0.18 O121150 0.02 0.11 0.16 O431147 0.19 N/A 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A Tcpbt O121150 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 O121150 0.24 0.20 0.10 0.24 0.05 0.43 0.38 O431140 0.30 N/A 0.3 0.3 Tcplv O431140 0.18 N/A 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A O431145 0.23 N/A 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.05 O431148 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A Tctuc O121150 0.27 0.10 0.05 0.26 0.17 0.38 0.21 Tctlc O121150 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.24 0.17 Tctlv O121150 0.07 0.07 0.31 Tctm O121150 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.255 0.22 0.27 Tctuv O121150 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.07 Tcbm Tcbuc Tcplc Tcpm Tpbt1 Tac Tptpv2 Tptpv1 Tptpv3 TSw3 TptpUndifferentiated Listed Alphabetically, Not in Depositional Sequence stratigraphic Unit (cont. from previous pageTSw2 Mechanical Unit ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-80 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.3 Dynamic Properties of Intact Rock 8.4.3.1 General Dynamic elastic properties are used in design of structures that are loaded dynamically. This may be blast round design of turnouts, shafts, and alcoves that may be constructed for repository operations. Dynamic elastic properties are also commonly compared with static results. The dynamic results are generally some factor different than the results calculated from static testing. 8.4.3.2 Dynamic Young’s Modulus Qualified dynamic Young’s modulus data resides in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and GS940408312232.010 and is sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. Compressive and shear wave velocities were measured at five static stress levels of 0 MPa, 0.7 MPa, 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa. The majority of the data comes from specimens recovered from borehole UE-25 UZ#16 with additional samples from UE25 NRG-1 providing specimens from the Tiva Canyon formation for units Tpcpul and Tpcpmn, as well as Busted Butte and borehole USW GU-3 for Tptpmn (Cikanek et al. 2003c). Most samples varied in length and were tested air-dried at room temperatures. The method of determining the ultrasonic elastic constants of the rock is presented in ASTM D 2845-95, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock. The compressional and shear wave velocities were calculated by measuring one-way travel time of a compressional or shear wave along the rock core axis and dividing the time by the length of the rock core. By assuming the sample is isotropic, the dynamic elastic modulus can then be calculated as presented in the data qualification report (Cikanek et al. p 13. 2003c). The effect of confining pressure was evaluated PBT (1993, pp.30-45). The specimens that were tested in this series were tested at 0.7 MPa, again at 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa to determine if confining pressure causes an effect on test results. Cikanek (p. 16 2003c) reports that increased confinement from 0.7 MPa to 6.9 MPa caused an increase of between 2% and 20% in the modulus results. The summary of qualified data for dynamic Young’s modulus is presented in Table 8-30. All dynamic Young’s modulus results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-4 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Dynamic Elastic Master Sheet.xls. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-81 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Young’s Modulus Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 3 19.61 2.33 1.35 18.62 17.93 22.27 4.34 O43T1N0 Tpcrn 3 20.59 1.97 1.14 20.13 18.90 22.75 3.85 O43T1N0 O43T1N1 7 22.35 2.89 1.09 22.75 16.62 25.72 9.10 Tpcpul 7 23.05 1.45 0.55 22.96 21.58 25.65 4.07 O43T1N0 O43T1N1 7 32.80 3.24 1.23 33.51 27.85 37.16 9.31 Tpcpmn 7 29.83 5.25 1.99 30.68 19.51 35.51 16.00 O13T3N1 O43T1N1 2 43.65 NA NA 43.65 43.10 44.20 1.10 O13T3N2 1 45.50 NA NA 45.50 45.50 45.50 NA O13T3N3 1 46.60 NA NA 46.60 46.60 46.60 NA Tpcpll 1 47.30 NA NA 47.30 47.30 47.30 NA O13T3N4 TCw 2 23.45 NA NA 23.45 22.00 24.90 2.90 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 1 32.10 NA NA 32.10 32.10 32.10 NA O13T7N3 1 34.00 NA NA 34.00 34.00 34.00 NA O13T3N1 2 43.80 NA NA 43.80 43.70 43.90 0.20 O13T3N2 1 44.30 NA NA 44.30 44.30 44.30 NA Tpcplnh 1 44.40 NA NA 44.40 44.40 44.40 NA O13T3N4 O13T3N3 1 44.40 NA NA 44.40 44.40 44.40 NA O13T7N1 4 41.18 2.98 NA 41.15 38.50 43.90 5.40 O13T7N2 2 42.35 NA NA 42.35 39.30 45.40 6.10 Tpcplnc 2 42.75 NA NA 42.75 39.50 46.00 6.50 O13T7N4 O13T7N3 2 43.15 NA NA 43.15 39.70 46.60 6.90 O13T3N1 2 3.13 NA NA 3.13 3.12 3.13 0.01 O13T3N2 1 3.46 NA NA 3.46 3.46 3.46 N/A Tpcpv2 1 3.57 NA NA 3.57 3.57 3.57 N/A O13T3N4 O13T3N3 1 3.67 NA NA 3.67 3.67 3.67 N/A 013T3N1 2 2.79 NA NA 2.79 2.79 2.79 0.00 013T3N2 1 2.91 NA NA 2.91 2.91 2.91 N/A Tpbt4 1 3.00 NA NA 3.00 3.00 3.00 N/A 013T3N4 013T3N3 1 3.03 NA NA 3.03 3.03 3.03 N/A O13T7N1 2 5.98 NA NA 5.98 5.96 6.00 0.04 O13T7N2 1 6.21 NA NA 6.21 6.21 6.21 N/A Tpy 1 6.30 NA NA 6.30 6.30 6.30 N/A O13T7N4 O13T7N3 1 6.37 NA NA 6.37 6.37 6.37 N/A PTn 2 6.35 NA NA 6.35 6.33 6.36 0.03 013T3N2 013T3N1 1 7.33 NA NA 7.33 7.33 7.33 N/A Tpbt3 1 8.12 NA NA 8.12 8.12 8.12 N/A 013T3N4 013T3N3 1 8.49 NA NA 8.49 8.49 8.49 N/A O13T2N1 2 2.27 NA NA 2.27 2.26 2.28 0.02 O13T2N2 1 2.67 NA NA 2.67 2.67 2.67 N/A O13T2N3 1 3.15 NA NA 3.15 3.15 3.15 N/A O13T2N4 1 3.56 NA NA 3.56 3.56 3.56 N/A Tpbt2 2 3.69 NA NA 3.69 3.69 3.69 0.00 O13T3N2 O13T3N1 1 3.82 NA NA 3.82 3.82 3.82 N/A O13T3N3 1 3.86 NA NA 3.86 3.86 3.86 N/A O13T3N4 1 3.93 NA NA 3.93 3.93 3.93 N/A O13T1N1 2 24.15 NA NA 24.15 24.10 24.20 0.10 O13T1N2 1 27.10 NA NA 27.10 27.10 27.10 N/A O13T1N3 1 29.00 NA NA 29.00 29.00 29.00 N/A TSw1 1 30.20 NA NA 30.20 30.20 30.20 N/A O13T1N4 Tptrn 8 21.45 2.85 1.01 21.85 17.30 24.80 7.50 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 4 23.43 2.23 1.11 23.15 21.00 26.40 5.40 O13T7N3 4 24.58 2.19 1.09 24.00 22.60 27.70 5.10 4 25.63 2.25 1.13 24.90 23.80 28.90 5.10 (continued) O13T7N4 ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-82 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Young’s Modulus (continued) Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 6 34.15 5.68 2.32 35.95 27.00 39.70 12.70 113T1N1 (cont. from 3 35.13 6.45 3.73 37.20 27.90 40.30 12.40 113T1N2 previous page) 3 36.13 6.79 3.92 38.90 28.40 41.10 12.70 113T1N4 113T1N3 3 37.13 7.09 4.09 40.40 29.00 42.00 13.00 113T3N1 2 20.90 NA NA 20.90 20.80 21.00 0.20 113T3N2 1 21.90 NA NA 21.90 21.90 21.90 N/A Tptpul 1 23.40 NA NA 23.40 23.40 23.40 N/A 113T3N4 113T3N3 1 24.30 NA NA 24.30 24.30 24.30 N/A TSw1 4 28.20 4.16 2.08 28.20 24.50 31.90 7.40 113T7N2 113T7N1 2 29.85 NA NA 29.85 25.30 34.40 9.10 113T7N3 2 31.20 NA NA 31.20 25.90 36.50 10.60 113T7N4 2 31.75 NA NA 31.75 26.40 37.10 10.70 31211N0 30 39.35 1.55 0.28 39.15 36.20 42.60 6.40 313T8N1 2 39.25 NA NA 39.25 39.00 39.50 0.50 313T8N2 1 40.10 NA NA 40.10 40.10 40.10 N/A 313T8N3 1 40.50 NA NA 40.50 40.50 40.50 N/A 313T8N4 1 40.80 NA NA 40.80 40.80 40.80 N/A Tptpmn 2 42.30 NA NA 42.30 42.20 42.40 0.20 313T9N2 313T9N1 1 43.20 NA NA 43.20 43.20 43.20 N/A 313T9N3 1 43.70 NA NA 43.70 43.70 43.70 N/A 313T9N4 1 44.10 NA NA 44.10 44.10 44.10 N/A 34111N0 5 42.86 1.47 0.66 43.21 40.83 44.25 3.42 34211N0 6 42.89 2.54 1.04 43.62 38.52 45.34 6.82 213T1N1 2 34.50 NA NA 34.50 34.40 34.60 0.20 213T1N2 1 36.30 NA NA 36.30 36.30 36.30 N/A 213T1N3 1 37.80 NA NA 37.80 37.80 37.80 N/A 213T1N4 1 38.50 NA NA 38.50 38.50 38.50 N/A 213T2N1 2 33.60 NA NA 33.60 33.60 33.60 0.00 213T2N2 1 34.90 NA NA 34.90 34.90 34.90 N/A 213T2N3 1 35.70 NA NA 35.70 35.70 35.70 N/A 213T2N4 1 36.30 NA NA 36.30 36.30 36.30 N/A Tptpll 4 31.78 3.44 1.72 31.70 28.70 35.00 6.30 213T8N2 213T8N1 2 32.80 NA NA 32.80 29.10 36.50 7.40 213T8N3 2 33.25 NA NA 33.25 29.60 36.90 7.30 213T8N4 2 33.50 NA NA 33.50 29.90 37.10 7.20 213T9N1 2 35.55 NA NA 35.55 35.40 35.70 0.30 213T9N2 1 37.30 NA NA 37.30 37.30 37.30 N/A 213T9N3 1 37.50 NA NA 37.50 37.50 37.50 N/A 213T9N4 1 38.00 NA NA 38.00 38.00 38.00 N/A 413T7N1 2 40.10 NA NA 40.10 39.90 40.30 0.40 413T7N2 1 40.80 NA NA 40.80 40.80 40.80 N/A 413T7N3 1 41.00 NA NA 41.00 41.00 41.00 N/A 413T7N4 1 41.50 NA NA 41.50 41.50 41.50 N/A 413T8N1 4 41.13 0.68 0.34 41.00 40.50 42.00 1.50 413T8N2 2 41.85 NA NA 41.85 41.50 42.20 0.70 Tptpln 2 42.00 NA NA 42.00 41.70 42.30 0.60 413T8N4 413T8N3 2 42.30 NA NA 42.30 42.00 42.60 0.60 413T9N1 2 41.85 NA NA 41.85 41.80 41.90 0.10 413T9N2 1 42.70 NA NA 42.70 42.70 42.70 N/A 413T9N3 1 42.80 NA NA 42.80 42.80 42.80 N/A 413T9N4 1 43.30 NA NA 43.30 43.30 43.30 N/A O13T1N1 2 53.60 NA NA 53.60 53.30 53.90 0.60 O13T1N2 1 57.50 NA NA 57.50 57.50 57.50 N/A TSw3 Tptpv3 1 57.90 NA NA 57.90 57.90 57.90 N/A O13T1N4 O13T1N3 1 58.10 NA NA 58.10 58.10 58.10 N/A ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-83 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Young’s Modulus (continued) Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 2 18.95 NA NA 18.95 18.90 19.00 0.10 O13T2N2 O13T2N1 1 19.60 NA NA 19.60 19.60 19.60 N/A Tptpv1 1 20.30 NA NA 20.30 20.30 20.30 N/A O13T2N4 O13T2N3 1 20.80 NA NA 20.80 20.80 20.80 N/A O13T1N1 4 14.78 0.33 0.17 14.80 14.40 15.10 0.70 O13T1N2 2 16.00 NA NA 16.00 15.10 16.90 1.80 O13T1N3 2 16.40 NA NA 16.40 15.60 17.20 1.60 O13T1N4 2 17.10 NA NA 17.10 16.20 18.00 1.80 CHn 2 14.55 NA NA 14.55 14.50 14.60 0.10 O13T2N2 O13T2N1 1 16.80 NA NA 16.80 16.80 16.80 N/A Tac 1 18.00 NA NA 18.00 18.00 18.00 N/A O13T2N4 O13T2N3 1 20.00 NA NA 20.00 20.00 20.00 N/A O13T7N1 10 15.13 3.72 1.18 14.80 11.20 19.40 8.20 O13T7N2 5 16.32 4.11 1.84 15.80 12.30 20.70 8.40 O13T7N3 5 16.76 4.06 1.82 16.10 12.60 21.40 8.80 O13T7N4 5 17.16 4.14 1.85 16.30 12.80 22.00 9.20 O12T7N1 2 15.55 NA NA 15.55 15.50 15.60 0.10 O12T7N2 1 15.70 NA NA 15.70 15.70 15.70 N/A O12T7N3 1 16.60 NA NA 16.60 16.60 16.60 N/A O12T7N4 1 17.90 NA NA 17.90 17.90 17.90 N/A Tcp 2 12.95 NA NA 12.95 12.90 13.00 0.10 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 1 15.40 NA NA 15.40 15.40 15.40 N/A O13T7N3 1 17.00 NA NA 17.00 17.00 17.00 N/A O13T7N4 1 18.30 NA NA 18.30 18.30 18.30 N/A O12T1N1 2 9.96 NA NA 9.96 9.92 10.00 0.08 O12T1N2 1 10.10 NA NA 10.10 10.10 10.10 N/A O12T1N3 1 10.20 NA NA 10.20 10.20 10.20 N/A O12T1N4 1 10.40 NA NA 10.40 10.40 10.40 N/A Tcplc 2 8.33 NA NA 8.33 8.31 8.35 0.04 O13T1N2 O13T1N1 1 9.42 NA NA 9.42 9.42 9.42 N/A O13T1N3 1 10.70 NA NA 10.70 10.70 10.70 N/A Deep units sorted 1 11.60 NA NA 11.60 11.60 11.60 N/A O13T1N4 alphabetically not stratigraphically. 4 33.73 6.27 3.13 33.85 28.00 39.20 11.20 O12T7N2 O12T7N1 2 35.25 NA NA 35.25 28.90 41.60 12.70 O12T7N3 2 35.60 NA NA 35.60 29.60 41.60 12.00 O12T7N4 2 35.85 NA NA 35.85 30.00 41.70 11.70 Tcpm 4 31.93 6.45 3.22 32.00 26.00 37.70 11.70 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 2 32.90 NA NA 32.90 27.30 38.50 11.20 O13T7N3 2 34.05 NA NA 34.05 27.90 40.20 12.30 O13T7N4 2 34.75 NA NA 34.75 28.40 41.10 12.70 O13T7N1 2 13.85 NA NA 13.85 13.80 13.90 0.10 O13T7N2 1 14.50 NA NA 14.50 14.50 14.50 N/A O13T7N3 1 15.20 NA NA 15.20 15.20 15.20 N/A O13T7N4 1 15.90 NA NA 15.90 15.90 15.90 N/A Tcpuc 2 7.51 NA NA 7.51 7.50 7.51 0.01 O13T8N2 O13T8N1 1 7.82 NA NA 7.82 7.82 7.82 N/A O13T8N3 1 8.64 NA NA 8.64 8.64 8.64 N/A O13T8N4 1 9.35 NA NA 9.35 9.35 9.35 N/A ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-84 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.3.3 Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio Qualified dynamic Poisson’s ratio data resides in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and GS940408312232.010 and is sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. Compressional and shear wave velocities were measured at five static stress levels of 0 MPa, 0.7 MPa, 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa. The majority of the data comes from specimens recovered from borehole UE-25 UZ#16 with additional samples from UE25 NRG-1 providing specimens from the Tiva Canyon formation for units Tpcpul and Tpcpmn, as well as Busted Butte and borehole USW GU-3 for Tptpmn (Cikanek et al. 2003c). Most samples varied in length and were tested air-dried at room temperatures. The method of determining the ultrasonic elastic constants of the rock is presented in ASTM D 2845-95, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock. The compressional and shear wave velocities were calculated by measuring one-way travel time of a compressional or shear wave along the rock core axis and dividing the time by the length of the rock core. By assuming the sample is isotropic, the dynamic elastic modulus can then be calculated as presented in the data qualification report (Cikanek et al. p 13. 2003c). The effect of confining pressure was evaluated PBT (1993, pp.30-45). The specimens that were tested in this series were tested at 0.7 MPa, again at 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa to determine if confining pressure causes an effect on test results. Cikanek reports that air-dry samples showed that Poisson’s ratio generally increased about 5% to 10% as the confining pressure was increased from 0.7 MPa to 6.9 MPa (Cikanek et al. 2003c, p. 16). Results of increasing confinement on water saturated samples caused a decrease of over 5% as the confining pressure increased (Cikanek et al. 2003c, p. 16). The summary of qualified data for dynamic Young’s modulus is presented in Table 8-31. All dynamic Poisson’s ratio results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-4 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Dynamic Elastic Master Sheet.xls. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-85 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 3 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.33 0.36 0.03 O43T1N0 Tpcrn 3 0.34 0.02 0.01 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.03 O43T1N0 O43T1N1 7 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.30 0.27 0.38 0.11 Tpcpul 7 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.28 0.34 0.06 O43T1N0 O43T1N1 7 0.28 0.03 0.01 0.27 0.24 0.33 0.09 Tpcpmn 7 0.30 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.07 O13T3N1 O43T1N1 2 0.06 NA NA 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.02 O13T3N2 1 0.08 NA NA 0.08 0.08 0.08 NA O13T3N3 1 0.11 NA NA 0.11 0.11 0.11 NA Tpcpll 1 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.13 NA O13T3N4 TCw 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA O13T7N2 O13T7N1 1 0.11 NA NA 0.11 0.11 0.11 NA O13T7N3 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 NA O13T3N1 2 0.13 NA NA 2.80 0.13 0.13 0.00 O13T3N2 1 0.12 NA NA 0.12 0.12 0.12 NA Tpcplnh 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 NA O13T3N4 O13T3N3 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 NA O13T7N1 4 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.02 O13T7N2 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.02 Tpcplnc 2 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.02 O13T7N4 O13T7N3 2 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.02 O13T3N1 2 0.02 NA NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 O13T3N2 1 0.12 NA NA 0.12 0.12 0.12 N/A Tpcpv2 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A O13T3N4 O13T3N3 1 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A 013T3N1 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 013T3N2 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A Tpbt4 1 0.23 NA NA 0.23 0.23 0.23 N/A 013T3N4 013T3N3 1 0.24 NA NA 0.24 0.24 0.24 N/A O13T7N1 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 O13T7N2 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 Tpy 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 O13T7N4 O13T7N3 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A PTn 2 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.01 013T3N2 013T3N1 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A Tpbt3 1 0.24 NA NA 0.24 0.24 0.24 N/A 013T3N4 013T3N3 1 0.24 NA NA 0.24 0.24 0.24 N/A O13T2N1 2 0.09 NA NA 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 O13T2N2 1 0.21 NA NA 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A O13T2N3 1 0.23 NA NA 0.23 0.23 0.23 N/A O13T2N4 1 0.25 NA NA 0.25 0.25 0.25 N/A Tpbt2 2 0.30 NA NA 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 O13T3N2 O13T3N1 1 0.35 NA NA 0.35 0.35 0.35 N/A O13T3N3 1 0.36 NA NA 0.36 0.36 0.36 N/A O13T3N4 1 0.38 NA NA 0.38 0.38 0.38 N/A O13T1N1 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.01 O13T1N2 1 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A O13T1N3 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A TSw1 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A O13T1N4 Tptrn 8 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.12 0.21 0.09 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 4 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.08 O13T7N3 4 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.07 4 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.07 (continued) O13T7N4 ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-86 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio (continued) Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 6 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.11 0.11 113T1N1 (cont. from 2 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.04 113T1N2 previous page) 2 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.04 113T1N4 113T1N3 2 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.04 113T3N1 2 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 113T3N2 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A Tptpul 1 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A 113T3N4 113T3N3 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A TSw1 4 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.10 113T7N2 113T7N1 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.08 113T7N3 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.10 0.19 0.09 113T7N4 2 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.07 0.19 0.12 31211N0 30 0.22 0.02 0.00 0.22 0.18 0.25 0.07 313T8N1 2 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 313T8N2 1 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.13 N/A 313T8N3 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 N/A 313T8N4 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 N/A Tptpmn 2 0.12 NA NA 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.01 313T9N2 313T9N1 1 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.13 N/A 313T9N3 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 N/A 313T9N4 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 N/A 34111N0 5 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.02 34211N0 6 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.05 213T1N1 2 0.02 NA NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 213T1N2 1 0.06 NA NA 0.06 0.06 0.06 N/A 213T1N3 1 0.10 NA NA 0.10 0.10 0.10 N/A 213T1N4 1 0.11 NA NA 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A 213T2N1 2 0.04 NA NA 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 213T2N2 1 0.01 NA NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 N/A 213T2N3 1 0.07 NA NA 0.07 0.07 0.07 N/A 213T2N4 1 0.08 NA NA 0.08 0.08 0.08 N/A Tptpll 4 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.02 213T8N2 213T8N1 2 0.12 NA NA 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.01 213T8N3 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.02 213T8N4 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.01 213T9N1 2 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.00 213T9N2 1 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A 213T9N3 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 213T9N4 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 413T7N1 2 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.01 413T7N2 1 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 N/A 413T7N3 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A 413T7N4 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A 413T8N1 4 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.03 413T8N2 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.01 Tptpln 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 413T8N4 413T8N3 2 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.00 413T9N1 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 413T9N2 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A 413T9N3 1 0.17 NA NA 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 413T9N4 1 0.17 NA NA 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A O13T1N1 2 0.19 NA NA 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.01 O13T1N2 1 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.13 N/A TSw3 Tptpv3 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A O13T1N4 O13T1N3 1 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-87 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poisson's Ratio (continued) Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio Mechanical stratigraphic Unit Unit Code Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 2 0.07 NA NA 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.01 O13T2N2 O13T2N1 1 0.01 NA NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 N/A Tptpv1 1 0.04 NA NA 0.04 0.04 0.04 N/A O13T2N4 O13T2N3 1 0.02 NA NA 0.02 0.02 0.02 N/A O13T1N1 4 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.19 0.08 O13T1N2 2 0.15 NA NA 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.01 O13T1N3 2 0.17 NA NA 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.02 O13T1N4 2 0.17 NA NA 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.01 CHn 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.01 O13T2N2 O13T2N1 1 0.17 NA NA 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A Tac 1 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A O13T2N4 O13T2N3 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A O13T7N1 10 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.18 0.13 O13T7N2 5 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.09 O13T7N3 5 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.05 O13T7N4 5 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.04 O12T7N1 2 0.33 NA NA 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 O12T7N2 1 0.33 NA NA 0.33 0.33 0.33 N/A O12T7N3 1 0.31 NA NA 0.31 0.31 0.31 N/A O12T7N4 1 0.29 NA NA 0.29 0.29 0.29 N/A Tcp 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA O13T7N2 O13T7N1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A O13T7N3 1 0.03 NA NA 0.03 0.03 0.03 N/A O13T7N4 1 0.04 NA NA 0.04 0.04 0.04 N/A O12T1N1 2 0.37 NA NA 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.00 O12T1N2 1 0.37 NA NA 0.37 0.37 0.37 N/A O12T1N3 1 0.37 NA NA 0.37 0.37 0.37 N/A O12T1N4 1 0.37 NA NA 0.37 0.37 0.37 N/A Tcplc 2 0.01 NA NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 O13T1N2 O13T1N1 1 0.06 NA NA 0.06 0.06 0.06 N/A O13T1N3 1 0.10 NA NA 0.10 0.10 0.10 N/A Deep units sorted 1 0.11 NA NA 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A O13T1N4 alphabetically not stratigraphically. 4 0.27 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.07 O12T7N2 O12T7N1 2 0.26 NA NA 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.02 O12T7N3 2 0.26 NA NA 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.01 O12T7N4 2 0.26 NA NA 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.01 Tcpm 4 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.08 O13T7N2 O13T7N1 2 0.13 NA NA 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.01 O13T7N3 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.02 O13T7N4 2 0.14 NA NA 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.03 O13T7N1 2 0.16 NA NA 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 O13T7N2 1 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A O13T7N3 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A O13T7N4 1 0.21 NA NA 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A Tcpuc 2 0.18 NA NA 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 O13T8N2 O13T8N1 1 0.22 NA NA 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A O13T8N3 1 0.20 NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A O13T8N4 1 0.21 NA NA 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A ***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-88 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.4 Intact Rock Strength Properties 8.4.4.1 General Strength properties of the intact rock specimens obtained from cores specimens were determined under a variety of environmental and physical variables. Specimens were tested under both unconfined and confined axial compression as well as in indirect tension using the Brazilian method. 8.4.4.2 Unconfined/Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Ground, right cylindrical specimens of tuff were studied by testing to failure at several constant -1 strain rates between strain rates ranging from 10-9 to 10-3 s. The majority of specimens were 50.8 mm tested saturated, under ambient temperature conditions, with a length to diameter ratio -1 (L:D) near 2:1, at a strain rate of 10-5 s. Several testing procedures were used by the various laboratories that performed testing over the history of the project. These procedures are often based on ASTM D 2938 (1995) Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Cores, and the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) procedure Suggested Methods for Determining Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Deformability of Rock Materials. The test results from UCS compressive tests were highly variable. Unconfined compressive strength depends on the welding, porosity, and fabric of the rock specimen. Within the welded units, the variations in strength are related to the presence and abundance of lithophysae (CRWMS M&O 1997d p. 5-102). CRWMS M&O 1997d also reports that very little volumetric strain is measured until the specimens are near failure. The fracture failure modes in the test specimens were predominantly the result of axial splitting with fractures terminating in the end- caps, and that there was most often no evidence of shear cone development (CRWMS M&O 1997d). A number of tests under varying temperature, saturation, strain rate, and length to diameter ratios were performed. Compressive strength data included in this report are taken from the most recent data qualification effort completed in February of 2003 by the procedure outlined in AP- SIII.2Q. Compressive data are summarized in “Data Qualification and Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion” (Cikanek et al. 2003b). The summary of data is available in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Recent test data were not included in the summary DTN, but are available in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, and SN0305L0207502.004. The data come from boreholes presented in Table 8-27. A summary table of all the UCS test results is shown below in Table 8-23. All static unconfined compressive strength test results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. Samples from the PTn T/M unit have the lowest strength, generally less than 20 MPa, while specimens tested from the Calico Hills (CHn) formation have strengths generally less than 100 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-89 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report MPa. Specimens originating from the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw1 and TSw2) are the strongest with strengths generally averaging between 150 MPa and 200 MPa. Some tests performed by Terra-Tek, ReSPEC, and Sandia National Laboratories were reportedly done at confining pressure 0.1 MPa. An experiment that is performed with no hydrostatic pressure being applied by the testing machine has the atmospheric pressure acting as a confining pressure. However, this pressure is also internal to the specimen (i.e., there is an equal pore pressure), and so the effective confining pressure (confining pressure minus pore pressure) is zero (Terzaghi 1943). Therefore, the reported test conditions “unconfined” and “confining pressure of 0.1 MPa” are, in fact, the same pressure condition. The difference is essentially the in the method the pressures were recorded, not the pressures themselves. Unconfined intact rock compressive elastic and strength results are summarized with some values of 0.1 MPa confining pressure in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Porosity: There have been a number of studies completed examining the effect of porosity on mechanical properties (Olsson and Jones 1980; Price 1983; Price and Bauer 1985; Price et al. 1993, 1994a, and 1994b). Price et al. (1985) tested large samples of Tptpul at baseline conditions. The average strength of these samples is 16.2 MPa. This result was used by Price (1993) to test an empirical model relating strength, porosity and sample size. His model predicts the strength of these samples to within 10% of the mean value, an excellent fit considering the natural scatter in the tuff data. A plot of all qualified unconfined compressive strength data from RHH 50.8 mm saturated specimens from Topopah Spring Tuff tested at room temperature with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) of 2:1, and a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is shown in Figure 8-22. Results from RHH specimens shown in Figure 8-22 indicate there is a clear relationship between unconfined compressive strength and porosity. Even at this smaller sample diameter (51 mm), it is evident that samples from lithophysal zones (showing porosity in a range between 11% and 18%, or more) do have greater porosity than nonlithophysal samples that typically display the porosity range between 8% and 15%. Qualified data from 25.4 mm diameter specimens do not indicate a similar relationship between porosity, which range from 8% to 16%, and sample compressive strength, because of the small data set and the narrow porosity range found in the tested specimens. In general, large specimens tend to have much greater porosity, as lithophysae can be more readily captured in the specimen volume. Specimens of large diameter, and consequently greater specimen volume, have greater porosities and lower strengths than specimens of smaller diameter tested under the same environmental conditions. Porosity is a function of sample size, and this is evident in Figure 8-23. Samples with greater diameter, and therefore greater sample volume tend to capture more lithophysae, and consequently will have greater total porosity. A plot of porosity versus sample diameter for RHH samples near a 2:1 length to diameter ratio is shown in Figure 8-23. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-90 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Unconfined Conpr es s ive Strength vs Porosity 50.8m m Specim ens , Saturated, Room Te m per at ur e, L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 350 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 SNL02030193001.004 SNL02030193001.019 SNL02030193001.026 SNL02030193001.020 SNL02030193001.023 SNL02030193001.012 SNL02072983001.001 SNSAND85070900.000 SN0306L207502.008 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 Por osity (%) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-22. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Porosity (50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature) Porosity vs Sam ple Diam eter 45 40 35 30 Source DTN(s) SNL02030193001.004 SNL02030193001.019 SNL02030193001.026 SNL02030193001.020 Porosit y (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Sam ple Diameter (mm) Upper Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Figure 8-23. Porosity vs. Sample Diameter 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-91 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Sample Size: It is difficult to sample large rock specimens due to the lithophysae and fractures that are found in the rock units. Small samples are much less likely to contain lithophysae, as the lithophysal voids tend to be on the order of several centimeters. A small sample will most likely contain matrix material, or the solid rock that exists between lithophysae. Sampling of fractures in cylindrical cores is impractical, as the core would need to be of sufficient diameter to capture an entire fracture, which may be on the order of meters. Cylindrical sample sizes ranging from 25.4 mm to 290 mm have been collected and tested. Two studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of sample size on intact tuff elastic properties. Price (1986) tested outcrop samples (nominal diameters of 25.4, 50.8, 82.6, 127.0 and 228.6 mm and tested at the baseline set of conditions) of the Tptpmn rock unit obtained from Busted Butte. The results indicate that unconfined compressive strength decreases as the specimen size increases. Figure 8-24 is a plot of unconfined compressive strength versus specimen diameter for a set of specimens collected from Busted Butte in 1986, tested saturated at room temperature, with length to diameter (L:D) ratios near 2:1 and were tested under a constant strain rate of 10-5 s. The purpose of this data set and study was to investigate the effects of sample size on mechanical properties of tuff (Price 1986, DTN SNSAND85070900.000). Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Sample Diameter -1 Saturated, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) SNSAND85070900.000 0 50 100 150 200 250 Specimen Diameter (mm) 1986 Middle Non-Lithophysal Busted Butte Data Figure 8-24. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Sample Diameter (Busted Butte Tptpmn Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-92 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Temperature: Investigation of the effect of temperature on UCS was a part of two studies in the early 1980’s by Olsson and Jones (1980) and Olsson (1982). These studies were based on a small number of specimens and frequently did not have comparative data (i.e., side-by-side samples) for different temperatures. However, the strength data for some non-welded tuff from Rainier Mesa (Nevada Test Site) indicate distinctly lower (35% decrease) UCS values for the 200oC tests than the room temperature tests. A similar effect of temperature on the UCS of welded tuff at Yucca Mountain is reasonably expected. A plot of unconfined compressive strength versus temperature for RHH 50.8 mm saturated and dry samples tested at room temperature, with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) of 2:1 and tested at a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is shown in Figure 8-25. Two series of experiments recently completed have some data on temperature effects. One involves large samples of the Tptpll and Tptpul taken from the ESF and ECRB, and the other is on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the lower-lithophysal lithostratigraphic unit. The preliminary results indicate distinct differences in average strength between experiments at room temperature and 200oC (DTN SN0305L0207502.004). Figure 8-26 is a plot of 50.8 mm specimens most recently tested from the Busted Butte outcrop at room temperature and 200°C. The data show a slightly greater UCS at 200°C than at room temperature for both 50.8 mm and 81 mm (SN0306L0207502.008). Although the specimens from DTN SN0306L0207502.008 were collected from the Tptpll, they have relatively small and few lithophysae. Saturation: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested both dry and saturated test specimens of tuff from -1 Rainier Mesa on the Nevada Test Site, at strain rates of 10-6, s-1 10-4 s-1 and 10-2 s. The average ultimate strengths for the saturated samples are about 30% lower than the mean strengths for the oven dried samples, for each of the three strain rates. A very limited study on four room-dry samples and four saturated samples of Calico Hills tuff at each of two levels of confining pressure (ambient and 10 MPa) is presented in Price and Jones (1982). The average strength values (of the two tests at each set of conditions) at ambient pressure and 10 MPa decrease by 22% and 35%, respectively, for saturation levels ranging from room-dry to saturated conditions (Price and Jones 1982). Figures 8-27 and 8-28 show the effects of saturation on unconfined compressive strength for various lithophysal and nonlithophysal samples. Figure 8-28 plots recently collected results from Block 0 at Busted Butte, consisting of lower-lithophysal 50.8 mm specimens with length to -1 diameter ratios near 2:1 tested at room temperature under constant strain rate of 10-5 s. (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). Figure 8-27 plots all large specimens tested from the lithophysal zones of the repository host horizon. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-93 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Unconfined Com pressive Strength vs Tem perature 50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 350 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Tem perature (C) Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry Middle Non-Lithophysal Saturated Figure 8-25. Unconfined Compressive Strength versus Temperature (Tptpmn Specimens) Unconfined Com pr essive Str engt h vs Tem perature 50.8m m Specim ens, Dry, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s-1 250 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) SN0306L0207502.008 0 50 100 150 200 250 Tem per atur e (C) Lower Lithophysal Busted Butte Block 0 Data Figure 8-26. UCS vs. Temperature From Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-94 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Forty-four room-dry and saturated samples were tested at a range of confining pressures and strain rates. There are four paired-sets of saturated and oven-dry test results at room temperature. Three of the four sets of tests on saturated samples show a decrease in average strength when compared to the oven dry strengths. The test results at ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-7 s-1 decrease by 13%, the data at 5 MPa pressure and 10-5 s-1 decrease by 6% and the results at 10 MPa pressure and 10-5 s-1 decrease by 29%. The reverse trend is observed in the test data at ambient pressure and 10-5 s-1, these results show an average strength increase of 15% when going from oven dried to saturated. (Price et al. 1987) Recent testing on 50.8 mm diameter samples obtained from the Busted Butte outcrop of the Tptpll unit has been completed. Figure 8-27 presents the 50.8 mm data from the recent testing of Tptpll samples from Busted Butte outcrop cores. The preliminary results show an average strength decrease of about 12% when comparing the tests on six room-dry samples and the seven saturated samples (SN0306L0207502.008). The large variation in strength can be attributed to differences in porosity, and macro-imperfections within the specimens. A recent study on large (nominally 289 mm in diameter, with all samples having an L:D ratio of 1.7:1 to 2.0:1, except one sample with an L:D of 1.5:1) samples from the Tptpul and Tptpll zones in the Topopah Spring tuff has been completed. There are some difficulties in comparing the data; however, lumping the UCS results from the 10 room dry samples gives 21.9 ± 6.7 MPa and lumping the 4 saturated samples gives 12.4 ± 2.6 MPa (DTNs SN0208L0207502.001 and SN0211L0207502.002). The data are shown in Figure 8-28, but further analysis of these data is needed before conclusions are drawn. In summary, the preponderance of data indicates that saturation level has a distinct effect on the strength properties of both the nonlithophysal and lithophysal welded tuffs. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-95 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Unconfine d Com pre s sive Str ength vs Saturation 51m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5s-1 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) SN0306L0207502.008 Dry Ambient S atu r ati o n Saturated Saturation Lower Lithophysal 51mm Busted Butte Recent Data Figure 8-27. UCS vs. Saturation from Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing Unconfined Com pr essive Strength vs Sat ur ation Dr y @ 200C and Other s at Room Te m p, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 SN0305L0207502.004 SN0211L0207502.002 SN0211L0207502.001 SN0302L0207502.003 Dry Ambient Saturation Saturated Saturation Upper Lithophysal 127mm Lower Lithophysal 127mm Lower Lithophysal 290mm Upper Lithophysal 290mm Figure 8-28. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Saturation (Large Lithophysal Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-96 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-32. Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength Thermo-Litho- Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) Count i5 7 11 3 6 1 N/A N/A N/A 6 3 100 4 8 244 4 Tpcpll 17 20 1 N/A N/A 364 364 N/A Tpcpv2 5 Tpcpv1 4 3 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A Tpy 5 21 2 N/A N/A 2 2 N/A N/A 10 2 N/A N/A 6 3 2 N/A N/A 6 162 57 8 8 5 64 3 5 130 220 90 2 N/A N/A 115 117 2 1 N/A N/A 157 157 N/A 8 2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 5 3 3 6 1 N/A N/A N/A 236 3 280 319 39 326 2 N/A N/A 230 243 13 4 4 2 N/A N/A 174 145 3 152 80 4 148 63 4 115 70 4 169 4 149 6 4 9 1 N/A N/A N/A () 2 N/A N/A UO Code Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maxmum Range Tmr O421150 7.60 7.48 3.34 6.5 1.8 20.3 18.5 Tpki O421150 5.94 2.72 1.03 6.5 1.1 9.8 8.7 O421150 32.61 28.02 8.45 23.6 10.4 110.6 100.2 O431150 100.30 31.19 18.01 115.8 64.4 120.7 56.3 Tpcrn2 O421150 26.13 10.39 4.24 24.3 13.1 39.7 26.6 Tpcrn1 O421150 132.90 132.9 132.9 132.9 O421150 70.05 30.64 12.51 79.2 32.5 109.6 77.1 O431150 77.43 19.55 11.29 66.7 65.6 34.4 O121151 222.38 68.25 34.13 222.7 153.2 290.9 137.7 O421150 167.19 64.12 22.67 183.55 71.9 172.1 O431150 206.33 60.50 30.25 211 128.9 274.4 145.5 O421150 308.56 107.41 26.05 315.80 75.40 429.70 354.3 O421150 172.33 58.09 12.99 154.75 78.2 278.4 200.2 O431140 364.00 364 O421150 34.82 25.27 11.30 27.40 11.30 61.80 50.5 O421150 5.05 1.41 0.71 4.7 3.9 6.9 O421150 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 O431140 7.03 7.03 7.03 7.03 O431150 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 O421150 19.30 6.99 3.13 7.8 26.2 18.4 O421150 1.80 1.8 0.8 2.8 O431150 5.10 5.10 4.30 5.90 1.60 O421150 3.19 2.45 0.77 2.2 1.3 9.4 8.1 O431150 3.70 3.70 3.30 4.10 0.80 O421150 2.92 2.30 0.94 1.85 0.8 6.4 5.6 O431150 3.20 1.42 0.82 2.70 2.10 4.80 2.70 Tptrv3 O421150 4.25 4.25 2.7 5.8 3.1 O121150 109.18 46.95 19.17 101.4 62.6 99.4 O421150 64.33 31.20 4.13 56.8 25.7 148.4 122.7 O421151 87.39 15.56 5.50 89.05 65.5 111.1 45.6 O421153 107.63 50.62 17.90 93.1 50.4 218.5 168.1 O431150 63.34 36.60 16.37 26.5 114.3 87.8 Tptrl O421150 26.73 9.25 5.34 26.9 17.4 35.9 18.5 O121150 176.80 37.57 16.80 167 O121170 116.00 116 O421150 157.00 157 1421150 65.21 44.40 15.70 60.9 15.7 149.4 133.7 1431150 47.50 47.5 37.3 57.7 20.4 1613150 17.70 17.7 17.7 17.7 1621150 28.10 28.1 14.9 41.3 26.4 1631150 33.06 12.65 5.66 28.8 19.4 53 33.6 1721150 10 16.24 4.97 1.57 15.95 10.3 27.8 17.5 1813250 30.47 9.47 5.47 34.8 19.6 37 17.4 1821150 11.23 1.68 0.97 11.6 9.4 12.7 3.3 1831150 22.22 7.56 3.09 21.8 13.5 33.5 20 1831250 22.10 22.1 22.1 22.1 3111350 30 146.46 57.33 10.47 155.1 31.9 204.1 3121130 294.00 21.70 12.53 283 3121150 30 222.67 42.41 7.74 224.3 113.3 212.7 3121170 236.50 236.5 3231150 16 176.35 65.82 16.46 173.9 71.3 324.1 252.8 3231350 14 133.96 70.24 18.77 140.95 34.3 245.7 211.4 3331350 22 143.15 50.31 10.73 145.5 75.1 243.8 168.7 3411150 122.58 35.32 17.66 118.6 87 166.1 79.1 3411170 150.88 50.18 25.09 169.95 78.1 185.5 107.4 3412130 101.50 101.5 29 3412150 111.00 40.04 23.12 109 72 3412170 114.50 29.13 14.56 112.5 85 3412180 85.25 30.94 15.47 90.5 45 3421130 113.20 42.86 21.43 107.85 68.1 100.9 3421150 42 164.58 65.62 10.13 161.55 38.4 288.9 250.5 3421170 131.00 25.20 12.60 140.35 94.3 54.7 3421190 85.42 21.74 8.87 90.05 45.3 108.5 63.2 3422150 117.38 20.67 10.33 122.15 89.4 135.8 46.4 3521150 119.57 31.65 10.55 130.6 58.86 160.7 101.84 3621150 11 97.67 30.60 9.23 90.41 59.91 170.8 110.89 3631150 159.60 159.6 159.6 159.6 continued3921150 90.14 90.14 86.92 93.36 6.44 TSw1 TSw2 Mechanical Unit stratigraphic Unit Tpcpmn Tpcpul Tpcpln Tpbt2 Tpbt3 TCw PTn Tpbt4 Tptpmn Tpcrn Tptpul Tptf Tptrn Tpp ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-97 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-32. Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength (continued) Thermo-Litho- Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 3 187 184 2 N/A N/A 130.5 123 138 15 195.75 150.8 7 175.2 53 6 213.25 26 12.28 135.1 147.5 1 N/A N/A 206.9 N/A 153.2 195.7 4 31.55 167.55 142 142.4 180 119 1 28.30 N/A N/A 28.3 1 38.00 N/A N/A 38 38 38 N/A 89.89 10.11 105.9 123.2 2 31.65 N/A N/A 31.65 1 15.70 N/A N/A 15.7 3 21.23 4.45 21.7 15.4 2 N/A N/A 153.45 7.5 2 N/A N/A 145.5 23.4 11.96 109.65 31 121.1 3 40.98 156.6 131.7 160.35 110 2 N/A N/A 171.55 2.7 1 16.4 N/A 16.4 2 45.8 N/A 45.8 8 1 90.5 N/A 90.5 2 91.5 N/A 91.5 3 8 15 7 5 12.8 6 19 13 2 N/A 8 12 4 4 27.25 3.01 26 22 35 13 3 27.67 0.33 28 27 28 1 1 20.50 N/A N/A 20.5 2 36.85 N/A N/A 36.85 41 8.3 2 24.05 N/A N/A 24.05 34 27.40 1.53 24.85 38.9 2 20.70 N/A N/A 20.7 2 24.60 N/A N/A 24.6 2 44.25 N/A N/A 44.25 8 34.99 30.35 55.9 4 69.63 3.09 72.3 13.1 17 56.63 117 80.4 8 96.80 10.33 92.35 153 85.9 11 24.55 2.90 24.1 36.97 18 30.43 1.23 29.8 21.4 4 41.08 4.71 44.7 20.1 4 13.38 0.62 13.55 3 1 N/A N/A 130 130 N/A 1 32.20 N/A N/A 32.2 4 57.65 56.2 34.2 4 70.85 11.10 75.9 49.8 29 32.69 50.2 4 87.03 11.31 82.5 115 46.9 7 52.19 2.80 50.2 18.7 page) UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically, Not inDepositional Sequence CHn ln ll Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 2121150 30 112.93 51.37 9.38 121 2121170 130.50 2131150 16 194.69 37.99 9.50 110.9 261.7 2411150 175.93 19.38 7.32 152.2 205.2 2412150 213.18 11.75 4.80 200.3 226.3 2421150 15 123.01 47.57 31.6 179.1 2421153 206.90 206.9 206.9 2431150 59 153.12 40.06 5.22 50.9 246.6 2512150 146.33 63.10 54.1 196.1 2531150 12 140.09 32.20 9.29 61 2613150 28.3 28.3 N/A 2621150 2631150 17 41.69 28.1 151.3 2813250 31.1 32.2 1.1 2821150 15.7 15.7 N/A 2831150 7.71 13.3 28.7 4121120 153.45 149.7 157.2 4121140 145.50 133.8 157.2 4121150 10 104.35 37.81 152.1 4121160 126.03 70.97 44.9 176.6 4421150 10 155.51 30.35 9.60 82.9 192.9 4431150 171.55 170.2 172.9 O421150 N/A 16.4 16.4 N/A O431150 N/A 41.8 49.8 O121150 N/A 90.5 90.5 N/A O431150 N/A 90.2 92.8 2.6 O121130 12 3.61 2.08 13 O121150 4.76 2.13 14 O121170 10 N/A 10 O121150 6.02 O121170 0.58 O421150 20.5 20.5 N/A O111150 32.7 O121130 23.4 24.7 1.3 O121150 8.89 14.2 53.1 O121170 19.9 21.5 1.6 O421150 22.7 26.5 3.8 O431140 40.8 47.7 6.9 Tacbt O121150 20.47 7.24 14.8 70.7 Tcbbt O121150 6.18 60.4 73.5 Tcbm O121150 19.07 4.63 58 36.6 Tcblv O121150 29.21 67.1 Tcbuv O121150 9.61 4.63 41.6 Tcbuc O121150 5.23 16.6 38 Tcpbt O121150 9.42 27.4 47.5 O121150 1.24 11.7 14.7 O431140 130.00 130 Tcplv O431140 32.2 32.2 N/A Tctuc O121150 16.34 8.17 42 76.2 Tctlc O121150 22.21 40.9 90.7 Tctlv O121150 11.86 2.20 30 14.5 64.7 Tctm O121150 22.62 68.1 Tctuv O121150 7.40 45.2 63.9 TSw3 Tptpv3 TSw2 Mechanical Unit (cont. from previous stratigraphic Unit TptpTptpTcplc Tpbt1 Tac Tptpv2 Tptpv1 ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-98 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Rate or Time-Scale: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested saturated and oven-dried samples of Grouse Canyon welded tuff from Rainier Mesa on the Nevada Test Site, at three strain rates: 10- -1 6, 10-4 and 10-2 s. For both the saturated and oven dried sets of samples, the mean strength values decrease by an average of 6% per decade decrease in strain rate over the strain rates stated above (the overall changes were 180.3 to 136.7 MPa and 124.7 to 94.3 MPa, respectively). There are some limited data on rate effects in three other early studies, one on moderately welded Tram tuff (Price and Nimick 1982), one on non-welded Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 1982) and one on highly welded Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982). In all of these rate studies, saturated samples were tested at room temperature and ambient pressure. The studies by Price and Nimick (1982) and Price et al. (1982) used strain rates of 10-6, 10-4 and 10-2 s-1, while -1 Price and Jones used 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s. Both the Price and Nimick (1982) and the Price and Jones (1982) results show the mean strength values decreasing by an average of 6.5% and 3.5%, respectively, per decade decrease in strain rate. The results in Price et al. (1982) give no distinct trend in the strength versus rate data. In the study by Price et al. (1987), the tests run on saturated samples (all these tests were at room temperature and ambient pressure) at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 and the tests on dried samples at strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s-1 showed mixed results. The average strengths for the dry samples actually show an inverse relationship with rate, as do the average strengths for the saturated samples at the 10-5 and the 10-3 s-1 rates. The average strength data for the saturated samples tested at 10-7 and the 10-5 s-1, however, do decrease about 4% per decade decrease in strain rate. As explained by Martin et al. (1993a and 1993b), the trend of the 10-5 to 10-3 s-1 data for the saturated samples seems to be the result of elevated pore pressures building up within the water-filled pores during this relatively quick (five to ten seconds) tests and thus creating a premature failure in these samples. In addition, Martin et al. (1993a) performed six experiments on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn. The test specimens were water -1 saturated and tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These results show a continuing decrease in the average strengths with decreasing strain rate. The overall decrease in the average strengths for the saturated samples tested in the two studies at strain rates of 10-9, 10-7 and 10-5 s-1 is found to be somewhat less than 10% per decade decrease in strain rate (Martin et al. 1993a). A series of constant stress experiments was initiated in the mid-1990’s to better define the time dependent constitutive behavior of the welded tuffs. The experiments were stopped before a definitive result could be achieved, but the indications were that the welded tuffs of the Tptpmn behave in such a way that for a given porosity and under given constant stress conditions, the time to failure for the tuffs is predictable (Martin et al. 1995b, 1997a and 1997b). In addition, the results from these experiments indicate that, even at high stresses (in the range of 100 MPa), the low porosity welded tuffs have a very long time-to-failure. Using some YMP data and some non-YMP data, the times to failure (for Busted Butte outcrop samples of the middle-non) ranged over about six orders of magnitude (i.e., from a few seconds to about 2 million seconds), and the resulting data show a general linear trend with a very low negative slope, on a stress difference versus log time-to-failure plot. For example, the preliminary fit of the data (having an average quasi-static, unconfined compression strength of nearly 150 MPa) predicts that under a constant load of 100 MPa, the rock would fail in 7.1 x 109 years. However, this result would have to be reanalyzed with data produced within the YMP program. Research is currently being done to 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-99 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report explore the static fatigue behavior of tuffs at Yucca Mountain and results will be available sometime in the future. A plot of all nonlithophysal 50.8 mm saturated samples from the RHH tested at room temperature and with length to diameter ratios (L:D) near 2:1 versus varying strain rate is shown in Figure 8-29. Unconfined Conpressive Strength vs Strain Rate Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specimens, Saturated, Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 Strain Rate (s^-1) Middle Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-29. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Strain Rate (RHH 50.8 mm Middle Nonlithophysal Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-100 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.4.3 Confined/Triaxial Compressive Tests The test results from compressive tests were also highly variable. A number of tests under varying temperature, saturation, and strain rate were performed. Compressive strength data included in this report are taken from the most recent data qualification effort completed in February of 2003 by the procedure outlined in AP-SIII.2Q. Compressive data are summarized in “Data Qualification and Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion” (Cikanek et al. 2003b). The summary of data is available in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Recent test data were not included in the summary DTN, but are available in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, and SN0305L0207502.004. The data come from boreholes presented in Table 8-33. A summary Table of all the confined compressive strength test results is shown below in Table 8-34. All static confined and unconfined compressive strength test results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. Unconfined results presented earlier are used in the plots of this section to better visualize the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. Confined compression testing was performed on a relatively limited number of specimens in the units proposed for the development of the geologic repository. Samples tested were either 50.8 mm or 25.4 mm in diameter and were recovered from the locations shown in Table 8-33. The elastic moduli and strengths under confined pressures are summarized in Martin et al. (1994, 1995a) and Boyd et al. (1996b). The specimens tested under confined compression failed in shear. There was little evidence of axial splitting, and in most cases a clear and evident shear plane developed; however, there was no evidence of conjugate fracture sets forming. Table 8-33. Sample Locations of Confined Compressive Data Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln Drillhole/Surface Specimens USW NRG-7a USW G-4 USW NRG-7a USW G-1 USW G-4 USW NRG-7a USW SD-9 USW SD-12 USW NRG-7a USW SD-12 USW SD-9 Busted Butte Busted Butte Subsurface ESF/ECRB Specimens No subsurface samples included in this report. No subsurface samples included in this report. No subsurface samples included in this report. No subsurface samples included in this report. Effects of Pressure: Under the range of anticipated repository conditions (saturation, temperature, pressure, etc), the welded tuffs behave as very brittle rocks, so the effect of confining pressure on strength for the Yucca Mountain tuffs is adequately captured by the parameters in the Coulomb criterion defined in terms of rock cohesion and angle of internal friction. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-101 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Olsson and Jones (1980) tested several samples from five units within Yucca Mountain, with a few specimens tested at elevated confining stresses mostly up to 20 MPa. The cohesions and internal friction angles calculated from the data (the tests were conducted on room-dry samples at room temperature and a strain rate of about 10-4 s-1) range from 12.1 MPa to 32.2 MPa and 25° to 68o, respectively. The results from some tests on moderately welded Bullfrog tuff at elevated temperature (200oC) and at effective confining pressures between 5 MPa and 21 MPa (dry and saturated samples tested at 10-5 s-1) show cohesions of 23.6 MPa (saturated) and 16.5 MPa (dry) and internal friction angles of 19.6o (saturated) and 37.4o (dry) (Olsson 1982). In two other limited data sets, one on non-welded tuff from Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 1982) and one on welded tuff from the Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982), the Coulomb parameters have not been calculated. The data also indicate the expected confining pressure effect on strength. In the study by Price et al. (1987), three sets of test data allowed for calculation of Coulomb parameters. The data sets involved the testing of dry samples at ambient temperature, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 10 MPa; saturated samples tested at ambient temperature, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 10 MPa; and saturated samples tested at 150oC, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 5 MPa. The resulting cohesions are 18.8 MPa, 41.7 MPa and 21.3 MPa, and the angles of internal friction are 57o, 31o and 50o, respectively. Price and others tested a series of small specimens of the Tptpmn and found that over the range of porosities in these samples (about 0.05 to 0.17), the cohesions (ranging from about 3 MPa to 50 MPa) show a general inverse relationship with porosity, and the internal friction angles are found to be independent of porosity (all being roughly in the 50° to 64o range) (Price et al. 1994b). Furthermore, Martin et al. (1997c) tested some drillhole samples from the Tptpmn. The experiments were all conducted on saturated samples and at room temperature, with confining pressures varying from 0 MPa to 10 MPa. The average strength values at 10 MPa pressure are more than double the strength of similar specimens tested under ambient pressure. Figure 8-30 is a s1 (axial stress or major principal stress) versus s3 (confining stress of minor principal stress) plot of 50.8 mm saturated samples from the Tptpul and Tptpll units tested under -1 saturated and room temperature conditions, and a strain rate of 10-5s. Figure 8-31 is a plot of unconfined and confined compressive strengths of saturated 50.8 mm specimens taken from the Tiva Canyon Lower Non-lithophysal unit (Tptpln) and the Topopah Spring Tuff crystal rich nonlithophysal zone (Tptrn), both found above the planned RHH. Figure 8-32 is a s1 versus s3 plot of 24.4 mm saturated samples from the Tac zone of the Calico Hills formation. The data presented is the most complete set of confined compressive data on non-welded tuff collected by the project. The Calico Hills nonwelded tuff (CHn) is considerable stronger than the Paintbrush non-welded tuff (PTn). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-102 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Confined Com pressive Strength 50.8m m Specim e ns, Satur at ed, Room Te m perature, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5 250 200 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 SN0306L0207502.008 Sigma 1 (MPa) 150 100 50 0 02 4681012 Sigm a 3 (MPa) Upper Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Figure 8-30. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature Lithophysal Zone Specimens 50.8 mm Saturated, Room Tem p, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5 450 Sigma 1 (MPa) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Sigm a 3 (MPa) Tpcpln Tptrn Figure 8-31. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature Tpcpln and Tptrn specimens 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-103 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 25.4 mm Saturated, Room Te m p, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain r ate = 10^-5 Sigma 1 (MPa) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 0 5 10152025 Sigm a 3 (M Pa) Calico Hills Non-Welded Tuff (Tac) Figure 8-32. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Saturated, Room Temperature Calico Hills non-welded tuff (Tac) There is considerable uncertainty involved with calculating failure parameters from such few data points. The porosity of the specimens varies greatly, and strength is porosity dependent. The large scatter of data in the unconfined tests can be explained by the porosity of the specimen, and the specimens shown in Figure 8-30 tested unconfined have porosities ranging from 9.9% to 23.3%. More data exists on rock collected from lithophysal units than nonlithophysal units. The results from the limited number of tests performed at elevated temperature and saturated samples are also included in this plot. Figures 8-33 and 8-34 show the slightly less variable results of the 25.4 mm specimens from the RHH tested under standard conditions. The failure envelope of the rock is better defined at this smaller specimen size. The specimens plotted in Figure 8-33 are small samples that have greatly ranging porosity, from 7.7% to 24.7% and therefore are expected to demonstrate the great ranges of data that are shown. Data plotted in Figure 8-34 plots specimen strengths of great variability. The porosity range reported with the associated strengths is limited between 10.0% and 12.4% and is a good indicator that the material has inherent variability even at small sample size and small ranges of porosity. Small diameter specimens are good indicators of the characteristics of the matrix material, being exclusive of lithophysae. The material is inherently variable, but can be bounded to a great degree. The variation in results from limited specimens induces a fair amount of uncertainty, which will be further examined at a later time. Effects of Saturation: Saturation is expected to have a greater effect on confined compressive samples when tested in undrained test conditions than when tested in a free draining test 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-104 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report condition. The data available does not indicate that saturation has any significant effect on the strength of the specimen. Figure 8-35 plots triaxial compressive results for middle nonlithophysal specimens at room and elevated temperature for dry saturation. Confined Compressive Strength 25.4mm Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem per atur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 Sigma 1 (MPa) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 681012 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Sigm a 3 (M Pa) Upper Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Figure 8-33. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Saturated Room Temperature of Lithophysal Zone Specimens 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-105 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Confined Compr essive Strength 25.4m m Specimens, Saturated, Room Temper atur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 400 350 300 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Sigma 1 (MPa) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 681012 Sigm a 3 (M Pa) Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Non Lith UCS Figure 8-34. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Dry, Room Temperature Middle Nonlithophysal Zone Specimens Confined Com pressive Strength 50.8m m Specimens, Dry, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s-1 350 300 250 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Sigma 1 (MPa) 200 150 100 50 0 02 4681012 Sigm a 3 (MPa) Middle Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-35. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Dry Room Temperature Nonlithophysal Zone Specimens 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-106 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Effects of Temperature: The failure characteristics of the tuff tested at the elevated temperature under triaxial compressive loading conditions indicate that there is a slight decrease in strength if compared to those tested at room temperature. The mean confined compressive strength values for 50.8 mm Tptpmn specimens that were saturated and tested under room temperature triaxial compressive loading at 5 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa confining pressure were strengths of 223 MPa, 159 MPa, and 195 MPa respectively. The decrease in strength with increasing confining pressure is abnormal and further investigation must be made. Samples tested at 150° C with the same size, saturation, and strain conditions were tested under 6 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa confinement at a strain rate of 10-6s-1, instead of the standard of 10-5s-1 produced normal results. The values for specimens tested at 150°C were 189 MPa, 249 MPa, and 244 MPa for confining pressures of 6 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa respectively. Figure 8-36 plots axial stress (s1) vs. lateral stress (s3) in heated confined compression, for 50.8 mm saturated specimens from the Tptpmn unit. Confined Com pressive Str ength 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, Tem p = 150C, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-6 Sigma 1 (MPa) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Sigm a 3 (M Pa) Middle Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-36. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated 150°C Specimens 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-107 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Effect of Pressure on Elastic Properties: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested several samples from five units within Yucca Mountain, with a few being at elevated confining pressure of 20 MPa. In both the cases of the Young’s moduli and the Poisson’s ratios, the elastic properties appear to be independent of confining pressure. The Young’s modulus results from some tests on moderately welded Bullfrog tuff at elevated temperature (200oC) and at effective confining pressures between 5 MPa and 21 MPa also show an independence with pressure (Olsson 1982). Olsson did not report any Poisson’s ratio values for these experiments. In two other limited data sets, one on non-welded tuff from Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 1982) and one on welded tuff from the Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982), both the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio results are inconclusive. However, both elastic properties appear to be insensitive to changes in confining pressure. However, in the study by Price et al. (1987), a correlation between confining pressure and Young’s modulus is observed both for oven-dry and for saturated outcrop samples from the Tptpmn. Sets of room temperature experiments on oven-dry and saturated samples tested at 0, 5 and 10 MPa confining pressures both show an average 12% decrease (oven-dry: 40.5 GPa to 35.6 GPa and saturated: 37.1 GPa to 32.6 GPa) in the magnitude of Young’s modulus for the unconfined and 10 MPa confinement. Similarly, a set of experiments at 150oC on saturated samples resulted in an 8% decrease (31.0 GPa to 28.6 GPa) in average Young’s modulus when comparing the 0 MPa and 5 MPa effective confining pressure. Poisson’s ratio data were determined for tests carried out under all but the elevated experiments, and there appears to be no effect of confining pressure on this elastic property. Furthermore, Martin et al. (1997a) tested some drillhole samples from the Tptpmn. The experiments were all conducted on saturated samples and at room temperature, with confining pressures varying from 0 MPa to 10 MPa. Some variations were the result of porosity differences in the samples, but in general, the average Young’s moduli decrease over that range of pressures is about 11% (32.2 GPa to 28.5 GPa). A larger decrease was measured for welded Tiva Canyon tuff samples; however, much of the decrease appears to be related to an effect of different sample porosities. Tables 8-28 and 8-29 present the results of all confined compression testing for Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-108 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-34. Summary of Confined Compressive Differential Strength Results MPa O431143 1 N/A O431146 1 N/A 200 200 N/A O431147 1 N/A 4 17.00 359 77.6 2 N/A 244 140.5 1 N/A O431144 1 N/A O431146 1 N/A O431147 1 N/A 1 N/A O421153 1 N/A O421151 3 57.98 178.6 3 87.40 266 O431143 1 N/A 396 396 N/A O431145 2 N/A 105 875 770 lO421153 1 N/A O421151 1 N/A N/A O421153 1 N/A N/A O121151 13 8.89 72.1 124.3 O121153 11 15.20 178.2 l O421151 1 N/A 62.1 62.1 2 N/A 89.4 6 33.31 87 230.3 6 19.82 360 134.5 3 19.05 64.8 3 39.73 121.7 3 37.26 112 228 116 5 30.39 169 161.7 14 14.86 233.1 5 17.77 96.1 3 34.22 107.3 5 13.23 78.6 6 20.04 131.9 5 22.52 123.6 3 44.06 146.8 3 46.73 247 150 3 36.95 128 3 12.50 42.8 1 N/A O121153 4 9.51 42.5 O421151 1 N/A 47.2 47.2 O421153 1 N/A O121151 2 N/A O121153 2 N/A 8 4.91 1.74 27.2 35.7 16.8 6 7.62 3.11 34.6 36.2 19.1 O113141 1 N/A 87 87 87 N/A O113143 1 N/A 93 93 93 N/A O113145 2 N/A 119 148 29 O123143 1 N/A 70 70 70 N/A O123145 1 N/A 83 83 83 N/A O123146 1 N/A 86 86 86 N/A 2 N/A 140 145 5 1 N/A 174 174 N/A 2 N/A 176 207 31 1 N/A 299 299 N/A ll ln ln UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically, Not in DepositionalSequence () Thermo- Mechanical Unit Litho- stratigraphic Unit Code Count Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 156.50 N/A 156.5 156.5 156.5 N/A 200.00 N/A 200 212.40 N/A 212.4 212.4 212.4 N/A O121153 317.35 34.01 314.5 281.4 O421151 314.25 N/A 314.25 384.5 O421153 235.50 N/A 235.5 235.5 235.5 N/A 193.10 N/A 193.1 193.1 193.1 N/A 405.40 N/A 405.4 405.4 405.4 N/A 191.70 N/A 191.7 191.7 191.7 N/A O421151 120.30 N/A 120.3 120.3 120.3 N/A 147.90 N/A 147.9 147.9 147.9 N/A 255.53 100.43 308.6 139.7 318.3 O421153 316.93 151.37 400.4 142.2 408.2 396.00 N/A 396 490.00 N/A 490 Tpcpnc 173.10 N/A 173.1 173.1 173.1 N/A Tpbt3 8.30 N/A 8.3 8.3 8.3 Tpp 7.30 N/A 7.3 7.3 7.3 81.40 32.06 34.6 158.9 122.61 50.42 129.1 20.1 198.3 Tptr62.10 N/A 62.1 N/A Tptpul 1421151 89.40 N/A 71.9 106.9 35 3121151 215.30 81.58 238.35 317.3 3121153 315.90 48.54 329.6 225.5 3411151 191.40 32.99 198.6 155.4 220.2 3411153 225.10 68.81 188 182.8 304.5 3412153 186.33 64.53 219 3421151 222.78 67.95 198.7 330.7 3421153 159.00 55.61 157.3 39.7 272.8 3421155 194.54 39.73 192 156.3 252.4 3422151 116.10 59.27 145.2 47.9 155.2 3422162 188.88 29.59 191.8 147.3 225.9 3422163 248.55 49.09 236.9 202.3 334.2 3422164 243.86 50.36 233.5 195.8 319.4 2121151 133.83 76.32 109.7 72.5 219.3 2121153 154.43 80.94 119.3 97 4421151 211.43 64.00 211.1 147.6 275.6 4421153 255.60 21.65 251.8 236.1 278.9 4422164 264.50 N/A 264.5 264.5 264.5 N/A 45 19.03 27 68 41 47.2 N/A 47.2 N/A 70 N/A 70 70 70 N/A 23 N/A 23 17 29 12 24 N/A 24 16 32 16 O121153 27.71 18.9 O121155 30.88 17.1 87.00 N/A 93.00 N/A 133.50 N/A 133.5 70.00 N/A 83.00 N/A 86.00 N/A O431145 142.50 N/A 142.5 Tcbuc O431147 174.00 N/A 174 O431145 191.50 N/A 191.5 O431148 299.00 N/A 299 TCw PTn Tptrn Tptpmn Tpcpmn TpcpTpcpCHn Tptpll TptpConfined Compressive StrengthTSw2 Tptpv3 TSw3 TSw1 Tcpm Tac Tptpv1 Tpcpul Tcbm ***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND CORRECTIONS. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-109 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.4.4.4 Intact Rock Tensile Strength Indirect tensile strengths were calculated using the procedure outlined in ASTM D3967 on specimens recovered from surface boreholes USW-NRG-6, USW-NRG-7a, and UE-25-NRG#5. All samples were 50.8 mm in diameter with a length of 38.6 mm and were tested saturated at room temperature. A summary of results is shown in Table 8-35 and 8-36. All static indirect tensile strength test results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-6 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file ITS Master Sheet.xls. Data were collected and has been recently approved under the procedures set forth by AP- SIII.2Q. The data are discussed porosity than samples collected from nonlithophysal rock units. Figure 8-35 shows indirect tensile strength as a function of porosity for all qualified indirect tensile strength specimens. An inverse relationship between porosity and indirect tensile strength is evident in the report “Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness, and Rock Triaxial Creep” (Cikanek et al. 2003a). These data are available in DTN MO030601DQRIRPTS.000. Samples tested for indirect tensile strength also had total porosity determined prior to testing. Samples collected from lithophysal units generally have lower tensile strength and greater total porosity. Values of indirect or splitting tensile strength is most commonly determined through use of the Brazilian test, which is a desirable alternative to direct-pull tests because it is easier to perform and less expensive. The test methods are routine and are described by Mellor and Hawkes (1971) or ASTM D 3967-95a, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens. Direct tensile testing was performed, but the results have not been qualified and reside in DTN MO0301SETSTTST.000. The direct tensile testing that was performed consists of eleven samples, ten from the Tptpmn and one from the Tptpln. No indirect tensile specimens were tested at conditions other than saturated and room temperature with length to diameter ratios other than 0.75 to 1. The effect of strain rate is not -1 explored, as all samples were tested at 10-5 s. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-110 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-35. Summary of Indirect Tensile Strength Results (Saturated Data) iTmr 3 6 1 16 l 19 13 ll 2 NA NA l25 l8 3 3 Tpy 1 1 N/A NA N/A 11 3 52 l 7 19 14 ll 24 ln 13 3 UO Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minmum Maximun Range 1.23 1.27 0.74 0.60 0.40 2.70 2.30 Tpki 0.70 0.24 0.10 0.70 0.40 1.00 0.60 Tpcrv 8.70 N/A N/A 8.70 8.70 8.70 NA Tpcrn 7.75 3.41 0.85 8.34 2.70 13.44 10.74 Tpcpu10.07 1.81 0.42 10.00 6.23 13.58 7.34 Tpcpmn 15.54 3.01 0.84 15.66 7.20 19.08 11.88 Tpcp14.60 14.60 13.20 16.00 2.80 Tpcpnh 8.96 3.42 0.68 9.60 2.60 14.80 12.20 Tpcpnc 11.29 1.70 0.60 11.55 8.20 13.40 5.20 Tpcpv2 3.60 2.10 1.21 4.50 1.20 5.10 3.90 Tpcpv1 3.27 3.65 2.11 1.90 0.50 7.40 6.90 3.00 NA NA 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Tpbt3 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 Tpp 0.17 0.19 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.70 0.68 Tpbt2 0.33 0.40 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.80 0.70 Tptrn 5.43 2.07 0.29 5.00 1.60 10.50 8.90 Tptr4.81 1.36 0.51 5.10 3.40 7.30 3.90 Tptpul 5.57 3.10 0.71 4.30 1.90 12.90 11.00 Tptpmn 10.88 4.02 1.07 12.05 4.30 16.80 12.50 Tptp8.33 2.93 0.60 8.25 3.20 14.30 11.10 Tptp7.92 2.55 0.71 7.60 4.80 13.70 8.90 TSw3 Tptpv3 3.97 0.32 0.19 4.10 3.60 4.20 0.60 Tensile Strength (for saturated data) TSw2 TCw PTn TSw1 SOURCE DTN: MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 Table 8-36. Summary of Indirect Tensile Strength Results (Room Dry Data) Tensile Strength (MPa) (for room dry data) Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minimum Maximun Range Tmr 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA UO Tpki 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcrv 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcrn 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcpul 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcpmn 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA TCw Tpcpll 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcplnh 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcplnc 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcpv2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcpv1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpy 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA PTn Tpbt3 1 0.30 N/A N/A 0.30 0.30 0.30 N/A Tpp 1 0.40 NA NA 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 Tpbt2 2 0.25 0.07 NA 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.10 Tptrn 1 8.40 NA NA 8.40 8.40 8.40 0.00 TSw1 Tptrl 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tptpul 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tptpmn 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA TSw2 Tptpll 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tptpln 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tptpv3 TSw3 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA SOURCE DTN: MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-111 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-37. Summary of Porosity Measurements of Indirect Tensile Strength Specimens Count St. dev Tmr 0 6 1 N/A 7 l 0 N/A NA NA 0 ll 2 N/A NA l25 l8 3 3 Tpy 1 NA NA 1 11 3 52 l 7 19 14 ll 24 ln 13 3 UO Mean ST. Error median Minimum Maximun Range NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpki 46.98 2.30 0.29 46.35 44.50 50.40 5.90 Tpcrv 9.80 NA NA 9.80 9.80 9.80 Tpcrn 31.70 8.78 2.93 28.00 24.40 44.50 20.10 TpcpuNA NA NA NA Tpcpmn NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tpcp5.55 5.55 5.50 5.60 0.10 Tpcpnh 14.06 8.78 1.79 12.20 6.40 39.10 32.70 Tpcpnc 10.24 3.47 3.99 13.50 6.90 16.60 9.70 Tpcpv2 31.53 4.82 2.08 29.70 27.90 37.00 9.10 Tpcpv1 33.10 13.68 1.89 40.80 17.30 41.20 23.90 31.30 31.30 31.30 31.30 NA Tpbt3 52.30 N/A N/A 52.30 52.30 52.30 N/A Tpp 51.85 3.00 0.05 52.20 45.40 55.20 9.80 Tpbt2 46.10 9.10 0.19 46.10 37.00 55.20 18.20 Tptrn 14.81 3.09 0.75 14.70 6.80 22.80 16.00 Tptr16.53 4.44 1.82 16.40 10.60 22.20 11.60 Tptpul 16.31 3.19 1.28 15.70 11.30 21.80 10.50 Tptpmn 11.84 2.96 2.91 10.75 9.00 19.20 10.20 Tptp11.99 1.96 1.70 13.30 8.80 16.40 7.60 Tptp8.81 1.89 2.20 9.00 3.80 11.20 7.40 TSw3 Tptpv3 1.30 0.10 2.29 1.30 1.20 1.40 0.20 TCw PTn TSw1 Porosity (for saturated data) TSw2 SOURCE DTNS: SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003, SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.010, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014, SNL02030193001.017, SNL02030193001.019, SNL02030193001.020 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-112 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Indirect Tensile Strength vs Porosity Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Source DTN(s) MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 0 5 10152025 Porosity (%) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-37. Indirect Tensile Strength versus Porosity (RHH Specimens 8.4.4.5 Intact Rock Hoek-Brown Parameters The Hoek-Brown method of failure criterion is widely accepted and used by engineers around the world. This method was developed for use in design of underground excavations in hard rock such as those found at Yucca Mountain. The method was developed from the results of research in brittle failure of intact rock by E. Hoek, and further work to apply it to jointed rock mass behavior was done by Brown. Hoek and Brown decided to link their empirical method to geologic observations by means of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system proposed by Bieniawski (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002) (Bieniawski 1989). The Hoek-Brown failure criterion fits a line through the tensile, uniaxial compressive, and triaxial compressive data that fits the form .s 3 5.0 . s =s 3 +s ci .. m + s .. (Eq. 8-18) 1 .s ci . Where s1 and s3 are the major and minor effective principal stresses at failure sci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material m, and s are material constants where s = 1 for intact rock (Hoek, Carranza-Torres and Corkum 2002) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-113 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Many improvements have been made to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion since it’s introduction in the early 1980’s. Recent researchers have found that the method of curve fitting the criterion to the test data has a major effect on the estimates of the material properties (Mostyn and Douglas 2000). According to Mostyn and Douglas, the parameters mi and sc are not material properties if the exponent, a, is fixed at 0.5. Mostyn and Douglas’ approach allows the variables a, sc, and mi to be determined through a more generalized, best-fit method shown below (Mostyn and Douglas 2000): . a . s =s 3 +s c .. mi s 3 + s .. (Eq. 8-19) 1 .s c . Where s1 and s3 are the major and minor effective principal stresses at failure sc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material best fit by the generalized fit method mi, and s are material constants where s = 1 for intact rock a is an exponent allowed to be fit by the generalized best-fit method Inputs for Development of Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion Data required for development of the generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion consist of three types of strength test results. Intact rock unconfined compressive strength, triaxial or confined compressive strength, and tensile strength (either direct or indirect Brazilian), are needed to develop the strength envelope for this failure criterion. Rock test results are first sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. The data is then sorted by the physical effects of specimen size and length to diameter ratio to remove their effect on test results. The data are also sorted to remove the environmental effects of saturation, testing temperature, and confining pressure. Porosity has a great effect on the mechanical properties of an intact core sample. Further separation was accomplished through removal in the analysis of samples with total porosity outside of an acceptable range that is expected in the repository host horizon unit for which rock mass properties are being calculated. Once sorting is complete, a set of data is statistically analyzed to determine the sample mean, distribution, and standard deviation. After sorting the data for environmental and physical effects, several data points exist for unconfined compressive strength, many exist for tensile strength, but few exist at each confining pressure of triaxial testing. To achieve better understanding of the potential range of output results with the varying amount of available data, the inputs were entered into a simulation program that would allow for Monte-Carlo simulation. GoldSim 7.50.1, a simulation program developed by Golder Associates, was used to develop data sets from the stochastic data inputs (GoldSim User’s Manual 2002). It is expected that with increasing confining pressure, an increased axial strength should be measured when performing triaxial tests. In order to determine the differential strength, specimens are loaded to failure and destroyed in each test, so the theory can never be proven with an actual sample. It is understood that the data inputs are not independent, as a specimen 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-114 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report with high uniaxial strength will have high tensile and triaxial strengths as well. To force the simulation program to follow this theory, a correlation factor is applied to the selection of the triaxial strengths (Golder Users Manual 2002 p. A-33). One value of the uniaxial compressive strength is chosen from the uniaxial strength stochastic input, and a correlated value is then selected from the other inputs. Initially, a correlation factor of 1 will be used in the selection of triaxial strength and a correlation value of –0.9 is used for selection of tensile strength data. The negative correlation represents the fact that higher compressive strength samples should also be stronger in indirect tension, and the sign convention indicates that compressive strength is a positive value, while negative indicates the opposite application of force: tension. The correlation factors ensure that realistic data sets will be generated. Figure 8-38 presents the stochastic inputs for the planned host horizon unit Tptpmn. The data selected for development of the failure criterion is from specimens tested saturated at 150° C. This was the most complete and appropriate of the data sets available from this rock unit, and was therefore selected for use. Figure 8-38A is the stochastic distribution of uniaxial compressive strength, the stochastic distribution of triaxial strength at 6 MPa confining pressure is presented as Figure 8-38C, the stochastic distribution of triaxial strength at 10 MPa is presented as Figure 8-38D, and the stochastic distribution of indirect tensile strength is presented in Figure 8-38E. Figure 8-38B is the input distribution of indirect tensile strength. The vertical axis of Figure 8-38 reflects probability and the horizontal axes represent either compressive strength or indirect tensile strength in MPa. Figure 8-39 is the input data for the Tptpln in similar order as discussed for Figure 8-38. The input data for determination of the Hoek-Brown parameter for the Tptpln and Tptpmn rock units are summarized in Table 8-27. These values are determined using data collected from 50.8 mm Tptpmn specimens tested saturated at a temperature of 150° C with length to diameter ratio of 2:1 and under a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 10-6 s-1 from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. The values used for the Tptpln calculation are 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated at room temperature with length to diameter ratio of 2:1 and under a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 are also from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, while tensile data originates from: DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. Table 8-38. Input Data for Hoek-Brown Parameter Development Mean Indirect Tensile Strength Indirect Tensile Strength Standard Deviation Indirect Tensile Strength Min/Max Mean Unconfined Compressive Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength Standard Deviation Unconfined Compressive Strength Min/Max Mean 5 or 6 MPa Confined Compressive Strength** 5/6 MPa Confined Compressive Strength Standard Deviation** 5/6 Unconfined Compressive Strength Min/Max** Mean 10 MPa Confined Compressive Strength 10 MPa Confined Compressive Strength Standard Deviation 10 MPa Confined Compressive Strength Min/Max Mean 15 MPa Confined Compressive Strength 15 MPa Confined Compressive Strength Standard Deviation 15 MPa Confined Compressive Strength Min/Max Tptpln 7.92 2.55 0/20 155.51 30.35 0/300 216.4 64 0/500 265.6 21.7 0/500 N/A*** N/A*** N/A*** Tptpmn* 10.88 4.02 1/22 117.38 20.67 0/200 194.9 29.6 0/300 258.6 49.1 0/400 258.9 50.4 0/400 Notes: Specimens used for Hoek-Brown calculations from the Tptpmn were tested saturated and at a temperature of 150 C. Results presented are principal stresses (deviator stress plus confining pressure). **Tptpmn specimens were tested at 6 MPa confining, Tptpln were at 5 MPa. ***No results available for 15 MPa confined strength. All results in MPa. Figure 8-40 shows and example input diagram to GoldSim and the selection relationships among the input data. This program will realize (categorically select calculate and return) any number of data sets consisting of one point each from the uniaxial strength, tensile strength, and triaxial 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-115 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report strengths and output that selection to a result matrix that can be further used in analysis. The correlation factors ensure that realistic data sets will be generated. Figure 8-41 is an example of an output matrix from GoldSim. Figure 8-38. Stochastic Inputs for Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion for Tptpmn Figure 8-39. Stochastic Inputs for Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion for Tptpln Figure 8-40. GoldSim Data Selection Diagram 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-116 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report After the model is run to generate correlated data sets, a range of Hoek-Brown failure parameters can be calculated for each data set. The data are saved from GoldSim as a Microsoft Excel. file and arranged with corresponding confining pressures so plotting and analysis can be performed. The data are further organized so two data sets exist in one row of the spreadsheet. A MathCAD. worksheet is used to apply a general fit to the twelve data points that exist in each line. These 12 points represent 2 points at each unconfined, tensile, and 5 MPa or 6 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa triaxial confining pressures when appropriate. The actual MathCAD sheets to calculate these curve fits as well as the data generated by the MathCAD selection process are available in Attachment II. The output of one run of analysis can be seen in Figure 8-40. The horizontal axis is the minor principal stress (confining pressure), and the vertical axis is axial stress (axial stress plus confining pressure). A summary of the data including mean, standard deviation, and distribution is also calculated by the MathCAD worksheet in Attachment II. Electronic files for the Tptpln lithostratigraphic unit of this calculation are provided in Attachment VIII files Tptpln.gsm, Correct Tptpln.xls, Correct Tptpln.mcd and Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln Data.xls. Electronic files for the Tptpmn lithostratigraphic unit of this calculation are provided in Attachment VIII files Tptpmn Hot.gsm, Correct Ttptmn Hot 2.mcd, Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls, and Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn Hot Data.xls. Figure 8-41. Result of Data Selection After the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for intact rock parameters have been determined, derived rock mass parameters for the rock mass can be calculated. The blue line in Figure 8-42 shows the Hoek-Brown failure envelope generated for one example of Tptpmn data. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-117 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 8-42. Example of Output of MathCAD Genfit Routine for Set for Data from Tptpmn 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-118 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The results of calculation for the Tptpmn and Tptpln rock units are shown in Figures 8-43 and 844, respectively. The results of the calculated Hoek-Brown parameter, mi, calculated unconfined compressive strength sc, and the fitting exponent a, are shown in Table 8-39. The results presented in Table 8-39 are inputs for calculation of rock mass parameters discussed later in this report. Table 8-39. Results of Mostyn-Douglas Fitting Routine Calculated from MathCAD Fitting Routine s c a mi Tptpmn mean standard deviation 119.56 0.47 33.87 15.99 0.01 6.65 Tptpln mean standard deviation 153.90 0.48 29.97 29.63 0.06 7.22 Figure 8-43. Results of Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope for the Tptpln Unit 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-119 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 8-44. Results of Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope for the Tptpmn Unit 8.4.4.6 Intact Rock Cohesion and Friction Angle The data concerning friction angle and cohesion are from Reference Information Base (RIB) item MO0210RIB10000.000 and are estimated using the method that has been used previously on the YMP for deriving these parameters. More detail on the cohesion and friction angle are available in this RIB item, from which this information was taken. The method first requires estimating the confinement factor, N, and unconfined compressive strength, sc, from uniaxial (unconfined) and triaxial (confined) results using a linear regression analysis fitted to the form: s1 = N s3 + sc (Eq. 8-20) s Where: 1 = axial stress, or strength of the rock, at failure (calculated as the differential s s stress + the effective confining pressure); 3 = effective confining pressure (confining pressure–pore pressure); c = unconfined compressive strength; N = confinement factor. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-120 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Cohesion, c, and rock friction angle, f, can then be calculated using the following equations: s c = c (Eq. 8-21) 2 N - o f= (tan2 1 N - 45 ) (Eq. 8-22) For this RIB Data Item, the relevant uniaxial and triaxial results from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 for each lithostratigraphic unit were used to estimate cohesion and friction angle. The selected uniaxial and triaxial results were analyzed using the Regression tool in Microsoft Excel. The regression results for the intercept (sc) and X Variable (N) were then used in the above to calculate cohesion and friction angle. The results are shown in Table 8-40. If triaxial tests are conducted with pore pressure in the specimen (undrained tests), the pore pressure will have the effect of reducing the effective confining pressure. Pore pressures can, therefore, have a significant impact on the value of N in the equations. Because the data sources do not always record whether tests were conducted under drained or undrained conditions or the pore pressure, the estimates in Table 8-40 are separated by triaxial test type. Drained or corrected tests are either identified as drained tests (no pore pressure) or are undrained tests for which a pore pressure value is given. The undrained test results are corrected to give effective confining pressures by subtracting the pore pressure from the confining pressure. The documentation for unknown tests does not indicate whether the test was drained or undrained. These are probably drained tests based on the recollection of the principal investigator and the sequence of tests. Some of the estimates shown in Table 8-40 also support the anecdotal evidence that these unknown tests were drained Undrained tests are those tests that were conducted under undrained conditions without pore pressure measurements. In calculating the Coulomb strength parameters, the triaxial test confining pressures were added to convert differential stress to strength, but no correction could be made for the effects of pore pressure. The strength parameters in Table 8-40 are based on all the available triaxial test results given in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 (e.g., no tests were culled from the sample), with the following exceptions. The Busted Butte data were treated as a separate data set and the Busted Butte uniaxial tests were represented as an average value in the calculations for the (non-Busted Butte) Tptpmn and Tptpul zones. To minimize the impact of specimen size, if all the triaxial tests were of a single diameter, only uniaxial tests for that diameter were considered in the calculation. Specimen diameters or diameter ranges used are indicated in Table 8-40. These results should be considered estimated values because of the limited number of triaxial tests available. In general, sc (the regression line intercept at zero confining pressure) is better constrained by the more numerous UCS Compressive Strength results. However, N (the slope of the regression line) is generally controlled by a relatively small number of triaxial tests. The triaxial tests are subject to the same variability due to lithologic variation and test conditions that 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-121 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report affect the uniaxial tests. As a result, most of the triaxial tests show a relatively wide scatter. The need to segregate drained and undrained tests also has the effect of further reducing the number of triaxial tests available for use in estimating the Coulomb strength parameters. The small number of tests and the significant variability among test results indicate that there is a relatively low confidence in the value of N. These issues can produce unusual results in some cases. For example, the values in Table 8-40 for drained Tptpmn samples are anomalous because of the low value for N resulting from a small number of triaxial tests with apparently low values. Because the method used relies on a linear regression analysis, the results given in Table 8-40 represent a type of average value for each lithologic zone. For some applications, the relatively wide range of compressive strengths (and the corresponding range of Coulomb strength parameters) may be more significant than an average value. In any case, users should consider the number of triaxial tests and the scatter of values (particularly for zones with very few tests) in determining the appropriate use for these results. In general, welded tuff zones within the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Springs Tuffs have average friction angles varying between 45 and 65 degrees. Average cohesion for these zones is generally between 10 MPa and 40 MPa. In contrast, the vitric zones and more porous bedded tuff units have much lower friction angles that generally vary between 5 and 35 degrees with significantly lower cohesion values (less than 15 MPa). Test results can be affected by variations in the following test conditions: saturation, temperature, and sample diameter. In general, increases in saturation, and, to a lesser extent temperature, resulted in reduced compressive strength. These effects were more pronounced in confined (triaxial) tests and when both saturation and temperature were increased. These effects also increase with increasing porosity in the test specimen. Increasing test specimen diameter also has the effect of generally reducing compressive strength. This is believed to be caused by the increased likelihood of larger samples containing lithophysae, pumice/lithic clasts, and small fractures that can reduce sample strength. By far, the greatest source of variation in the test results is due to the variation within each of the lithostratigraphic zones due to changes in porosity; the presence or absence of lithophysae, pumice/lithic clasts, and fractures; and other variations in compositional or physical properties. Such changes are particularly pronounced in the lithophysal zones. These zones show a broad distribution of test results that probably represent samples that either contained no lithophysae or contained lithophysae of varying size and number. Depending on their need, individual users may use individual test results from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 or the summarized data in this RIB Data Item. In either case, users must consider the impact of lithologic variability in applying these results to specific problems. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-122 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-40. Intact Rock Friction Angle and Cohesion Formation Lithostratigraphic Unit Triaxial Test Type* Test Environment Cohesion (C) (MPa) Friction Angle (f) (degrees) Tpt Tptpul Drained or corrected S100 T22 50.8 mm diam. + 1 avg. BB value (266 mm diam. tests) 7.52 60.06 Tpt Tptpmn Unknown S100 T22 25.4-50.8 mm diam. 32.10 55.70 Tpt Tptpmn Drained or corrected S100 T22 25.4-50.8 mm diam. 87.00 9.58 Tpt Tptpmn Drained or corrected S100 T150 50.8 mm diam. 30.53 52.20 Tpt Tptpmn (Busted Butte) Drained or corrected S100 T22 50.8 mm diam. only 28.39 39.25 Tpt Tptpmn (Busted Butte) Drained or corrected S0 T22 25.4-50.8 mm diam. 21.76 55.04 Tpt Tptpmn (Busted Butte) Drained or corrected S0 T150 50.8 mm diam. 16.80 53.79 Tpt Tptpll Drained or corrected S100 T22 25.4-50.8mm diam. 22.06 46.61 Tpt Tptpll Undrained S100 T22 25.4 mm diam. only 21.00 49.57 Tpt Tptpln Unknown S100 T22 50.8 mm diam. only 22.54 58.21 Tpt Tptpln Drained or corrected S100 T22 50.8 mm diam. only 26.06 52.44 Tpt Tptpln Drained or corrected Sam T22 17.68 66.76 See text for explanation of categories. Sam indicates ambient saturation, S100 indicates the specimens were saturated, T22 indicates the test was performed at 22 degrees Celsius, T150 indicates the test was done at 150 degrees Celsius. Source: Calculated from uniaxial and triaxial test results in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 using the method discussed previously in Section 3.5.4.5. 8.4.5 Elastic and Strength Properties Relationship A relationship between strength and elastic properties exists for the brittle tuff that is being examined in Sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 of this report. Specimens that have greater strength values tend to have higher modulus values than specimens that have lower strength. Figure 8-45 is a plot of all 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated under ambient room temperature with a length to -1 diameter ratio of 2:1 and a strain rate of 10-5 s. There appears to be a very strong relationship 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-123 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report between modulus and strength, even with a large amount of scatter occurring in the Tptpmn specimens. Figure 8-46 plots the results of the unconfined compressive strengths of ambient saturation specimens to the measured Young’s modulus. A very strong relationship exists and appears to be nearly linear for the range of modulus values measured. The relationship between unconfined compressive strength and elastic modulus is also quite clear in large lithophysal specimens. Figure 8-47 plots UCS versus Young’s modulus for all 267 mm specimens collected from the Tptpul. Poisson’s ratio is relatively independent of compressive strength. For all specimens of varying physical and environmental conditions there appears to be no direct relationship between strength and Poisson’s ratio. Figure 8-48 is a plot of Poisson’s ratio versus unconfined compressive strength for all 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated under room temperature with a -1 length to diameter near 2:1 and at a strain rate of 10-5s. The large scatter in the data occurs more so in lithophysal zone specimens (Tptpul and Tptpll) than in nonlithophysal zone specimens (Tptpmn and Tptpln). Unconfined Conpr essive Strength vs Young's Modulus 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Young's Modulus (Gpa) Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-45. UCS vs. Young's Modulus (50.8 mm Saturated, Room Temperature) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-124 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Unconfined Conpressive Str ength vs Young's Modulus 50.8m m Specimens, Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 300 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 5 1015202530354045 Young's Modulus (Gpa) Upper Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-46. UCS vs. Young’s Modulus (50.8 mm Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature) Unconfined Conpressive Strength vs Young's Modulus 266.7mm Specim ens, Saturated, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 50 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 40 30 20 10 0 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 0 5 10152025 Young's Modulus (Gpa) Upper Lithophysal Figure 8-47. UCS vs. Young’s Modulus (267 mm Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-125 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Poisson's Ratio vs Young's Modulus 50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1 Poisson's Ratio 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Source DTN(s) MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Unconfined Com pr essive Strength (MPa) Middle Non-Lithophysal Upper Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal Figure 8-48. Poisson’s Ratio vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength (50.8 mm Saturated, Room Temperature) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-126 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.5 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ROCK MASS 8.5.1 Factors Impacting Properties of Rock Mass Several factors will affect the determination of calculated rock mass properties. Rock mass properties are calculated from observed tunnel conditions through geologic mapping and intact rock mechanical laboratory testing. Laboratory rock core specimens are generally are rock of better condition, as the specimen will be unrecoverable if a sample across a fracture. Lithophysae cannot be adequately captured in small diameter specimens that are tested in the laboratory, and furthermore, lithophysae are not adequately represented in the empirical database. The Q system does not allow for characterization of lithophysal rock mass and therefore GSI cannot be determined and carried into other empirical equations used for development of rock mass parameters. Geologic mapping is performed at the tunnel surface and the surface exposure is not exactly what is expected in the rock mass. Mathematical calculations must be made to properly determine the size and distribution of lithophysae in a three dimensional sense before the rock mass can be appropriately characterized. The complications of capturing rock mass characteristics in laboratory strength testing and surficial geologic mapping will impact rock mass parameter calculation. 8.5.2 Rock Mass Elastic Properties Traditionally, rock mass elastic and strength properties are primarily derived mathematically from intact rock core specimens and from empirical methods accounting for the effects and conditions of present joint systems. Laboratory testing of lithophysal and fractured rock mass is extremely difficult to perform, as are field testing methods. Attachment IX includes all worksheets needed to develop Section 8.5 data. Electronic files Tptpln Final Model.gsm, and Tptpmn All Data Final Model.gsm are provided in Attachment VIII. 8.5.2.1 Hoek-Brown Bulk Rock Failure Parameter, mb The Hoek-Brown rock mass parameter determination uses the Geological Strength Index (GSI) to characterize rock mass strength (Hoek, Kaiser, and Bawden 2000). The United States Bureau of Reclamation and United States Geological Survey personnel collected rock mass classification data, using the Q system, in the ESF and ECRB behind the advancing TBM. To apply Q system data to estimate the strength of jointed rock masses, the Q parameters related to stress (i.e. Jw and SRF) should be set equal to 1, equivalent to a dry rock mass subjected to medium stress conditions (Hoek, Kaiser, and Bawden 2000) such that GSI = ln( * 9 Qp ) + 44 (Eq. 8-23) Where 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-127 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report . . . .. J J RQD .. = .. .. Q p (Eq. 8-24) r × J . n a RQD = rock quality designation Jn = joint set number Jr = joint roughness number Ja = joint alteration number The material constants of the Hoek-Brown Criterion, mb, s, and a are given by GSI - 100 exp .. . .. . (Eq. 8-25) m m = b i D 28 - 14 GSI - 100 exp .. . .. . (Eq. 8-26) s = D 9 - 3 1 1 15 GSI 3 20 - - .. . ... - (Eq. 8-27) + a e e = 26 Where mi is a value determined from the MathCAD generalized best-fit curve fitting of the tensile, uniaxial compressive, and triaxial compressive data of the data for the intact rock (see Section 8.4.4.5). The input, D, is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance to which the rock mass has been subjected to blast damage and stress relaxation (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002). The disturbance factor, D, is 0 for mechanically excavated tunnels in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Barton’s Q system data is needed to determine the parameter Qp that is used to determine GSI, which in turns is used as an input for calculation of mb, s, and a presented above. The actual data collected from the tunnel is discussed in Section 8.9.4.1. The discrete Q system inputs used in the GoldSim calculation model are shown in Figures 8-49 and 8-50. The values of Jn, Ja, and Jr are discrete values as the system only allows selection of integer values to describe a joint 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-128 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report condition. lue lue y Mean 0 Max 99 RQD Value Jn VaJa VaJr Value Probability Probability Probability 60.54 St. Dev 16.95 Min Figure 8-49. Q Inputs for Tptpmn from Tunnel Observations y 67 18 5 99 RQD Value Jn Value Ja Value Jr Value Probability Probability Probability Mean St. Dev MinMax Figure 8-50. Q Inputs for Tptpln from Tunnel Observations The RQD distribution for the Tptpmn (Figure 8-49) data is assumed to be normal, as the histogram of observed values resembles a normal distribution. The RQD distribution for the Tptpln data appears to be closer to a beta distribution with the majority of the values centered near 67. Section 8.4.4.5 discusses the development of the input parameter, mi, for the Tptpmn and Tptpln units. Table 8-39 presents the mean and standard deviation of the calculated results of this input parameter needed for the calculation of mb. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-129 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report An intermediate step to determining mb is the calculation of the geologic strength index, GSI. To determine the stochastic distribution of results, 10,000 realizations were completed in GoldSim to determine the distribution of the values presented in Section 8.4.4.5. The distribution of GSI appears nearly normal for the Tptpmn unit with a mean value of 59.03 for the Tptpmn unit and 64.84 for the Tptpln unit. The distribution of GSI for the Tptpmn and Tptpln units are presented in Figures 8-51 and 8-52, respectively. The distribution of results for the Tptpln is influenced by the non-uniform distribution of RQD and the more frequent likelihood of selecting a larger value of Jr and a smaller value of Jn than in the Tptpmn inputs. GSI Probability Figure 8-51. Distribution of GSI Results for the Tptpmn Unit GSI Probability Figure 8-52. Distribution of GSI Results for the Tptpln Unit 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-130 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Once GSI has been calculated, the parameter mb can be calculated. Figure 8-53 shows the distribution of the values calculated for the Tptpmn unit along with a table showing the cumulative probability results. Figure 8-54 shows the distribution of results for the rock unit Tptpln. The median value for mb is calculated to be 7.72 for the Tptpmn unit and the median is slightly less at 7.70 for the Tptpln unit. mb Probability Figure 8-53. Results of mb Calculation for Tptpmn mb Probability Figure 8-54. Results of mb Calculation for Tptpln 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-131 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.5.2.2 Rock Mass Modulus of Deformability The rock mass modulus of deformability is calculated as follows (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002): (GSI -10) D . E m =.. 1 - 2 .. ·10 40 for sci > 100 MPa (Eq. 8-28) . (GSI -10) D . Em =.. 1 -. s ci ·10 40 for sci =100 MPa (Eq. 8-29) . 2 .100 Where Em is the rock mass modulus of deformation in GPa and sci is the intact rock uniaxial compressive strength in MPa. For each realization in the calculation, one input value is selected and is carried entirely through the calculation. To calculate the rock mass elastic modulus a set of input values are selected and a value of GSI is calculated; Section 8.5.2.1 discusses the calculation of GSI. A value of intact rock compressive strength is selected and used to determine which formula will be applied to calculate the rock mass modulus. The input values for intact rock compressive strength, sc are calculated in MathCAD as discussed in Section 8.4.4.5 and Attachment II. The results of calculating the rock mass modulus for units Tptpmn and Tptpln, Em, are presented in Figures 855 and 8-56, respectively. The median rock mass modulus for the Tptpmn was 16.74 GPa and the median for the Tptpln unit was 23.43 GPa. The rock mass modulus for the lithophysal rock are developed using the Particle Flow Code (PFC) which is discussed in Section 9.2. Modulus values determined for lithophysal rock are from field-scale testing such as plate load testing and slot-tests, numerical modeling, as well as large sample testing. The results and explanation of the field-testing is done in Section 8.8 of this report. Figure 8-57 is a diagram showing the relationship in GoldSim between inputs and calculations and the calculations which those calculation feed inputs. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-132 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ( ility Rock Mass ModulusGPa) Probab Figure 8-55. Calculated Rock Mass Modulus Distribution for Tptpmn ( ility Rock Mass ModulusGPa) Probab Figure 8-56. Calculated Rock Mass Modulus Distribution for Tptpln 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-133 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 8-57. GoldSim Calculation Relational Figure 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-134 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.5.2.3 Rock Mass Poisson’s Ratio Measuring rock mass deformation to determine Rock mass Poisson’s ratio is assumed to be represented by the intact rock test results. For all calculations, the value selected was 0.21. This value was selected as it is the mean value for all lithophysal specimens tested. This value is slightly more conservative than the mean value for all nonlithophysal samples, which was 0.19. The distribution of Poisson’s ratio for all tested samples without regard to size, saturation, or temperature is shown below in Figure 8-58. 0 5 10 15 20 25 iio 0% ii0 20 40 60 80 io 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Poisson's Ratio of All Lithophysal Laboratory Specimens 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 More Posson's RatFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage Mean = 0.21 Posson's Rato of All Non-Lithophysal Laboratory Specimens 100 120 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50More Poisson's RatFrequency 100% Percentage Mean = 0.19 Figure 8-58. Distribution of Poisson's Ratio 8.5.3 Rock Mass Strength Properties 8.5.3.1 Rock Mass Compressive Strength The rock mass compressive strength for nonlithophysal rock is calculated using the Hoek-Brown method. The uniaxial rock mass compressive strength, sc, (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002) assuming the minor stress is zero is defined as: a s=sci ·s (Eq. 8-30) c The global rock mass compressive strength, scm, (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002) is determined as: a-1 . ( (m + 4s - m a b -8s)).. m 4b + s . b cm ( . (Eq. 8-31) s=sci · 1 2 + a)(2 + . a) The rock mass compressive strength for lithophysal rock is determined from available laboratory testing on large rock cores from drilling in the ECRB Cross-Drift and from data collected from in situ slot testing. This will be compared to values of rock mass strength determined from the Particle Flow Code (PFC). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-135 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Section 8.5.2.1 discusses the development of the intermediate calculation of s and a. Distribution of the calculated values of uniaxial rock mass compressive strength, sc, is shown in Figures 8-59 and 8-60. The median value of uniaxial rock mass compressive strength is 11.90 MPa for the Tptpmn unit and 21.02 for the Tptpln unit. () ility Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive StrengthMPaProbab Figure 8-59. Distribution of Calculated Rock Mass Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpmn () ility Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive StrengthMPaProbab Figure 8-60. Distribution of Calculated Rock Mass Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpln 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-136 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The global rock mass strength for Tptpmn and Tptpmn are also calculated and the results are presented in Figures 8-61 and 8-62. The median values of global rock mass compressive strength is 44.42 MPa for the Tptpmn and 57.52 MPa for the Tptpln rock unit. Both results appear to be near normal distribution. ) Global Rock Mass Compressive Strength (MPaProbability Figure 8-61. Distribution of Calculated Global Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpmn () Global Rock Mass Compressive StrengthMPaProbability Figure 8-62. Distribution of Calculated Global Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpln 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-137 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.5.3.2 Rock Mass Tensile Strength Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum (2002) suggest that the rock mass tensile strength, st, can be calculated by: s t =- s ·s ci (Eq. 8-32) mb The rock mass tensile strength is expected to be lower than the intact rock tensile strength as the nonlithophysal rock units tends to contain joints, fractures, voids, and imperfections. A condition of biaxial tension is assumed to calculate the rock mass tensile strength. Hoek has shown that for brittle materials such as the nonlithophysal rock found in the Topopah Spring Tuff of Yucca Mountain, the uniaxial tensile strength is equal to the biaxial tensile strength. A condition of biaxial stress occurs when the major and minor principal stress are equal and also equal to the tensile strength. Figure 8-63 shows the distribution of the calculated rock mass tensile strength for the Tptpmn rock unit. Figure 8-64 shows the distribution of the results for the Tptpln unit. The median value for the Tptpmn is 0.16 MPa and is a skewed normal distribution with a maximum tensile strength less than 0.8 MPa. The median rock mass tensile strength for Tptpln is 0.38, considerably higher than the Tptpmn unit. The distribution also appears to be normal, skewed toward zero. 8.5.3.3 Rock Mass Cohesion and Friction Angle Mohr-Coulomb Criterion can be calculated from the following equations as suggested by Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002. An alternative method to the approach of determining rock mass properties presented in this section is explained in Attachment III of this report. This alternate tunnel-specific method can be used to determine the cohesion and friction angle of the rock mass for specific tunnel applications. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is determined by fitting an average linear relationship to the curve generated by solving the general fit equation for a range of minor principal stress values defined by s t1m) and the small-scale surveys, this intensity is clearly due to small-scale fractures (<1m trace length). The detailed line survey sampled almost 880 meters of tunnel in the ECRB Cross-Drift. There are 300 fractures recorded over this run of tunnel that have a trace length greater than 1 meter. The small-scale survey in the Tptpll can be combined into 18 meters of horizontal sampling. There are 372 fractures recorded over 18 meters of sampling. In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish whether these fractures have been disturbed by mining, or induced by in situ stresses, or whether mining along a weakness fabric in the rock newly creates them. However, it is clear that the middle portion of the Tptpll has a ubiquitous fracture fabric that is most evident when large diameter core is removed from boreholes (see Figures 8-2 and 8-3). The core, although competent, has numerous fractured surfaces that break into small blocks when stressed. Lithophysae and occasional horizontal fractures tend to create blocks with dimensions on the order of about 10 cm or less on a side. Thin section analyses of the fracturing in the Tptpll and the Tptpmn show rims on many of the fracture surfaces within the rock mass away from the tunnel wall, indicating there are numerous natural fractures (i.e., not mining-induced) and were formed during the cooling process (Buesch 2003). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-185 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A8-186December 2003DTN: GS990408314224.004NOTE:The purpose of this figure is to illustrate the geologic structure contained on a full periphery geologic map. The annotated information on this figure is not intended to be legible. An enlarged, legible map is availablethrough the source DTN. Figure 8-76.Illustrative Example of a Full Periphery Geologic Map from the ESF, Tptpmn Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTE: T-junctions on fractures indicate terminations; arrowheads show continuous features. Figure 8-77. Fractures in Wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift in the Tptpmn Figure 8-78. Low-Angle Vapor-Phase Partings in Nonlithophysal Units in the ESF 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-187 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: The Tptpul (a) is characterized by a relatively few fractures in the matrix-groundmass between lithophysae whereas the Tptpll (b) has abundant, natural, short-length fractures that interconnect lithophysae. Spacing of the fractures in the Tptpll is generally less than 5 cm. Figure 8-79. Comparison of Lithophysae and Fracturing in the Tptpul and Tptpll 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-188 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.8.3 Rock Mass Quality Data Geotechnical data have been collected in the ESF and ECRB based on two empirical rock mass classification systems: the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute rock quality system (Q system) (Barton et al. 1974) and the Geomechanics Rock Mass Rating system (RMR system) (Bieniawski 1989). Q and RMR system ratings were assigned for each 5-meter length of tunnel using both rock classification systems along a scan-line attached at the rib spring-line. In addition, the quality designator Q was assigned for each 5-meter section over the entire tunnel diameter. The scanline Q and the full circumference Q sometimes differed significantly reflecting the large spatial variability of the rock mass. The full circumference Q will be reported and used in this report. The use of the relatively short 5-meter rating length may have the disadvantage of introducing variations in some evaluated parameters which may be expected to be stable; yet it has the advantage of capturing expected variations in more unstable parameters. For example, considering the Q system, one might assume the number of joint sets would be constant over a long reach of tunnel. Using a five-meter rating length permits evaluation of the actual occurrence of a particular joint set; therefore the rating value for the number of joint sets may vary within a ten-meter reach of tunnel. On the other hand, the five-meter rating length permits a description of the changes in fracture frequency represented by the rock quality designation (RQD). Overall, the five-meter rating length emphasizes changes in rock quality from one length to the next. When longer reaches of the tunnel or various stratigraphic units are compared, differences in the trends of the five-meter ratings and differences in the average ratings are meaningful. 8.8.3.1 Measured Data from Tunnels The geotechnical characterization of lithostratigraphic units described in this section is based on Mongano et al. (1999). USGS/USBR personnel used technical procedure YMP-USGS-GP-54 to collect the field data needed to assess the stability of underground excavations. The procedure describes the methods used to choose and evaluate important rock characteristics. Data collected under this procedure were used to produce two standard classifications - the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Q-system rating (Barton et. al. 1974) and the Geomechanics Classification Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1989). Summary statistics of the rock mass quality data for the nonlithophysal repository host horizon units are presented in Tables 8-61 and 8-62. Only the full-periphery geologic mapping data was used (see source DTNs in Table 8-63). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-189 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-61. Summary of the Rock Mass Quality Data for the Tptpmn Measure Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range RQD Tptpmn 791 60.54 0.60 16.96 0.28 61.00 5.40 99.00 93.60 Jn Tptpmn 791 9.18 0.09 2.60 0.28 9.00 3.00 15.00 12.00 Jr Tptpmn 791 1.93 0.02 0.69 0.36 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 Ja Tptpmn 791 2.49 0.04 1.15 0.46 2.00 0.75 8.00 7.25 JwQ Tptpmn 791 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 SRF Tptpmn 791 2.19 0.05 1.38 0.63 2.50 0.56 10.00 9.44 Table 8-62. Summary of the Rock Mass Quality Data for the Tptpln Measure Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range RQD Tptpln 43 61.83 3.56 23.34 0.38 67.40 10.00 95.00 85.00 Jn Tptpln 43 9.35 0.18 1.17 0.13 9.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 Jr Tptpln 43 2.83 0.07 0.46 0.16 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 Ja Tptpln 43 2.07 0.08 0.51 0.24 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 JwQ Tptpln 43 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 SRF Tptpln 43 0.93 0.05 0.35 0.38 0.79 0.66 2.17 1.50 Table 8-63. Source Documents of the Rock Mass Quality Data Source Data (DTNs) Description of Data Data Tracking Number (DTN) QA Status ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 00+60 to 04+00 GS950508314224.003 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 04+00 to 26+00 GS960908314224.020 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 26+00 to 30+00 GS000608314224.006 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 30+00 to 40+00 GS960908314224.015 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 40+00 to 50+00 GS960908314224.016 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 50+00 to 55+00 GS960908314224.017 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 55+00 to 60+00 GS970108314224.002 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 60+00 to 65+00 GS970208314224.004 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 65+00 to 70+00 GS970808314224.009 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 70+00 to 75+00 GS970808314224.011 QA ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 75+00 to 78+77 GS970808314224.013 QA ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 00+00 to 10+00 GS990408314224.003 QA ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 10+00 to 15+00 GS990408314224.004 QA ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 15+00 to 20+00 GS990408314224.005 QA ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 20+00 to 26+81 GS990408314224.006 QA ESF FPGM, Alcove 5, Heated Drift Station 0+00 to 0+60 GS970608314224.007 QA 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-190 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.8.4 Field Measured Porosity The distribution of rock physical properties, such as bulk density, porosity, and pore size, are controlled largely by variations in grain size and sorting, the abundance of volcanic glass, degree of welding, types and abundance of crystallization, amount and type of alteration to clay or zeolite, lithophysal content, and fracture characteristics. High-silica rhyolite and quartz latite tuffs are the two most common compositions of the rocks at Yucca Mountain. The matrix density of high-silica rhyolite and quartz latite is typically 2.35 and 2.40 g/cm3, respectively. The degree of welding in these rocks ranges from nonwelded to densely welded rock. The Tptpul and Tptpll comprise roughly 85 percent of the planned repository emplacement area (Section 5.4). The rock porosity in the lithophysal units has been shown to be the primary physical factor that governs elastic and strength properties (Section 8.4.2) and thermal conductivity (Section 8.3.3). The porosity is found in three major components: the matrix porosity, which averages about 10 percent in the Topopah Spring repository host horizon lithostratigraphic units (Section 8.2.3.2); the lithophysae porosity (cavity, 100 percent); and the porosity of vapor phase altered material found in rims and spots, which averages about 30 percent in the Topopah Spring repository host horizon lithophysal units (Tptpul and Tptpll, Table 8-3). Lithophysal porosity is defined to be the volume fraction of lithophysae within tuff, which can range from 0 up to 40 percent or even higher (Sections 8.2.3.3 and 8.8.5.1). Practically, tuff porosity is used as either lithophysal porosity or total rock porosity. 8.8.4.1 Lithophysal Rock Porosity Along Tunnel Description Lithophysae resulting from escaping gases during cooling are found in rocks that are densely welded, and infrequently in rocks that are moderately welded. Lithophysae consist of a cavity, which is commonly coated with vapor-phase minerals on the inner wall. This is surrounded by a fine-grained zone, which, in turn, is surrounded by a thin, very fine-grained border. The engineering range of interest for a typical lithophysa diameter varies from roughly 1 cm to 1 m, with shapes that vary from nearly spherical to extremely oblate. The larger lithophysal cavities tend to be irregular or ellipsoidal features that exhibit prismatic fracturing and block interiors. Associated with the lithophysae are light gray to grayish-orange pink spots 1 to 5 cm in diameter. Some spots may represent the cross sections of rims on lithophysae, whereas others have a crystal or lithic clast in the core that could have acted as a nucleation site. Lithophysae commonly occur in concentrated zones; specific zones are distinguishable on the basis of a combination of lithophysae, spots, and fracture characteristics. Lithophysal zones have fewer fractures compared to nonlithophysal zones, and the fractures are typically irregular in profile and have rough surfaces with few high-angle, planar, and smooth fractures. Although the character of the lithophysae varies between the Tptpul and Tptpll as shown in Figure 8-79, the mineralogy of the matrix material within both of these units is the same as in the nonlithophysal units (Section 8.2.3). Compositionally and mineralogically the rocks in lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones are similar, but there can be variations in the amounts of quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite; however, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-191 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report the main difference is in the abundance of lithophysae and features formed by crystallization in the presence of the vapor phase (rims, spots, etc.). The upper and lower lithophysal zones share many characteristics, but there are also numerous distinctions (Mongano et al. 1999 p. 17-37), and these general characteristics are as follows. The lithophysal cavities vary in size and shape, with characteristics that are somewhat different in the Tptpul and Tptpll. The lithophysae in the Tptpul: • Tend to be smaller (roughly 1 to 10 cm in diameter), • Are more uniform in size and distribution within the unit, • Vary in infilling and rim thicknesses, • Have a volume percentage that varies consistently with stratigraphic position, and • Are stratigraphically predictable. in contrast, the lithophysae in the Tptpll: • Tend to be highly variable in size, from roughly 1 cm to 1.8 m in size; • Have shapes that are highly variable from smooth and spherical to irregular and sharp boundaries, which are described as simple (elliptical cross-sections and spherical to ellipsoidal shapes), irregular, cuspate, merged (two or more lithophysae joined into one large one), and extension-crack lithophysae; • Have infilling and rim thickness that vary greatly with vertical and horizontal spacing; • Have volume percentages that vary consistently with stratigraphic position; and • Are stratigraphically predictable. Variation of Features Along the ECRB Tunnel With a large amount of the repository located in the lower lithophysal zone, a detailed study of the lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift has recently been completed (DTN: GS021008314224.002). These characteristics are documented via the use of several techniques, including tape and survey measurements of lithophysae size at intervals across the thickness of the Tptpll within the ECRB as well as detailed mapping and photography of 1m x 3m panel maps along the walls of the ECRB. The data package documents the distributions of size, shape, and abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts, and these data can be displayed and analyzed as (1) local variations, (2) along the tunnel (a critical type of variation), and (3) as values for the total zone. The results of this work are summarized here. More complete information will be available as part of an analysis of existing and new lithophysal data by being carried out by USBR/USGS. These measuring techniques have resulted in a quantification of the lithophysal porosity as a function of vertical position within the Tptpll, the mineralogy of the lithophysae rims and spots, and the shape and size distribution of the lithophysal porosity. Because of the variations in scale of the features from lengths measured in millimeters to tens of meters, a variety of methods were purposely used to document the features in the rocks (Table 8-64). These types of variations are 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-192 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report most easily observed in a panel map. An example of a panel map and relevant lithophysae statistics for the map is shown in Figure 8-80 and Table 8-65. Table 8-64. Methods Used to Document the Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Features in the Lower Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the ECRB Cross-Drift Method Location Procedure/Configuration Data Collected Full peripheral mapping ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+44 to 23+26) Map visible tunnel surfaces Discontinuities >1 m, contacts, tunnel supports Detailed line surveys ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+44 to 23+26) Tape line along one side of tunnel Discontinuities >1 m Small-scale fracture surveys ECRB Cross-Drift, 6 selected locations (11+15 to 24+30) Each 6 meter long horizontal traverse intersects three 2 meter long vertical traverses Discontinuities <1 m Panel maps ECRB Cross-Drift, 18 selected locations (14+93 to 22+94) 1 x 3 meter maps, 1:10 scale, overlays on photographs Lithophysae, rims, spots, lithic clasts ECRB Cross-Drift, 187 Traverses across tunnel, Tape traverses at 5 meter intervals (14+05 to 23+35) measured with tape attached to pole Lithophysae cavities only Angular traverses ECRB Cross-Drift, 22 selected locations (14+60 to 22+00) Traverses across tunnel, laser- prism measurements with geometric solutions Length of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, stringers, lithic clasts, and matrix- groundmass Large-lithophysae inventory ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+40 to 17+55) 528 Lithophysae with long axis 0.5 m and greater Long axis, short axis, station, wall position NOTE: See Attachment VII for more explanation of these methods. Panel maps are 1 x 3 m and 1:10 scale maps of the left or right ribs (walls) of the tunnel, and the maps were created as overlays on photographs taken with low-angle illumination to accentuate the relief of the wall caused by cavities (and fractures). Locations of the panel maps were positioned to capture representative variations in the rocks along the tunnel, and not to capture specific features such as the largest lithophysae. Panel maps provide 2-dimensional (area) data for specific features or as the total of the map area (DTN: GS021008314224.002). Additionally, the “Data” files for the panel maps in the data package include 3-dimensional measurements (height, width, and depth) from which an equivalent ellipsoid can be calculated. The methods used in making panel maps and point-counting the areas of features result in values accurate to about 2 to 5 percent of the listed value. To test the influence of positioning the map area, the panel map for 16+41 on the left wall was used to compare the reported values with values from four alternative positions. The descriptive statistics on the area percent determined from the five map positions indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 0.5 percent (DTN: GS021008314224.002 and Beason et al. 2003). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-193 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTE: Using the colored zones, a statistical analysis of the lithophysal cavity and rim content are made. Here, rock mass has 19% cavities, 5.7% rims and 3.5% spots. The panel map is located between Stations 16+41 to 16+44 on the left wall. Figure 8-80. Example Tptpll Lithophysal Panel Map and Highlighting of Lithophysal Cavities (Orange) and Rims (Green) in a Trimmed Map. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-194 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 8-65. Summary of Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, and Matrix- Groundmass Based on Panel Maps in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+93 to 22+94 Station (m) Station (m) (numerical) Panel Maps Matrix / Groundmass (percent) Lithophysal Cavities (percent) Rims (percent) Spots(percent) Lithic Clasts (percent) 14+93 1493 14+93L 69.5 13.3 13.3 3.7 0.2 15+51 1551 15+51L 77.3 15.8 3.6 2.0 1.3 16+10 1610 16+10R 78.2 15.3 3.6 2.8 0.1 16+24 1624 16+24R 72.6 13.4 11.3 2.6 0.1 16+41 1641 16+41L 71.6 19.0 5.7 3.5 0.1 16+41 1641 16+41R 80.4 12.6 5.9 1.0 0.1 16+56 1656 16+56L 75.6 13.2 7.3 3.7 0.1 17+26 1726 17+26L 81.9 16.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 17+68 1768 17+68L 83.2 13.6 2.1 0.9 0.1 17+68 1768 17+68R 84.5 10.1 4.6 0.6 0.1 18+05 1805 18+05L 76.7 14.0 5.6 3.5 0.2 18+86 1886 18+86L 73.8 17.4 5.4 3.0 0.3 19+19 1919 19+19L 83.6 12.8 2.1 1.3 0.3 20+18 2018 20+18L 77.5 15.3 4.9 2.1 0.2 20+69 2069 20+69L 83.8 9.2 3.9 3.0 0.2 21+24 2124 21+24L 78.2 8.5 9.7 3.2 0.5 22+32 2232 22+32L 62.4 5.3 7.4 24.6 0.2 22+94 2294 22+94L 86.1 7.5 0.3 5.7 0.4 DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTE: Table is from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet “SEP - Panel Map Data” In linear (tape and angular) traverses, total abundance (percent) of a type of feature is the sum of lengths of the features divided by the total length of the traverse. Tape traverses include the measured length of lithophysal cavities along the traverse, length of the traverse, and a visual estimate of the amount of rims and spots. The advantage of tape traverses is that these data are every 5 m along the tunnel and indicate variations in the lithophysal cavity abundance along the tunnel, but abundance values are typically greater than those documented with angular traverses and panel maps. An example of the estimate of percentage of lithophysal cavities within the Tptpll from the tape surveys is shown in Figure 8-81. Angular traverses consist of continuous data (specific lengths of each lithophysal cavity, rim, spot, lithic clast, and matrix-groundmass), and measurements are to the nearest 5 to 10 mm. There are currently 22 angular traverses. Abundance of lithophysal cavities determined in angular traverses is similar to, or slightly less than, the abundance determined with tape traverses (Figure 8-81). Angular traverse data was used to adjust the lithophysal cavity, rim, and spot data from tape traverses. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-195 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ( 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent cavities from linetape and angular) s urveys 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Station Percent Tape Pe rce nt Ta pe 10-m av erag e Ta pe 20-m average An gular Pe rce nt Source: GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-81. Example of Percentage of Cavities from Top to Bottom Stations in the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross Drift from Line Surveys The large-lithophysae inventory was designed to document the large lithophysae (those with a minimum diameter of 50 cm) in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+00 to 17+56. The inventory stopped at 17+56 because of a closed bulkhead and the fieldwork to complete the inventory to 22+00 has been done, but the information is not yet in the record system. A few large lithophysae were documented (entirely or partially) in the tape and angular traverses and panel maps, but most were not included in these other techniques because of the scales and locations at which the other measurements were made. The long and short axis exposed on the wall of the tunnel was measured (with the same tape on a pole technique used in the tape traverses), and the station and position on the tunnel wall was recorded (DTN: GS021008314224.002). All large lithophysae have accurately surveyed station, northing, easting, and elevation values (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The large-lithophysae data can be displayed by station along the tunnel as discrete features and 5-m abundance (simply the number count) (Figure 8-82), or a cumulative frequency and frequency plots of axis length and area (Figure 8-83). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-196 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report l() i i0 5 10 15 20 25 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 (m) Abundance ofarge > 50 cm diame te r lithophys aen 5-mnte rvals 1450 1475 1500 1525 1700 1725 1750 1775 StationAbundance Abundance 15m Run. Ave. 17+62 Bulkhead RW Position of large lithophysae Symbols 1 - Left below equipment, 2 - Left wall, 3 - Left arch, 4 - Crown C LA LB RA RB 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 LC RC Invert LW along the ECRB and around the tunnel (3.5 and 4.5 are left and right side of the crown) 5 - Right arch, 6 - Right wall, 7 - Right below equipment, and 8 - Invert 1 Niche 5 Position of segments in tunnel with view toward heading. Large lithophysae from 14+69 to 17+54 Lithophysae Position per meter Position around tunnel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LW (2) 0.50 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 C (4) 0.47 Station (m) RW (6) 0.50 SOURCE: DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTES: Diagram of tunnel cross-section shows the nomenclature used to identify the position of large lithophysae. The small inserted table lists the average number of large lithophysae per meter of tunnel for the left and right walls (LW and RW, positions 2 and 6, respectively) and the crown (C, position 4) from Stations 14+70 to 17+56. Figure 8-82. Abundance per 5-m Intervals and Locations of Large Lithophysae in the Tptpll from ECRB Cross-Drift Station 14+50 to 17+56 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-197 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SOURCE: DTN: GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-83. Frequency and Cumulative Frequency of the Long Axes and Areas of Large Lithophysae in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-198 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.8.4.2 Calculated Total Porosity Along the Tunnel The abundance of lithophysal cavities varies along the Cross-Drift partially from actual variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to collect the data (i.e., tape or angular traverses or panel maps). The original abundance values for lithophysal cavities from tape data (Figure 8-81) have been corrected using a “typical” traverse length, a 15-m moving average, and a linear equation of correlation for co-located tape and angular traverse data. The corrected tape traverse data for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots results in “fitted” abundance curves and indicates substantial variations along the tunnel in these features (Figure 8-84). Using these “fitted” abundance curves for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots, and (by difference) the matrix-groundmass (and ignoring the trace amount of lithic clasts), the porosity of these features and the total porosity along tunnel can be calculated (Figure 8-85). The porosities of each of the component features are variably constrained. Lithophysal cavities have a porosity of 1.00 cm3/cm3. When this calculation was made the matrix-groundmass was assumed to have a mean porosity of 0.13 cm3/cm3 (Flint 1998) and porosities of the rims and spots were estimated to be 0.25 cm3/cm3. The porosity variation along the ECRB Cross-Drift is shown in Figure 8-85, with total porosity typically ranging from 20 to 35 percent. Recent testing of rock samples has produced updated estimates (DTN: GS030483351030.001, see Section 8.2.3 for more information): matrix-groundmass material has a mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 total porosity and ranges from roughly 0.08 to 0.13 cm3/cm3. Rims and spots have a mean porosity on the order of 0.30 cm3/cm3. Also, because the large-lithophysal inventory is (for the near future) limited to Stations 14+50 to 17+56, with large lithophysae only from 14+70 to 17+56, the contribution of the large lithophysae to the total porosity along the tunnel has not been included in Figure 8-85. However, the large lithophysae can contribute as much as 8 percent to the total porosity in some 5-m sections of the tunnel (see Stations 16+05 to 16+15; Figure 8-86). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-199 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A8-200December 2003Source: DTN GS021008314224.002Figure 8-84.Abundance Curves of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots (Determined by CombiningPanel Map and Tape and Angular Traverse Data), Large-Lithophysae Based on 5-mSegments of the Tunnel, and Estimates of Lithophysae and Spots from Mongano et al. (1999) Source: DTN GS021008314224.002NOTE:Porosity of the 5-m averaged large-lithophysae inventory is not included in the total. Figure 8-85.Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and theTotal Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed along the ECRB Cross-Drift05101520253035401400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m) Percent (vol.) (%) Cavities (fitted)Rims (fitted)Spots (fitted)MGM (fitted)Total (fitted) L-Litho (5-m)Lithostrat. contactBulkheadsEquipment05101520253035401400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m) Abundance (length) (%) Cavities (fitted)Rims (fitted)Spots (fitted)L-Litho (5m)Lithostrat. contactBulkheadsLithop (M)Spots (M) Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1425 1450 1500 1525 1575 1625 1650 1675 1725 1775 (m) Percent (vol.) (%) () ) () () 1475 1550 1600 1700 1750 StationCavitiesfittedRims (fittedSpotsfittedMGM-LL5 Total+LL5 L-Litho5-mLithostrat. contact Bulkheads Source: DTN GS021008314224.002 Figure 8-86. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities (Including Large Lithophysae), Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+70 to 17+50 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-201 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9. SUPPLEMENTARY GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND DATA ENHANCING METHODOLOGIES 9.1 USE OF PFC TO CHARACTERIZE LITHOPHYSAL ROCK PERFORMANCE 9.1.1 Rock Mass Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Rock The representative elementary volume of lithophysal rock is on the order of cubic meters to cubic decameters depending on the size of lithophysae. In order to develop an adequate correlation between lithophysal porosity and mechanical properties of lithophysal rock, sufficient numbers of laboratory tests on large-size rock samples were desired. But as a consequence of the size of rock samples required, the lack of high-capacity equipment needed to test such large samples and the cost and time that would be required to produce an adequate statistical database, a laboratory testing effort was impractical to carry out. To overcome this inability to conduct adequate physical testing, a numerical approach was proposed to supplement the existing intact rock property database and to estimate large-scale mechanical properties of lithophysal rock. For this approach to be warranted, it must be demonstrated that conceptual and numerical models exist that are capable of representing the fundamental failure and deformation mechanisms of lithophysal rock. The preliminary phase of this effort has been completed and will be discussed in this report. 9.1.1.1 Numerical Approach to Estimate Lithophysal Properties Joint sets in lithophysal rock are not as distinct as in nonlithophysal rock units (Sections 5.3.3 and 8.8.2). The joint spacing is relatively short, typically less than 1 m, and very often of the order of 0.1 m. Furthermore, the lithophysal cavities vary significantly in shape and size (1mm to more than 1 m in diameter). As a consequence of this physical complexity, it is difficult to model numerically the actual internal structure of lithophysal rock. In the preliminary phase of numerical testing, it was decided to ignore fractures and study the effect of lithophysal cavities on key mechanical parameters. The Particle Flow Code (PFC) model and software by Itasca Consulting Group, Inc was considered a suitable numerical method capable of modeling the behavior of lithophysal rock. The PFC program incorporates a “micromechanical” modeling approach, which represents the rock matrix as a large number of rigid circular or spherical particles that are bonded together at their contact points with simple shear and tensile bonds that have normal and shear stiffness (Attachment V, Appendix C). As a rock is stressed, the bonds can fail, leading to frictional sliding between particles. This conceptually simple model can lead to complex constitutive behavior including realistic crack growth and changing distributions of loading in a specimen as it fails (see Figure 9-1). Of importance to the present problem is that holes of arbitrary shape, size and spatial distribution can be represented in the model as physical components. Thus, stress concentrations and fracturing between holes can be represented in a realistic way during loading. As discussed above, variability in the rock mass properties at Yucca Mountain originates from many sources, including rock porosity, fractures, sample size, water saturation, temperature, mineralogy, confining pressure, loading rate and time-dependent degradation processes. The 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report effect of each of these sources on rock mass variability could be investigated with the PFC model; however, only the effect of rock porosity and confining pressure was studied. Specifically, the goal of the study was to better understand and quantify the effect of lithophysal geometry on the material properties including Young’s modulus and peak strength measured during uniaxial compression compressive strength tests. Figure 9-1. Force and Moment Distributions and Broken Bonds (in magenta) in a Cemented Granular Material With Six Initial Holes Idealized as a Bonded-Disk Assembly in the Post-Peak Portion of an Uniaxial Vertical Compression Test (blue is grain-grain compression, while black and red are compression and tension, respectively, in the bonds) 9.1.1.2 PFC Lithophysal Geometry Study The PFC model is being used to study the effect that lithophysal geometry has on material properties by introducing differing void geometries. The variation of modulus and strength with lithophysal volume fraction (ratio of volume of voids to total sample volume) is measured by performing uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) tests on 1-m diameter, 1:1 height to diameter ratio specimens of different lithophysal volume fraction. For these PFC synthetic samples, the void volume fraction, defined as the ratio of volume of voids over total sample volume and denoted in plot legends as nv, is measured. There is an inherent porosity in a bonded-particle system, which is approximately 0.17 and 0.36 for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively, but this summary neglects this matrix porosity. As a result the void porosity used in this report is the void volume fraction of the samples. Two general types of void geometries are considered: (1) a set of simple shapes and (2) true lithophysal geometries. This initial approach considers that the lithophysal geometries can be characterized by a shape, size and spatial distribution as follows. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Shape. Investigate three constant-size simple shapes: circle, triangle and star. • Size and Spatial Distribution. Construct a PFC2D material using actual shapes, sizes and distributions of lithophysal cavities from panel maps. All results described in this report were produced using PFC2D version 2.00-081 and PFC3D version 2.00-081, which are the qualified versions of the software for this project. A set of microproperties for the base material and void-specification procedure was developed to produce a PFC model for Repository Host Horizon (RHH) lithophysal tuff. The microproperties of the PFC2D base material used for this study are given in Table 9-1 (bf5 material) and in Attachment V, Tables A-1 (bf4 material) and A-4 (bf2 material). The 2:1 specimens have a specimen resolution of about 54 particles across a one-meter diameter specimen and the 1:1 specimens have a specimen resolution of about 100 particles. The 2:1 aspect ratio specimens have an average particle size of 17.1 mm, whereas the 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens have an average particle size of 9.9 mm. More details concerning the PFC model and its initial calibration to YM rocks and can be found in Attachment V. Table 9-1. PFC2D Microproperties for Lithophysal Tuff (bf5-material) Grains Cement 32510 kg m.= ( )max min avg 1.5 9.9 mm D D D = = 1.= 14.8 GPacE = 14.8 GPacE = ( ) 2.1n skk = ( ) 2.1nkk s = 0.5µ = ( )mean std. dev. 48 11 MPa c cs =t = ± = ± The properties of the PFC2D material are obtained by testing specimens with circular voids of 90-mm diameter and a 41.5-mm minimum bridge length. Confinement is applied by using frictionless stiff walls; the velocities of the lateral walls are controlled to maintain a constant confining stress. Since this type of boundary condition inhibits specimen bulging and the top and bottom rigid boundary conditions are also frictionless, specimen aspect ratio is not a factor. The use of 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens is justified by noting that the modulus and strength versus void porosity relations are similar for both 1:1 and 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens — the 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens are only slightly weaker than the 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens (see Figures 9-2 and 9-3). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-4December 2003Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-2.Young’s modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC2D models of randomlydistributed circular voidsSource for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-3.Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC2Dmodels of randomly distributed circular voidsy = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 20.065e-3.9172xR2 = 0.9797y = 20.245e-4.1815xR2 = 0.977905101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa) Lith. tuff (2002) 2:1, Dp=17.1 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=90 mmy = 54.597e-5.3977xR2 = 0.9546y = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 52.167e-5.9159xR2 = 0.94301020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa) Lith. tuff (1985 & 2002) 2:1, Dp=17.1 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=90 mm Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.1.3 Modeling of Simple Lithophysal Shapes An attempt has been made to develop a concise set of geometric parameters that characterize the lithophysal geometries and capture the geometrical aspects that most affect deformability and strength. A parametric study, in which a shape parameter is varied while all other geometric parameters are held constant, has been performed to quantify the sensitivity of material properties to void shape. Three void shapes are studied: a circle, a triangle and a 3-pointed star. An earlier study used circular voids in 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens of bf-4 material. A more recent study used 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens of bf-5 material. The ability of the PFC2D material to resolve these shapes is shown in Figure 9-4, where the geometric stencils are overlaid upon the PFC2D bf5-material l, having an average particle size of 9.9 mm. Figure 9-4. Resolution of PFC2D Specimens of Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids (240-mm bounding box) Note that the corners of the triangles and stars are rounded in the PFC2D material, and thus, do not induce the infinite stresses that would occur if geometry was exact. In a given specimen circular, triangular or star-shaped voids of constant size are distributed randomly subject to the constraint that the length of bridging material between any two voids must be greater than a minimum bridge length of 41.5 mm. The triangular-shaped voids are randomly oriented but all star-shaped voids have a fixed orientation. Representative 1 m height specimens are shown in Figure 9-5. Figure 9-5. PFC2D Specimens Composed of Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids with Void Porosities of Approximately 0.05 cm3/cm3 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report For each void shape, 40 specimens with varying degrees of void volume fraction were created and subjected to uniaxial vertical compression tests. Figures 9-6 and 9-7 show PFC2D and PFC3D models of several rock specimens showing a successive increase of voids, which were typical of those used to conduct the earlier numerical laboratory experiments (2:1 aspect-ratio specimens of bf-4 material). Particles are removed to create the circular or spherical voids with random location. Examples of triaxial compression simulations for PFC2D modeled rock specimens with sample void porosities (nv) of 0, 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3 are shown in Figures 9-8 to 9-10, respectively. The models show numerous physical features that correspond to observed laboratory response. The zero void samples fail through formation of conjugate shear fractures composed of coalescing tensile bond breakages (Figure 9-8). The response is highly elastic to the point of brittle failure (i.e., there is little observable hysteresis on load-unload cycles directly up to the yield limit). This behavior is representative of nonlithophysal rock and is a function of the uniformly small grain structure and cementation of grains forming the rock matrix. The addition of lithophysal voids results in significant decreases in both the peak strength and Young’s modulus. The failure mechanism in this case is a function of tensile splitting between adjacent lithophysal voids due to induced tensile stresses in the thin bridge material between voids. With voids randomly distributed, often the smallest bridge material will fail first, shunting load to other solid bridges, resulting in progressive failure of the weakest “link.” The resulting stress-strain behavior becomes less brittle in nature due to this progressive failure mode (Figures 9-9 and 9-10). The impact of lithophysae on direct tension strength follows the same general mechanism: the voids result in less area of solid rock for any given cross-section (Figure 9-11). For a constant applied force, the stress in the remaining solid will be higher, thus reducing the overall averaged tensile strength of the sample. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 9-6. PFC2D Test Specimens of Lithophysal Tuff (Void Porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3) Figure 9-7. PFC3D Test Specimens of Lithophysal Tuff (Void Porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.19 cm3/cm3; Voids Depicted as Black Spheres) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Axial Stress (Pa) NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Samples fail with typical conjugate shear fractures. Two confining pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). The primary impact of confinement is slightly increased peak and residual strength. Figure 9-8. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Nonlithophysal Material (nv = 0 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A)xial Stress (Pa Axial Strain NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Two confining pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). Samples fail in an axial splitting mode which is most pronounced in the low confinement model at the top. Note that confinement increases peak and residual strength. Figure 9-9. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Lithophysal Material (nv = 0.10 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A)xial Stress (Pa Axial Strain NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Two confining pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). Samples fail due to tensile splitting between adjacent voids in the low confinement model at the top. Note that confinement results in only a marginal increase in peak strength but a substantial increase in residual strength. Figure 9-10. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Lithophysal Material (nv = 0.20 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). The effect of increasing lithophysal voids is to reduce the amount of solid rock that must fail in tension across any cross-section, thus reducing the overall tensile strength of the body. The body fails at the cross-section with minimum solid. Figure 9-11. PFC2D Simulation of Direct Pull Tensile Strength Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Nonlithophysal and Lithophysal (nv = 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3) Material Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-12December 2003The PFC2D lithophysal rock testing results of the 40 specimens are compared with the bestavailable laboratory data in Figures 9-12 and 9-13. The minimum bridge length restrictionresults in relatively smaller maximum attainable void porosity for triangles and smaller yet forthe stars. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% and the stress-strain curves of thePFC2D specimens with void porosities of approximately 0.05 cm3/cm3 are shown in Figures 9-14and 9-15. y = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 18.86e-4.5241xR2 = 0.984y = 19.16e-7.0437xR2 = 0.974605101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa) Lith. tuff (2002) circles (90 mm diam.) triangles (139 mm diam.) stars (197 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-12.Young’s Modulus versus Porosity for PFC2D Models Including Randomly DistributedCircular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voidsy = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 53.585e-7.1352xR2 = 0.9409y = 54.737e-11.579xR2 = 0.892701020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa) Lith. tuff (1985 & 2002) circles (90 mm diam.) triangles (139 mm diam.) stars (197 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-13.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 9-14. Damage (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) in PFC2D Specimens at an Axial Strain of 0.5% and Void Porosities of about 0.05 cm3/cm3 40 30 20 10 0 Axial stress (MPa) circli) tri () (i) es (90 mm dam. angles139 mm diam. stars 197 mm dam. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Axial strain (%) Figure 9-15. Stress-strain Curves of PFC2D Specimens with Void Porosities of About 0.05 cm3/cm3 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.2 PFC Study – Conclusions and Recommendations The following general conclusions are drawn from the analysis: • Introduction of shapes with abrupt corners made the material softer and weaker than material with circular voids. Decreasing the convex angles and adding new concave angles (moving from a triangular to a star shape) further softened and weakened the material. This effect is seen by comparing modulus and strength values at the same void porosity in Figures 9-12 and 9-13 and is also evident in the curves of Figure 9-15. • The observed softening of modulus behavior may be explained by the following hypothesis. Assume that the voids are randomly distributed such that an individual void can be isolated from its neighbors in a fixed-size bounding box as shown in Figure 9-4. Each of these three systems has the same void porosity because the void areas are the same. However, the effective area that contributes to the modulus of the bounding-box region (approximated by the diameter of the bounding circle) increases as we move from circles to triangles to stars. Therefore, the triangles and stars produce a larger modulus reduction for the same void porosity. Further study can verify this hypothesis and explore whether stress concentrations at corners, or other mechanisms, contribute to this effect. • The weakening effect is more difficult to explain. One contributing factor may be the stress concentrations that develop at the void corners such that introducing and then decreasing the corner angles (in moving from a circular to a triangular to a star shape) increases the stress concentrations and thereby weakens the material. Examination of progressive specimen damage plots reveals that for the triangular-shaped voids most of the pre-peak damage leading to the formation macroscopic fractures (which is here termed critical damage and which is assumed to control the peak strength) initiates either at triangle corners or at triangle sides oriented perpendicular to the loading direction (see Figure 9-16). The material with star-shaped voids exhibits similar behavior; however, there are fewer emanations from the sides. The fact that critical damage initiates and grows from void boundaries suggests that the void-induced stress concentrations control peak strength; and as a result, any geometry change that increases these stress concentrations will decrease specimen strength. • In the peak strength versus void porosity curves of Figure 9-13 (and also for the true shapes of Figure 9-23), a general characteristic convex curve is evident for all modeled shapes. Initially, at small void porosity, there is a steep descent of the curve, but then with increasing porosity the slope gradually moderates. A possible explanation for this behavior is as follows. At very low porosity there are only a few voids. Insertion of one or two voids of large enough size may have a relatively significant impact on strength since large stress redistributions occur in the specimen. The voids act to shed vertical load in the rock above and below the void and results in “columns” of rock on either side of the void experiencing higher stresses. The higher stresses and stress concentrations may tend to enhance the initiation and progression of local tensile failures across the specimen. As more voids are added randomly throughout the specimen, resulting stresses are relatively more uniformly distributed, decreasing the above effect. • Residual strengths of failed lithophysal specimens are typically very low. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • When peak strength versus modulus curves are plotted as shown in Figure 9-17, the data for all three shapes collapse onto essentially the same curve. This suggests that the underlying mechanism relating modulus and strength to void geometry is the same for all three shapes. • The slope of the strength versus modulus curve is affected by the PFC2D microproperties as seen in Figure 9-18, which compares the curve for randomly distributed circular voids in the bf2- and bf4-materials. The bf4-material has smaller micro-moduli and larger micro-strengths than the bf2-material, and this produces a reduction and increase in the corresponding macro quantities; however, the relative magnitude of the reduction and increase becomes smaller as the void porosity increases. As more holes are added, the contribution of the base material to the macroproperties is lessened producing an increase in the slope of the curve. It may be possible to more closely match the laboratory data by modifying the PFC2D microproperties and including non-circular grain shapes. • In general, reducing PFC particle size while keeping micro-strengths the same reduces the material fracture toughness. Quantifying the effects of the PFC material particle size requires further study. Figure 9-16. Damage in PFC2D Specimens with Triangular-shaped Voids (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Showing Six Areas of Critical Damage 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-16December 2003y = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 5.9043e0.1225xR2 = 0.9635y = 6.3088e0.1171xR2 = 0.9548y = 6.3234e0.1159xR2 = 0.925801020304050600510152025modulus, E (GPa) qu (MPa) Lith. tuff (Price, 2002) circles (90 mm diam.) triangles (139 mm diam.) stars (197 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-17.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Young’s Modulus for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voidsbest available lab datay = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 4.1467e0.1394xR2 = 0.9687y = 3.0821e0.0896xR2 = 0.9611010203040500510152025modulus, E (GPa) qu (MPa) Lith. tuff (Price, 2002) PFC2D (2:1, bf4) PFC2D (2:1, bf2) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-18.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Young’s Modulus for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular Voids in bf2 and bf4 Materials Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.2.1 Modeling of True Lithophysal Geometries Panel maps of lithophysal features identified on the walls of the ECRB cross drift are used as stencils to generate a collection of one-by-one meter, two-dimensional PFC2D specimens. A typical panel map is shown in Figure 9-19. Each panel map defines a one-by-three meter area within which lithophysal cavities, rims, spots and lithic clasts have been identified as separate features. The lithophysal cavities (excluding the rims) are used to define the voids in the PFC2D specimens as follows. First, the cavity features (see Figure 9-20) are used to produce a bitmap image with a resolution of 100 cells per meter. Next, the location of the PFC2D specimen is specified relative to the panel map system. Then, all PFC2D particles with centroids lying within each void-cell of the bitmap are deleted. So for the synthetic panel-map models the total void porosity arises only from the stenciled voids. Actual panel-map rock total porosity is composed of natural matrix porosity and the porosity of rim/spot material in additional to the lithophysal voids. A set of three non-overlapping PFC2D specimens (left, middle and right) was then extracted from each panel map (see Figure 9-21). A total of 18 panel maps located from approximately stations 15+00 to 23+00 (Tptpll unit) were used to produce a total of 54 PFC2D stenciledlithophysae specimens, which were then subjected to numerical uniaxial compression testing. Results of the numerical uniaxial compression testing of distributed circular voids and panel map specimens are shown in Figures 9-22 and 9-23. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% in the three PFC2D specimens from panel map 14+93R are shown in Figure 9-25. The following general observations are made about the properties of the PFC2D stenciled-lithophysae material. • The damage mechanisms observed in the stenciled-lithophysae material are similar to those of the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shapes. Most importantly, the critical damage generally initiates and grows from void boundaries, and not from points within the solid material. This damage mechanism controls specimen strength for uniaxial compression testing. • The stenciled-lithophysae material is softer and weaker and exhibits greater property variability than the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape. This is likely the combined result of more complex shapes, the variation in individual lithophysa sizes and the fact that there are no limitations of minimum bridge length between lithophysae. Also, as discussed later under limitation number two, strength variability can be strongly influenced by specimen size (use of larger specimens may decrease variability of results). • The property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material is similar to that of the laboratory data (Figures 9-22 and 9-23), and the property variability diminishes when the data are plotted as strength versus modulus (see Figure 9-24). Also, the strength versus modulus relation is similar to that of the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape (compare Figures 9-24 and 9-17) suggesting that the strength versus modulus curve of the PFC2D material is largely independent of void geometry. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Some of the property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material (especially low strength values) may arise from an inadequate sample size in that the maximum void size in many of the PFC2D specimens is greater than one-quarter of the specimen diameter. Using a larger sample dimension closer to the representative elementary volume dimensions would likely reduce some of this variability. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Source: GS021008314224.002 Figure 9-19. Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) Source: GS021008314224.002 Figure 9-20. Cavity Features from Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) Source: GS021008314224.002 Figure 9-21. PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (Left, Middle and Right) Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report R2R20 5 10 15 20 25 E (GPa) Li() i) iy = 19.067e-3.6915x = 0.9884 y = 16.483e -4.7287x = 0.6851 th. tuff 2002circles (90 mm dam. stencled lithophysae 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 void porosity, nv Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-22. Young’s Modulus versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models Including Randomly Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae R2R20 10 20 30 40 50 60 qu (MPa) Li ( cil (i) iy = 52.482e-5.1493x = 0.9434 y = 34.079e -5.4687x = 0.5505 th. tuff1985 & 2002) rces90 mm dam. stencled lithophysae 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 void porosity, nv Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-23. Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models Including Randomly Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report qu (MPa) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10152025 R2R20.156x R2Liff (i) li) l liy = 10.004e 0.0579x = 0.6479 y = 5.9043e 0.1225x = 0.9635 y = 3.8774e = 0.8721 th. tuPrce, 2002circes (90 mm dam. stenciedthophysae modulus, E (GPa) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-24. Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Young’s Modulus for PFC2D Models Including Randomly Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae Figure 9-25. Damage in PFC2D Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% from Panel Map at Station 14+93R 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.2.2 Friction Angle and Cohesion of Lithophysal Rock Confined vertical compression tests on PFC materials with uniformly sized (16.6 cm diameter) circular voids were performed with the PFC2D and PFC3D programs. The bf2-particle property set was used, a minimum bridge length limitation of 4.15 cm was imposed and no pre-existing fractures were present. Tests on identical 2:1 aspect ratio 1-m diameter samples were conducted with confining stresses of 0, 0.1, 1, 3 and 10 MPa. For the PFC2D study, the confining tests were conducted on materials with 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 percent void space (see Figure 9-6). For PFC3D, void cavity percents of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 19 were used (see Figure 9-7). For all tests at a given void porosity, peak strength values were plotted and then linear best fits to the data were made in stress space (see Attachment V, Appendix A, Tables A-5 and A-6). In general, all test results were a close fit to the linear model with the 10 MPa confining tests plotting slightly lower than the linear prediction. Both the PFC2D and PFC3D runs gave a consistent but interesting story concerning the effect of confining stress on lithophysal rock. At zero percent voids the average friction angle for the 2D and 3D tests was about 20 degrees. The model’s particle property set was not calibrated for friction angle, so the results are to be understood in a qualitative sense only. At 5% void porosity the friction angle dropped to about 10 degrees, to 3 degrees at 10% porosity and essentially to zero or lower friction angle at more than 15% porosity. So at more than 10% void porosity, which is the lower bound of percentage of measured cavities in the Tptpll (see Figure 9-3), the peak strength is essentially independent of confining pressure. An explanation for this perhaps unexpected behavior is suggested by the evolving patterns of stress and failure behavior during loading. Testing a solid specimen with no voids resulted in a positive angle of internal friction, as expected. With the introduction of a few voids the effect of confining stress decreases, and a smaller friction angle was the result. Perhaps the stress redistribution around voids in the weakened rock structure acts to diminish a uniform lateral confining stress in the sample. The initiation and progression of localized tensile failures, occurring often between voids, was still the dominant mechanism leading to specimen failure. Testing of specimens having 10 percent or higher void porosity under sufficiently high confining pressures resulted in crushing of some bridge material between voids. This effect of confining pressure can be seen in Figure 9-26, which shows identical 10% void porosity samples being loaded under three different confining pressures. Under low 0.1 MPa pressure, the confining effect was minimal and a more or less vertical tensile failure pattern was evident. Under significantly higher 3 and then 10 MPa confining pressures the figure shows how confining stress affects the nature of failure; the predominant tensile type failure transitions to more of a shear and crushing type failure. As part of the transition, different critical bridges between voids are activated and fail. Finally around void porosities that are 15 percent or higher, negative friction angles result from the confinement tests. The negative friction angle means that slope of the ratio of strength increase over confinement increase is less than one. For all PFC2D and PFC3D tests, the strength increased with increasing confinement. For this case of 15 percent and higher void porosities, the voids have weakened the matrix rock structure so severely, that confinement stresses directly contribute to the structural failure. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Triaxial testing of specimens with increasing void porosity also leads to decreasing cohesion values. This overall decrease in rock strength is expected to result from the stress concentrations and weakened rock structure that arises as a consequence of introducing voids. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 9-26. PFC2D Specimens Showing Stress-Strain Curves and Progressive Damage During Testing Under Triaxial Loading Conditions (Void Porosity = 0.10 cm3/cm3, Confinement = 0.1, 3, 10 MPa) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.3 Uncertainties in the Current PFC Work and Potential Paths of Future Study A number of important limitations and uncertainties are inherent in this current PFC study. These are described along with potential avenues of future work below. 1. The effect on mechanical properties due explicitly to variation of size (same shape, same spatial distribution) and variation in bridge length between lithophysae (same shape, same size) has not yet been explored. The above lithophysal stencil material gives indications that bridge length, in particular, and possibly size of void may be important factors contributing to lithophysal rock behavior. 2. The effect of specimen size on lithophysal rock properties has not been addressed in this work. Of particular interest would be modeling specimens with dimensions that approach those of a representative volume appropriate for Yucca Mountain RHH lithophysal rock (perhaps approaching decameter scale). The “tests” of samples with constant-size simple-shape voids likely violated REV requirements of samples and some further analysis of this effect needs discussion. There are a number of examples from the modeling of true lithophysae (panel maps) that result in surprisingly low strength and modulus values due to fortuitous specimen boundaries or inadequate sample size (see Figure 9-27 – a number of lithophysae in panel maps have dimensions that exceed 0.5 m). Trying to scale down to the larger laboratory specimen size (on the order of 0.3 m) is expected to yield results with greater scatter. 3. Some inconsistencies exist in regards to the microproperties employed as part of this work (use of bf2, bf4 and bf5 materials). It is believed the effect is small, but the results need to be rerun with consistent properties. Also, the inherent porosity (Section 9.1.1.2) of PFC material is much higher than matrix rock porosity. The effect of this on mechanical properties and their relation to porosity needs to be studied. 4. Both the panel maps and the PFC2D analyses are two-dimensional slices, whereas the true lithophysal geometries are three-dimensional. The two-dimensional models may greatly underestimate strength values, since the third dimension is not available for support and stress redistribution. An assessment should be made of the limitations of this two-dimensional approach. It is a straightforward process to map true lithophysal geometries into the PFC3D model; however, current computing capabilities make it impractical to run PFC3D models of sufficient resolution to resolve the voids adequately. A new numerical scheme is now being developed to address such computational limitations. 5. One difficulty with the current PFC approach is the sensitivity of mechanical properties to the bitmap resolution employed in the stenciling process. The left section of panel map 14+93R was analyzed to explore this sensitivity. The resolution of 100 cells per meter turns out to slightly overestimate the actual lithophysal volume fraction. The void porosities of the PFC2D specimens generated from the left section of panel map 14+93R decreased from 0.177 to 0.162 to 0.154 as the bitmap resolution increased from 100 to 200 to 400 cells per meter, respectively. More importantly, the uniaxial strength values for these same specimens increased from 5.5 to 11.7 to 13.3 MPa, respectively. The large sensitivity of the UCS value of this particular specimen 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report to bitmap resolution may not be representative of most stenciled-lithophysae specimens, because its peak load appears to correspond with the breaking of the single critical bridge in the middle-left portion of the specimen (Figure 9-25, left specimen) and it is a low-strength extreme value (Figure 9-23, porosity of 0.177). A study should be performed to quantify the effect of bitmap resolution and to establish the optimal bitmap cell-size below which identical results are calculated. 6. The PFC material did not model pre-existing fractures in the matrix material of the lithophysal rock. The effect of such fractures could be added in a smeared sense by reducing the stiffness and strength of the PFC base material or in a direct sense by adding discrete fractures to the PFC material between the voids. Such discrete fractures could take the form of reduced strength and stiffness of all particles and bonds lying within a specified thickness of each fracture surface. 7. The effect of rims, spots and lithic clasts on the overall material properties are not accounted for directly by the PFC model, because it only provides a base material to which voids can be added. Rim and spot material are known to be much weaker than matrix material, for instance. One could define additional regions for rims, spots and lithic clasts and assign them appropriate stiffnesses and strengths; however, laboratory determination of the mechanical properties of these materials have not been carried out. 8. In general, reducing PFC particle size while keeping micro-strengths the same reduces the material fracture toughness. Quantifying the effects of the PFC material particle size requires further study. 9. Figure 9-11 shows localized tensile failure near the loading plates, which suggests localized stress due to the loading conditions. This effect needs to be discussed. 10. For validation purposes, some boundary value problems should be modeled. PFC2D and PFC3D modeling of the in situ slot tests would be an example of such problems. Other examples that may be helpful include numerical modeling of large-size laboratory samples before they are tested and pre-test modeling of synthetic materials. Of great importance in such work would be accurate determination of lithophysal and fracture geometries. 11. Physical analogues to rock lithophysae such as porous concrete could also be explored to give insight and more confidence in lithophysal rock behavior. 12. If desired, further study can be conducted to better understand how void geometry impacts friction angle and cohesion value. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 14+93 to 14+96 Right Wall, Middle Section 16+10 to 16+13 Right Wall, Middle Section 17+68 to 17+71 Left Wall, Middle Section 16+24 to 16+27 Right Wall, Middle Section 20+18 to 20+21 Left Wall, Right Section 16+41 to 16+44 Left Wall, Left Section Figure 9-27. PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens Showing Insufficient Sample Size at the 1 m Scale Due to Critical Alignment of Lithophysae and Large Lithophysae 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.1.4 PFC Studies - Summary The PFC study provided a useful, novel methodology of enhancing our understanding of performance of the lithophysal rock material that otherwise would be extremely difficult to test within the similar range of loading conditions and material parameter values. It is also recognized that this promising methodology has its limitations and its validity must be confirmed by comparing model performance with behavior displayed by real lithophysal rock under field loading conditions. In addition it was also concluded that other numerical tools available should be employed that offer some advantages in computational routines superior to that offered by the PFC code. This PFC study is preliminary in nature, and is solely intended as a scoping analysis to determine the approximate mechanical behavior of lithophysal rock. Any ranges of values and other derived data from this study requires further verification and confirmation based on updated measurement data from laboratory or field tests. Since this PFC work is a preliminary scoping analysis, model validation was not required. In addition to the validation issue and limitations, several functions from FishTank were used of in the PFC study. FishTank is a library of modeling functions from Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (distributor of PFC2D and PFC3D), and has not been formally controlled in YMP project. The usage of functions from FishTank should be justified or controlled based on a proper procedure for future use of the PFC study. Due to the limitations, uncertainties and novel nature of using PFC to model lithophysal rock behavior, a discrete element code (UDEC) was also relied on for corroborative purposes. The next section, Section 9.2, contains a discussion of results obtained by modeling lithophysal rock utilizing the UDEC code. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.2 USE OF UDEC CODE TO DERIVE ROCK MASS PARAMETERS 9.2.1 Introduction The PFC program discussed in Section 9.1 was used to examine the effect of lithophysal cavities on the deformability of the grain matrix and the peak compressive strength of unconfined samples. The circular PFC particles lead to a questionable post-peak (post failure) dilation simulation once the bonds between particles break and particles are free to rotate. The UDEC program was used to overcome this potential difficulty and to examine the post-peak strength response of the rock mass.. UDEC uses a similar large-deformation solution procedure to solve the discontinuum numerical problem, but allows non-circular constituent grain shapes to be used, thus avoiding the potential PFC circular particle limitations. The penalty of the more complex particle contact logic in the UDEC program is less efficient problem solution. The UDEC analysis was also used to compare and contrast the UDEC and PFC simulations of pre-failure behavior of lithophysal rock. UDEC was used first to conduct a series of lithophysal rock mass uniaxial compression problems similar to those conducted with PFC for the case of no voids and then rock with circular lithophysae. As shown below, the results of the two approaches compare very favorably, in terms of numerical estimates of Young’s modulus and uniaxial compressive strength as functions of lithophysal porosity. UDEC was then used to examine the confining pressure response of the lithophysal rock mass, and determine the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown yield parameters. These parameters are then compared to values for typical rock masses from the literature. This UDEC study is preliminary in nature, and intended to supplement the testing programs and the PFC study. Any derived data from this study may also require further verification and confirmation based on measurements from laboratory or field tests. These verification and confirmation may serve as validation of the UDEC model. For the purpose of this report, no model validation is conducted beyond comparisons of the derived data with the measured ones. 9.2.2 UDEC Model 9.2.2.1 Model Description For the UDEC model, the rock mass was represented as an assembly of polygonal, elastic blocks (Figure 9-28) that are bonded together across their boundaries to form a coherent solid. The goal was to provide a rock mass in which the overall mechanical behavior of the mass was consistent with the material model developed for the lithophysal rock, yet allow internal fracturing to form and blocks to loosen and detach as the evolving stress state dictates. In other words, the fractures are “invisible” to the model until yielding (local failure for a given stress path) begins. Since the block boundaries can fail in tension and shear, they act as “potential fracture” locations should the stresses dictate that fracture is possible. It is important that the block assemblage contain blocks that are sufficiently small such that the model does not dictate where and how fractures can form and propagate. The rock domain is discretized into small blocks (using Voronoi tessellations, see Itasca 2002). The potential fractures between blocks are considered to behave mechanically according to a linearly elastic-perfectly plastic model. The elastic behavior 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report of potential fractures is controlled by constant normal and shear stiffness, and are consistent with the Young’s modulus of the intact rock blocks. The possible failure modes of the rock mass are controlled by the strength of the fractures. The fractures can sustain a finite tensile stress, whereas a Coulomb slip condition governs the onset of slip, as a function of joint cohesion and friction angle. If a potential fracture fails, either in tension or shear, tensile strength and cohesion are set to zero, whereas the friction angle is set to the residual value. This model allows for the formation of fractures between blocks and separation of blocks within the simulated rock mass specimen. Figure 9-28. UDEC Lithophysal Rock Specimen Composed of Many Irregular Blocks with Roughly Equi-Dimensional Side Lengths bonded with frictional and cohesive interfaces. The blocks used in the UDEC model do not represent the actual internal structure of the lithophysal rock mass. They are a tool in the numerical model used to simulate damage and fracturing of the rock mass (i.e., the potential fractures in this model do not correspond to actual features). Therefore, it is not possible to directly compare the potential fracture properties in the UDEC model to results of laboratory or field-testing on samples of lithophysal rock. In other words, because of the geometrical complexity of the model, a direct functional correlation between micro- and macro-properties (model response on a specimen-size scale) does not exist. 9.2.2.2 Model Calibration Therefore, to assure that model macro-behavior (represented by an assembly of Voronoi blocks) will behave as a lithophysal rock mass, the model must be calibrated. Calibration was accomplished by numerical simulation of previously conducted laboratory tests, in which the micro-properties are adjusted until the desired macro-behavior was matched. For the current work, the calibration consisted of simulating the same laboratory test data used as a basis for the PFC calibration. During the numerical experiments (calibration), the model parameters (i.e., Voronoi block fracture properties) were varied until the resulting important mechanical macro- 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report properties of the rock mass (Young’s modulus and unconfined compressive strength) matched with measurements from the actual tests. The calibration used a trial-and-error approach, but some understanding of the model mechanics and previous experience can expedite convergence of the iterative process. The following parameters characterize the mechanical behavior of the UDEC Voronoi model and these micro properties are illustrated in Figure 9-29. • The block size scaled to the model size, or a number of blocks in the model. • Elastic properties of blocks (Em , .m). • Properties of joints, both elastic (normal stiffness, kn, and shear stiffness, ks) and plastic (tensile strength, tm, cohesion, cm, and friction, fm). Note that plastic joint parameters are functions of shear and tensile plastic strains. In the simulations presented in this report, it is assumed that cohesion and tensile strength soften to zero at the onset of yield. Figure 9-29. Micro Properties of the UDEC Voronoi Model The UDEC program was used in this preliminary work to generate a 1 m × 1 m rock mass “sample” composed of a large number of random, irregular, and interconnected blocks with average dimension of 0.017 m (Figure 9-28). Following the approach explained in Attachment VI, these fracture mechanical micro properties were calibrated to reproduce the same lithophysal laboratory test data used in the PFC calibration (see details in Attachment V, Section A.5). Roughly, the values used were 20 GPa for Young’s modulus and 60 MPa for the uniaxial compressive strength. As shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3 from the PFC simulations, these values correspond to the lithophysal tuff with a zero percent porosity. Based on these zero-voids lithophysal Young’s modulus and uniaxial compressive strength values, the calibration process produced the micro- and fracture properties given in Table 9-2 (see the UDEC calibration result at zero percent porosity in Figures 9-36 and 9-37 below). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-2. Calibrated UDEC (Micro) Fracture Properties to Reproduce Nonlithophysal Rock Average In Situ Strength and Deformability Parameter Value Unit Intact Bulk Modulus 23.0 GPa Intact Shear Modulus 17.2 GPa Joint Normal Stiffness 2360.0 GPa/m Joint Shear Stiffness 1180.0 GPa/m Joint Cohesion 22.0 MPa Joint Friction 35.0 Degrees Joint Tension 9.0 MPa Residual Cohesion 0.0 MPa Residual Friction 15.0 Degrees Residual Tension 0.0 MPa Once the calibration process is completed, it may be possible to say that the synthetic material (i.e., the assembly of Voronoi blocks) behaves equivalently to the lithophysal rock mass on the scale for which it was calibrated. Following calibration, the model can be used to conduct additional simulations under biaxial compression and tension to produce the yield criteria for the material. These yield criteria can be compared to typical empirically derived yield criteria for other rock types as a means of verification of the model. 9.2.3 UDEC Simulation of Lithophysal Rock Triaxial Response 9.2.3.1 Simulation of Nonlithophysal Samples After calibration, the first step of this analysis was to examine and qualitatively validate the UDEC simulated rock behavior when no lithophysal holes were present in the rock. A series of uniaxial and triaxial simulations were run on the nonlithophysal (zero void) samples to obtain stress-strain curves (Figure 9-30) for different conditions of confinement (unconfined, 1-MPa, 3MPa, and 5-MPa confinement) and loading condition (tension and compression). Figure 9-30 also illustrates the mode of failure for each case by a plot of displacement vectors at the final state of the model. Laboratory testing data on the post-peak behavior of lithophysal rock is inconclusive. However, the model exhibits qualitatively reasonable brittle post-peak behavior. The response for low confinement is brittle (see unconfined compressive strength curve in Figure 9-30). As confinement increases the response becomes more ductile, almost perfectly plastic for 3-MPa and 5-MPa confinements (Figure 9-30). The mode of sample failure in the case of unconfined compressive strength is axial splitting, similar to observations of laboratory experiments. The mode of failure for axial compression tests as confinement increases transitions to the “shear band” type with a reduction in post-peak brittleness, as would be expected. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.0E+7 Axial stress [Pa] 7.2E+7 6.4E+7 5.6E+7 4.8E+7 4.0E+7 3.2E+7 2.4E+7 1.6E+7 8.0E+6 0.0E+0 -8.0E+6 -5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 Axial strain Note: Inset figures show UDEC models and fracture condition in the failed state for each confining pressure. Fractures shown in red, with velocity vectors. Figure 9-30. Composite stress-strain curves from calibrated UDEC granular structure model for uniaxial and triaxial compression – nonlithophysal rock. (ion) tension UCS 1 MPa confinement 3 MPa confinement 5 MPa confinement LineartensE = 19.8 GPa The failure envelope in the principal stress space, constructed based on numerical tests at different confinement levels, is shown in Figure 9-31. The failure envelope is curvilinear, as expected for a rock mass (similar to Hoek-Brown failure criterion). The ratio between uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths is larger than 10. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report s1 [MPa] -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 f = 35o C = 15.6 MPa sci = 59.1 MPa Mi = 6.2 5 4 3 2 1 0-1-2-3-4 s3 [MPa] Note: Portion of curve above zero confining stress is a curve fit to the points. Figure 9-31. Numerical Experiment, Category 1 (seed 1, void ratio 0.000): Failure Envelope The volumetric deformation of the model during the experiments is illustrated in Figure 9-32, which shows curves of volumetric strain versus axial strain. In general, these curves are bilinear. Initially, while the sample behaves elastically, its volume reduces due to the Poisson’s effect. The initial slope of the curves is a function of the Poisson’s ratio. Thus, the Poisson’s ratio, ., of the synthetic material can be calculated from the initial slope of the curve, se, according to the following formula derived from elasticity theory: .= 1 - se (Eq. 9-1) 2 - se 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-35December 2003-0.010.000.010.020.03-0.00250.00000.00250.00500.0075Axial strainVolumetric straintensionUCS1 MPa confinement3 MPa confinement5 MPa confinement. = 0.16y = 39o y = 48o y = 35o Figure 9-32. Numerical Experiment, Category 1 (seed 1, void ratio 0.000): Volumetric Strain VersusAxial Strain for Different Confinements and Loading ConditionsAs the material yields and starts plastic deformation, it usually dilates (increases volume). Consequently the curves in Figure 9-32 change in slope. Initially negative slopes, indicatingcontraction, become positive, indicating dilation. The slope of the curves during plasticdeformation is a function of the dilation angle, which is the parameter used to characterize plasticvolumetric deformation. The dilation angle, ., of the synthetic material can be calculated fromthe post-peak slope of the curve, sp, according to the following formula, which was derived fromMohr-Coulomb plastic flow equations in Itasca Software–Cutting Edge Tools for ComputationalMechanics (Itasca 2002): .. . . .. . . + = 2arcsinppss.(Eq. 9-2) The synthetic material clearly exhibits a very large dilation angle for unconfined compressivestrength. Such behavior is expected because micro damage of the material during unconfinedcompressive strength testing is predominantly tensile fracturing, which results in extremely largedilation. Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.2.3.2 Simulation of Lithophysal Samples Next, a series of uniaxial and triaxial compression numerical experiments were conducted on the same calibrated sample as described above, but circular lithophysal voids are randomly added to create samples of with void ratios of 10.3, 17.8 and 23.8%. These void ratios correspond to specific samples in the PFC shape study. Figures 9-33 to 9-35 show stress strain response for each of these cases. The addition of void volume results in failure due to fracturing between the voids in a similar fashion as that demonstrated previously for the PFC modeling. The following summarizes these results: • Reduction of compressive strength with increased void porosity • Reduction of Young’s modulus with increased void porosity • Less brittle post-peak response, leading to elastic-plastic response for the higher confining pressures • Reduction in tensile strength with increased void porosity The relationships of uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus to void porosity are shown in Figures 9-36 and 9-37, respectively, indicating similar results to the previous PFC modeling, and good agreement with laboratory compression on large (12” diameter) laboratory testing. The correlation of uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus is shown in Figure 9-38. The UDEC results shown are in good agreement with the PFC simulations, and give higher uniaxial compressive strength values than those from the laboratory tests when the void porosity is low (or Young’s modulus is high). It is noted that the UDEC model was calibrated for the 0% porosity case at a uniaxial compressive strength of 60 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 20 GPa, and subsequent data should be scaled if these calibrated values were adjusted with Young’s modulus and uniaxial compressive strength for higher porosities. The relationship of dilation angle to void porosity at various confining stresses for lithophysal tuff is shown in Figure 9-39. It is apparent that the effect of increasing lithophysal porosity is a reduction of dilation angle for all levels of confinement simulated. In addition, the dilation angle is also sensitive to the confinement, and decreases as the confining stress increases. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-36 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report i-8.0E+6 0.0E+0 8.0E+6 1.6E+7 2.4E+7 3.2E+7 4.0E+7 4.8E+7 5.6E+7 6.4E+7 7.2E+7 8.0E+7 Axial stress [Pa] tenson UCS 1 MPa confinement 3 MPa confinement 5 MPa confinement E = 14.1 GPa -5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 Axial strain Figure 9-33. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 10.3%. Circular voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. i-8.0E+6 0.0E+0 8.0E+6 1.6E+7 2.4E+7 3.2E+7 4.0E+7 4.8E+7 5.6E+7 6.4E+7 7.2E+7 8.0E+7 Axial stress [Pa] tens on UCS 1 MPa confinement 3 MPa confinement 5 MPa confinement E = 11.0 GPa -5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 Axial strain Figure 9-34. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 17.8%. Circular voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-37 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8.0E+7 Axial stress [Pa] 7.2E+7 6.4E+7 5.6E+7 4.8E+7 4.0E+7 3.2E+7 2.4E+7 1.6E+7 8.0E+6 0.0E+0 -8.0E+6 -5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 Axial strain tens ion UCS 1 MPa confinem ent 3 MPa confinem ent 5 MPa confinem ent E = 9.6 GPa Figure 9-35. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 23.8%. Circular voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-39December 2003y = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 51.78e-6.2138xR2 = 0.934401020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa) Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.) UDEC circles (90 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-36.Comparison of UDEC simulations of lithophysal porosity effects on uniaxial compressivestrength (UCS) to laboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC2D simulationsy = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 19.684e-3.1677xR2 = 0.993805101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa) Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.) UDEC circles (90 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-37.Comparison of UDEC simulations of lithophysal porosity effects on Young’s modulus tolaboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC2D simulations Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-40December 2003y = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 5.9043e0.1225xR2 = 0.9635y = 3.2298e0.1452xR2 = 0.981801020304050600510152025modulus, E (GPa) qu (MPa) Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.) UDEC circles (90 mm diam.) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006. Figure 9-38.Comparison of UDEC simulations of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) versus Young’smodulus to laboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC simulationsy = 47.111e-1.4266xR2 = 0.7101y = 40.282e-2.2457xR2 = 0.7786y = 34.048e-2.637xR2 = 0.607701020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.30Void Porosity, nvDilation Angle (degrees) Confining Stress = 1 MPaConfining Stress = 3 MPaConfining Stress = 5 MPaFigure 9-39.Dilation angles versus void porosity at various confining stresses from UDEC simulations forlithophysal tuff Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.2.4 Estimation of Linear and Non-Linear Failure Envelopes The UDEC peak strength values from the results shown in Figures 9-30 to 9-35 can be used to construct traditional failure envelopes for the nonlithophysal as well as lithophysal samples. Figure 9-40 shows the stress values plotted in principal stress space with approximate linear and Hoek-Brown non-linear envelopes fit to the results. Note that in each case, multiple simulations were made for each minimum (confining) stress level in which different random distributions of UDEC grain structure were used. The Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown strength parameters derived from the fits to this data are given in Table 9-3. As seen, the primary effect of increasing lithophysal porosity is a reduction in the compressive and tensile strength components, with little additional strength reduction when the void porosity is raised above 17.8%. There is little apparent impact of lithophysal porosity on friction angle. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 ) Major Principal Stress (MPa) iiiiiiiiliiliiliiliiMinor Principal Stress (MPaUDEC Lth. Porosty=0 UDEC Lth. Porosty=10.3% UDEC Lth. Porosty=17.8% UDEC Lth. Porosty=23.8% HB Enveope Ft, m =6.5 HB Enveope Ft, m =7.9 HB Enveope Ft, m =7.9 HB Enveope Ft, m =5.5 Figure 9-40. Major principal stress versus minor principal stress from UDEC simulations as well as Hoek-Brown non-linear failure envelope fits for various lithophysal porosities 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-41 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-3. Summary of Average Strength, Modulus Mohr Coulomb and Hoek Brown Failure Law Parameters As Derived from UDEC Simulations Lithophysal Porosity (%) UCS (MPa) Young’s Modulus (GPa) Friction Angle (degree) Cohesion (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) HB SigCi (MPa) HB mi 0 58.7 19.8 36 14.9 4.4 58.5 6.6 10 25.1 14.2 36 6.4 2.1 25.1 7.7 17 15.5 11.2 35 4.1 1.7 16.5 7.3 24 13.2 9.3 29 3.9 1.5 14.0 5.0 9.2.5 Estimation of GSI as a Function of Lithophysal Porosity as Derived from UDEC Models The Hoek-Brown Geologic Strength Index (GSI), based on geotechnical characterization indices such as ‘Q’ or ‘RMR’, is often used for estimation of equivalent Mohr-Coulomb (cohesion and friction angle) or Hoek-Brown (m,s) rock mass strength properties. The Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown strength properties are typically used as input to numerical models in which the rock mass mechanical constitutive model is based on these failure laws. A great deal of literature and case examples exist, in which these models have been compared to deformation measurement in a wide variety of rock types and qualities. Although little experience in tunneling in lithophysal tuff is available, it is instructive to use the results of the UDEC simulations to estimate, from the Hoek-Brown strength parameters, the approximately equivalent values of GSI as a function of lithophysal porosity. To perform such an estimate, the 0% lithophysal porosity case discussed above is assumed to represent the rock matrix, and the cases of 10.3, 17.8, and 23.8% lithophysal porosity are considered to be ‘degraded’ quality rock in the same sense as fracturing is used in the typical case as a means of degrading intact rock strength. Using Hoek’s empirically-derived relation for rock mass modulus, Em, based on GSI (e.g., Hoek et al. 2002, Eq. 11): 5.0 ) = ... 1- D 2 .. . .. . s ci 100 . . .×10 ( E GPa ( [ ) ] (Eq. 9-3) GSI - 10 /40 m Where D is a rock mass disturbance index, which in this case we set to zero, and solving for GSI we get: GSI = 10 + .. . 40 10 ln .. . .. . ln E m - ln 5.0 .. . s ci 100 .. . .. . (Eq. 9-4) Using Equation 9-4 with sci (58.7 MPa) for 0% porosity and the moduli from Table 9-3 we find the relation between GSI and porosity as shown in Table 9-4. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-42 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-4. Relation Between GSI and Porosity Porosity (%) 10 61 17 57 24 53 GSI This relationship, also shown in Figure 9-41, is preliminary in nature and is given simply to illustrate the possible impact of lithophysal porosity in terms of the typical rock mass characterization parameters used in industrial practice. Estimated Relation between GSI and Porosity for Lithophysal Tuff GSI 65 60 55 50 45 0 5 1015202530 Porosity (%) Figure 9-41. Estimated relation between GSI and porosity for lithophysal tuff 9.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations in UDEC Study Some uncertainties and limitations are inherent in the current UDEC study. These are described as follows: • The effect of lithophysal cavity shape and size on lithophysal rock properties has not been addressed in this study. In the current study, the shape of cavity is circular and the size is fixed at 0.09 m. In reality, both the shape and the size vary with location. These may be important factors that affect lithophysal rock properties and contribute to its behavior. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-43 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • The UDEC analyses are two-dimensional, whereas the true lithophysal cavities are three- dimensional. The two-dimensional models may underestimate strength values, since the third dimension is not available for support and stress redistribution. The results from the two-dimensional UDEC analyses should be considered conservative. • The effect of specimen size on lithophysal rock properties has not been addressed in this study. The specimen size of 1 m × 1 m used is small compared to that of a representative volume appropriate for modeling a repository drift. This may or may not affect the derived lithophysal rock modulus and strength properties. • Pre-existing fractures in the matrix material of lithophysal rock are not accounted for directly by the UDEC model. The effect of such fractures may be included in a smeared sense by reducing the contact stiffness and strength between interconnected particles. • Comparisons of the UDEC simulations are made to those from laboratory uniaxial compressive tests. Though the UDEC models were run for triaxial compressive tests, no comparisons have been made due to the lack of triaxial test data. To have a greater confidence in the UDEC models, use of the data from triaxial compressive tests to validate the models is warranted. This may require to conduct some laboratory triaxial tests using large rock specimens. • As indicated in Tables 8-41 and 8-42, rock mass properties vary in a large range, reflecting the effect of fractures. The current UDEC study uses the average values of Young’s modulus and uniaxial compressive strength to calibrate the UDEC fracture properties, and does not account for the effect of variations of rock mass quality or condition. The derived lithophysal properties may be sensitive to these variations. Additional analyses on this sensitivity is considered valuable for further understanding the effect of lithophysal porosity on rock mass properties. • The adequacy of the data derived from this UDEC study depends on whether the models used can be fully validated or not. Once the models are validated, they can be used to conduct a wide range of numerical experiments, which cover different loading conditions, sample sizes, void shapes, and fracture properties. The derived rock mass properties can supplement limited data collected from laboratory or field tests to a great degree of adequacy. As mentioned above, due to the lack of sufficient test data the current UDEC models cannot be fully validated. Therefore, further study is needed in order to generate adequate data from the UDEC analyses with a high level of confidence. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-44 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.3 FRACMAN FRACTURE SIMULATION 9.3.1 Generation of Representative Rock Volumes Using FracMAN The detailed mapped fracture geometry from the ESF and ECRB is neither practical nor appropriate to input directly into the 3DEC discontinuum modeling used in both rockfall and ground support design analyses. Instead, geologic mapping is used to define a “synthetic” or representative rock mass, called a Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) that is sampled randomly to create possible rock masses in which repository host rock tunnels are simulated. A representative DFN simulation of the actual fracture network is constructed based on standard detailed line survey and full periphery geologic map data. The simulation process is summarized below and described in more detail in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6) and scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-084-V1 (Beason 2003, pp. 139-145). The source fracture geometry inputs are provided in Table 8-60 of Section 8.8 (also BSC 2003a, Section 4, Table 2). These data consist of fractures with trace lengths of one meter or greater. The premise to this simulation is that a 100-meter on a side cube results in a representative fracture network. Fractures are generated within this volume as circular disks with their radius, dip, and dip direction determined based on field data. The fractures are simulated, and their location, orientation and radius are inputs for the rockfall analyses. Individual 100-meter cubes simulations of fracture geometry are constructed for each lithostratigraphic unit. Construction of the FracMAN network starts with the low-angle fractures. Because these fractures form first in the cooling process their truncation by other features is minimal. To continue the construction of the FracMAN network, the remaining fractures, having a dip greater than 45° are separated into two classes. The first class includes those fractures that formed about the same time as the vapor-phase partings. These fractures are referred to as cooling joints and have long trace lengths with some truncation occurring against the vapor-phase partings and themselves. The second class includes the fractures that have a shorter trace length. These fractures are considered to be later cooling and tectonic fractures. These fractures are generated into a network comprised of vapor-phase partings and long, high-angle cooling fractures (Sections 5.3.3 and 8.8). This construction is significantly different from a construction with sets solely identified on the basis of orientation. However, observations of mineralization and truncation relations (Mongano et al. 1999, p. 76) suggest that the current sequential construction is more appropriate to generate a representative rock volume. This construction does not create a copy of the actual fracture geometries observed in the limited sampling afforded by the detailed line survey and the full periphery geologic map. The objective is to provide a generalized, representative fracture network for evaluation of the rock mass as a whole. The output from FracMAN is a fracture network whose geometry is conditioned from a careful evaluation of the detailed line survey and full periphery geologic map data. Special geologic features are not represented in this effort. For example, in a 100-meter segment of tunnel mapping there may be a 15-meter section that shows an increased amount of fractures from a given set. The developer may decide to represent this zone by developing a specific distribution for this occurrence. However, an average geometry can be used to describe the simulation since the fracture network developed does not represent a specific section of the mapped area, but is representative of the general condition of 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-45 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report the rock mass. Not enough data exists to develop a simulation that represents every geologic variation in the rock mass. To avoid giving the impression of zones, which display anomalous geometries in each lithostratigraphic unit, these zones are averaged into the simulation when the decision is made that adding this input helps represent the rock mass correctly with the data that is available. Because this output is not an exact copy, a single constant fracture intensity is imposed for each set in each lithostratigraphic unit. Plots of cumulative fracture number against tunnel station display a constant slope for the most part along the sampled tunnel. Where the intensity is not constant, it is displayed as a change of slope in these plots. Further discussion can be found in BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6. A summary of the FracMAN results for the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll and Tptpln lithostratigraphic units are presented in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6 and Attachment II). A summary of the FracMAN fracture geometry results are given in Tables 9-5 to 9-8. Table 9-5. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the Detailed Line Survey versus FracMAN Output for the Tptpul Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN Number of Number of Feature fractures Proportion Feature Fractures Proportion Vapor-Phase Partings 123 14% Vapor-Phase Partings 466 16% 1st Generation Cooling Fractures 41 5% 1st Generation Cooling Fractures 190 6% 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 704 81% 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 2298 78% Total 868 100% Total 2954 100% NOTE: Detailed line survey source DTNs: GS971108314224.024 GS990408314224.001 Table 9-6. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the DLS versus FracMAN Output for the Tptpll Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN Feature Number of fractures Proportion Feature Number of Fractures Proportion Vapor-Phase Partings 20 6% Vapor-Phase Partings 647 7% 1st Generation Cooling Fractures 71 24% 1st Generation Cooling Fractures 2494 25% 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 209 70% 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 6738 68% Total 300 100% Total 9879 100% NOTES: Source: DTN: GS990408314224.001, GS990408314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-46 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-7. Comparison of Data from DLS and FracMAN for the Tptpmn Set Orientation Proportions Trace Length (m) Spacing (m) Number (Strike/Dip) FracMAN DLS FracMAN DLS FracMAN DLS Set 1 120/84 53% 55% 1.8 2.3 0.61 0.55 Set 2 215/68 20% 20% 1.5 1.9 1.61 1.48 Set 3 329/14 8% 7% 2.1 2.7 6.8 4.2 Random Random 19% 18% 1.4 1.7 N/A N/A SOURCE DTNS: GS971108314224.025, GS000608314224.004, GS960708314224.008 , GS960708314224.010, GS990408314224.001 Table 9-8. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the Detailed Line Survey versus FracMAN Output for the Tptpln Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN Feature Number of fractures Proportion Feature Number of Fractures Proportion Vapor-Phase Partings 16 8% Vapor-Phase Partings 392 9% 1st Generation Cooling Fractures 24 12% 1st Generation Cooling 501 11% Fractures 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 159 80% 2nd Generation Cooling and Tectonic Fractures 3487 80% Total 199 100% Total 4380 100% SOURCE: DTN GS990408314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-47 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.4 SIMULATION OF LITHOPHYSAL POROSITY SPATIAL VARIATION 9.4.1 Introduction More than 80 percent of the planned repository excavated openings are planned to lie within the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Formation (Tptpll). To assist in modeling the spatial variability of mechanical properties, a simple method of projecting the two-dimensional distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity to a three-dimensional distribution surrounding the tunnels was developed. Correlation equations for the porosity to unconfined compressive strength and Young’s Modulus were then developed to define the distribution of elastic properties and material strength. This modeling calculation is for simulation of rock in the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpll), and is based on the data from the ECRB Cross-Drift (see Attachment VII). These data represent one of the best and detailed distributions of lithophysal cavity porosity available. The calculation involves the projection of these data to a vertical simulated cross section to define the vertical variability of the data, then horizontally away from the ECRB Cross-Drift to define the data in the third dimension. Four steps were used for projecting the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity data from the ECRB Cross-Drift. A summary of these four steps is described below and is illustrated in Figure 9-42, with a detailed explanation (with specific examples) provided in Section 9.4.6. • Step 1. Lithophysal cavity porosity values are projected along the apparent dip of the lithostratigraphic unit to a vertical line representing a simulated stratigraphic column (Figure 9-42a). Because the slope of the ECRB Cross Drift is very gentle and varies throughout the length of the tunnel, it can be considered to be horizontal so the vertical line is in effect perpendicular to the tunnel. For simplicity, only the values that project to the top and bottom of the vertical line are depicted in Figure 9-42a, but each point along the tunnel can be projected along the same apparent dip. • Step 2. The vertical line is divided into a series of sections or horizons, and these sections are projected along the apparent dip to form stratigraphically equivalent “windows” along the tunnel (Figure 9-42b). • Step 3. The distribution of values and descriptive statistics are determined for each “window” and these statistics are imparted to the correlative section on the vertical line (Figure 9-42c). • Step 4. The descriptive statistics for each section on the vertical line are then propagated along a horizon at right angles to the tunnel (Figure 9-42d). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-48 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report j)(a) Percent cavities Apparent Dip Proection along Apparent Dip Tunnel Profile Vertical Line (VL Distance along tunnel VL(b) Percent cavitiesSection 1 Section 2 Window1 Window2 Distance along tunnel VL(c) Percent cavitiesSw1 Ss1 Sw2 Ss2 Ss1 = Sw1 Ss2 = Sw2 Distance along tunnel VL (d) Distance away from tunnel Horizons Tunnel Ss1 Ss1 Ss2 Ss2 Figure 9-42. Simplified Steps for Projecting and Distributing Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Values in a Tunnel into a Two-Dimensional Cross Section 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-49 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.4.2 Input Data Two sources of data are used for this simulation of lithophysal cavity porosity. The data required for the projection of lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical cross section include (1) the distribution of the lithophysal cavity porosity along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Attachment VII) and (2) the strike and dip of the top of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1). The particular distribution of the lithophysal cavity porosity used in this section comes from the “fitted” abundance curve for lithophysal cavities along the ECRB Cross-Drift. This data is preliminary since the large lithophysae inventory has not yet been completed, so cannot be included as part of the “fitted” data. The portion of the large lithophysae survey that has been completed indicates that large lithophysae may contribute as much as 8 percent more porosity in some 5-m sections of the tunnel (i.e., the “fitted” curve in Figure 9-44 below can be increased up to 8 percent in places). 9.4.3 Software Used In The Calculations The input data, intermediate calculations, and results of the assessment of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity are stored and implemented in the Microsoft Excel file, Lithophysal projection to vertical plane.xls (Attachment VIII). All transfers of values, calculations, logic functions, and descriptive statistics are done with standard functions in Excel. There are three small macros embedded in the Excel file, named “Prop_Distribute,” “Contour_Text,” and “Contour_Fill.” These macros are exempt from the qualification requirements of AP-SI.1Q, Software Management, since they are used solely for visual display of data: 1. The “Prop_Distribute” macro is an automated “copy and paste” function that takes the distributed values in a large (10×184 cell) “5-m window” table and makes a small (10×29 cell) “compacted” table of the values. The small table is effectively the large table, but with the “null” values removed. 2. The “Contour_Text” and “Contour_Fill” macros are basically the same and they simply change the format of the values or cells (but not the values themselves) in the 50×200 and 20×80 cell tables. The difference between these two macros is that one (“Contour_Text”) colors the text (i.e., values), and the other (“Contour_Fill”) changes the fill color of the cell and the color of the text (i.e., values). 3. Confirmation that the macros are operating correctly can be made with simple visual comparisons of the large and small tables for the “Prop_Distribute” macro, and the input data table with the 50×200 and 20×80 cell tables for the “Contour_Text” and “Contour_Fill” macros. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-50 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.4.4 Geometric Relations And Conditions In The Calculation The simplifying assumptions used in this calculation relate to the inherent geometry of the problem and other initial conditions that need to be defined prior to carrying out the calculation. In particular, a simulation of the distributed lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical plane is based on six fundamental lithostratigraphic and geometric relations and conditions: 1. Lithostratigraphic zones and subzones of the Topopah Spring Tuff are stratiform and are traceable across the repository area; however, some subzones might not occur across the entire repository area. This calculation assumes a stratiform distribution of Tptpll lithostratigraphic features, such as lithophysal cavity data. 2. The ECRB Cross-Drift transects the Tptpll as a shallowly inclined tunnel; therefore, lithophysal cavity data represents vertical (and to some amount horizontal) variations in the lithostratigraphic features. 3. These observed variations in lithophysal cavity porosity data are assumed to represent variations in lithostratigraphic features that are laterally continuous across the volume of Tptpll rock sampled. In the simulation, variations in lithophysal cavity porosity in the tunnel are projected along the apparent dip of the Tptpll (and lithostratigraphic features) to a vertical line representing a simulated stratigraphic column for the sampled volume. Because the tunnel is assumed to be horizontal (see Section 9.4.1), the vertical line is therefore perpendicular to the tunnel. 4. The vertical line is divided into 5-m thick intervals or “horizons”, which are projected along the apparent dip to the tunnel to form a series of “windows” along the tunnel. The choice of the horizon as 5-m is arbitrary. 5. Each “window” contains a uniquely defined statistical variation of lithophysal cavity porosity based on the population of tunnel measurements. This statistical variation of porosity (a realization of porosity) is obtained by sampling from the population of tunnel measurements. Thus, each 5-m horizon along the vertical line contains the potential variability in porosity of the respective “window” along the tunnel. 6. The statistical variation in porosity in each 5-m thick horizon included in the simulated stratigraphic column is projected perpendicular and away from the tunnel along a vertical cross section. It is assumed that each perpendicular projection of porosity (realization) from “window” and then horizon statistical porosity data is translation invariant (the assumption of data stationarity). 9.4.5 Determination Of The Apparent Dips For Input The three-dimensional orientation of an inclined plane can be defined by a strike and dip, but an apparent dip is formed where the inclined plane intersects vertical planes along a section that is not at a right angle to the strike of the vertical plane. The strike is the angle from north of a horizontal line in the inclined plane, and the dip is the angle from horizontal measured in a vertical plane that is 90° to the strike of the inclined plane. An apparent dip is the angle from the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-51 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report horizontal in a vertical plane of a line formed by the intersection of an inclined plane with the vertical plane. An example of these geometric relations is illustrated in Figure 9-43 with three planes. The inclined plane is the top contact of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift and has a strike of 270° (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1). The true dip is measured in a plane perpendicular to the strike of the inclined plane, and is illustrated with the 7° dip. The ECRB Cross-Drift is contained in a vertical plane that has a strike of 229°. This strike is used because it is in the direction of the heading of the tunnel and in the area of the lithostratigraphic contact is in the direction of the inclination or plunge of the tunnel. For the purpose of this simulation, the tunnel is assumed to be horizontal. A cross section perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift forms a second vertical plane with a strike of 319°. The apparent dip of the lithophysal zone contact is 4.6° to the northeast (NE) in the plane of the cross drift and 5.3° to the northwest (NW) in the cross section perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift. If another strike and dip were used, then the apparent dips will differ. For example, the top of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift in the Geologic Framework Model (BSC 2002a) has a strike and dip of 345° and 5.8°, respectively. The apparent dips are 5.2° NE in the plane of the ECRB Cross-Drift and 2.5° NW in the plane perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift. For the purposes of this calculation, an apparent dip of 5° was used for projecting the data. AziCross section perpendicular to ECRB Cross-Drift Top contact of Tptpll muth of ECRB Cross-Drift NOTES: The orientation of the Tptpll contact and the ECRB Cross-Drift is based on Mongano et al. (1999, Table 1). The ECRB Cross-Drift is considered to be horizontal. Figure 9-43. Geometric Relations of Strike and Dip and the Apparent Dips in Cross Sections Parallel and Perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-52 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9.4.6 Distribution Of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity In The ECRB Cross-Drift And Simulated Vertical Cross Section The stratiform geometry of the zones in the Topopah Spring Tuff occur throughout the repository area (Buesch et al. 1996a and 1996b; BSC 2002a) as do many of the subzones such as the subzones of the Tptpmn (Buesch et al. 1996b; Buesch and Spengler 1998), although some subzones might not occur across the entire repository area (Buesch and Spengler 1998). Variations in the orientation of lithostratigraphic contacts (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1) and the abundance (and percent) of lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone, including lithophysal cavity porosity (Attachment VII), are consistent with the ECRB Cross-Drift transecting a dipping lithostratigraphic section (Figure 9-43). The lower lithophysal zone has not been divided into subzones, but the variations in features including the lithophysal cavity porosity are consistent with identification of 5 to 12 subzones (Figure 9-44). The lateral continuity of lithostratigraphic features and the projection of these features along the apparent dip in the ECRB Cross-Drift forms the principal component of creating a geologically informed calculation of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical plane. Identification of a 50-m tall, vertical line (section) perpendicular to the tunnel is the first step in creation of the 50×200-m cross section (Figure 9-44). Based on the apparent dip, the top and bottom of the vertical section can represent rocks from several hundred meters away from the centerline of the section. For example, with a 5° apparent dip, the equivalent rocks at the top and bottom of the vertical section are 286 m from the section (Figure 9-44). With an apparent dip of 4.6° (Figure 9-43), the projection for the top and bottom of vertical section is 311 m. This projection distance is consistent with the overall stratiform characteristics of the lithostratigraphic section. The second step in creation of a cross section is to divide the vertical section into a series of 5-m tall sections or horizons. The projection along the apparent dip of the 5-m horizons result in a series of “windows” along the tunnel, and the position and length of each window results from the apparent dip. For example, with a 5° apparent dip, the equivalent window for the top 5-m horizon is 57 m long (Figure 9-44). Each window contains unique variations in the number of measurements and the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity values (Table 9-9 and Figure 945). The third step in creation of a simulated cross section is to distribute the descriptive statistics of the lithophysal cavity porosity in each window in the associated 5-m tall horizon. The statistical variation in porosity in each horizon is represented by sampling the actual porosity values in the respective “window”. Two methods using standard Excel functions have been used for this distribution; one function is “Choose” where the values in each window are randomly selected, and the other approach uses the random number generator in the analysis tool. For example, the first three 5-m horizons (0-5, 5-10, and 10-15 windows) in Table 9-9 are depicted as Horizons “0”, “5”, and “10” and Y positions 1 to 15, respectively, in Table 9-10 and 9.4-3. Comparison of values in Table 9-9 and parts of Table 9-10 and 9.4-3 indicate the same values occur in all tables. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-53 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTE: The simulated cross section is at station 18+00 with an apparent dip of 5° for the stratiform features. Figure 9-44. Variation in Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Along the ECRB Cross-Drift and the Geometric Relations of Calculation Components Lili iili0 5 10 15 20 25 30 i (m) i3 3 ) indow indow indow indow indow indow indow indow indow indow Silithophysa Cavtiesn Smuated Secton 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 StatonPorosty (cm /cm 0-5 w 5-10 w 10-15 w 15-20 w 20-25 w 25-30 w 30-35 w 35-40 w 40-45 w 45-50 w muated secton Figure 9-45. Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in the Lower Lithophysal Zone of the ECRB Cross-Drift with the Centerline of the Simulated Cross Section at Station 17+56 (Apparent Dip of 4.6°, and 10 “Windows”) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-54 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-9. Windows Containing Unique Variations of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Values Station (m) Cavity “fitted” 0-5 Window 5-10 Window 10-15 Window 15-20 Window 1445 2.5 null null null null 1450 3.8 3.8 null null null 1455 4.7 4.7 null null null 1460 5.7 5.7 null null null 1465 7.6 7.6 null null null 1470 7.4 7.4 null null null 1475 8.2 8.2 null null null 1480 6.0 6.0 null null null 1485 7.9 7.9 null null null 1490 10.6 10.6 null null null 1495 14.4 14.4 null null null 1500 15.3 15.3 null null null 1505 19.4 19.4 null null null 1510 17.7 null 17.7 null null 1515 17.0 null 17.0 null null 1520 13.2 null 13.2 null null 1525 13.6 null 13.6 null null 1530 12.1 null 12.1 null null 1535 10.2 null 10.2 null null 1540 8.8 null 8.8 null null 1545 11.0 null 11.0 null null 1550 12.2 null 12.2 null null 1552.8 12.2 null 12.2 null null 1555 13.4 null 13.4 null null 1560 12.0 null 12.0 null null 1565 11.0 null 11.0 null null 1570 11.0 null null 11.0 null 1575 17.2 null null 17.2 null 1580 21.0 null null 21.0 null 1585 25.6 null null 25.6 null 1590 22.1 null null 22.1 null 1595 26.5 null null 26.5 null 1600 26.9 null null 26.9 null 1605 29.2 null null 29.2 null 1610 24.6 null null 24.6 null 1615 19.3 null null 19.3 null 1620 19.0 null null 19.0 null 1625 17.4 null null 17.4 null 1630 20.1 null null 20.1 null 1635 17.0 null null null 17.0 1640 18.8 null null null 18.8 NOTES: This table shows a portion of the lithophysal cavity porosity input data that are divided into windows representing 5-m tall horizons in the simulated cross section. The “Cavity (fitted)” column provides adjusted mapped lithophysal porosity values as described in Attachment VII (Section VII.5). Porosity values for each window are depicted in Figure 9-45. Data in the “Station (m)” and “Cavity (fitted)” columns are from Attachment VII (Section VII.6.6; see Attachment VIII, Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P Fit.xls, worksheet “Volume Percent Stats”, which can accessed through the TDMS using DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 or from the attached CD#1). These data are for a calculation with a centerline of the simulated cross section at station 17+56 and an apparent dip of 4.6°. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-55 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The fourth step in creation of a simulated vertical cross section is to project the 5-m horizons in the vertical section away from the vertical section to create the cross section. For a 200-m wide cross section, the projection away from the central vertical section is 100 m to either side. In this construct, the maximum “straight line” projection distance for an apparent dip of 4.6° and an along-the-tunnel projection of 311 m is only 327 m. This projection distance is consistent with the overall stratiform characteristics of the lithostratigraphic section. Figure 9-46 displays two simulations of a 50×200-m cross section using a 4.6° apparent dip, one for a center of the section at 1756 m and a second for a center at 2014 m. In these simulations, there is an overlap of 364 m along the tunnel and when projected to the vertical plane it represents an overlap of about 30 m of section (Figure 9-46). Each simulation is depicted with a 50×200 cell table representing a 1×1 m grid (sections A and C) and a 20×80 cell table representing a 2.2×2.5 m grid (sections B and D). All four sections in Figure 9-46 display similar stratiform relations. Descriptive statistics (from standard Excel functions) for the input data in the various windows (Table 9-12) with the selected statistics from 5-m tall horizons in the 50×200 cell and 20×80 cells indicate very good correlations. The descriptive statistics (from standard Excel functions) of the total Tptpll zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift is provided in Table 9-12 (first column of values). Descriptive statistics for the total windows in the ECRB Cross-Drift (input) data and the total 50×200 cell and 20×80 cell tables indicate very high correlations (Table 9-13). These correlations reinforce the technical soundness of this approach to project the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity from the cross section data to a vertical plane. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-56 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-10. Display of Part of the 50×200 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline Station 17+56 Table of porosity values (1x1 m grid) Horizon Cell Y\X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 7.6 4.7 19.4 7.6 8.2 8.2 10.6 7.6 7.9 3.8 0 2 6.0 7.4 8.2 19.4 7.9 10.6 14.4 7.9 15.3 7.9 0 3 6.0 15.3 15.3 7.9 7.4 6.0 4.7 3.8 15.3 7.6 0 4 10.6 10.6 10.6 7.9 3.8 3.8 19.4 7.9 7.6 7.6 0 5 8.2 15.3 7.9 10.6 5.7 8.2 7.4 6.0 7.9 7.6 5 6 13.2 11.0 17.7 11.0 17.7 10.2 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.2 5 7 11.0 12.1 12.2 10.2 12.2 8.8 12.2 11.0 12.2 12.0 5 8 12.2 13.6 12.0 12.2 11.0 8.8 12.1 12.2 11.0 12.0 5 9 17.7 13.6 10.2 17.0 10.2 17.0 8.8 11.0 12.2 10.2 5 10 12.2 12.2 12.1 11.0 12.2 10.2 13.4 12.2 13.2 17.7 10 11 26.5 26.9 22.1 25.6 19.0 21.0 17.2 26.9 17.2 26.9 10 12 11.0 26.5 24.6 26.9 19.0 29.2 19.0 21.0 17.2 19.0 10 13 24.6 17.4 26.9 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.3 29.2 25.6 17.4 10 14 17.4 26.5 17.2 17.2 24.6 21.0 26.9 26.5 20.1 26.9 10 15 22.1 17.2 19.0 17.4 26.9 26.9 21.0 11.0 17.2 21.0 15 16 18.8 16.5 13.6 20.5 20.5 22.9 21.4 20.6 16.5 20.6 15 17 16.8 15.5 22.9 20.5 16.5 17.0 13.6 19.1 13.6 17.0 15 18 20.6 19.3 15.5 17.0 17.0 19.3 20.6 19.1 16.8 17.0 15 19 20.5 13.6 23.4 16.8 23.4 16.8 20.6 22.9 15.5 20.5 15 20 23.4 21.4 19.3 15.5 16.8 21.4 20.5 17.0 21.4 17.0 20 21 10.7 15.5 13.0 15.5 11.0 15.3 15.3 15.3 12.8 15.3 20 22 13.0 14.5 17.3 11.0 11.7 13.0 17.3 14.5 10.6 10.6 20 23 15.5 15.3 11.7 15.3 14.2 14.5 10.6 14.5 10.6 11.0 20 24 15.3 14.5 15.5 13.0 15.5 15.3 11.7 14.5 13.0 10.7 20 25 10.7 10.6 11.0 15.5 11.0 14.5 15.3 11.0 15.3 14.5 25 26 16.9 24.5 17.3 20.1 18.1 15.5 20.1 18.1 13.8 13.8 25 27 18.1 25.6 14.5 17.3 18.1 20.1 21.1 17.3 14.5 14.5 25 28 17.3 15.5 18.8 18.1 17.3 21.1 17.3 18.8 17.3 18.1 25 29 20.1 20.1 18.1 24.5 18.8 21.1 18.1 13.8 18.1 21.1 25 30 18.1 18.1 15.5 18.1 13.8 18.1 14.5 24.5 18.1 21.1 30 31 12.7 13.5 8.5 12.7 13.5 8.5 8.5 12.7 11.6 10.0 30 32 8.1 11.8 10.8 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.9 7.8 8.1 8.5 30 33 9.7 12.7 9.7 9.7 10.8 10.0 11.8 13.9 9.7 11.6 30 34 13.5 10.0 11.8 13.6 13.6 7.8 13.6 13.9 11.6 11.8 30 35 7.8 10.0 10.8 13.6 10.0 8.5 13.6 7.8 10.8 8.5 35 36 12.3 19.1 21.3 12.3 17.8 12.3 13.9 15.2 5.7 21.3 35 37 15.2 5.7 12.3 16.6 13.9 12.3 14.4 5.7 16.6 17.8 35 38 19.1 5.7 5.7 19.1 11.6 15.2 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 35 39 21.3 13.9 12.3 19.1 12.3 13.9 17.8 16.6 18.0 15.2 35 40 15.2 13.9 9.8 19.1 15.2 17.8 16.6 9.8 16.6 16.6 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-57 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-10. Display of Part of the 50×200 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline Station 17+56 (Continued) Table of porosity values (1x1 m grid) Horizon Cell Y\X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 40 41 10.7 10.7 12.9 11.1 13.3 7.7 15.8 9.6 7.7 11.7 40 42 7.7 13.3 10.7 13.3 10.7 10.7 11.9 15.8 6.0 11.1 40 43 7.7 11.9 11.7 9.6 6.0 12.9 15.8 11.7 13.3 12.9 40 44 11.9 6.0 7.7 10.7 11.1 11.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 11.1 40 45 15.8 9.6 12.9 9.6 6.0 12.9 11.1 11.9 7.7 7.7 45 46 12.0 16.5 17.3 17.3 16.3 16.3 13.2 15.3 16.3 11.6 45 47 13.5 12.0 11.6 13.2 16.6 11.6 15.6 15.3 15.3 13.5 45 48 15.6 12.0 15.3 15.6 16.6 15.2 16.6 13.5 15.3 15.6 45 49 12.0 15.3 17.3 15.3 16.3 16.3 13.2 17.3 11.6 14.5 45 50 16.3 16.3 13.5 13.2 17.3 13.2 16.6 15.2 16.6 13.5 Descriptive Statistics Simulated "X" position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean 14.4 14.6 14.5 15.2 14.2 14.5 15.2 14.5 13.8 14.3 Standard Error 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 Median 13.5 13.9 13.2 15.4 13.9 14.2 14.5 14.2 13.7 13.6 Mode 6.0 15.3 15.5 19.1 11.0 8.2 12.2 14.5 12.2 7.6 Standard Deviation 5.0 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.2 5.5 4.1 5.0 Sample Variance 24.6 28.1 22.6 20.0 23.8 28.6 17.2 30.7 17.1 25.2 Kurtosis -0.4 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 Skewness 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 Range 20.5 22.2 21.2 19.3 23.1 25.4 22.2 25.4 19.9 23.1 Minimum 6.0 4.7 5.7 7.6 3.8 3.8 4.7 3.8 5.7 3.8 Maximum 26.5 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 29.2 26.9 29.2 25.6 26.9 Sum 720.3 731.0 726.9 758.6 711.3 723.6 758.2 727.1 689.7 715.6 Count 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.4 Explanation of symbols (percent lithophysal cavity porosity) <=5 <=10 <=15 <=20 <=25 >25 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-58 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-11. Display of Part of the 20×80 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline at Station 17+56 Table of porosity values (2.5x2.5 m grid) Horizon Cell Y\X 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 0 2.5 15.3 7.4 7.9 5.7 8.2 6.0 5.7 7.4 5.7 15.3 0 5.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 10.6 8.2 8.2 3.8 6.0 14.4 10.6 5 7.5 12.0 12.2 11.0 17.0 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.1 8.8 12.2 5 10.0 13.4 10.2 13.6 12.0 11.0 17.0 10.2 12.2 11.0 17.7 10 12.5 29.2 21.0 19.0 26.9 17.4 17.2 29.2 19.0 17.4 19.0 10 15.0 24.6 29.2 25.6 25.6 11.0 19.0 19.0 17.4 21.0 17.4 15 17.5 18.8 17.0 13.6 18.8 20.5 21.4 19.3 17.0 23.4 15.5 15 20.0 19.1 20.6 20.5 16.8 15.5 16.8 16.8 15.5 19.1 22.9 20 22.5 13.0 15.3 13.0 14.5 10.7 14.5 11.0 13.0 11.0 14.5 20 25.0 15.3 14.5 15.3 17.3 11.7 11.7 10.7 10.6 15.5 17.3 25 27.5 15.5 13.8 18.1 16.9 25.6 16.9 18.1 25.6 18.8 20.1 25 30.0 14.5 16.9 25.6 18.1 18.1 21.1 17.3 18.1 25.6 16.9 30 32.5 7.8 10.8 9.7 7.8 11.8 12.7 11.8 10.8 11.8 11.6 30 35.0 9.7 11.8 12.7 13.6 8.5 9.7 9.7 10.8 12.7 7.8 35 37.5 9.8 9.8 11.6 19.1 5.7 21.3 16.6 17.8 17.8 5.7 35 40.0 21.3 15.2 9.8 19.1 9.8 12.3 14.4 15.2 21.3 17.8 40 42.5 9.6 12.9 9.6 11.9 9.6 11.9 6.0 12.9 11.7 13.3 40 45.0 9.6 11.1 11.9 10.7 9.6 9.6 10.7 6.0 11.1 11.9 45 47.5 14.5 17.3 15.2 17.3 15.3 13.5 16.6 15.6 16.6 15.2 45 50.0 15.3 16.6 14.5 16.5 12.0 16.5 15.6 13.2 16.5 16.6 Descriptive Statistics Simulated "X" position 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 Mean 14.8 14.6 14.3 15.8 12.6 14.4 13.6 13.8 15.6 15.0 Standard Error 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 Median 14.5 14.1 13.3 16.9 11.4 14.0 13.1 13.1 16.0 15.4 Mode 14.5 #N/A #N/A 19.1 8.2 #N/A 10.2 10.8 #N/A #N/A Standard Deviation 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.5 5.9 4.8 5.1 4.2 Sample Variance 31.8 25.9 26.6 27.3 23.3 20.5 34.3 22.7 26.4 17.3 Kurtosis 1.0 2.3 0.5 0.4 1.5 -0.9 1.3 0.7 -0.5 0.3 Skewness 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 -0.5 Range 21.8 21.8 17.8 21.2 19.9 15.4 25.4 19.6 20.0 17.2 Minimum 7.4 7.4 7.9 5.7 5.7 6.0 3.8 6.0 5.7 5.7 Maximum 29.2 29.2 25.6 26.9 25.6 21.4 29.2 25.6 25.6 22.9 Sum 295.8 291.7 286.4 316.3 252.4 287.7 272.6 276.5 311.4 299.5 Count 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Confidence Level (95.0%) 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 Explanation of symbols (percent lithophysal cavity porosity) <=5 <=10 <=15 <=20 <=25 >25 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-59 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report IISECTON A or B at STATION 17+ 56 SECTON C or D at STATION 20+ 14 NOTES: Cross section A is a 50x200 cell table representing a 1x1 m grid, and cross section B is a 20x80 cell table representing a 2.2x2.5 m grid for the simulated section at 17+56. Cross section C is a 50x200 cell table representing a 1x1 m grid, and cross section D is a 20x80 cell table representing a 2.2x2.5 m grid for the simulated section at Station 20+14. Figure 9-46. Two 50×200-m Simulated Cross Sections of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity at Stations 17+56 and 20+14 (Apparent dip of 4.6°) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-60 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-12. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Tptpll Zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift, Individual Windows from the Input Data, and Selective Statistics for 5-m Tall Horizons in a 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with 1×1-m and 2.5×2.5-m Grids Descriptive Statistics (for Total Input and Windows) StatisticTotal ECRB Cross-Drift Data0-5 Window 0-51x1 Grid0-52.5x2.5 Grid5-10 Window 5-101x1 Grid5-102.5x2.5 Grid10-15 Window 10-151x1 Grid10-152.5x2.5 Grid15-20 Window 15-201x1 Grid15-202.5x2.5 Grid20-25 Window 20-251x1 Grid20-252.5x2.5 Grid Mean 12.9 9.2 9.1 9.3 12.6 12.6 12.3 21.5 21.2 22.4 18.6 18.6 18.3 13.5 13.6 13.6 Standard Error 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 Median 12.7 7.7 — — 12.2 — — 21.0 — — 18.8 — — 13.6 — — Mode 17.0 #N/A — — 12.2 — — #N/A — — 17.0 — — 13.0 — — Standard Deviation 5.4 4.8 4.6 4.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 5.0 4.7 4.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 Sample Variance 29.6 22.7 21.1 21.9 6.2 5.5 5.9 24.8 22.2 20.8 7.7 7.0 7.0 4.2 3.9 3.8 Kurtosis -0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 -0.6 -0.8 Skewness 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Range 26.7 15.5 — — 8.9 — — 18.2 — — 9.8 — — 6.7 — — Minimum 2.5 3.8 — — 8.8 — — 11.0 — — 13.6 — — 10.6 — — Maximum 29.2 19.4 — — 17.7 — — 29.2 — — 23.4 — — 17.3 — — Sum 2352.1 110.9 — — 164.4 — — 279.9 — — 279.2 — — 189.5 — — Count 183 12 — — 13 — — 13 — — 15 — — 14 — — Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.8 2.7 — — 1.3 — — 2.7 — — 1.4 — — 1.1 — — (NOTE: Table continued on next page) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-61 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-12 (continued). Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Tptpll Zone in the ECRB Cross- Drift, Individual Windows from the Input Data, and Selective Statistics for 5-m Tall Horizons in a 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with 1×1-m and 2.5×2.5-m Grids Descriptive Statistics (for Total Input and Windows) StatisticTotal ECRBCross-Drift Data25-30 Window 25-301x1 Grid25-302.5x2.5 Grid30-35 Window 30-351x1 Grid30-352.5x2.5 Grid35-40 Window 35-401x1 Grid35-402.5x2.5 Grid40-45 Window 40-451x1 Grid40-452.5x2.5 Grid45-50 Window 45-501x1 Grid45-402.5x2.5 Grid Mean 12.9 18.5 18.6 18.2 11.1 11.0 11.0 14.6 14.6 14.6 11.0 11.0 10.8 14.8 14.9 14.6 Standard Error 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Median 12.7 18.1 — — 11.6 — — 14.8 — — 11.4 — — 15.3 — — Mode 17.0 18.1 — — 11.8 — — #N/A — — #N/A — — #N/A — — Standard Deviation 5.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 4.4 4.1 4.6 2.6 2.4 2.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 Sample Variance 29.6 11.6 10.8 10.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 19.0 17.2 20.8 6.7 5.9 7.5 3.2 2.9 3.3 Kurtosis -0.2 0.5 — — -1.2 — — 0.2 — — 0.6 — — -0.6 — — Skewness 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 Range 26.7 11.9 — — 6.1 — — 15.6 — — 9.8 — — 5.7 — — Minimum 2.5 13.8 — — 7.8 — — 5.7 — — 6.0 — — 11.6 — — Maximum 29.2 25.6 — — 13.9 — — 21.3 — — 15.8 — — 17.3 — — Sum 2352.1 259.4 — — 143.8 — — 175.8 — — 132.3 — — 192.9 — — Count 183 14 — — 13 — — 12 — — 12 — — 13 — — Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.8 1.8 — — 1.1 — — 2.5 — — 1.5 — — 1.0 — — 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-62 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 9-13. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Windows from ECRB Cross-Drift (Input) Data and the Total 50×200-m Simulated Cross Section with 1×1-m and 2.5×2.5-m Grids Descriptive Statistics for Total Windows Statistic ECRB Cross-Drift Data 1x1 Grid 2.5x2.5 Grid Statistic ECRB Cross-Drift Data 1x1 Grid 2.5x2.5 Grid Mean 14.7 14.5 14.5 Skewness 0.4 0.4 0.4 Standard Error 0.4 0.0 0.1 Range 25.4 25.4 25.4 Median 14.4 13.9 13.9 Minimum 3.8 3.8 3.8 Mode 17.0 11.6 11.6 Maximum 29.2 29.2 29.2 Standard Deviation 4.9 4.9 5.1 Sum 1928.1 145404.3 23193.6 Sample Variance 24.0 24.0 25.5 Count 131.0 10000 1600 Kurtosis 0.2 0.2 0.2 Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.8 0.10 0.25 9.4.7 Limitations Of The Calculation The calculations of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity from the ECRB Cross-Drift to a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the tunnel is based on sound geologic and geometric relations; however, there are a few limitations to the results: 1. The calculations exemplified in this simulation are based on the consideration that the ECRB Cross-Drift is horizontal. The gradient of the tunnel is 1.5 percent (0.86°) from 07+73 to 16+02 and is 0.9 percent (0.52°) from 16+02 to 24+67 (Mongano et al. 1999, pp. 3 and 6). So, although these inclinations are small, they can be factored into the apparent dip of the lithostratigraphic units and features to enhance the geologic and construction conditions. 2. Using a constant apparent dip of 4.6° from the strike and dip of 270/07 for the top contact of the lower lithophysal zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1) and the total intercept of the lower lithophysal zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift (from 14+44 to 23+26), the calculated thickness of the lower lithophysal zone is only 71 m. This calculated thickness is less than what is calculated and depicted by a variety of other methods, so the apparent dip of 4.6° is probably too shallow; therefore, the number and the distribution of values in each window along the tunnel might be over represented. 3. The simulated cross section is constructed perpendicular to the tunnel; however, it does not include the apparent dip in the plane of the cross section. For example, using the features and data depicted in Figure 9-43, the apparent dip in the cross section is 5.3° to the northwest. Because the values in each cell in the 50×200 and 20×80 cell tables are independently and randomly allocated, locally there are a few geologically inconsistent results. While this allocation technique results in very high correlations of the descriptive statistics between the input data and resulting cross-section horizons, it is possible that locally, the minimum and maximum values in a window or in adjacent windows can be in adjacent cells. This extreme change in lithophysal cavity porosity has not been observed in the ECRB Cross-Drift as shown 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-63 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report by the gradual increase or decrease in values (although sharp changes can occur across distances of 5 to 10 m; Figure 9-44). One result of this random allocation of values and the potential juxtaposition of large and small (or mostly values of one end of the distribution or another) is the variation in descriptive statistics in vertical sections (X positions; Table 9-10 and 9.4-3). The affect of this juxtaposition of minimum and maximum values is probably greater in the 20×80- cell table that represents a 2.5×2.5-m grid than in the 50×200-cell table that represents a 1×1-m grid. One way to minimize this affect is to filter the values in the tables and remove (or change) one or both of the juxtaposed values. Development of such a filter needs to focus on diminishing the anomalies, but maintaining the statistical integrity of the resultant calculated values. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-64 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10. DATA APPRAISAL 10.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report was collecting and analyzing data for their use in thermomechanical analysis of rock and design of the repository. The data originates from many sources, such as laboratory testing, field testing, field observations, and numerical modeling. The analysis and design process involves the use of these data for many different calculations and analyses performed by different data users. Often a single user or product requires the use of a number of rock parameters in a variety of combinations. A rock parameter summary of data seldom results in defining a singular value that represents a particular parameter. Most frequently, assigning a value for a parameter requires defining a bounded range or distribution that a parameter may assume. Under certain circumstances, the use of a particular distribution or a range with upper and lower bounds may result in a design application being acceptable or deficient. By defining a parameter range or distribution that incorporates uncertainty, the user becomes aware of the imprecision inherent in the data. The resulting uncertainty associated with each rock parameter can also be manifest as part of the measure of design reliability or uncertainty associated with derived parameters. The analyst or designer also needs to know how each parameter summary has been determined, and how particular rock conditions (e.g., temperature, saturation, or porosity) will affect a parameter range or distribution. Ultimately, two questions must be answered that are related to the project evaluation of data adequacy: are the parameter summaries proposed based on solid premises, and are the parameter summaries adequate for each application and product in which they will be used. The evaluation of each of the subsurface geotechnical parameters for their adequacy in LA products involves a number of issues. In this section an attempt is made to discuss approaches for uncertainty as it relates to the geotechnical data, spatial variation of parameters, and the conditions under which the data can be declared adequate. 10.2 METHODOLOGY OF CHARACTERIZING UNCERTAINTY AND SPATIAL VARIATION Uncertainty in technical data parameters arises from measurement error, limited data, spatial variability or imperfect knowledge. For parameters that are based on data that are measured directly, and at the appropriate scale, the uncertainty treatment could include discussions of random and systematic measurement errors, accuracy, precision, statistical representativeness and related issues. Parameters with extensive datasets will have uncertainty distributions that are largely statistically defined. On the other hand, for cases of limited field or laboratory datasets, the uncertainty distribution will be based more heavily on experience and judgment, commensurate to the known extent of knowledge concerning the parameter. Due to limited data, unique geology, and the complexity of rock behavior, the characterization of rock parameter uncertainty normally requires professional judgment to quantify a measure of belief in rock parameter distributions and ranges. Both approaches must complement each other: statistical approaches apply best to uncertainties in data and degree-of-belief (judgment) to uncertainties in knowledge. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Derived or developed rock parameters use some analytical or interpretive process to arrive at their final determined values. This process may involve conceptual models, calculation using other parameters, and scaling to appropriate dimensions. Each of these methods of approaching the problem has an associated signature of uncertainty that needs to be characterized and propagated through the development of the parameter. Previous to the current effort, and as part of the Total System Performance Assessment, DOE and NRC developed five Total System Performance Assessment and Integration (TSPAI) KTI agreements, which in part, related to parameter uncertainty (NRC 2002, Appendix A, pp. A-34 and A-35; TSPAI 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 4.01). These agreements were concerned with the development, implementation and documentation of written guidance to provide for a systematic approach to developing and documenting model parameter uncertainty and related concerns. Subsequently, the following documents have been issued from the DOE and the TSPA organization dealing with these matters: Uncertainty Analyses and Strategy [Williams 2001b, 157389], Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application [BSC 2002j, 158794], Total System Performance Assessment – License Application Methods and Approach [BSC 2002l, 160146], and the Scientific Processes Guidelines Manual, Appendix A [BSC 2002k, 160313]. The above reports are relevant yet were not directly concerned with characterizing the uncertainty and variability of acquired geotechnical parameters. As a result, additional guidance will be prepared in an Uncertainty Analysis Guide, based on the above previously agreed upon uncertainty terminology and approaches, to describe the uncertainties associated with gathering data from the field and laboratory. In particular, an approach of determining uncertainty will be outlined to balance mathematical probability and statistics with projessional judgment. A major objective of developing the new written guidance is to ensure a repeatable and complete, yet simplified characterization of the uncertainties in data parameters. An example of how each of the geotechnical rock parameters will be finally summarized in the TDMS system is illustrated in Figure 10-1. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report PARAMETER SUMMARY SHEET DTN: Parameter: Lithostratigraphic Unit: Test Conditions: User/Product: Data Origin: UncertaintyEffort to Reduce Uncertainty LA Adequacy* High Med Low High Med Low F_Adq S_Adq N_Adq Laboratory Field Measurements Field Observations Computer Modeling Other Parameter Distribution Figure/Plot Parameter: Unit: Parameter Values: Min: Avg: Max: Avg-2_SD Avg-1_SD Avg+1_SD Avg+2_SD Co n fin e d C o m p r ess iv e Str e n g th 5 0.8 m m Sp e cim e n s , Dr y , Ro o m T e m p e r at u r e , L :D=2 :1, St r a in Rat e = 10-5s-1 Sigma 1 (MPa) 35 0 30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 10 0 50 0 Source DTNs: 02 4681 01 2 ) M il Sig m a 3 (M Paddle Non-Lithophy s aExample Remarks: (*) LA Adequacy Ranking: F_Adq - Fully Adequate S_Adq - Somewhat Adequate N_Adq - Not Adequate Reviewed and Approved by: Organization Name (Print) Signature Date BSC - 1 BSC - 2 …………..- 1 …………..- 2 Figure 10-1. Example of Parameter Summary Sheet 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10.2.1 Modeling Choices Affecting the Uncertainty of Spatial Variation Spatial variation of the subsurface rock parameters occurs largely as a result of the natural variation of geology. As such, it is fundamentally random or aleatoric uncertainty since the variability of the parameter population is dependent upon chance occurrences of geologic processes and features such as lithophysae. However, the current knowledge of site-specific geology from limited measurements and from the physical rock behavior in terms of field or laboratory testing might not be sufficient to accurately bracket the aleatoric uncertainty. Accordingly, there is a judgment aspect of the total spatial uncertainty that varies according to the dimensions of the rock unit chosen to be modeled and other available knowledge. Consequently, the current scientific activities of fracture characterization, lithophysae characterization and laboratory testing will lead to better characterization of the aleatoric uncertainty. The first level at which spatial variation is addressed is in the choice of rock formation or lithostratigraphic zone or subzone chosen by the designer or analyst for modeling purposes. Every rock unit currently modeled by mechanical and thermal modelers is assumed to be isotropic (no directional variation of property from a point) and homogeneous (no spatial variation vertically or horizontally within the rock unit). For the isotropic and homogeneous rock parameter, aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty is used in developing the probabilistic distribution for the rock parameter. For example, if the rock parameter exhibits known anisotropic behavior or is known to vary horizontally or vertically at some scale by applying a variogram or other approach, then the magnitude of this effect is incorporated into the spatial uncertainty part of the parameter distribution. The modeler may be able to reduce uncertainties by choosing to model a more “refined” geologic zone (e.g. the choice to model lithostratigraphic zones or subzones instead of an entire geologic formation) or in excluding an unrepresentative area. Obviously, with such a modeling change the degree of heterogeneity will be reduced, which should result in a decrease of spatial uncertainty. For example, this is the case when the intensely fractured zone of the ESF is excluded in characterizing fractures of the Tptpmn unit. If and when more “coarse” geologic units are modeled, it is the responsibility of the modeler to aggregate properly the uncertainties involved with combining the lithostratigraphic zones. 10.2.2 Geostatistical Modeling of Spatial Variability Using Porosity as a Surrogate The philosophy and general approach of using porosity as part of a geostatistical method to characterize spatial heterogeneity and uncertainty of other rock parameters is discussed in the Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002c). Key parts of this report that summarize the approach are given below (see BSC 2002c, Sections 5.1 and 6.3). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Modeling Approach. A fundamental principle involved in the numerical representation of real- world physical processes is that the relevant material properties of the modeled domain must be known at all positions within that domain. However, in contrast to this requirement for an “exhaustive” spatial description, the process of describing or characterizing a site invariably consists of collecting observations of properties or state variables at a limited number of locations, the exact positions of which are frequently determined by less-than-optimal external factors. This is particularly true for the 3-D characterization of a geologic site, such as Yucca Mountain. Because descriptive characterization is limited both by access (particularly to the subsurface) and by the availability of resources, that description is necessarily incomplete. Therefore, the exhaustive description of a geologic site for purposes of numerical modeling requires the prior assumption of some type of conceptual model for the site, which is then implemented to assign the necessary properties and other variables at every relevant point in space. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1) A more realistic conceptual model of rock than the isotropic, homogeneous model is one that makes use of the known vertical and lateral heterogeneity within geologic layers. Knowledge of property values at one location imposes limits on the values of those properties likely to exist at “nearby” locations. Therefore, an alternative conceptual model of “filling-in” a geologic framework with values randomly assigned from some inferred univariate distribution without regard for other nearby values (spatial correlation) is an unnecessary oversimplification (and potentially an unwarranted distortion) of the real world. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.1) Heterogeneity versus Uncertainty. In contrast to heterogeneity, which is an objective feature of the real world, uncertainty is a knowledge-based concept. Distinguishing properly between uncertainty (as a state of imperfect information resulting from less-than-complete observation and scientific judgment) and spatial heterogeneity (as a state of being, unaffected by the availability or lack of information) becomes critically important in the application of predictive engineering methods to the geologic environment. Incomplete information must be accounted for in predictive modeling, as must the effects of material properties that are different in different locations. A key attribute, therefore, of the rock properties modeling activities, has been the description and quantification of the effects of geologic uncertainty on the physical description of the Yucca Mountain site. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.2) Geostatistical Methods. Geostatistical methods in general are one of a variety of methods for distributing isolated measurements of different attributes in space, and thus for modeling spatial heterogeneity. A fundamental principle underlying all geostatistical techniques is the quantification and use of some measure of spatial correlation, which may be defined informally as the degree to which samples “close” to one another resemble each other more than do samples “far” away from each other, where “close” and “far” are defined from the data values. These measures of spatial correlation are usually assumed to be statistically homogeneous properties of the rock unit modeled, and are used in addition to any geologic heterogeneous trends discovered in the measured data. Furthermore, unlike many other methods for predicting the material property attributes of a large volume of material from direct observation of a relatively minuscule fraction of that volume, geostatistical methods offer a quantitative and more-or-less rigorous approach to the issues of knowledge-based uncertainty discussed above. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Within the purview of geostatistical methods are two broad classes of algorithms for predicting attributes at unsampled locations constrained by some limited set of actual measurements: estimation and simulation. Geostatistical estimation is focused on the prediction of the attribute values most likely to be encountered at a given spatial position, and may be thought of as modeling the expected value of a variable of interest. Geostatistical estimation is most frequently described using the term, kriging, and it is simply a weighted-average interpolation method using some neighborhood of near-by relevant data. A common thread connecting all estimation methodologies (including non- geostatistical ones) is that they are interpolation techniques directed toward producing a model in which the estimated values grade progressively and generally smoothly away from the data locations and away from one another. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.3) The other broad class of geostatistical methods comprises a variety of simulation algorithms. In contrast with estimation, geostatistical simulation places principal emphasis on reproducing the input data values and the overall statistical character (including the spatial correlation characteristics) exhibited by the data ensemble, the total collection of input values. Models produced by geostatistical simulation typically do not grade smoothly between measured data values, but rather are more highly variable at the same time that they represent the broad heterogeneity structure of the measurements. These techniques are conceptually equivalent to the Monte Carlo simulation process frequently employed in engineering analyses. In common with other Monte Carlo simulation approaches, the emphasis is less on the specific predicted values, which are in effect simply the products of a random number generator with certain “desirable” properties, and much more on evaluation of the space of uncertainty associated with some performance measure computed to represent the behavior of the modeled system. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.3) For the project geostatistical approach, selected major lithostratigraphic horizons are used as the constraining (framework) boundaries for a statistically based description of the measured rock material properties that have been sampled within those boundaries. First, the individual measured values of a material property are combined with the overall statistical character of the complete data set (the data ensemble) and with the spatial correlation patterns exhibited by the data to produce replicate “exhaustive” models showing the distribution of that material property in space. Each replicate model reproduces the measured data at the data locations, and the overall variability of all the values in the model reproduces the histogram of the measurements. Additionally, the spatial correlation structure of the model, evaluated as a whole, approximates the spatial correlation among the input measurements. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.4) Porosity-as-a-Surrogate. The rock property model approach involves the use of “porosity-as-a- surrogate” for modeling the spatial variability of other, “secondary” material properties that are typically of greater interest in performance modeling than porosity itself, but which are almost universally undersampled at Yucca Mountain. This concept of using the more abundant porosity data as a surrogate for other properties is not a new YMP approach. Some rock parameters that have been proposed for use with the “porosity as a surrogate” approach include rock mass hydraulic conductivity, Young’s modulus and compressive strength. (BSC 2002c, Section 5.1) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Using porosity as a surrogate for various other parameters is supported by consideration of the physics involved in the site-specific rock units being modeled. For example, for a given rock type, increasing the volume of pore space must decrease the bulk density of the rock mass. The part of the rock that “isn’t there” is available to hold fluids, but it contributes nothing to the total mass contained within a unit volume: the definition of bulk density. Again for a given rock type, the conduction of heat energy through the material is directly related to the density (or, inversely to the pore space) of the material. All else being equal, a higher porosity–lower density tuff will conduct heat less readily, leading to a lower thermal conductivity value. Note here that it is the total amount of void space in a rock that affects thermal conductivity, not simply the amount of pore space that is conducting water within the unsaturated zone. This fact has important implications to modeling of whole-rock thermal conductivity in the presence of large-diameter (up to 1 meter) lithophysal cavities. (BSC 2002c, Section 5.1) The concept of porosity as a surrogate is based on empirically observed correlations of porosity with undersampled secondary properties. A consequence of undersampling is that the spatial variability of the undersampled variable cannot be described confidently on a stand-alone basis, let alone the joint spatial continuity patterns of the two (or more) variables cannot be reproduced simultaneously. It is important to understand that modeling the spatial distribution of several material properties without considering the inter-variable correlations can lead to highly unrealistic input to physical-process modeling codes, which in turn can lead to highly unreasonable estimates of performance parameters. Simply sampling randomly from separate (univariate) probability density functions may easily produce such un-physical combinations as a low porosity–high thermal conductivity–high hydraulic conductivity tuff. The severity of neglecting cross-variable correlations in modeling spatially variable domains increases as physical-process modeling attempts to capture multiple coupled processes. (BSC 2002c, Section 5.1) 10.3 ENGINEERING ADEQUACY OF YMP DATA 10.3.1 General The long-term site characterization activities designed to provide the evidence needed to assess the Yucca Mountain Site suitability for housing the future nuclear waste repository reached the important milestone. The rock property data gathered during the past are being assessed for their adequacy in the process of applying for the license to design and construct the repository. The data are assessed from the perspective of the underground design engineer, considering rock property data needs within the timeframe encompassing LA and post–LA design stages. The role of design engineer of subsurface facilities at Yucca Mountain is to develop a design that is safe to construct and will fulfill its functional requirements over the required time period. The design must encompass three phases associated with the facility development, namely: 1) construction phase, 2) the repository operation phase until closure of the facility, and 3) phase extending through the postclosure time period. The result of this Report is to provide the designer with rock parameters and sources of information needed to accomplish not only the basic design task but to assist in making a reasonable prediction of the future performance of this underground facility. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In the following parts of this section, data variability and data adequacy are addressed considering the need of the design engineer. A discussion is presented that summarizes salient aspects of lithostratigraphic rock unit sampling and testing. Where appropriate, limitations encountered in the data acquisition process are discussed, and methods for the subsequent data enhancement are presented. 10.3.2 Terminology Scientific adequacy is related to using the data in the process of developing a sufficiently detailed understanding of natural phenomena along with satisfactory characterization of the associated behaviors. The data gathering process is conducted utilizing certain rules and procedures that allow for the separation of other factors that may affect the quality, representativeness, and validity of data. Assisting in this process is the availability of standards that prescribe in detail methods of sample/specimen preparation, testing conditions, form of data reporting and methods of data interpretation. Adherence to standards provides the basis for communication among those involved in testing similar materials. It sets the basis for comparing results for similar conditions. These tasks of testing can be simplified if the material studied is uniform in its physical properties (e.g.. density and mineralogical composition) and testing conditions involve a simple testing procedure (e.g. uniaxial compressive loading condition). Common questions related to testing are, for example: (1) how many specimens must be tested to obtain a representative range of the parameter value, (2) what consequences might be expected if the test condition(s) are changed or modified, (3) will the test results be different if specimens are tested at dimensions other than those actually tested, and (4) if the testing procedure is not followed in its entirety, are the test results still useable? These, and a range of similar questions are commonly asked because the person examining/auditing the data wants to develop an opinion, not only about the quality of data itself but, also of the many other issues seemingly unrelated to the process of data acquisition. This interrogative process has a common agenda, namely, the results should allow a person not involved in the original data acquisition and processing to understand how the specimens were acquired, what testing conditions were used, if the data interpretation followed the established guidelines, and as a consequence, whether the results from test(s) can be used within a range of conditions or bounds replicated in the test. The process often also involves undocumented comparisons, where using personal experience as a supplement, one makes an attempt to “benchmark” the data obtained from the current tests against other data obtained elsewhere for a material displaying similar characteristics. The net result is the development of a certain level of confidence needed to apply the data for specific purposes. The acquired and developed data presented in the Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report of March 1997 (CRWMS M&O 1997d), and the new data summarized in this report reflect both the enhancement to the previously available data as well as an evolution of the YM Project understanding of the importance of data in supporting various design and performance confirmation activities. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10.3.3 Scientific and Engineering Adequacy Scientific adequacy is related to the scientific task of sufficiently understanding natural phenomena along with satisfactory characterization of the associated behaviors. On the other hand, engineers design and build projects using whatever information is available, whether the data are considered scientifically adequate or not. Thus, engineering adequacy is concerned with gathering the available relevant data and then supplementing it with sufficient knowledge and judgment to safely build the project at hand. Both types of adequacy are intricately tied to uncertainty. Science has been traditionally dominated by statistically defined uncertainties, and engineering by degree-of-belief uncertainties that are usually estimated as a first approximation by applying a suitable factor of safety. As a result, statements of adequacy for either scientific or engineering purposes cannot be considered complete until the significant uncertainties are identified and quantified. Since the scope of this report is limited to engineering purposes, only adequacy in the engineering sense will be discussed. Also, as has been discussed earlier in this Report, uncertainty treatments for many of the geotechnical parameters have not been finalized. As a result, the following discussion should be understood as a preliminary approach to define uncertainty and engineering adequacy. It represents the current best engineering judgment for LA needs. 10.3.4 Rock Property Data Sampling – A Perspective Although site characterization activities date back more than two decades, for a number of years it was assumed that those activities would be successful if sufficient information were obtained for the mid-tertiary volcanic rocks at the Yucca Mountain site represented by the sequence of major thermal-mechanical units. Rocks of the Paintbrush Group were represented as seven thermal-mechanical units (Ortiz, et. al 1985): 1) Undifferentiated overburden (UO), 2) Tiva Canyon welded unit (TCw), 3) Upper Paintbrush nonwelded unit (PTn), 4) Topopah Spring welded unit, lithophysae-rich (TSw1), 5) Topopah Spring welded unit, lithophysae-poor (TSw2), 6) Topopah Spring welded unit, vitrophyre (TSw3), 7) Calico Hills and Lower Paintbrush nonwelded unit (CHn). The construction of the ESF Main Loop tunnel and subsequent excavation of the ECRB tunnel provided a direct access to the most important lithostratigraphic rock units. The detailed tunnel mapping, field observations and in situ measurements performed in both tunnels during construction provided evidence that the TSw2 unit targeted for locating nuclear waste emplacement drifts in the future repository required more detailed characterization. This new realization required more detailed testing to be performed on four distinct zones within TSw2. Counted from the top these zones are identified as: 1) upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul, 2) middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), 3) lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll), and 4) lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10.3.5 Rock Coring and Limitations of Applicability A large part of this Report reflects the realization that much more detailed data are required in order to model and characterize behavior of several lithostratigraphic zones (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln) within the proposed repository horizon, that, previously were treated as mostly one large and thermomechanically uniform unit (TSw2 with a small part of TSw1, see Table 5-1). New 2002 rock sampling exploratory activities were directed at obtaining a sufficient number of larger diameter lithophysal rock samples that would be considered more representative of the larger intact rock behavior of lithophysal rock, and fracture samples of nonlithophysal rock to characterize mechanical fracture properties. A typical process of rock characterization begins with obtaining a minimal number of rock samples with a distribution and quantity allowing an engineer to produce a rough picture of the rock behavior and properties. Subsequently, the picture is filled in more completely by additional sampling and testing according to engineering judgment. These specimens, tested within a range of pre-defined conditions, would yield information needed to characterize the modeled lithostratigraphic rock units. The sampling process usually represents a simple task of selecting sections of diamond-drilled sections of core obtained from the exploratory drillings. The associated geological core log allows for making this selection within the zone of interest. This process is routinely completed without major problems, provided core has been obtained from the lithostratigraphic layer of interest. The diameter of a typical core falls in the range of 2 in. to 4 in. Among the four repository horizon lithostratigraphic zones (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln), different structural features characterize the two nonlithophysal and two lithophysal zones (see Section 5.3.3). The nonlithophysal rock mass is composed of a relatively strong welded tuff containing sets of discontinuities. The discontinuities are identified within the nonlithophysal zone by mapping, and are characterized by their own set of parameters. It is the abundance and geometry of these discontinuities that significantly influence the overall performance of the nonlithophysal rock zones. In contrast, the behavior of the lithophysal rock zones is considered to be most strongly influenced by the presence, shape, dimensions and distribution of the lithophysal voids existing within the rock mass. The coring of nonlithophysal rock zones typically resulted in abundant cores of intact rock that were easily tested in the laboratory. On the other hand, coring in lithophysal rock zones was a much more difficult process. The lithophysae encountered during drilling, having dimensions of centimeters or larger, typically caused a total loss of a core when using 5 cm (2-in) barrels and resulted in essentially no cores containing representative lithophysae. Recent coring of larger diameter boreholes up to 30 cm (12-in) has resulted in limited core recovery, including some lithophysae. However, the remaining rock core within the drill barrel was often disturbed and fractured such that only a small number of intact rock cores were obtained for testing. This core loss within the lithophysal zones represents only one aspect of rock characterization. Another related issue concerns locating the retrieved core sections within the lithostratigraphic rock unit. Initially, the core logging procedure implemented at the time of core retrieval, did not consider lithophysal voids as important elements of site characterization. As a consequence, a 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report section of the core missing due to the presence of lithophysae was reported as zero recovery in the original core log. It was only later realized that this fact constitutes a valuable piece of information helpful in better characterizing the lithophysal zones of the TSw2. The common core logging procedure concentrates on characterizing the rock sample retrieved from the borehole. In the context of the void-containing strata, it is the void size and distribution that becomes the major characterizing parameter. A small-diameter rock sample is not capable of containing larger lithophysae and, thus, the recovered intact rock cores do not provide representative information about the lithophysal rock unit as a whole. Consequently, the solid rock material retrieved and tested from the lithophysal zones provides important but an incomplete basis for rock mass characterization. The solid portion of the rock is referred to as rock matrix and matrix properties are important in the overall task of characterizing the performance of the void-containing lithostratigraphic rock unit. To obtain more representative lithophysal rock samples, a large core sampling technique was applied, as mentioned above, in which a number of 30 cm (12 in.) diameter boreholes were drilled in the ESF and ECRB tunnels. The results of drilling proved that even 30 cm diameter boreholes were too small to obtain a representative lithophysae-containing rock volume suitable for test specimen preparation and testing. In particular, the presence of voids within a tested sample made it difficult to conduct a basic uniaxial compressive strength test according to test standards. The non-standard result was caused by stress redistribution around lithophysal cavities and within the specimen, which produced stress conditions in the rock sample that were not uniaxial, making the test results difficult to interpret. Furthermore, understanding the development of fractures within the void-containing specimen during testing becomes an important issue. 10.3.6 Reducing Uncertainty and Establishing Adequacy for Mechanical Parameters of Lithophysal Rock From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that the uniqueness of lithophysal rock poses formidable challenges to obtaining data directly by the process of testing larger rock specimens. Sampling logistics are difficult to manage and applicable testing standards are inadequate when dealing with lithophysal rock. As a result of this and of having no available laboratory tests of rock containing lithophysae, at the time, the uncertainty associated with mechanical lithophysal rock parameters was high. The project recognized this fact and Board 2003 outlined a general approach (summarized in Section 7 of this report) to reduce this uncertainty. On the other hand, field observations provide evidence about rock performance under ambient and elevated temperature conditions. This, coupled with new laboratory testing, field testing and numerical testing of lithophysal rock has reduced the uncertainty associated with lithophysal rock parameters. As the assessment of uncertainty is a required part of assessment of data adequacy, there is a clear need to assess uncertainty based on all the available sources of information. Since the rock parameters are used as inputs to rockfall and ground support design, scoping analyses can be utilized to determine whether the current level of uncertainty of a given rock parameter is adequate. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The approach to reduce uncertainty in order to obtain adequate lithophysal rock data for LA has been largely successful. The methodology targeted obtaining missing pieces of rock property characterization information prior to developing a more routine method of quantifying data uncertainty or establishing a basis for declaring data as adequate. In defining this methodology, a path was established based on performing a limited number of laboratory tests on lithophysal rock samples. Numerical modeling techniques could then be used to extrapolate the intact rock characteristics into the rock mass characteristics associated with the volume, geometry and distribution of lithophysae. Over the last two years, substantial progress was made in the area of testing lithophysal rock in the laboratory and field, and employing numerical techniques to focus investigative efforts on analyzing these rock characteristics. The major steps applied using this approach are summarized as follows: • Obtain an applicable summary of rock property data based on laboratory tests performed on small (1-4 inch-size) specimens. For Young’s modulus data see Figures 8-11 and 812, and for unconfined compressive strength see Figure 8-22. • Supplement this initial, relatively well-documented rock property database with the results obtained from the laboratory tests on large core specimens containing some lithophysae. For Young’s modulus data see Figure 8-13 and for unconfined compressive strength see Figure 8-24. • Utilizing the Particle Flow Code (PFC), develop a numerical model of lithophysal rock capable of reproducing general lithophysal rock behavior. This modeling includes testing numerical specimens sufficiently large to simulate behavior of small portions of the rock mass equivalent to large-scale specimens (1 m x 1 m x 1 m). • Utilizing the laboratory-obtained data, calibrate the PFC numerical model such that its performance matches the behavior of intact rock material (no lithophysal cavities). As part of the calibration exercise, a series of typical triaxial tests is conducted on the synthetic rock specimens and analyzed. • Within the volume of large “numerical specimens” introduce different lithophysal shapes including circles, triangles and stars, and examine their impact on the process of rock fracturing and overall response to various stress regimes. • Vary the “synthetic” lithophysal porosity to examine the impact of increased porosity on rock performance (see Figures 9-12, 9-13, 9-17 and 9-18). • Obtain field pictures of the real lithophysae (see Figures 9-19 and 9-20) and stencil their location within bounds of the synthetic, large-scale specimens (1 m x 1 m x 1 m, see Figure 9-21). • Perform PFC analyses using numerical specimens containing this actual map of lithophysal voids, and compare the results with the performance of previously developed circular-shaped synthetic specimens (Figures 9-22 through 9-24). • Select and use a different numerical modeling tool (UDEC was adopted) to develop a parallel discontinuous synthetic rock model. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Calibrate the UDEC model performance to the same laboratory data used to calibrate the PFC model. Again, perform a series of typical triaxial tests on a synthetic solid rock numerical specimen. • Introduce lithophysal porosity at preselected percentages (to try to match PFC specimen porosities) by generating circular voids within the UDEC specimens. Conduct triaxial analyses (Figures 9-33 through 9-35) and compare UDEC results with the PFC numerical results (Figures 9-36 through 9-38). • Develop plots showing the relationship between lithophysal rock properties in terms of the numerically derived uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus (E) as a function of the effective specimen porosity, including uncertainty bounds. Also develop a plot showing the relationship between UCS vs. E. • Develop a summary of all lithophysal rock data including laboratory, field and numerical results, and recommend the ranges of UCS and E parameters that can be reasonably assigned for the entire population of data. Produce UCS v. porosity, E v. porosity and UCS v. E plots that are based on the data summary and verify that all sources of data are appropriately illustrated in the plots. • Assign intervals corresponding to a convenient number of rock mass categories to use in rock fall analysis and ground support design. • Conduct scoping analyses using the above rock mass categories for rock fall and ground support design (BSC 2003a and BSC 2003k). The above approach has significantly reduced the level of uncertainty surrounding the mechanical rock parameters of lithophysal rock. In general this effort provides a base for the future procedure needed to develop a consistent methodology of assessing and quantifying data uncertainties. It provides a tool that could be used to assign confidence levels for various aspects of underground design. The robustness of this approach provides a strong foundation for making reasonable assessments of the impact of various factors that may affect the performance of the lithophysae-containing rock. In the context of this analysis, the conventional testing techniques combined with the novel numerical modeling approaches provide evidence that the existing data are likely adequate for LA. Although it is understood that this combined approach will have to be finished, documented, and supplemented by future testing and field data, the current scoping analyses provide convincing evidence that it is unlikely that future results would invalidate or run contrary to preliminary adequacy conclusions formulated at this stage. 10.3.7 Data Adequacy and Data Users The issue of data adequacy must be addressed considering the end use of data. The use of data leads invariably to the attempt of defining in simple terms, whether the data are sufficient to allow engineers to design safe structures with a specified safety range, or whether science modeling data inputs result in a calculation dose that is within required limits. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In engineering, the typical approach to solve the problem at hand emphasizes the use of conservative design assumptions.. In structural engineering design terms, it may indicate that structural members were sized with the capacity exceeding that required by a worst combination of loading conditions possible. The properties of structural members are usually well defined. Changes in loading applied to the structure, such as thermal or seismic loads, can generally be handled in a straightforward manner. In underground design this issue is somewhat less clear. The definition of stability may assume different forms, depending whether one attempts to define the overall stability as satisfactory, or treat the localized poor roof conditions as unacceptable. Furthermore, the rock material itself poses a different set of challenges. Behavior of rock subjected to the local stress conditions may satisfy performance requirements until heat-induced stresses or seismic event-generated stresses are imposed, creating complex conditions that are difficult to analyze. 10.3.8 Spatial and Temporal Variability Attachment IV includes a number of plots that are used to provide a visual, concise summary of all intact rock mechanical tests performed within the outlined bounds of the future repository. It is clear that attempts were made to obtain rock samples over as large an area as possible. The excavation of both the ESF (TBM excavation began in 1994) and the ECRB Cross-Drift (TBM excavation started in 1997) tunnels made access to the rock interior possible. It also allowed for the continuous observation of rock features over relatively long distances of the tunnel, cutting down through the four lithostratigraphic zones in the proximity of the proposed repository emplacement area. Additional exploratory information is also available from boreholes and extensive field mapping efforts undertaken prior, during and after tunnel construction. This tunnel mapping is enhanced through peripheral mapping of outcrops and provides the corroborative body of field data. Investigations of the mechanics of volcano eruption provide insight into the sequence of deposition, thickness regularity, uniformity of composition, and areal extent of each stratigraphic layer at the Yucca Mountain site. Results from geological mapping activities indicate that the Yucca Mountain volcanic tuff deposits can be characterized as massive, uniform, flat-bedded deposits. Results of detailed geological mapping serve as corroborative evidence required to provide a reasonable evidence that data obtained from the limited number of boreholes is, in fact, representative of properties at a particular horizon and throughout the entire area of interest. The data variability must consider the evolution of rock properties with time. Presence of moisture and elevated temperature may not only contribute to deteriorating properties of rock, but also diminishing the effectiveness of ground control components through potentially accelerated corrosion. The Drift Scale Test (DST) provides evidence of the tunnel performance under elevated temperature. Both the concrete-lined portion of that tunnel and the second portion including only modest ground reinforcement measures appear to perform well under these adverse temperature conditions. While this evidence is limited to several years only, the maximum test temperature maintained in this tunnel was approximately 200 deg C (BSC 2002i, Section 6.3.1.1 and Figure 6.3.1.1-1), which is much higher than the currently planned emplacement drift temperature of 65 deg C. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10.3.9 Data Adequacy Evaluation for Groups of Lithostratigraphic Rock Unit Parameters Provided below is an account of groups of lithostratigraphic rock unit parameters from the perspective of their adequacy for LA. 10.3.9.1 Adequacy of Physical Properties Porosity. Partial and preliminary statistical summaries of porosity features from measured ECRB data are available. These preliminary results are considered adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. Currently, lithophysal or total rock porosity estimates are considered adequate to use for project work; the impact of assuming that the weaker rim and spot material can be modeled as matrix-groundmass will need to be further explored. One deficiency that has been recently discovered is that the current borehole geophysics-derived porosity estimates of lithophysal rock are not representative of the bulk rock; much of the lithophysal contributions to bulk density were systematically edited out in order to obtain estimates of the rock matrix density/porosity for comparison with lab-determined estimates of rock core material. A more comprehensive analysis of lithophysal cavity data and other lithostratigraphic features from borehole geophysics data, ongoing field mapping, and other exploratory information, is planned and will be summarized in a USBR/USGS geological report coming out in 2004. Geostatistical analysis of the lithophysal cavity data, including tunnel mapping data, has not yet been carried out by the project. 10.3.9.2 Adequacy of Thermal Properties Thermal Conductivity. A large number of laboratory thermal conductivity tests have been conducted on small specimens from lithophysal and nonlithophysal units. Considering the number of specimens tested, it is deemed that the available data are sufficient for the intact rock thermal conductivity of these units. On the other hand, the laboratory measurements provide an upper bound of the effective rock mass thermal conductivity that is the ultimate interest of investigation. It is not appropriate to use the laboratory-measured thermal conductivity in the prediction of repository performance. Therefore, no further laboratory tests on small specimens are necessary. The field-measured data for rock mass or effective thermal conductivity are limited. Uncertainties associated with field measurements are usually high because of some unknown and uncontrollable field conditions. Assessment of spatial variations and uncertainty of rock mass thermal conductivity using these limited data requires use of assumptions. To reduce the uncertainties associated with the rock mass thermal conductivity and build a high confidence in the collected data, additional field thermal conductivity measurements are needed, particularly in lithophysal rock. Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is only for the dry and fully saturated wet conditions, which may not cover all application needs. The use of analytical models is an effective means of supplementing field measurements in the estimation of the rock mass thermal conductivity. With this approach, a comprehensive study on the effect of porosity and other rock properties can be conducted. The analytical models are validated as being satisfactory using the existing field data, and additional field tests may not be required. These analytical model results, in combination with the results of laboratory and field 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report measurements of thermal conductivity, are adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. Heat Capacity. A limited number of laboratory heat capacity measurements have been conducted on small specimens from Tptrn (3 tests) and Tptpmn (7 tests) units. Since the units for which specimens were attained are localized in the nonlithophysal units and the number of specimens tested is limited, it is considered that uncertainties associated with the laboratory measurements for the repository units are high. To reduce the uncertainties associated with the intact rock heat capacity and build a higher confidence in the collected data, additional laboratory heat capacity measurements are needed, particularly in lithophysal rock. The field-measured data are also limited for rock mass heat capacity. Uncertainties associated with field measurements of the rock mass heat capacity are relatively high. These uncertainties are associated with unknown and uncontrollable field variations. In order to reduce the uncertainties associated with the rock mass heat capacity, additional field heat capacity measurements appear to be needed, particularly in lithophysal rock. The use of analytical models provides an effective means of supplementing the laboratory and field measurements of the intact and rock mass thermal conductivity, especially when the measurement data have high uncertainties. The analytical models based on the mineral summation method are available to estimate the intact rock (rock grain) heat capacity. Since the analytical models are based on mineralogy of the rock units measured from numerous boreholes, uncertainties associated with the analytical models for intact rock heat capacity are considered well defined (associated uncertainty is low). The rock mass heat capacity of each unit is also estimated from the intact rock heat capacity using the various analytical models. With these approaches, a comprehensive study on the effect of porosity and other rock properties can be conducted. The approach for validating the analytical models of intact and rock mass thermal behavior compares analytical results with the existing laboratory and field data. These analytical model results are considered adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE). Laboratory thermal expansion measurements have been made on small specimens taken from Tptpmn (106 tests) and Tptpll (32 tests) rock units. Judging by the number of specimens tested, it is considered that the available data are sufficient for the intact rock CTEs of these units. The uncertainties associated with the measurements are considered low. Therefore, no more laboratory tests on small specimens for these rock units are necessary. The only field data available of the rock mass CTE are from the SHT and DST for the Tptpmn unit. Laboratory measurements using large specimens from the Tptpll unit are also limited. As indicated above, the rock mass CTEs contain much higher uncertainties than those for the intact rock. To reduce the uncertainties associated with the rock mass CTEs, additional field thermal expansion measurements appear to be needed. The intact rock CTEs provide an upper bound for the rock mass CTEs. Use of a higher CTE will tend to overpredict thermally induced rock deformation and associated thermal stresses. This issue is being more closely examined and verified through on-going scoping analyses. Overall, using the intact rock values as bounding estimates of Tptpmn rock mass thermal expansion are considered to be conservative and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. Whether there is a need to conduct field measurements, or to develop an analytical approach, or to conduct numerical experiments to determine the rock mass CTEs for the Tptpll unit will be determined using the results from the on-going scoping analyses. 10.3.9.3 Adequacy of Mechanical Properties A large number of laboratory tests to determine mechanical properties of lithostratigraphic rock units have been performed over the years. The majority of those were completed on nonlithophysal units. The recent interest in lithophysae-containing lithostratigraphic zones of the repository host horizon caused attempts to characterize lithophysal stratigraphic units in more detail. During the recent rock sampling and testing effort using large 30 cm (12 in.) coring techniques, it became apparent that core yield from the lithophysal units is relatively low. Furthermore, application of the traditional testing techniques used to determine even a simple uniaxial strength of lithophysal rock has encountered difficulties due to the relatively large size of voids in comparison to the specimen diameter. Novel, numerical methods have been applied to develop a better understanding of lithophysal rock response to stress. These methods, currently subject to much scrutiny, hold the promise of providing means of more thorough characterization of lithophysal lithostratigraphic rock units where other methods are insufficient. Data adequacy can be improved further by performing a series of in situ index tests, where a relative comparison of various lithostratigraphic rock unit responses to a standardized indexing load could be established. The uncertainty in terms of standard deviation and standard error of parameter values varies because nonlithophysal rock layers are characterized more extensively than lithophysal units. Computer modeling involving sensitivity analyses is designed to examine the interaction of various parameters and provide a more objective means of assessment as to what is considered “conservative” and “satisfactory” and under what circumstances. By incorporating the statistical variability of lithostratigraphic rock unit parameters under a range of underground operating conditions, a body of evidence is under development to lessen dependence on accuracy of experimentally determined values of parameters. Examining how the performance of underground excavations varies over the range of input rock parameter values and loading conditions leads to a strengthened understanding of the importance of various parameters. This enhanced engineering judgment can then be applied to the issues of the characterization adequacy of parameters and reduction of uncertainties in design. It is recognized that the current type of analyses are based on the base case approach whereby the rock response to various loads is examined without considering the benefits of ground control measures and maintenance. These two design elements are within the realm of engineering domain and must be considered, especially for the pre closure period of repository operation. 10.3.9.4 Adequacy of Mechanical Fracture Properties The performance of relatively strong nonlithophysal units is related to the presence of joints within the rock mass. To date, testing activities leading to a better characterization of joints have been performed on a very limited scale. The level of uncertainty in the area of defining joint 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report parameters is relatively high. The issue of joint characterization in the context of recently increasing interest in lithophysal units is somewhat more complex. While characterization of joints occurring in nonlithophysal strata is a relatively straightforward task, characterizing a smaller and more intricate jointing pattern contributing to the behavior of lithophysal rock units requires a new and non-standard approach. Extensive numerical analyses of drift degradation patterns related to the impact of jointing on drift stability (BSC 2003a) have been performed over the past several years. The results indicate that, even under the most severe loading combinations, the drifts remain stable with relatively few blocks separated from the otherwise stable rock. The preliminary statistical summaries of joint sets from measured ESF and ECRB data are available. These preliminary results are adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. A more comprehensive analysis, including aspects of representativeness and spatial variability across Yucca Mountain, is currently continuing and will be summarized in a USBR/USGS geological report due in 2004. Geostatistical analysis of the fractures has been carried out as a part of the FracMAN model of fractures. These data will be updated when the more comprehensive fracture data becomes available. 10.4 DATA APPRAISAL CONSIDERING LA AND POST-LA ACTIVITIES Data appraisal at the current Project stage was performed to assess the adequacy of the data to support the License Application Process. The data were assessed using an engineering approach. The major emphasis was placed on verifying the quality and completeness of data available, and on identifying potential gaps in the data that would require immediate, extensive remediation measures, whether in terms of additional laboratory tests or field work. Potential areas of concern are associated with fulfilling the need for data completeness. Other concerns are related to the meaningful interpretation of data and their subsequent use in the design. Future characterization activities will lead to acquisition of additional geotechnical data and the further development of novel numerical approaches to enhance understanding of the rock mass performance. This overall data appraisal is further discussed in terms of LA and post-LA Project Phases. 10.4.1 LA Phase The LA Project Phase includes the current period where evidence contained in LA documents is presented for a review and thorough evaluation by a number of reviewers representing all parties involved in any and all aspects of the future repository design. The site characterization activities contributed to a body of knowledge about mechanical and thermal properties of intact rock and rock mass that is targeted as a host of the future repository. The body of evidence characterizing the nonlithophysal TSw2 units is adequate to support the preliminary design associated with LA. Work on the development of additional details characterizing behavior and performance of lithophysal units is continuing, and new approaches designed to better characterize these units are being used successfully. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 10.4.2 Post-LA Phase The post-LA Project Phase extends in time and includes the repository design, construction and operation until closure. The major source of data complementing the existing rock property database will be obtained from the detailed recordkeeping required at every stage of repository operation. Routine inspections of the existing drifts, both containing the nuclear waste and under development, will provide an increasing bulk of evidence associated with performance of subsurface structures. Performance Confirmation activities and periodical assessments will aid in maintaining focus on continuing comparisons and evaluation of the subsurface facility performance. These activities will result in an increasing body of evidence regarding lithostratigraphic rock unit performance, reducing uncertainty in data, and increasing confidence in the implemented design. 10.5 FURTHER DATA ENHANCEMENTS As the site activities progress, the amount of supplementary data will increase as well. This process will continue during the entire operational period of the repository. The additional sources of data and confidence building activities are listed below. • As new tunnel sections and niches are constructed in the future, additional data will be collected and analyzed in comparison to the existing understanding. • In the context of lithostratigraphic rock unit variability, the tunnel excavation itself becomes the best possible probe because the areas of extrapolated rock parameters are revealed and the tunnel diameter is large in comparison to voids dimensions. The tunnel mapping process provides the detailed observation of the features of interest in the rock mass. • The tunnel excavation provides the direct evidence regarding the feasibility of tunnel construction. • The overall tunnel stability with relatively minor ground control/roof support measures provides reassuring evidence that maintaining the tunnel stable and functional over extended time periods should be achievable. • Numerical modeling involving bounding analyses provides an assessment of extreme cases related to the rock parameters and data quality. Results of these analyses will assist designers in evaluating “what if” scenarios and the consequences of adopting less or more conservative rock parameter data under a particular set of circumstances. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 11. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 INTRODUCTION The current Report presents the results of laboratory and field experiments and of numerical modeling approaches used over the course of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Program. At the current stage, the nature of the YM Project is becoming aligned with accomplishing design, construction, and operation goals. The overall intent of the range of data- oriented efforts reported in the SGPR is based on a premise that there should be one source document for all geotechnical rock parameters used in design. Analyses and discussions presented in this document are detailed to a degree necessary for a design engineer to develop the understanding needed to use these data with confidence in design of subsurface structures at the Yucca Mountain site. In contrast to man-made materials commonly used in civil construction projects, rock in its natural environment presents substantial challenges in predicting performance under uncertain loading conditions, complex material behaviors, and complicated rock fracture and porosity feature geometries. Successful design of underground structures requires appropriate and satisfactory conceptual models, sufficient understanding of the significant rock behaviors, and adequate characterization of the associated mechanical and thermal model parameters. In particular, limited data, uncertainties associated with in situ loading conditions, conceptual modeling, measurements, rock behaviors, and the process of determining site-specific rock parameters are challenging. License Application requires an adequate summary of thermomechanical properties needed for subsurface design, pre-closure repository safety analysis, and repository performance after permanent closure. A related issue is the development of rock behavioral models and approaches to adequately capture: (1) the sample size (scale) dependency of rock properties, and prediction of parameters at the rock mass scale, (2) the spatial variation or heterogeneity of rock parameters across the repository storage volume, and (3) the predicted temporal variation of rock behavior and parameters over the post-closure period of 10,000 years. The methodology of resolving these issues was developed progressively from a series of Geotechnical Review Panel meetings held in 2001 and 2002, and from work proposals prepared and reviewed by its participants. The Review Panel consisted of BSC personnel, as well as geomechanics experts from SNL, USBR, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), UNLV, UNR, New England Research (NER), and consultants from the Itasca Consulting Group and Nick Barton and Associates. The approach for resolving these issues is summarized in Resolution Strategy for Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) (Board 2003). The approach consists of utilizing a combination of analyses, studies, and calculations to maximize use of site-specific data: (1) evaluation and geotechnical analysis of the existing extensive geologic and geotechnical characterization data from surface and underground mapping; (2) additional laboratory and in situ thermomechanical testing, primarily of lithophysal rocks, to provide information for confirmation of the material models and property ranges to be used in design and performance sensitivity studies; (3) development, calibration, and validation of numerical models capable of representing the thermomechanical behavior of lithophysal and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report nonlithophysal rocks; (4) use of the validated numerical models to supplement the material properties database and explore the impact of geologic variability (porosity, lithophysae shape and distribution, and fracture density) on the geomechanical response, primarily of lithophysal rocks; and (5) numerical model sensitivity studies to further explore the impact of parameter uncertainty on pre-closure ground support and post-closure drift degradation and seismic stability issues. In this report, the data have been compiled from many sources and the important testing details and limitations are presented, including descriptions of methods used in data acquisition and analysis. The purpose of this format of presentation is to provide to the designer all significant rock behavior and parameter-related knowledge in an unbiased fashion, to create a basis for developing a better understanding of rock property data, and consequently, to facilitate the informed/correct use of these properties in various areas of design work at the Yucca Mountain Project. 11.2 DATA SUMMARY AND STATUS The scope of work for the SGPR was defined in Section 1.4. The status of completed work in relation to this scope is outlined below and is further summarized in Table 11-2. • Compiling all relevant subsurface geotechnical data from the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) needed to summarize the identified rock parameters. Status: Collection of data is substantially complete. Numerous data tracking numbers were examined for consistency of information and, if inconsistencies were found, condition reports were submitted to correct them. Some minor rock parameter data have not been summarized yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. • Evaluating and sorting the above TDMS data according to significant rock material conditions (e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, fracture set) and method of testing. Status: Data obtained from TDMS sources, representing different testing methods, test specimen dimensions, and rock material conditions were extracted, grouped and qualitatively analyzed in a consistent manner. • Performing computations and analyses of the compiled data to determine the developed rock parameters required for LA, using Yucca Mountain Project-approved software and procedures. Status: Calculations and analyses for derived parameters are substantially complete. Some rock parameters (see list in Section 11.3) have not been derived yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. • Performing the appropriate statistical data analyses of the acquired and developed parameter database. Status: The SGPR reports simple statistical summaries for all parameters, if sufficient data are available. More complete statistical analysis using appropriate software and standards will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report • Providing comprehensive reference tables of intact rock mechanical parameters by combining all the qualified and analyzed test data in one central location. Status: These tables are complete and can be found in the SGPR. The tables are based on qualified data, corrected qualified data (where errors were found and reported), and currently unqualified but expected-to-be-qualified data. • Describing and demonstrating the range of applicability of the novel use of numerical modeling techniques, which when used in combination with limited data, enhance engineers’ understanding of rock behavior, processes, and descriptions. Status: The preliminary use of advanced modeling methods was used to better understand mechanical properties of lithophysal rock, and to geostatistically describe fracturing and lithophysal spatial characterizations in unsampled portions of rock within the planned repository host horizon. Preliminary modeling of time degradation of mechanical parameters will be summarized in the next revision of the SGPR. A proposal of an empirical approach for rock mass characterization of lithophysal rock will also appear in the next revision of the SGPR. • Developing a combined statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data uncertainty, variability, and representativeness that will be used to produce recommended statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. Status: This work has been initiated. An Uncertainty Analysis Guide is being prepared that outlines the methodology dealing with the uncertainties and variabilities associated with the data. This guidance is necessary to ensure that uncertainty determination and documentation is carried out as objectively and consistently as possible, and that the final parameter summaries yield complete and certifiable data. The document will also outline how parameter data characterizations will be prepared, approved, and submitted to the TDMS system in consideration with other Total System Performance Assessment and Integration (TSPAI) KTI agreements and other project and NRC documents concerned with parameter uncertainty. • Providing a preliminary definition and assessment of data adequacy for license application. Status: A general discussion of the adequacy of reported geotechnical parameters for underground design purposes is given in the SGPR. In general, the laboratory test results, field test results, field mapping, numerical modeling, and construction records indicate that no major inconsistencies in results have been identified that would cause major concerns for designers of subsurface structures. The totoality of data indicates that the data for nonlithophysal strata are largely adequate for LA design, while equivalent data are not available for lithophysal units. Numerical modeling and empirical approaches are under development to provide the necessary parameter information for lithophysal rock. Furthermore, the field evidence obtained from the ESF and the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift shows that openings developed in the lithophysal rock units remain stable with minimal ground support. Scoping analyses have recently been completed (BSC 2003a and BSC 2003 k) that provide a practical basis for assessing the impact the data variability may have on performance of openings located within a particular lithostratigraphic unit. Laboratory 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report static fatigue testing and numerical modeling of the temporal degradation of rock parameters are also being carried out. • Proposing additional characterization work needed for LA submittal. Status: A description of recommendations and planned future work is provided in the next section, Section 11.3. Physical Rock Properties and Rock Mass Characteristics For nonlithophysal rock, field characterization resulted in a database of meter-scale fracture geometry data obtained from mapping the ESF and ECRB tunnels. Evaluation of this database of tunnel full-periphery structure maps produced a statistical database, by fracture set, of fracture geometry data, such as fracture orientation, spacing, and trace length (SGPR Section 8.8.2). The program also collected rock quality data for rock classification purposes for lithostratigraphic units (Section 8.8.3) and mapped smaller-scale fractures in the ESF and ECRB tunnels. The knowledge of fracture geometry and rock quality data is adequate. For repository host horizon lithophysal rock, the primary aspect of field characterization to map the shape, size and abundance of lithophysae, spots and rims, which has been substantially carried out (Section 8.8.4) and is considered adequate for LA design purposes. The impact of the assumption that the weaker rim and spot material can be mechanically modeled as matrix- groundmass material will be addressed in the next revision of the SGPR. For all lithostratigraphic zones, an additional field characterization activity involved the geophysical logging of boreholes to indirectly determine vertical variation of bulk density and porosity. This geophysical data will be further evaluated and summarized, and then compared to mapped lithophysal data in the next revision of the SGPR. Also, records related to the original core logging are still available, and it may be possible to attempt developing correlations between the proportion of core retrieved with the rock type, core depth, and drillhole location. Laboratory Rock Testing A relatively large number of laboratory tests has been performed on intact core samples of nonlithophysal rock (Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4). The mechanical and thermal behavior of nonlithophysal rock is adequately understood and adequate parameter summaries exist, excluding the uncertainty descriptions that will follow in the next revision of the SGPR. Recent direct shear testing of five fractures has provided important information to help characterize the mechanical behavior of fractures by fracture set in nonlithophysal rock (Section 8.6). Although the available experimental testing results of fractures may not form an adequate basis to develop mechanical parameter distribution or range information, it is possible to use professional judgement for producing the ranges of parameters needed for LA products. Until recently, the YMP effort to develop a better understanding of the behavior of lithophysal rock has been limited. This changed with the determination that most of the repository would reside in lithophysal rock, and that nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock behaviors were substantially different. The changes in the concept of ground support from reliance on robust concrete liners (installed just behind the tunnel boring machine), to fully grouted rock bolts, to ungrouted rock bolts has resulted in an increased need for better understanding of the mechanical 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report behavior of lithophysal rock. Several important mechanical and thermal rock properties are strongly dependent on rock porosity and lithophysal rock sample size (e.g., the mechanical, elastic, and rock strength parameters and thermal conductivity). Additional site-specific testing at the laboratory scale was undertaken to better characterize rock parameter dependencies on porosity and size, and results are presented in Sections 8.3 and 8.4. However, these laboratory results alone do not provide the necessary characterization of lithophysal rock parameters, and other methods explained below were developed to supply this information. In Situ Mechanical Field Testing The next step beyond laboratory testing was gathering as much in situ site-specific rock behavior information as possible. This program extends from small-scale borehole testing of thermal and mechanical behaviors to meter-scale mechanical and thermal testing of rock blocks (e.g., Single Heater Test, plate loading tests, slot tests) to drift-scale tests in both repository host horizon nonlithophysal (Drift Scale Test) and lithophysal rock (planned for the future). In particular, in situ testing in lithophysal rock helped confirm models and ranges of rock behavior. Rock mass scale testing under thermal loading conditions of both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock was also required to validate numerical models and empirical approaches needed for better characterization of rock mass behavior. Reports relating to thermal and mechanical in situ rock testing are now being prepared, and preliminary results are reported in Sections 8.3 and 8.7. Qualified mechanical field tests results are not yet available, and so, at the present time, mechanical field test data may be inadequate for engineering design purposes. In situ test data also include information gathered from tunnel boring machine pressure and mining rate data, as well as periodic surveying of the ESF and ECRB tunnels and drifts to study tunnel deformation over time. This information along with final field test results will be included in the next revision of the SGPR. Characterization of Rock Mass The rock mass behavior of nonlithophysal rock is controlled largely by the geometry of fractures that separates the relatively strong and stiff pieces of intact rock. The rock mass mechanical parameters of the repository host horizon nonlithophysal rock have been developed from an established empirical approach and are summarized in Sections 8.5 and 8.8. Rock mass mechanical parameters for lithostratigraphic units outside of the repository host horizon will be included in the next revision of the SGPR. Even though the repository host horizon fracture geometry is well known along the two mapped tunnels, this information, alone, was considered inadequate to be directly utilized as a fracture model for the repository site. As a result it was determined that a statistically representative fracture model of the repository site was required for meeting design and modeling needs. Preliminary model results have been developed using the FracMAN program and are reported in Section 9.3. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation personnel are performing more comprehensive geostatistical modeling using FracMAN, making use of all available and appropriate site-specific geologic data. Geostatistical approaches were applied to the tunnel fracture database, the borehole fracture data, and outcrop fracture measurements as a basis for development of statistically representative fracture volumes using the FracMAN software program (Section 9.3). These fracture volumes 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report contain fracture geometry data by repository host horizon units that adequately capture the ranges of fracture geometry parameters expected at the site. The rock mass behavior of lithophysal rock is controlled largely by stress conditions and open voids within the rock that can lead to failure of the bulk lithophysal rock. However, because of the scarcity of mechanical test results on rocks containing representative lithophysae (due to the impracticality of conducting these laboratory and field tests), it was necessary to supplement this testing with numerical modeling of lithophysal rock. By these means, significant behavioral mechanisms could be studied along with a full range of sample dimensions facilitating investigation of the sample-size effect and the effect that lithophysal geometry (shape, size, and spatial distribution) has on rock properties. A preliminary effort to develop, calibrate and validate these numerical models using the site-specific laboratory and field-testing results of lithophysal rock is provided in Sections 9.1 and 9.2. To extrapolate the intact mechanical behavior to a larger scale, additional testing using numerical models capable of representing lithophysal rock behavior was performed. Two- and three- dimensional numerical modeling has the advantage of allowing a rock sample to be created and “tested” at any scale, plus holes of any size and shape can then be placed at any location within the rock sample. These numerical approaches can reproduce observed complex rock behavior, such as the development of interlithophysae fracturing. This approach provides a methodology for representing and understanding the basic mechanical response of lithophysal rocks through back-analysis of actual testing. More thorough lithophysal rock numerical modeling is planned and results will appear in the next revision of this report. The conceptual, analytical, and numerical modeling of thermal behavior of a lithophysal rock mass is relatively well developed and is summarized in Section 8.3. In addition to characterizing lithophysal rock mechanical behavior, it is necessary to model the variation of rock porosity in the field before the spatial variability of rock thermomechanical parameters can be adequately quantified. A preliminary simulation of lithophysal porosity has been completed and is described in Section 9.4. A more formal geostatistical approach is planned that would result in building a model of lithophysae volumes that are representative of the repository layout. The geostatistical analysis will consider the mapped tunnel lithophysal data, the borehole geophysical data, and mapped borehole lithophysal data. Like the fracture volumes, these lithophysal volumes will describe the spatial variation of lithophysal cavities expected across the site at various scales. These results will then be translated into a spatial variation of mechanical and thermal properties across the site, as described in Section 10.2. 11.3 GEOTECHNICAL DATA RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE WORK This report provides the foundation of a living document that will evolve as the various design and construction activities get underway. The need for additional rock property data will gradually diminish as further testing, modeling and confirmation activities are carried out. Then as underground facilities are designed and built, additional information will be obtained. In this way, the rock parameter database and general level of understanding will continue to expand with the maturation of the project. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The role of the Performance Confirmation (PC) program, particularly the geotechnical instrumentation program during repository construction, is essential in assuring continuous rock property database enhancement. The PC Program will serve the multiple functions of recording the current data, evaluating the performance of underground structures, designing and implementing new tests, refining numerical modeling techniques to achieve better agreement between prediction and real field performance, and reporting any discrepancies observed during the course of subsurface facility development and operation. Work is already underway for the next revision of this report. At this time a number of data items that require additional work have been identified. Some relatively major items are discussed first followed by lists of planned work. TDMS Data Issues During the course of preparing this document, it became apparent that information deposited in the TDMS alone was insufficient to reveal the overall data correctness, necessary context, and variability. This was due to inconsistencies in data presentation and the potential of multiple data interpretations. A substantial additional effort was directed at attempting to collect all the relevant supporting TDMS data, and performing additional analyses to provide an improved source of information about the intact rock and rock mass properties. As the primary task during preparation of this SGPR was to gather and organize the data, it should be understood that the current scope did not include the task of data validation, which must be performed to resolve any inconsistencies and questions pertaining to the issues of data completeness, transparency, and reliability. As a consequence, a number of data problems have surfaced (e.g., errors, omissions, unqualified data) that point out that a new approach to the design data management may be warranted. The current submission and storage of data in the TDMS provides a relatively large number of options that, in effect, causes incomplete and sometimes incorrect data to be entered into the system. The data often does not contain a standard level of description necessary for the user to pass any judgment regarding the quality of the data. It appears that, once data are entered, no requirement exists that would cause the data originator to verify if the TDMS representation is correct. The process of data retrieval is not standardized; and any data use often requires additional processing, which often is performed in different ways by different users. In effect, the same parameter summary retrieved from the TDMS by two different persons may result in two different, and possibly conflicting, data descriptions. There are currently multiple DTNs that summarize similar information and the use of similar but different DTNs by different users is not accounted for. As a result, inconsistencies of inputs may exist between different design products, and should the need arise to verify or update parameter values, not all impacted products/users will receive notification. It is suggested that a GIS-type relational database, including spatial coordinates as one of the key parameters, be considered. Development of this new database and verification and summary of data therein should be accomplished with active participation of personnel well versed in rock property testing and rock parameter usage in design. This relational database should then be locked down and become the sole source of all appropriate acquired and derived subsurface rock parameters. Future revisions of this report will point to further contextual information and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report limitations in the data, higher-level derivations of parameters, and judgment-based descriptions of parameters including uncertainties and spatial and temporal variability. Data Uncertainty There are still outstanding issues regarding uncertainties in the data, and how uncertainties in rock parameters should properly be addressed and carried over into design. Although the statistical data approach is relatively well-established and documented in standards and textbooks, by itself it is known to be inadequate for characterizing rock behavior, and must be utilized in conjunction with professional judgment. Since there is no standard way of treating both the objective and subjective aspects of uncertainty in geotechnical engineering, a recommended approach is being outlined that utilizes mathematical probability and statistics, as well as professional judgment. If project approval is obtained, this methodology may be established in the suggested Uncertainty Analysis Guide, mentioned earlier (Section 10.2 and 11.2), and can be applied to the parameter summaries in the next revision of the SGPR. Time-Dependent Behavior of Rock Parameters The time-dependent strength properties (i.e., static fatigue) need to be determined for both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rocks. Laboratory static fatigue testing of lithophysal tuff cores is now being conducted. Again, since the resulting rock-testing database will be limited (number of rock samples tested and loading time duration), numerical modeling is being used to understand and enhance the time-related mechanical behavior of lithophysal rock. For nonlithophysal rock, the temporal variation in mechanical rock mass behavior is assumed to substantially relate to the degradation of the fracture strength parameters. A summary of laboratory static fatigue testing, as well as time-dependent numerical modeling and residual fracture strength data will be provided in the next revision of the SGPR. Data Not Included or Developed in this Version of the SGPR: The following parameters represent project-acquired data that are available in the TDMS system, but have not yet been included in this report. These parameters will appear in the next revision of the SGPR: • Rock grain density • Geophysics' based density and porosity • RQD, Jn, Jr, Ja, JwQ, SFR measurements needed for lithostratigraphic units other than Tptpmn and Tptpln • RMR measured rock mass characterization data • Rotary fracture data for units outside of the repository host horizon • ESF ground support confirmation and continued deformation monitoring data, steel set measurement/modeling results • Schmidt hammer results 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The following derived parameters have been developed and will be reported in the next revision of the SGPR or will be developed for the next version: • Mohr-Coulomb parameters calculated for all lithostratigraphic units • Intact Hoek-Brown parameters calculated for units outside of the repository host horizon • Rock mass elastic and strength properties for lithostratigraphic units other than Tptpmn and Tptpln • A geostatistical estimate of porosity across the site based on geophysics borehole data • Incorporate available corroborative data (UNR and UNLV research, NRC Apache Leap results) • Time-dependent effect on mechanical rock parameters from preliminary modeling results • Latest fracture geometry statistics of repository host horizon units from FracMAN Recommended Future Work Products: Table 11-1 presents a list of data-associated products that will develop needed parameter information, improved physical understanding of rock behavior, and models of the spatial and temporal variations of rock properties. Preliminary results from some of these modeling efforts have been reported in this version of the SGPR, however, separate modeling reports are required to properly document and validate these models. Table 11-1. Suggested Reports, Analyses and Models to Support and Complement Data Effort Product Governing Procedure Start Finish Uncertainty Analysis Guide AP-3.11Q SGPR: Version 00B AP-3.12Q Rock Mass Characterization of Lithophysal Rock Using Empirical Methods AP-3.12Q Mechanical Lithophysal Rock Behavior Using PFC and UDEC AP-SIII.10Q Representative Fracture Parameters Using FracMAN AP-SIII.10Q Representative Spatial Variation of Lithophysae AP-SIII.10Q Time Degradation of Rock Mass Properties AP-SIII.10Q Barton Report Calculation and Analysis AP-3.12Q Particle Flow Code (PFC) Software Qualification AP-SI.1Q The following potential activities shown in Table 11-2 are being discussed to support and complement the data effort and reduce uncertainties associated with the data. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table 11-2. Future Work Tasks and Subtasks Related to Data Primary Tasks to be Completed Status and Planned Subtasks Can be Completed in Rev 00B Work Required Beyond LA 1. Collect all relevant existing subsurface geotechnical data from the TDMS needed to summarize the identified rock parameters. Collection of existing data is substantially complete. Numerous data tracking numbers were examined for consistency of information and, if inconsistencies were found, condition reports were submitted to correct them. Some minor rock data and Yes No parameters have not been summarized yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 2. Perform evaluation of the TDMS data Data obtained from TDMS sources representing different testing according to significant rock material conditions methods, test specimen dimensions, and rock material conditions Yes No (e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, were extracted, grouped, and qualitatively analyzed in a fracture set) and method of testing consistent manner. 3. Perform calculations and analyses of the Derived data calculations and analyses are substantially TDMS acquired data to determine the required complete. Some minor rock data and parameters have not been Yes No developed rock parameters, using Yucca derived yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. Mountain Project–approved software and procedures. 4. Perform the appropriate statistical data The SGPR reports simple statistical summaries for all parameters, analyses of the acquired and developed parameter if sufficient data are available. More complete statistical analysis Yes No database. using appropriate software and standards will be included in the next revision of the SGPR. 5. Provide comprehensive reference tables of These Excel tables are complete and can be found in the SGPR. intact rock mechanical parameters by combining The tables are based on qualified data, corrected qualified data Yes No all the qualified and analyzed test data. (when errors were found and reported), and currently unqualified but expected-to-be-qualified data. They will be updated. 6. Describe and demonstrate the range of applicability of preliminary, novel numerical 6a. Modeling of Lithophysal Rock Mechanical Behavior Using Yes Yes modeling techniques, which when used in PFC and UDEC combination with limited data, enhance engineers’ understanding of rock behavior, processes, and 6b. Modeling of Time Degradation of Rock Properties Using Yes Yes descriptions. PFC 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 7. Develop a statistical and judgment-based 7a. Uncertainty Analysis Guide Yes No approach for assessment of data uncertainty, variability, and representativeness that will be 7b. Geostatistical Simulation of the Spatial Variation of Fracture No Yes used to produce recommended statistical values, Geometry Using FracMAN ranges, and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. Create Parameter Summary Sheets 7c. Geostatistical Simulation of the Spatial Variation of No Yes and DTNs for all parameters. Lithophysae 7d. Assign Uncertainty information to all parameters Yes No 8. Provide a definition and assessment of data 8. After Parameter Summary Sheets and DTNs are issued for all adequacy for all LA products using these lithostratigraphic units, each LA project using these parameters Yes No subsurface geotechnical parameters. will carry out an adequacy assessment for each parameter, which will then be summarized. 9. Propose additional work needed for LA submittal and any remaining issues needed to close KTI RDTME 3.04 9a. Technical Review of all relevant TDMS: • physical and mechanical data • TDMS summary of above data No Yes 9b. Place technically reviewed data in project GIS relational database No Yes 9c. Do Calculation/Analysis of October 2002 Barton Report Yes No 9d. Produce Rock Mass Characterization of Lithophysal Rock Using Empirical Methods Yes Yes 9e. Reanalysis of geophysical- derived density and porosity data to account properly for lithophysae Yes No 9f. Map lithophysae in a number of additional boreholes and correlate data with geophysical-derived data No Yes 9g. Conduct more triaxial tests on nonlithophysal rock No Yes 9h. Conduct more UCS tests on large sample-size lithophysal rock and properly quantified lithophysal porosity before each test No Yes 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9i. Direct shear tests (peak, residual, normal stiffness) on rock No Yes fractures by joint set 9j. Plate-loading test analysis and report No Yes 9k. Slot test analysis and report for the 3 slot tests Yes No 9l. Additional large-scale in situ field testing No Yes 9m. Large-scale in situ fracture roughness measurements No Yes 9n. Index testing on spot/rim material, lab testing on disturbed No Yes samples 9o. Limited index testing along the tunnels (Schmidt hammer, No Yes geophysical, dilatometer, other?) 9p. Develop rock mass parameters for the intensively fractured No Yes zone 9q. Perform a qualified site-specific Q vs. RMR correlation for Yes No use in rock mass calculations 9r. Quantify and evaluate effect of tunnel size on rock mass Yes Yes characterization data sets 9s. Numerical predictive modeling of site-specific lab/field tests for validation of lithophysal modeling (in update of Modeling of No Yes Lithophysal Rock Mechanical Behavior report) 9t. Analysis of ESF/ECRB tunnel deformation monitoring, steel sets monitoring, ESF ground Support confirmation, Tunnel No Yes Boring Machine pressure and mining rate data, Drift Scale Test, and any other construction records to augment site-specific rock mass mechanical data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9u. Digitally map the ESF and ECRB tunnels No Yes 9v. Identify key geotechnical and design parameters that will be Yes No part of the performance confirmation program 9w. Continued revisions of Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Yes Yes Report and associated DTNs 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 12. REFERENCES 12.1 CODES, STANDARDS, CRITERA, REQUIREMENTS, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES 10 CFR 60 Subpart G. 1998. Energy: Quality Assurance. Readily available. 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 40 CFR 197. 2001. Protection of Environment: Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. AP-2.14Q, Rev. 3, ICN 0. Document Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030827.0018. AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030807.0002. AP-3.11Q, Rev. 4, ICN 0. Technical Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030827.0015. AP-3.12Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Design Calculations and Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030827.0013. AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 2. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030627.0002. AP-16.1Q, Rev. 7, ICN 0. Condition Reporting and Resolution. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030925.0002. AP-17.1Q, Rev. 3, ICN 1. Records Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20031117.0004. AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 5, ICN 2. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030902.0003. AP-SIII.10Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20031126.0002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report AP-SIII.2Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Qualification of Unqualified Data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030422.0008. AP-SIII.3Q, Rev. 2, ICN 0. Submittal and Incorporation of Data/Technical Information to the Technical Data Management System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030902.0001. AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Control of the Electronic Management of Information. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030929.0004. ASTM D 2845-83. 1983. Standard Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. ASTM D 2938-95. 1995. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 242992. ASTM D 3148-96. 1997. Standard Test Method for Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens in Uniaxial Compression. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 247128. ASTM D 3967-95. 1995. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 247125. ASTM D 4394-84. 1985. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid Plate Loading Method. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. ASTM D 4395-84. 1985. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Flexible Plate Loading Method. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. ASTM D 4971-89. 1989. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Using the Diametrically Loaded 76-mm (3-in.) Borehole Jack. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 245311. Energy Policy Act of 1992. Public Law No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776. Readily available. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2002. Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report. NUREG-1762. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 253064. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Public Law No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201. Readily available. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. Public Law No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330. Readily available. TP-202, Rev. 01. Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Specimens Using the Guarded Heat-Flow Meter Method. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19981103.0396. TP-203, Rev. 01. Measurement of Thermal Expansion of Geologic Supplies Using a Push Rod Dilatometer. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971121.0264. TP-204, Rev. 00. Measurement of Specific Heat of Geologic Samples by Adiabatic Pulse Calorimetry. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19981103.0401. YMP-USGS-GP-54, Rev. 0. Rock Mass Classification, Manual or Electronic. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19980608.0238. YMP-USGS-GP-56, R0. Method for Performing Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Tests on Rock Specimens Under Constant Normal Force with Allowance for Elevated Temperature. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020930.0328. 12.2 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES Albin, A.L.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Lee, A.C.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; and Barr, D.L. 1997. Geology of the Main Drift - Station 28+00 to 55+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone SPG42AM3. Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970625.0096. Altman, W.D.; Donnelly, J.P.; and Kennedy, J.E. 1988. Qualification of Existing Data for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories: Generic Technical Position. NUREG-1298. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 200652. Arnold, B.W.; Altman, S.J.; Robey, T.H.; Barnard, R.W.; and Brown, T.J. 1995. Unsaturated- Zone Fast-Path Flow Calculations for Yucca Mountain Groundwater Travel Time Analyses (GWTT-94). SAND95-0857. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19960327.0336. Bandis, S.C.; Lumsden, A.C.; and Barton, N.R. 1983. "Fundamentals of Rock Joint Deformation." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts, 20, (6), 249-268. [New York, New York]: Pergamon Press. TIC: 224201. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Barr, D.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Singleton, W.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; Lee, A.C.; Beason, S.C.; and Eatman, G.L.W. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp — Stations 4+00 to 28+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0496. Barton, N. 1982. Modelling Rock Joint Behavior from In Situ Block Tests: Implications for Nuclear Waste Repository Design. ONWI-308. Columbus, Ohio: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute. ACC: HQS.19880517.2252. Barton, N. and Bandis, S. 1990. "Review of Predictive Capacities of JRC-JCS Model in Engineering Practice." Rock Joints, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway, 4-6 June 1990. Barton, N. and Stephansson, O., eds. Pages 603-610. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 103532. Barton, N. and Choubey, V. 1977. "The Shear Strength of Rock Joints in Theory and Practice." Rock Mechanics, 10, (1-2), 1-54. [New York, New York]: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 218374. Barton, N.; Lien, R.; and Lunde, J. 1974. "Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support." Rock Mechanics, 6, (4), 189-236. New York, New York: Springer- Verlag. TIC: 219995. Barton, N.R.; Bandis, S.; and Bakhtar, K. 1985. "Strength, Deformation, and Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22, (3), 121-140. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 217135. Beason, S.C. 2003. Collection of Underground Site Characterization Data. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-084-V1. ACC: MOL.20030728.0204. Beason, S.C.; Turlington, G.A.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Ryter, D.; and Barr, D.L. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0449. Berryman, James G. 1995. "Mixture Theories for Rock Properties." AGU Reference Shelf 3, Rock Physics and Phase Relations A Handbook of Physical Constants. Ahrens, T.J. Pages 205- 228. [Washington, D.C.]: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239165. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 226350. Board, M. 2003. Resolution Strategy for Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME). REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030708.0153. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 247039. Boyd, P.J.; Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1996. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes UE25 NRG-2, 2A, 2B, and 3: Data Report. SAND94-1902. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970102.0002. Boyd, P.J.; Price, R.H.; Noel, J.S.; and Martin, R.J. 1996. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes UE25 NRG-4 and -5: Data Report. SAND942138. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970102.0004. Brodsky, N.S.; Riggins, M.; Connolly, J.; and Ricci, P. 1997. Thermal Expansion, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Capacity Measurements for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, UE25 NRG-5, USW NRG-6, and USW NRG-7/7A. SAND95-1955. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980311.0316. Brown, E.T., ed. 1981. Rock Characterization Testing & Monitoring, ISRM Suggested Methods. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 209865. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS- GS-000002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020530.0078. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application. TDR-WIS-PA-000008 REV 00, ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020904.0002. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020423.0151. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report. MDL- NBS-GS-000004 REV 00 ICN 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020429.0086. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Scientific Processes Guidelines Manual. MIS-WIS-MD- 000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0176. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Test Plan for: Rock Modulus Testing. SITP-02-SSD-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020225.0260. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0167. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Thermal Testing Measurements Report. ANL-NBS-HS- 000041 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20021004.0314. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030709.0003. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift Scale THM Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000017 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031014.0009. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models. MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030804.0004. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Ground Control for Emplacement Drifts for LA. 800- K0C-TEG0-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031016.0001. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion Coefficients Analysis Report. ANL-NBS-GS-000013 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030820.0002. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM). MDL-NBS-HS-000007 REV 01A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030912.0022. TBV-5467 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Q-List. TDR-MGR-RL-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030930.0002. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability. 800-K0C-TEG0-00600-000-000. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031125.0002. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Two-Dimensional Repository Thermal Design Calculations. 000-00C-WIS0-00300-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20030630.0004. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Underground Layout Configuration. 800-P0C-MGR0- 00100-000-00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031002.0007. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Ventilation Model and Analysis Report. ANL-EBS-MD- 000030 REV 03 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030804.0003. Buesch, D. 2003. "Fractures in Thin Sections with Rims as Cooling Joints in Tptpmn and Tptpll for AMR." E-mail from D. Buesch to D. Kicker, June 2, 2003. ACC: MOL.20030610.0067. Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1998. "Character of the Middle Nonlithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain." High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 16-23. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. Buesch, D.C.; Nelson, J.E.; Dickerson, R.P.; Drake, R.M., II; Spengler, R.W.; Geslin, J.K.; Moyer, T.C.; and San Juan, C.A. 1996. Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Units Within the Central Block of Yucca Mountain, Nevada: A Three-Dimensional Computer-Based Model, Version YMP.R2.0. Open-File Report 95-124. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970618.0573. Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 94-469. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970205.0061. Bulmer, M.G. 1979. Principles of Statistics. 3rd Edition. New York, New York: Dover. TIC: 245835. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids. 2nd Edition. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press. TIC: 206085. Cikanek, E.M.; Blakely, R.J.; Grant, T.A.; and Safley, L.E. 2003. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness, and Rock Triaxial Creep. TDR-MGR-GE-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030730.0005. Cikanek, E.M.; Grant, T.A.; and Blakely, R.J. 2003. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion. TDR-MGR-GE-000003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030214.0007. Cikanek, E.M.; Safley, L.E.; and Grant, T.A. 2003. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Poisson's Ratio and Young's Modulus. TDR-MGR-GE- 000004 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030627.0001. CRWMS M&O 1995. ESF Ground Support Design Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-0200-00002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960409.0355. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report CRWMS M&O 1996. ESF Ground Support - Structural Steel Analysis. BABEE0000-01717- 0200-00003 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19961114.0137. CRWMS M&O 1997. Ambient Characterization of the Drift Scale Test Block. BADD00000- 01717-5705-00001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980416.0689. CRWMS M&O 1997. Determination of Available Volume for Repository Siting. BCA000000- 01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971009.0699. CRWMS M&O 1997. Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report. B00000000-01717-5705- 00043 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971017.0736; MOL.19971017.0737. CRWMS M&O 1998. Deformation Monitoring Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-5705-00005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981014.0002. CRWMS M&O 1998. ESF Design Confirmation Steel Set Loads Analysis. BABEE0000-01717- 5705-00006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981014.0001. CRWMS M&O 1998. ESF Ground Support Confirmation. BABEE0000-01717-5705-00003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980727.0308. CRWMS M&O 1998. Geology of the Exploratory Studies Facility Topopah Spring Loop. BAB000000-01717-0200-00002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980415.0283. CRWMS M&O 1998. Repository Subsurface Waste Emplacement and Thermal Management Strategy. B00000000-01717-0200-00173 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980918.0084. CRWMS M&O 1999. Single Heater Test Final Report. BAB000000-01717-5700-00005 REV 00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000103.0634. CRWMS M&O 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001003.0111. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1988. Site Characterization Plan Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0199. Nine volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQO.19881201.0002. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2003. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030422.0003. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Duan, F. 2003. "A White Paper by Nick Barton." E-mail from F. Duan to D. Kicker, May 28, 2003, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20030603.0132; MOL.20030219.0058. Eatman, G.L.W.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Barr, D.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; and Beason, S.C. 1997. Geology of the South Ramp - Station 55+00 to 78+77, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.19980127.0396. Flint, L.E. 1998. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4243. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980429.0512. Geslin, J.K.; Moyer, T.C.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging of New and Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, August 1993 to February 1994. Open-File Report 94-342. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19940810.0011. GoldSim Technology Group. 2002. GoldSim, Graphical Simulation Environment, User's Guide. Version 7.40. Redmond, Washington: Golder Associates. TIC: 253564. Goodman, R.E. 1980. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 218828. Halliday, D.; Resnick, R.; and Merrill, J. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics. 3rd Edition Extended. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 234765. Heuze, F.E. 1980. "Scale Effects in the Determination of Rock Mass Strength and Deformability." Rock Mechanics, 12, (3-4), 167-192. [New York, New York]: Springer- Verlag. TIC: 218372. Heuze, F.E. and Amadei, B. 1985. "The NX-Borehole Jack: A Lesson In Trials and Errors." International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22, (2), 105-112. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 218975. Hoek, E. 2000. [Practical] Rock Engineering, [2000 Edition]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: RocScience. TIC: 253544. Hoek, E.; Carranza-Torres, C.; and Corkum, B. 2002. "Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion – 2002 Edition." [5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC 2002, July 7-10, University of Toronto]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Rocscience. Accessed March 17, 2003. TIC: 253954. http://www.rocscience.com/Anon/ResearchPapers/NARMS.pdf Hoek, E.; Kaiser, P.K.; and Bawden, W.F. 2000. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 252991. Holman, J.P. 1997. Heat Transfer. 8th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 239954. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Howard, C.L.; Schuhen, M.D.; George, J.T.; Lee, M.Y.; Taylor, R.S.; and Bronowski, D.R. 2003. "Rock-Mass Deformation Modulus Testing of Lithophysal Stratigraphic Units at the Yucca Mountain Project." Soil and Rock America 2003, 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, June 22-26, 2003, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Culligan, P.J.; Einstein, H.H.; and Whittle, A.J., eds. Vol 1, 375-380. Essen, Germany: Verlag Glückauf GmbH. TIC: 255152. Incropera, F.P. and DeWitt, D.P. 2002. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 5th Edition. [New York, New York]: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 254280. Itasca Consulting Group. [2002]. Itasca Software–Cutting Edge Tools for Computational Mechanics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca Consulting Group. TIC: 252592. Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 3rd Edition. New York, New York: Chapman and Hall. TIC: 218325. Kalia, H. 2001. "Description of the Field Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the Topopah Spring Lower Lithophysal Unit (Tptpll)." Memorandum from H. Kalia (BSC) to Distribution, July 23, 2001, PROJ.07/01.045, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010822.0260. Kaviany, M. 1991. Principles of Heat Transfer in Porous Media. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 240655. Klavetter, E.A. and Peters, R.R. 1986. Estimation of Hydrologic Properties of an Unsaturated, Fractured Rock Mass. SAND 84-2642. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 202727. Lappin, A.R. 1980. Thermal Conductivity of Silicic Tuffs: Predictive Formalism and Comparison with Preliminary Experimental Results. SAND80-0769. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19890327.0052. Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Haupt, R.W. 1992. Anisotropy of the Topopah Spring Member Tuff. SAND91-0894. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19920522.0041. Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1993. "The Influence of Strain Rate and Sample Inhomogeneity on the Moduli and Strength of Welded Tuff." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts, 30, (7), 1507–1510. [New York, New York]: Pergamon. TIC: 254873. Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1993. Unconfined Compression Experiments on Topopah Spring Member Tuff at 22º C and a Strain Rate of 10{superscript -9} s{superscript -1}: Data Report. SAND92-1810. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19930728.0088. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Martin, R.J., III; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1995. Creep in Topopah Spring Member Welded Tuff. SAND94-2585. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19950502.0006. Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. "Creep and Static Fatigue of Welded Tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34, (3/4), 382. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 250241. Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. Creep Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND95-1759. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971017.0661. Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. The Effects of Confining Pressure on the Strength and Elastic Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes USW NRG6 and USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND95-1887. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971017.0662. Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; Riggins, M.; and Price, R.H. 1997. Thermal Expansion of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW SD-12 at Pressures 30 MPa: Data Report. SAND95-1904. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971017.0680. Martin, R.J.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1994. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-6: Data Report. SAND93-4020. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19940811.0001. Martin, R.J.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1995. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND94-1996. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19950316.0087. MathSoft. 2001. Mathcad, User's Guide with Reference Manual, Mathcad 2001 Professional. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MathSoft. TIC: 252786. Mellor, M. and Hawkes, I. 1971. "Measurement of Tensile Strength by Diametral Compression of Discs and Annuli." Engineering Geology, 5, 173-225. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 253847. Mongano, G.S.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Beason, S.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Albin, A.L.; and Lung, R.C. 1999. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. [Deliverable SPG42GM3]. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20000324.0614. Mostyn, G. and Douglas, K. 2000. "Strength of Intact Rock and Rock Masses." GeoEng2000, An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 19-24 November 2000, Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 1, 1389-1421. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic. TIC: 254732. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging of New and Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, July 1994 to November 1994. Open-File Report 95-102. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 224224. Munsell Color Company 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1994 Revised Edition. New Windsor, New York: GretagMacbeth. TIC: 238646. Nimick, F.B. 1989. Thermal-Conductivity Data for Tuffs from the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-0624. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19890515.0133. Nimick, F.B. 1990. The Thermal Conductivity of Seven Thermal/Mechanical Units at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-1387. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19891213.0201. Nimick, F.B. 1990. The Thermal Conductivity of the Topopah Spring Member at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND86-0090. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19890516.0183. Nimick, F.B. and Connolly, J.R. 1991. Calculation of Heat Capacities for Tuffaceous Units from the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-3050. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19910308.0017. Nimick, F.B.; Price, R.H.; Van Buskirk, R.G.; and Goodell, J.R. 1985. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff from USW G-4, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND84-1101. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980602.0332. Olsson, W.A. 1982. Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressure on the Mechanical Behavior of Bullfrog Tuff. SAND81-1664. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0498. Olsson, W.A. 1987. Rock Joint Compliance Studies. SAND86-0177. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870511.0131. Olsson, W.A. and Brown, S.R. 1997. Mechanical Properties of Fractures from Drillholes UE25-NRG-4, USW-NRG-6, USW-NRG-7, USW-SD-9 at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND951736. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970224.0064. Olsson, W.A. and Jones, A.K. 1980. Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuffs from the Nevada Test Site. SAND80-1453. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0497. Ortiz, T.S.; Williams, R.L.; Nimick, F.B.; Whittet, B.C.; and South, D.L. 1985. A Three- Dimensional Model of Reference Thermal/Mechanical and Hydrological Stratigraphy at Yucca 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Mountain, Southern Nevada. SAND84-1076. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980602.0331. PBT. 1993. Elastic Wave Velocity Measurements on Plug Core Samples from Borehole UE-25 UZ#16, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Job #93004. Golden, Colorado: PBT. ACC: NNA.19931019.0042. Price, R.H. 1983. Analysis of the Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. SAND82-1315. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0181. Price, R.H. 1986. Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of Topopah Spring Tuff. SAND85-0709. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19891106.0125. Price, R.H. 1993. "Strength-Size-Porosity Empirical Model for Yucca Mountain Tuff." EOS, Transactions (Supplement), 74, (43), 571. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 210057. Price, R.H. and Bauer, S.J. 1985. "Analysis of the Elastic and Strength Properties of Yucca Mountain Tuff, Nevada." Research & Engineering Applications in Rock Masses, Proceedings of the 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, June 26-28, 1985. Ashworth, E., ed. Pages 89-96. Boston, [Massachusetts]: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 218790. Price, R.H. and Jones, A.K. 1982. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Tests Series on Calico Hills Tuff. SAND82-1314. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19900810.0480. Price, R.H. and Nimick, K.G. 1982. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Tram Tuff. SAND821055. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: HQS.19880517.1699. Price, R.H.; Boyd,, P.J.; Noel, J.S.; and Martin, R.J., III. 1994. "Relationship Between Static and Dynamic Rock Properties in Welded and Nonwelded Tuff." Rock Mechanics Models and Measurements Challenges from Industry, Proceedings of the 1st North American Rock Mechnaics Symposium, the University of Texas at Austin, 1-3 June 1994. Nelson, P.P. and Laubach, S.E., eds. Pages 505-529. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 254896. Price, R.H.; Connolly, J.R.; and Keil, K. 1987. Petrologic and Mechanical Properties of Outcrop Samples of the Welded, Devitrified Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. SAND86-1131. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870601.0013. Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J., III.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1994. "Mechanical and Bulk Properties in Support of ESF Design Issues." High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26, 1994. 4, 19871992. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 210984. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J., III; and Boyd, P.J. 1993. "Characterization of Porosity in Support of Mechanical Property Analysis." High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 1847-1853. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. Price, R.H.; Nimick, F.B.; Connolly, J.R.; Keil, K.; Schwartz, B.M.; and Spence, S.J. 1985. Preliminary Characterization of the Petrologic, Bulk, and Mechanical Properties of a Lithophysal Zone Within the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. SAND84-0860. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0156. Price, R.H.; Nimick, K.G.; and Zirzow, J.A. 1982. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff. SAND82-1723. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0063. Price, R.H.; Spence, S.J.; and Jones, A.K. 1984. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff from USW GU-3, Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada. SAND83-1646. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0252. Regulatory Guide 1.28, Rev. 3. 1985. Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and Construction). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Readily available. Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 1988. Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Some Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open-File Report 87-649. [Denver, Colorado]: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. Sobolik, S.; George, J.T.; Riggins, M.; and Finley, R.E. 1998. Installation & Conduct of Plate Loading Test. Scientific Notebook 1-WA-0347-T2. ACC: MOL.19990505.0093. Sobolik, S.R. and George, J.T. 2001. Drift Scale Test: Determination of the In Situ Rock Mass Modulus in the DST Plate Loading Test Niche. SN-SNL-SCI-021-V1 and V2. ACC: MOL.20010605.0094. Sobolik, S.R.; Finley, R.E.; and Ballard, S. 1999. "Thermal-Mechanical Measurements in the Drift Scale Test, Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Rock Mechanics for Industry, Proceedings of the 37th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vail, Colorado, USA, 6-9 June, 1999. Amadei, B.; Kranz, R.L.; Scott, G.A.; and Smeallie, P.H.; eds. 2, 735-742. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 245246. Sun, Y. 2002. Ground Control Methodology for Emplacement Drifts. TDR-GCS-GE-000002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20021118.0097. Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 223837. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Torquato, S. 1987. "Thermal Conductivity of Disordered Heterogeneous Media from the Microstructure." Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 4, (3-4), 151-204. [London, England]: Freund Publishing House. TIC: 249565. Weast, R.C., ed. 1974. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 55th Edition. Pages F-109, F-112. Cleveland, Ohio: CRC Press. TIC: 237649. Williams, N.H. 2003. "Contract No. DE-AC28-01RW12101 – Root Cause Determination for Corrective Action Report BSC(B)-03-C-107." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to J.D. Ziegler (DOE/ORD), September 5, 2003, NHW/MAJ:dsf – 0905038679, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20031107.0027. Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract #: DE-AC08-01NV12101 -- Thermal Test Progress Report #6." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to S.P. Mellington (DOE/YMSCO), April 19, 2001, PROJ.04/01.030, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010612.0531. Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract No. DE-AC08-01RW12101 – Uncertainty Analyses and Strategy Letter Report, REV 00, Activity #SA011481M4." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to S.J. Brocoum (DOE/YMSCO), November 19, 2001, JM:cs-1116010483, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20020109.0064. 12.3 SOFTWARE Software Code: GoldSim. V7.50.100. PC WINDOWS 2000. 10344-7.50.100-00. Software Code: PFC2D. V2.0. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. 10828-2.0-00. Software Code: PFC3D. V.2.0. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. PC. 10830-2.0-00. Software Code: UDEC. V3.1. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. 10173-3.1-00. 12.4 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY TRACKING NUMBER GS000608314224.004. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 35+00 to Station 40+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/20/2000. GS000608314224.006. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 26+00 to 30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps (Drawings OA-46- 222 through OA-46-226) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 06/28/2000. GS021008314224.002. Lithophysal Data Study from the Tptpll in the ECRB from Stations 14+44 to 23+26. Submittal date: 01/28/2003. GS030283114222.001. Direct Shear Data from Selected Samples of the Topopah Spring Tuff. Submittal date: 02/20/2003. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report GS030483351030.001. Bulk Density, Rock-Particle Density, Porosity Properties of Core Samples of Spot, Rim & Matrix-Groundmass from 17 Boreholes in the Upper & Lower Lithophysal Zones of the Topopah Spring Tuff from the ESF & ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 04/24/2003. GS921283114220.006. Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Intact Rock Core Test Specimens. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. GS921283114220.008. Uniaxial Compression and Elastic Properties of Intact Rock Core Specimens from UE-25 NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. GS921283114220.009. Triaxial Compression and Elastic Properties of Intact Rock Core Test Specimens from UE-25 NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. GS921283114220.010. Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens from UE-25 NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/04/1992. GS940408312232.010. Elastic Wave Velocity Measurements in Plug Core Samples from Borehole UE-25 UZ #16, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 02/10/1994. GS950508314224.003. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data - Full Periphery Map Data from North Ramp of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Stations 0+60 to 4+00. Submittal date: 05/24/1995. GS960708314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 30 + 00 to Station 35 + 00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. GS960708314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to Station 45+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. GS960908314224.014. Provisional Results - ESF Main Drift, Station 50+00 to Station 55+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. GS960908314224.015. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Stations 30+00 to 40+00, Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. GS960908314224.016. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to 50+00, Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. GS960908314224.017. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Stations 50+00 to 55+00, Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report GS960908314224.020. Analysis Report: Geology of the North Ramp - Stations 4+00 to 28+00 and Data: Detailed Line Survey and Full-Periphery Geotechnical Map - Alcoves 3 (UPCA) and 4 (LPCA), and Comparative Geologic Cross Section - Stations 0+60 to 28+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. GS970108314224.002. Geotechnical Data for Station 55+00 to 60+00, Main Drift of the ESF, Full Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 01/31/1997. GS970208314224.003. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. GS970208314224.004. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. GS970608314224.007. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for the Exploratory Studies Facility, Main Drift, Alcove 5 (DWFA): Heated Drift and Cross Drift Full Periphery Geotechnical Map (Drawing OA-46-300) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 06/24/1997. GS970808314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 65+00 to Station 70+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/18/1997. GS970808314224.009. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 65+00 to Station 70+00, South Ramp of the ESF; Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps (Drawings 0A-46-269 through 0A-46-274) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 08/18/1997. GS970808314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 70+00 to Station 75+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. GS970808314224.011. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 70+00 to Station 75+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. GS970808314224.013. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 75+00 to Station 78+77, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. GS971108314224.023. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 10 + 00 to Station 18 + 00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. GS971108314224.024. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 18+00 to Station 26+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. GS971108314224.025. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 26+00 to Station 30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report GS971108314224.026. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 45+00 to Station 50+00, Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. GS971108314224.028. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 55+00 to Station 60+00, Main Drift and South Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. GS990408314224.001. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990408314224.002. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990408314224.003. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station -0+10 to 10+00, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990408314224.004. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 10+00 to 15+00, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990408314224.005. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 15+00 to 20+00, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990408314224.006. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 20+00 to 26+81, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. GS990908314224.009. Detailed Line Survey Data for Horizontal and Vertical Traverses, ECRB. Submittal date: 09/16/1999. LL980411104244.061. DST Baseline REKA Probe Measurements for Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity. Submittal date: 04/24/1998. LL980902104244.070. DST Baseline REKA Probe Measurements for Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity. Submittal date: 09/03/1998. LL990205304243.032. Effect of Radiation on Strength of Topopah Springs Tuff. Submittal date: 02/08/1999. MO0007RIB00077.000. In Situ Rock Conditions. Submittal date: 07/18/2000. MO0008SPAFRA06.004. Fracture Geometry Data for the Lithostratigraphic Units of the Repository Host Horizon. Submittal date: 08/28/2000. MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal date: 12/18/2000. MO0204RIB00121.000. Rock Thermal Expansion Coefficient. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report MO0204RIB00122.000. MO0204RIB00123.000. MO0204RIB00124.000. MO0204RIB00125.000. MO0204RIB00126.000. MO0204RIB00127.000. MO0204RIB00128.000. MO0204RIB00129.000. MO0204RIB00133.000. 04/03/2002. MO0204RIB00134.000. MO0204RIB00135.000. MO0204RIB00136.000. MO0204RIB00137.000. MO0204RIB00138.000. MO0204RIB00139.000. MO0204RIB00140.000. MO0204RIB00141.000. MO0204RIB00142.000. MO0204RIB00143.000. MO0204RIB00144.000. MO0204RIB00145.000. MO0204RIB00146.000. MO0204RIB00149.000. Rock Triaxial Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Triaxial Creep. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Dynamic Poisson's Ratio. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Dynamic Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Intact Rock Poisson's Ratio. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Intact Rock Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. In Situ Rock Deformation Modulus. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. In Situ Rock Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Tensile Strength (Brazilian Method). Submittal date: Intact Rock Cohesion. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Tensile Strength (Direct Pull). Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Intact Rock Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Uniaxial Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Joint Cohesion. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Joint Dilation Angle. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Joint Normal Stiffness. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. Rock Joint Peak Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Joint Peak Shear Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Joint Residual Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Joint Residual Shear Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Joint Shear Stiffness. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Schmidt Rebound Hardness. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. Rock Thermal Capacitance. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report MO0204RIB00150.000. Rock Thermal Conductivity for Underground Design. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. MO0210RIB10000.000. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion. Submittal date: 02/24/2003. MO0301SETSTTST.000. Tensile Strength Testing of Topopah Spring Tuff. Submittal date: 01/09/2003. MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Intact Rock Properties Data on Poisson's Ratio and Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2003. MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. Data Summary For Intact Rock Properties Data On Tensile Strength. Submittal date: 07/15/2003. MO0306MWDDDMIO.001. Drift Degradation Model Inputs and Outputs. Submittal date: 06/23/2003. URN-1111 MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 08/05/2003. SN0011F3912298.022. Plate-Loading Measured Displacement and Test Pressure Data (with Results from 10/16/2000 through 10/17/2000). Submittal date: 11/30/2000. SN0011F3912298.023. Plate-Loading Rock Mass Modulus Data (with Results from 10/16/2000 through 10/17/2000). Submittal date: 11/30/2000. SN0108SD821723.001. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Data on Samples from USW G-1 (VA Supporting Data). Submittal date: 08/09/2001. SN0203L2210196.007. Thermal Expansion and Thermal Conductivity of Test Specimens from the Drift Scale Test Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. VA Supporting Data. Submittal date: 03/06/2002. SN0206F3504502.011. Revised Data for Changes in Temperature at Each Thermocouple Location for ECRB Thermal K Test 1 (Two-Hole Test). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. SN0206F3504502.012. Revised Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 1 (Two-Hole Test). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. SN0206F3504502.013. Revised Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 3 (Three-Hole Test, with Results from 1/22/2002 through 4/9/2002). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. SN0207F4102102.001. Rock Modulus Slot Test #1, Location 57+70 in the ESF. Submittal date: 07/22/2002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SN0208F3504502.019. Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 2 (Six-Hole Test). Submittal date: 08/30/2002. SN0208F3912298.039. Rock Mass Thermal Expansion Coefficients Determined from the Drift Scale Test Heating Phase MPBX Measurements. Submittal date: 08/06/2002. SN0208F4102102.002. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 in the ESF. Submittal date: 08/27/2002. SN0208L01B8102.001. Thermal Expansion Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #1 (Test Dates: August 3, 2002 through August 16, 2002). Submittal date: 08/28/2002. SN0208L0207502.001. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #1 (Test Dates: July 31, 2002 through August 16, 2002). Submittal date: 08/20/2002. SN0208T0503102.007. Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Rev 3. Submittal date: 08/26/2002. SN0209L01A1202.001. Thermal Conductivity Laboratory Data (Including Densities and Porosities) Generated in FY02 on the Topopah Springs Lower Lithophysal (TPTPLL) Lithostratigraphic Unit. Submittal date: 09/23/2002. SN0211L01B8102.002. Thermal Expansion Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #2 (Test Dates: October 20, 2002 through October 25, 2002). Submittal date: 11/13/2002. SN0211L0207502.002. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #2 (Test Dates: October 22, 2002 through October 25, 2002). Submittal date: 11/13/2002. SN0212F4102102.003. Rock Modulus Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the ESF. Submittal date: 12/04/2002. SN0212F4102102.004. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the ESF. Submittal date: 12/17/2002. SN0301F4102102.005. Rock Modulus Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the ECRB. Submittal date: 01/08/2003. SN0301F4102102.006. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the ECRB. Submittal date: 01/14/2003. SN0301F4102102.007. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 in the ESF. Submittal date: 01/23/2003. SN0301F4102102.008. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 in the ESF. Submittal date: 01/23/2003. SN0302F4102102.009. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the ESF. Submittal date: 02/14/2003. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SN0302F4102102.010. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the ESF. Submittal date: 02/14/2003. SN0302L0207502.003. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Room Temperature Batch #4, Set 1 (Test Dates: 01/21/03 through 01/23/03). Submittal date: 02/25/2003. SN0303F4102102.011. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the ECRB. Submittal date: 03/12/2003. SN0303F4102102.012. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the ECRB. Submittal date: 03/12/2003. SN0303T0503102.008. Revised Thermal Conductivity of the Non-Repository Layers of Yucca Mountain. Submittal date: 03/19/2003. SN0305L0207502.004. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #4, Set 2 (Test Dates: March 5, 2003 through March 13, 2003). Submittal date: 05/01/2003. SN0305L0207502.006. Porosity of Laboratory Mechanical Properties Test Specimens for Batch #1 and Batch #2. Submittal date: 05/20/2003. SN0306F3912298.048. Plate-Loading Measured Displacement and Test Pressure Data for 2003 (with Results from 4/30/2003). Submittal date: 06/25/2003. SN0306F3912298.049. Plate-Loading Rock Mass Modulus Data for 2003. Submittal date: 06/25/2003. SN0306L0207502.008. Revised Mechanical Properties of Welded Tuff from the Lower Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff, Batch #3 (Test Dates: March 6, 2003 through April 18, 2003). Submittal date: 06/20/2003. SN0307T0503102.009. Thermal Conductivity Model for the Non-Repository Layers of Yucca Mountain. Submittal date: 07/21/2003. SN0307T0510902.003. Updated Heat Capacity of Yucca Mountain Stratigraphic Units. Submittal date: 07/15/2003. SNF35110695001.010. Goodman Jack Measurements in the Single Heater Test Block. Submittal date: 05/25/1999. SNL01A05059301.005. Laboratory Thermal Conductivity Data for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, NRG-5; USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. SNL01B05059301.006. Laboratory Thermal Expansion Data for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, NRG-5; USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SNL01C12159302.002. Laboratory Measurements of Heat Capacity/Thermal Capacitance, for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4 and NRG-5. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. SNL02000000011.000. Matrix Compressive Tests of the Topopah Spring Member in USW GU3. Submittal date: 09/23/1992. SNL02030180001.001. Matrix Compressive Tests to Characterize Tuffs from UE-25A#1 and the Laser Drift in G-Tunnel. Submittal date: 08/20/1985. SNL02030193001.001. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from Depth 22.2 ft. to 328.7 ft. Submittal date: 05/17/1993. SNL02030193001.002. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from Depth 22.2 ft. to 427.0 ft. Submittal date: 06/25/1993. SNL02030193001.003. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE-25 NRG-2 Samples from Depth 150.5 ft. to 200.0 ft. Submittal date: 07/07/1993. SNL02030193001.004. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from Depth 462.3 ft. to 1085.0 ft. Submittal date: 08/05/1993. SNL02030193001.005. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE-25 NRG#3 Samples from Depth 15.4 ft. to 297.1 ft. Submittal date: 09/23/1993. SNL02030193001.006. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#2A Samples from Depth 90.0 ft. to 254.5 ft. Submittal date: 10/13/1993. SNL02030193001.007. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#3 Samples from Depth 263.3 ft. to 265.7 ft. Submittal date: 10/20/1993. SNL02030193001.008. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole USW NRG-6 Sample 416.0 ft. Submittal date: 10/20/1993. SNL02030193001.009. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-5 Samples from Depth 781.0 ft. to 991.9 ft. Submittal date: 11/18/1993. SNL02030193001.010. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-2B Samples from Depth 2.7 ft. to 87.6 ft. Submittal date: 11/18/1993. SNL02030193001.012. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-5 Samples from Depth 847.2 ft. to 896.5 ft. Submittal date: 12/02/1993. SNL02030193001.013. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-2B Samples from Depth 2.7 ft. to 87.6 ft. Submittal date: 12/02/1993. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SNL02030193001.014. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-4 Samples from Depth 378.1 ft. to 695.8 ft. Submittal date: 01/31/1994. SNL02030193001.015. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-4 Samples from Depth 527.0 ft. Submittal date: 02/16/1994. SNL02030193001.016. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 18.0 ft. to 472.9 ft. Submittal date: 03/16/1994. SNL02030193001.017. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 18.0 ft. to 495.0 ft. Submittal date: 03/21/1994. SNL02030193001.018. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 344.4 ft. Submittal date: 04/11/1994. SNL02030193001.019. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 507.4 ft. to 881.0 ft. Submittal date: 06/29/1994. SNL02030193001.020. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 554.7 ft. to 1450.1 ft. Submittal date: 07/25/1994. SNL02030193001.021. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Static Elastic Properties, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & Porosity) for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples from Depth 345.0 ft. to 1408.6 ft. Submittal date: 02/16/1995. SNL02030193001.022. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole USW NRG-6 Samples from Depth 5.7 ft. to 1092.3 ft. Submittal date: 02/27/1995. SNL02030193001.023. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Static Elastic Properties, Unconfined Strength, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & Porosity) for Drillhole USW SD-12 Samples from Depth 16.1 ft. to 1300.3 ft. Submittal date: 08/02/1995. SNL02030193001.024. Elevated Temperature Confined Compression Tests (Ultrasonic Velocities, Static Elastic Properties, Unconfined Strength, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & Porosity) for Drillhole USW SD-9 Samples from Depth 52.6 ft. to 2222.9 ft. Submittal date: 09/05/1995. SNL02030193001.026. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Elastic Moduli and Fracture Strength) for Borehole USW SD-9. Submittal date: 02/22/1996. SNL02030193001.027. Summary of Bulk Property Measurements Including Saturated Bulk Density for NRG-2, NRG-2A, NRG-2B, NRG-3, NRG-4, NRG-5, NRG-6, NRG-7/7A, SD-9, and SD12. Submittal date: 08/14/1996. SNL02030193001.028. Confined Compression Experiments at 150 Degrees C on TSW2 from Borehole USW SD-9. Submittal date: 09/05/1996. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SNL02033084002.001. Parameter Effects on Matrix Compressive Properties of the Topopah Spring Member at Busted Butte. Submittal date: 08/28/1987. SNL02040687003.001. Mechanical Property Data to Analyze the Response of Samples of Unit TSW2 to High Temperature and/or Low Strain Rates. Submittal date: 09/30/1992. SNL02072983001.001. Laboratory Comparison of Mechanical Compressive Data from Matrix Compressive Tests Using Busted Butte Outcrop Samples. Submittal date: 01/03/1985. SNL02072983003.001. Laboratory Comparison of Mechanical Compressive Data from Matrix Compressive Tests Using the Busted Butte Outcrop Samples. Submittal date: 01/03/1985. SNL02100196001.001. Unconfined Compression Tests on Specimens from the Drift Scale Test Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 05/14/1997. SNL02112293001.001. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures on Samples from NRG-4 and NRG-6 Drillholes. Submittal date: 08/18/1994. SNL02112293001.002. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures from NRG7. Submittal date: 03/10/1995. SNL02112293001.003. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures from NRG4 & NRG-6. Submittal date: 03/13/1995. SNL02112293001.005. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillhole USW SD-9. Submittal date: 07/15/1996. SNL02112293001.006. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillhole USW SD-7 and ESF-TMA-MPBX-3 at Elevated Temperature. Submittal date: 07/30/1996. SNL02112293001.007. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillholes USW NRG-7/7A and USW SD-12. Submittal date: 08/08/1996. SNL22080196001.001. Thermal Properties of Test Specimens from the Single Heater Test Area in the Thermal Testing Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 08/15/1996. SNL22080196001.002. Unconfined Compression Tests on Specimens from the Single Heater Test Area in the Thermal Testing Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 08/22/1996. SNL22080196001.003. Posttest Laboratory Thermal and Mechanical Characterization for Single Heater Test (SHT) Block. Submittal date: 08/26/1998. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report SNL22100196001.006. Laboratory Measurements of Thermal Conductivity as a Function of Saturation State for Welded and Nonwelded Tuff Specimens. Submittal date: 06/08/1998. SNSAND80145300.000. Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuffs from the Nevada Test Site. Submittal date: 01/04/1985. SNSAND81166400.000. Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressure on the Mechanical Behavior of Bullfrog Tuff. Submittal date: 11/30/1998. SNSAND82048100.000. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Bullfrog Tuff. Submittal date: 11/30/1998. SNSAND82105500.000. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Tram Tuff. Submittal date: 11/30/1998. SNSAND82131400.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Calico Hills Tuff. Submittal date: 04/24/1992. SNSAND82131500.000. Analysis of Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. Submittal date: 02/10/1997. SNSAND83164600.000. Experimental Data of Fully Saturated and Wet Samples; Static Mechanical Properties of GU-3 760.9 Samples; Ultrasonic Velocity Data; and Dynamic Elastic Model of GU-3 760.9 Samples Compression Test. Submittal date: 04/24/1992. SNSAND84086000.000. Petrological, Mineralogical, Mechanical and Bulk Properties of Lithophysal Tuff. Submittal date: 04/24/1992. SNSAND84110100.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff from USW G-4, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 02/01/1986. SNSAND85070300.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on the Topopah Spring Member from USW G-2, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 09/24/1987. SNSAND85070900.000. Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of the Topopah Spring Tuff. Submittal date: 12/16/1998. SNSAND86113100.000. Petrologic and Mechanical Properties of Outcrop Samples of the Welded, Devitrified Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. Submittal date: 06/11/1987. SNSAND91089400.000. Anisotropy of the Topopah Spring Member Tuff. Submittal date: 01/08/1999. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report UN0106SPA013GD.004. Drift Scale Thermal Test (DST) REKA Probe Developed Data for Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity for the Period 05/01/1998 to 04/30/2001 (Heated Measurements for Boreholes 151, 152, and 153). Submittal date: 06/28/2001. UN0201SPA013GD.007. DST REKA Probe Developed Data for Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity for the Period 05/01/2001 to 12/31/2001 (Heated Measurements for Boreholes 151 and 152). Submittal date: 01/07/2002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 13. ATTACHMENTS A list of attachments is provided in Table 13-1, including the number, title, and total pages for each attachment. Table 13-1. List of Attachments Attachment Number Attachment Title Number of Pages I Histograms of Intact Mechanical Rock Tests 83 II MathCAD Worksheets to Develop Intact Rock Hoek-Brown Parameters 32 III Alternate Rock Mass Property Calculation From Hoek Tunnel Method 6 IV Spatial Plots of Subsurface Rock Parameters 27 V Lithophysal Rock Modeling Using PFC 152 VI Lithophysal Rock Modeling Using UDEC 6 VII Description of Lithophysal Abundance and Lithophysal Characteristics in the ECRB Cross Drift 44 VIII Electronic Computer Files Supporting Calculations 4 IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 51 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 13-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 13-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT I HISTOGRAMS OF INTACT MECHANICAL ROCK TESTS 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT I HISTOGRAMS OF INTACT MECHANICAL ROCK TESTS I.1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: YOUNG’S MODULUS 3111350 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 1 3.33% 15 0 3.33% 20 2 10.00% 25 12 50.00% 30 15 100.00% 35 0 100.00% 40 0 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mi0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 5 20 25 35 40 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 10 15 30 45 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 30 Figure I-1. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3111350 3121130 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 1 33.33% 40 2 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mil0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 30 35 40 () Frequency 0% dde Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-3 25 45 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 3 Figure I-2. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3121130 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3121150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% Mi0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 5 15 20 30 40 50 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 10 25 35 45 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 4 3 3 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 66.67% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 30 Figure I-3. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3121150 3121170 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 1 50.00% 40 1 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mii0 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 () Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-7 40 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-4. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3121170 3231150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 1 6.25% 35 4 31.25% 40 9 87.50% 45 2 100.00% 50 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 16 Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 38mm Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 25 35 45 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-5. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3231150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3231350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 20 30 35 40 l) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 38mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 15 25 45 50 More Young's Moduus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 14.29% 28.57% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 14 Figure I-6. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3231350 3331350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 4 18.18% 35 13 77.27% 40 5 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 22 Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0 5 10 25 30 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lthophysal 42mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 15 20 35 40 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-7. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3331350 3411150 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 1 25.00% 40 0 25.00% 45 2 75.00% 50 1 100.00% Mii0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 30 35 40 45 50 () Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 20 25 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 4 Figure I-8. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3411150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3411170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% Mili0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysa 50.8mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-7 30 35 40 More Young's Modulus (Gpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 4 Figure I-9. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3411170 3412130 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 1 50.00% 20 0 50.00% 25 0 50.00% 30 0 50.00% 35 0 50.00% 40 1 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mi0 1 2 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-3 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-10. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3412130 3412150 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 0 .00% 40 3 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mi0 1 2 3 4 0 5 20 25 30 40 45 () Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 10 15 35 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 3 Figure I-11. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3412150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3421130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% Mii0 1 2 3 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-3 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 4 Figure I-12. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3421130 3412170 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 0 .00% 40 3 75.00% 45 1 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mi0 1 2 3 4 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-7 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 4 Figure I-13. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3412170 3412180 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 1 25.00% 40 1 50.00% 45 1 75.00% 50 0 75.00% Mi0 1 2 0 5 10 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-8 15 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 1 100.00% 4 Figure I-14. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3412180 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3421150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 5 10 20 25 35 40 45 50 () Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 15 30 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 3 1 5 15 14 1 1 0 .00% 2.44% 9.76% 12.20% 24.39% 60.98% 95.12% 97.56% 100.00% 100.00% More 41 Figure I-15. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3421150 3421170 Mil 0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 ( Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysa50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-7 35 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa) Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 0 .00% 40 2 50.00% 45 2 100.00% 50 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 4 Figure I-16. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3421170 3421190 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 1 16.67% 35 3 66.67% 40 2 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% Mii0 1 2 3 4 0 5 10 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-9 15 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-17. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3421190 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3422150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% Mii0 1 2 3 4 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 4 Figure I-18. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3422150 3521150 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 1 11.11% 40 2 33.33% 45 5 88.89% 50 1 100.00% Middll i0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 20 30 40 45 () Frequency 0% e Non-Lithophysa82mm Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 15 25 35 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 9 Figure I-19. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3521150 3621150 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 1 9.09% 35 4 45.45% 40 4 81.82% 45 1 90.91% 50 1 100.00% Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 15 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 11 Figure I-20. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3621150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3921150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% Miii0 1 2 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% ddle Non-Lthophysal 228.6mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 2 Figure I-21. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 3921150 4121120 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 1 50.00% 35 0 50.00% 40 1 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% li0 1 2 0 5 10 20 30 40 45 () Frequency 0% Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-2 15 25 35 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-22. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 4121120 4121140 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 1 50.00% 35 0 50.00% 40 1 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% li0 1 2 0 5 10 20 25 40 l) Frequency 0% Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-4 15 30 35 45 50 More Young's Moduus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-23. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 4121140 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4121160 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% li0 1 2 0 5 15 25 30 40 45 ) Frequency 0% Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-6 10 20 35 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More Figure I-24. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 4121160 4121150 Bin 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 2 20.00% 25 1 30.00% 30 0 30.00% 35 4 70.00% 40 3 100.00% 45 0 100.00% 50 0 100.00% li0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 15 20 35 40 () Frequency 0% Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 10 25 30 45 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% Figure I-25. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 4121150 1421150 Bi -5 0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 ( Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 40 More Young's Modulus Gpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% 12.50% 37.50% 50.00% 75.00% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 8 Figure I-26. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% i-5 0 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 ( Frequency 0% Upper Lthophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 40 More Young's Modulus Gpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-27. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1431150 1721150 Bi -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 30 35 40 45 l () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1015 20 25 50 More Young's ModuusGpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 40.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 10 Figure I-28. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1721150 1813250 Bi -5 0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 25 30 40 45 50 ) Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 290mm Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 1020 35 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 3 Figure I-29. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1813250 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% il -5 0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 50 ) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Upper Lthophysa290mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 More Young's Modulus (Gpa100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-30. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1821150 1831150 Bi l-5 0 1 2 3 0 5 15 20 30 40 45 l () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 290mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 25 35 50 More Young's ModuusGpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 33.33% 66.67% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-31. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 1831150 2121150 Bi -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 5 25 30 35 40 45 ( Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 25.4mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 15 20 50 More Young's Modulus Gpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 0 0 1 8 3 10 5 0 0 .00% 3.57% 3.57% 3.57% 7.14% 35.71% 46.43% 82.14% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 28 Figure I-32. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2121150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 50 .00% l-7 0 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 35 40 45 ) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1025 30 50 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-33. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2121170 2421150 Bi l-5 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 40 45 50 ) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 37.50% 75.00% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 8 Figure I-34. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2421150 2431150 Bi -5 0 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 ) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-35. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2431150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% l-5 0 1 2 0 5 15 25 30 35 40 50 Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysa 127mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 20 45 More Young's Modulus (Gpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-36. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2631150 2831150 Bi i-5 0 1 2 3 0 5 10 15 30 35 40 45 50 ) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 290mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1020 25 More Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 33.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 3 Figure I-37. Histogram Of Unconfined Compressive Strength Young’s Modulus Condition 2831150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH POROSITY LESS THAN 11% 3421150 4421150 Porosity less than 11% Bin FrequencyCumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 0 .00% 60 0 .00% 80 0 .00% 100 1 4.55% 120 2 13.64% 140 1 18.18% 160 1 22.73% 180 5 45.45% 200 2 54.55% 220 2 63.64% 240 3 77.27% 260 3 90.91% 280 1 95.45% More 1 100.00% mean 191.8 st dev 53.67 Mil ii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 120 160 i) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ddle and Lower Non-Lithophysa50.8mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 40 80 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% Porosity less than 11% Figure I-38. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Conditions 3421150, 4421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 3111350 Bin 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 1 3.33% 60 3 13.33% 80 2 20.00% 100 1 23.33% 120 1 26.67% 140 4 40.00% 160 4 53.33% 180 5 70.00% 200 2 76.67% 220 5 93.33% 240 2 100.00% 260 0 100.00% 280 0 100.00% Mii-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 i( Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ddle Non-Lthophysal 25.4mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfned Compressive Strength Mpa) 100% Frequency Cumulative % More 0 100.00% 30 Figure I-39. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 3121130 Bin Mi-3 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 200 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 100.00% 3 Figure I-40. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% Mii-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 120 200 240 280 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 160 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) Frequency 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 5 8 4 4 1 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 3.33% 6.67% 6.67% 10.00% 26.67% 43.33% 70.00% 83.33% 96.67% 100.00% 30 Figure I-41. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121150 3121170 Bin Mii-7 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 280 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-42. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 3231150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 0 .00% 60 0 .00% 80 1 6.25% 100 1 12.50% 120 1 18.75% 140 2 31.25% 160 2 43.75% 180 4 68.75% 200 0 68.75% 220 1 75.00% 240 2 87.50% 260 0 87.50% 280 1 93.75% More 1 100.00% 16 Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 120 160 200 240 280 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) Frequency Figure I-43. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % Mi-5 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.5:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 .00% .00% 14.29% 21.43% 28.57% 35.71% 42.86% 50.00% 64.29% 71.43% 85.71% 85.71% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 14 Figure I-44. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231350 3331350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 0 .00% 60 0 .00% 80 3 13.64% 100 2 22.73% 120 3 36.36% 140 2 45.45% 160 4 63.64% 180 4 81.82% 200 1 86.36% 220 1 90.91% 240 1 95.45% 260 1 100.00% 280 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 22 Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 41.9mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.42:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Figure I-45. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 3411150 Bin Mi-5 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 4 Figure I-46. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 0 .00% Mi-7 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-47. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 3412130 Bin Mi-3 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-48. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 3412150 Bin Mi-5 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 3 Figure I-49. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 0 .00% Mi-7 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 50.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-50. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 3412180 Bin Mi-8 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-51. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 3421130 Bin Mi-3 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 50.00% 50.00% 75.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 4 Figure I-52. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 1 2 2 1 7 2 5 3 4 4 5 4 1 1 .00% 2.38% 7.14% 11.90% 14.29% 30.95% 35.71% 47.62% 54.76% 64.29% 73.81% 85.71% 95.24% 97.62% 100.00% 42 Figure I-53. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 3421170 Bin Mi-7 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-54. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 3421190 Bin Mi-9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 16.67% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 6 Figure I-55. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% Mii-5 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-56. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 3521150 Bin Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 0 120 160 200 240 280 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 82.6mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 11.11% 11.11% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 88.89% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 9 Figure I-57. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 3621150 Bin Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 9.09% 18.18% 81.82% 81.82% 90.91% 90.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 11 Figure I-58. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3921150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 0 .00% Mil -5 0 1 2 3 0 ) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ddle Non-Lithophysa228.6mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressive Strength (MpaFrequency 100% 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-59. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 4121120 Bin -2 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-60. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 4121140 Bin -4 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 2 Figure I-61. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% -5 0 1 2 3 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 10.00% 10.00% 30.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-62. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 4121160 Bin -6 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 280 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-63. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 4421150 Bin -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 120 160 200 240 280 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 50.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 10 Figure I-64. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4431150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% ii0 1 2 3 0 280 i) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 40 80 120 160 200 240 Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 100% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-65. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4431150 1431150 Bin i-5 0 1 2 0 120 160 240 ( 0% Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 200 280 Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa) Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 2 Figure I-66. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1431150 1421150 Bin -5 0 1 2 3 0 i () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfned Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 12.50% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 87.50% 87.50% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 8 Figure I-67. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 1 90.00% -5 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 i) 0% Upper Lithophysal 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 Figure I-68. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1613150 1631150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% l-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 240 () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 280 Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 Figure I-69. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1631150 1621150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 1 50.00% 40 0 50.00% 60 0 50.00% 80 0 50.00% 100 0 50.00% 120 0 50.00% 140 0 50.00% 160 1 100.00% 180 0 100.00% 200 0 100.00% 220 0 100.00% 240 0 100.00% 260 0 100.00% 280 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 2 -5 0 1 2 0 120 160 200 240 i) 0% Upper Lithophysal 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-70. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1621150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 9 90.00% l-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 i () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfned Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-71. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1721150 1813250 Bin l-5 0 1 2 3 0 () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 290mm Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 33.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-72. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1813250 1821150 Bin l-5 0 1 2 3 4 0 () Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 290mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 3 Figure I-73. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1821150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 3 50.00% i-5 0 1 2 3 4 0 i) Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 290mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-74. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1831150 2121150 Bin ili-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 280 i) Frequency 0% Lower Lthophysa 25.4mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 3 0 1 3 6 2 4 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 10.00% 10.00% 13.33% 23.33% 43.33% 50.00% 63.33% 80.00% 96.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 30 Figure I-75. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2121150 2121170 Bin -7 0 1 2 3 0 iiFrequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfned Compressve Strength (Mpa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 2 Figure I-76. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2121170 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 0 .00% -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 i) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.67% 13.33% 20.00% 33.33% 40.00% 60.00% 73.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 15 Figure I-77. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2421150 2431150 Bin -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 120 200 280 i) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 160 240 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 0 1 0 3 9 11 10 10 7 5 1 2 0 .00% .00% .00% 1.69% 1.69% 6.78% 22.03% 40.68% 57.63% 74.58% 86.44% 94.92% 96.61% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 59 Figure I-78. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2431150 2512150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 0 .00% 60 1 25.00% 80 0 25.00% 100 0 25.00% 120 0 25.00% 140 0 25.00% 160 0 25.00% 180 2 75.00% 200 1 100.00% 220 0 100.00% 240 0 100.00% 260 0 100.00% More 280 0 0 100.00% 100.00% i-5 0 1 2 3 0 120 240 ) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 127mm Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 160 200 280 Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4 Figure I-79. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2512150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 More 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 50.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% iAmbi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 i) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Lower Lthophysal 127mm ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 12 Figure I-80. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2531150 2631150 Bin i-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 () Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal 127mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 5.88% 11.76% 17.65% 23.53% 47.06% 64.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 17 Figure I-81. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2631150 2813250 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 40 2 100.00% 60 0 100.00% 80 0 100.00% 100 0 100.00% 120 0 100.00% 140 0 100.00% 160 0 100.00% 180 0 100.00% 200 0 100.00% 220 0 100.00% 240 0 100.00% 260 0 100.00% More 280 0 0 100.00% 100.00% iAmbi-5 0 1 2 3 0 i) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Lower Lthophysal 290mm ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 2 Figure I-82. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2813250 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2831150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 20 1 33.33% 40 2 100.00% 60 0 100.00% 80 0 100.00% 100 0 100.00% 120 0 100.00% 140 0 100.00% 160 0 100.00% 180 0 100.00% 200 0 100.00% 220 0 100.00% 240 0 100.00% 260 0 100.00% 280 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 3 Ambi-5 0 1 2 3 0 160 200 240 280 i) 0% Lower Lithophysal 290mm ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 Unconfned Compressive Strength (MpaFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-83. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2831150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: POROSITY Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 0 0 1 ity (%) 0% 2 Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = No Data PorosFrequency10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-84. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 3121130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Ratiiini0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confng Pressure = 0 More Porosity (%) Frequency 3 Figure I-85. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 3121150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 78.57% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Ratiiini0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 6 12 18 24 36 More Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confng Pressure = 0 MPa. 30 Porosity (%) 14 Figure I-86. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3121170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% iRatiii0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 More i) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Middle Non-Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning pressure = 0 MPa. Porosty (% Frequency 2 Figure I-87. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 3231150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data i0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 ity (%) Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non-Lithophysal, 38mm, Ambient Saturaton, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5mm, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. Poros 0 3331350 Figure I-88. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 Middle Non-Lithophysal, 41mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 2.4 to 3.0, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. Bin Frequency Cumulative % Frequency 1 100% 0.9 90% 0.8 80% 0.7 70% 0.6 60% 0.5 50% 0.4 40% 0.3 30% 20% 0.2 10% 0 0.1 0% 0 Porosity (%) Figure I-89. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 No Data 0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3411150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data Miliii0 1 0 iddle Non-Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Porosty (%) Frequency 0 Figure I-90. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411150 3411170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data ilLD Ratiii0 MPa. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 ity (%) Middle Non Lthophysa, 50/57/60, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning Pressure = PorosFrequency 0 Figure I-91. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 3412130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data iiii0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 ity (%) Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 150 C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. PorosFrequency 0 Figure I-92. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 150 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain RAte = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 0.8 80% 0.6 60% No Data 0.4Frequency 40% 0.2 20% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) 0 Figure I-93. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 3412170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data l/iiiini0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Middle Non Lithophysa, 50/5760, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 150 C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confng Pressure = 0 MPa. Porosty (%) Frequency 0 Figure I-94. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 3412180 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data iiii0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 i0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 150 C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-8, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. Porosty (%) Frequency 0 Figure I-95. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-35 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-3, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 3421130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0.9 90% 0.8 80% 0.7 70% 0.6 60% 0.5 50% 0.4 40% 0.3 30% 0.2 20% 0.1 10% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) Frequency Figure I-96. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 No Data 0 3421150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 6 18 24 30 36 More ity (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 Mpa. 12 PorosFrequency 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 3 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 14.29% 90.48% 95.24% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 21 Figure I-97. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-7, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 3421170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data Frequency 1 100% 0.9 90% 0.8 80% 0.7 70% 0.6 60% 0.5 50% 0.4 40% 0.3 30% 0.2 20% 0.1 10% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) Figure I-98. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-36 December 2003 0 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3421190 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% LD Ratiii0 MPa. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 6 18 24 30 36 More 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-9, Confning Pressure = 12 Porosity (%) Frequency 6 Figure I-99. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 3422150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data l0 MPa. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 i0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Temp = 150 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = Porosty (%) Frequency 0 Figure I-100. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 Middle non Lithophysal, 82mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5 , Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 3521150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Frequency 1 100% 0.9 90% 0.8 80% 0.7 70% 0.6 60% 0.5 50% 0.4 40% 0.3 30% 20% 0.2 0.1 10% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) Figure I-101. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-37 December 2003 No Data 0 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 127 mm, Saturated, Room Temp, Ld Ratio - 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 0.8 80% 60% 0.6 No Data 0.4 40% 0.2 20% 0% 0 0 Porosity (%) 0 Frequency Figure I-102. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 3631150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 127mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 0.8 80% 0.6 60% No Data 0.4Frequency 40% 0.2 20% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) 0 Figure I-103. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3631150 3921150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data Middle Non liRatiii0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 i0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% thophysal, 228.6mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. Porosty (%) Frequency 0 Figure I-104. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 4121140 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 1 100% 0.8 80% 0.6 60% 0.4 40% 0.2 20% 0 0% 0 Porosity (%) Figure I-105. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 Frequency Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 1^-2, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. No Data 0 4121120 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Frequency 1 100% 0.9 90% 0.8 80% 0.7 70% 0.6 60% 0.5 50% 0.4 40% 0.3 30% 0.2 20% 10% 0.1 0% 0 0 Porosity (%) Figure I-106. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 No Data 0 4121150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 15 5 100.00% 18 0 100.00% 21 0 100.00% 24 0 100.00% 27 0 100.00% 30 0 100.00% 33 0 100.00% 36 0 100.00% More 39 0 0 100.00% 100.00% Rati0 MPa. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 6 12 18 24 36 More ity (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 30 PorosFrequency 5 Figure I-107. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-39 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-6, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 4121160 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 1 100% 0.8 80% 0.6 60% 0.4 40% 0.2 20% 0% 0 0 Porosity (%) Frequency Figure I-108. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 No Data 0 4421150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Ratii0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 i0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower non Lithophysal, 41mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain RAte = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. More Porosty (%) Frequency 5 Figure I-109. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4421150 1421150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % i0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 30 36 Frequency 0% 2 Upper Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 Mpa. 18 24 More Porosity (%) 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 14.29% 42.86% 85.71% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 7 Figure I-110. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-40 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1613150 Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 195/200 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Frequency No Data 0 Figure I-111. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1613150 Frequency 1621150 Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Frequency Figure I-112. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1621150 1631150 Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Figure I-113. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1631150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-41 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1721150 i0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 24 30 i) Frequency 0% Upper Lthophysal, 267/238mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 18 36 More Porosty (% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 30.00% 60.00% 90.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-114. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1721150 1813250 / 0 1 2 3 0 6 18 24 36 Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 195200 C, LD Ratio <1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 12 30 More Porosity (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 100.00% 3 Figure I-115. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1813250 1821150 0 1 2 3 0 6 12 30 36 Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD=2.0, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 18 24 More Porosity (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 66.67% 100.00% 3 Figure I-116. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1821150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-42 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1831150 i0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 i (%) Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Ambent Sat, Room Temp, L:D = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Press = 0 MPa. 30 36 More Porosty10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 16.67% 66.67% 66.67% 83.33% 100.00% 6 Figure I-117. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831150 1831250 0 1 2 0 6 12 30 36 Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio <1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Press. = 0 MPa. 18 24 More Porosity (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 1 Figure I-118. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831250 2121150 i0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 6 12 24 30 Frequency 0% Lower Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 18 36 More Porosity (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 3 6 11 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 11.54% 34.62% 76.92% 92.31% 92.31% 96.15% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 26 Figure I-119. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-43 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2121170 0 1 2 3 0 6 12 18 24 36 i) Frequency 0% Lower lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, L:D Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 30 More Porosty (% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-120. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121170 2131150 Frequency Bin Lower Lithophysal, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Frequency Figure I-121. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2131150 2411150 Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 50% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Figure I-122. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2411150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-44 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2412150 Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 150 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 50% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Frequency No Data 0 Figure I-123. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2412150 2421150 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 ity (%) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temperature, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. More Poros20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 8 Frequency Figure I-124. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2421150 2431150 Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 50% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Figure I-125. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2431150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-45 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2512150 Lower Lithophysal, 82mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 150 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 50% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Frequency No Data 0 Figure I-126. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2512150 2531150 Frequency Lower Lithophysal, 82mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 1 100% 50% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Frequency Figure I-127. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2531150 2613150 Lower Lithophysal, 127mm, Dry Saturation, 195/200 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa, 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 0% No Data Porosity (%) Bin Frequency Cumulative % No Data 0 Figure I-128. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2613150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-46 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 2813250 io 0 1 2 0 6 18 24 36 i) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Dry Saturation, 195/200 C, LD Rat< 1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 12 30 More Porosty (% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-129. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2813250 2821150 0 1 2 0 6 18 24 36 i) Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 12 30 More Porosty (% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 Figure I-130. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2821150 2831150 0 1 2 3 0 6 18 24 36 i) Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 12 30 More Porosty (% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 66.67% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-131. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2831150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-47 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.5 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: POISSON’S RATIO 1421150 Bin l-5 0 1 2 3 0 io Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Rat10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 .00% .00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50% 62.50% 62.50% 75.00% 87.50% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% More 8 Frequency Figure I-132. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1421150 1431150 Bin Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 No Data 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Figure I-133. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1431150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-48 December 2003 n Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bi il Ambii-5 0 1 2 0 0.2 0.35 0% Upper Lthophysa38mm ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 1 Figure I-134. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1621150 1631150 -5 0 1 2 3 0 Frequency 0% Upper Lithophysal 127mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 66.67% 66.67% 66.67% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More Figure I-135. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1631150 1721150 Bin ii-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.2 0.35 0.4 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Upper Lthophysal 267mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-136. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1721150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-49 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1813250 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 Upper Lithophysal 290mm 0.05 Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 No Data 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 Figure I-137. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1813250 1821150 Bin il-5 0 1 2 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Upper Lthophysa 290mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-138. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1821150 2121150 Bin ii-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 Poiio Frequency 0% Lower Lthophysal 25.4mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.25 0.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More sson's Rat10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 0 3 14 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 12.50% 70.83% 83.33% 83.33% 95.83% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 24 Figure I-139. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-50 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % i-5 0 1 2 0 Poiio 0% Upper Lithophysal 290mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More sson's RatFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 1 Figure I-140. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831150 2121170 Bin l-7 0 1 2 0 io Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysa 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.4 0.450.5 More Poisson's Rat10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-141. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121170 2421150 Bi i-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.2 0.35 Poi0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More sson's Ratio Frequency n Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0 .00% 0.1 0 .00% 0.15 1 6.67% 0.2 6 46.67% 0.25 6 86.67% 0.3 0 86.67% 0.35 1 93.33% 0.4 1 100.00% 0.45 0 100.00% 0.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 15 Figure I-142. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2421150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-51 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% i-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 0.15 0.2 0% Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 1 43 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 1.79% 78.57% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 56 Figure I-143. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2431150 2631150 Bi il i-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.15 0.35 0% Lower Lthophysa127mm Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% n Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 1 0 8 4 0 2 0 0 0 .00% .00% 6.67% 6.67% 60.00% 86.67% 86.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 0 100.00% 15 Figure I-144. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2631150 3121170 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 0 .00% 12 2 100.00% 15 0 100.00% 18 0 100.00% 21 0 100.00% 24 0 100.00% 27 0 100.00% 30 0 100.00% 33 0 100.00% 36 0 100.00% More 39 0 0 100.00% 100.00% iRatiii0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 More i) Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Middle Non-Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning pressure = 0 MPa. Porosty (% Figure I-145. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-52 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3111350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 0 Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 1 0.05 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) Frequency 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 No Data 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 Figure I-146. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 3121130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 More 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Ratiiini0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 24 30 36 i0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confng Pressure = 0 18 More Porosty (%) Frequency 3 Figure I-147. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 3121170 Bin Mi-7 0 1 2 0 0.15 0.35 0.4 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-148. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-53 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3231150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0 0 0 12 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 75.00% 93.75% 93.75% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 16 Figure I-149. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 3231350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0 .00% 0.1 0 .00% 0.15 1 7.14% 0.2 10 78.57% 0.25 1 85.71% 0.3 1 92.86% 0.35 0 92.86% 0.4 1 100.00% 0.45 0 100.00% 0.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 14 Miil-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 0.35 0.4 io 0% ddle Non-Lthophysa 38.1mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.5:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's RatFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-150. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231350 3331350 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0 .00% 0.1 0 .00% 0.15 6 27.27% 0.2 15 95.45% 0.25 1 100.00% 0.3 0 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% 0.45 0 100.00% 0.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 22 Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 41.9mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.42:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure I-151. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-54 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3411150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % liii0 1 0 iMiddle Non-Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Porosty (%) Frequency No Data 0 Figure I-152. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 341150 3411170 Bin Mi-7 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 25.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-153. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 3412130 Bin Mi-3 0 1 2 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Figure I-154. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-55 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3412150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 0.05 0 .00% Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.35 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-155. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 3412170 Bin Mi-7 0 1 2 3 0 0.2 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-156. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 3412180 Bin Mii-8 0 1 2 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 75.00% 75.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-157. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-56 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3421130 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 0.05 0 .00% Mi-3 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-158. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 3421150 Bin Mii-5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 0 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 2 3 25 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 4.88% 12.20% 73.17% 97.56% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 41 Figure I-159. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 3421170 Bin Mi-7 0 1 2 3 0 0.2 0.35 Poi0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More sson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 4 Figure I-160. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-57 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3421190 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 0.05 1 20.00% Miili-9 0 1 2 3 4 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 i) 0% ddle Non-Lthophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.00% 80.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 5 Frequency Figure I-161. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 3422150 Bin Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 No Data 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 Figure I-162. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 3521150 Bin Mi-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.15 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ddle Non-Lithophysal 82.6mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 11.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 9 Figure I-163. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-58 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3621150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 0.05 0 .00% Mii-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% 55.56% 88.89% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 9 Figure I-164. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 3921150 Bin Mii-5 0 1 2 3 0 0.2 0.35 0.4 Poiio 0% ddle Non-Lithophysal 228.6mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More sson's RatFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 2 Frequency Figure I-165. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 4121120 Bin Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-2 1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 One Data Point, 0.31 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 Figure I-166. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-59 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4121140 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 0 Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-4 1 0.05 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 0% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 One Data Point, 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 Figure I-167. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 4121160 Bin -6 0 1 2 3 0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 3 Figure I-168. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 4121150 Bin -5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.15 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 100% Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 50.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-169. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-60 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4431150 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0 .00% 0.1 0 .00% 0.15 0 .00% 0.2 1 50.00% 0.25 1 100.00% 0.3 0 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% 0.45 0 100.00% 0.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 2 0 1 2 0 0.2 0.35 0.4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency Figure I-170. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4431150 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-61 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report TRIAXIAL DATA: YOUNG’S MODULUS 3121151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 5 0 .00% 10 0 .00% 15 0 .00% 20 0 .00% 25 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 35 3 50.00% 40 1 66.67% 45 2 100.00% 50 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 10 15 20 30 40 45 50 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 25 35 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 6 Figure I-171. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 3121151 3121153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 20 25 30 35 40 50 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 10 15 45 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-172. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 3121153 3421153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 15 20 25 30 35 50 0% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 10 40 45 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 23.08% 46.15% 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 13 Figure I-173. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 3421153 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-62 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3422163 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 15 20 30 40 45 0% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 10 25 35 50 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 33.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-174. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 3422163 1421153 3421153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 15 20 30 35 40 50 0% Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure = 10 MPa. 10 25 45 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 2421153 4421153 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 22.22% 44.44% 88.89% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 18 Figure I-175. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 1421153, 2421153, 3421153, 4421153. 1421151 3421151 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 15 20 30 35 40 50 0% Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure = 5 MPa. 10 25 45 More Young's Modulus Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 4421151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 More 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-176. Histogram of Triaxial Young’s Modulus Condition 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-63 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report TRIAXIAL DATA: POISSON’S RATIO 3121151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0.05 0 .00% 0.1 0 .00% 0.15 0 .00% 0.2 3 50.00% 0.25 2 83.33% 0.3 1 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% 0.45 0 100.00% 0.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 0 1 2 3 4 0 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 6 Figure I-177. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 3121151 3121153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-178. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 3121153 3421153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 30.00% 80.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-179. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 3421153 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-64 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3422163 0 1 2 3 0 0% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 50.00% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-180. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 3422163 1421153 3421153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0% Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure = 10 MPa. 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 2421153 4421153 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 6 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 33.33% 66.67% 83.33% 94.44% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 18 Figure I-181. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 1421153, 2421153, 3421153, 4421153. 1421151 3421151 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0% Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure = 5 MPa. 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 4421151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 30.00% 80.00% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 10 Figure I-182. Histogram of Triaxial Poisson’s Ratio Condition 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-65 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report TRIAXIAL DATA: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 3121151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 50 0 .00% 100 1 16.67% 150 0 16.67% 200 1 33.33% 250 1 50.00% 300 2 83.33% 350 1 100.00% 400 0 100.00% 450 0 100.00% 500 0 100.00% 550 0 100.00% 600 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 0 1 2 3 0 200 300 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 100 400 500 600 Triaxial Compressive Strength Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Figure I-183. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3121151 3121153 i0 1 2 3 4 5 0 200 300 400 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 2.4, Stran rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 100 500 600 Triaxial Compressive Strength 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 More 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 16.67% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-184. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3121153 3421153 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 300 400 Frequency 0% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 100 200 500 600 Triaxial Compressive Strength 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 More 0 1 0 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 7.14% 7.14% 35.71% 85.71% 92.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 14 Figure I-185. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3421153 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-66 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3422163 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 100 200 500 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 300 400 600 Triaxial Compressive Strength Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 50 0 .00% 100 0 .00% 150 0 .00% 200 0 .00% 250 4 66.67% 300 1 83.33% 350 1 100.00% 400 0 100.00% 450 0 100.00% 500 0 100.00% 550 0 100.00% 600 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-186. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3422163 1421153 3421153 l = 10 MPa. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 100 200 500 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Tptpu Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure 300 400 600 Triaxial Compressive Strength Cumulative % 2421153 4421153 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 50 1 5.26% 100 0 5.26% 150 4 26.32% 200 7 63.16% 250 4 84.21% 300 3 100.00% 350 0 100.00% 400 0 100.00% 450 0 100.00% 500 0 100.00% 550 0 100.00% 600 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 19 Figure I-187. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Conditions 1421153, 2421153, 3421153,4421153 1421151 3421151 0 1 2 3 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining pressure = 5 MPa. Triaxial Compressive Strength Cumulative % 4421151 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 50 0 .00% 100 1 10.00% 150 2 30.00% 200 3 60.00% 250 2 80.00% 300 1 90.00% 350 1 100.00% 400 0 100.00% 450 0 100.00% 500 0 100.00% 550 0 100.00% 600 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 10 Figure I-188. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Conditions 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-67 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.9 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH : INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH 14214 il0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 il() Frequency 0% Upper Lthophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More Indirect Tense Strength Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% 2.5 2 10.53% 59 57.89% 7.5 3 73.68% 10 3 89.47% 12.5 1 94.74% 15 1 100.00% 17.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 19 Figure I-189. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 14214 24214 l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 5 10 15 i) Frequency 0% Lower Lithophysa50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 More Indrect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 2.5 0 .00% 5 2 8.33% 7.5 9 45.83% 10 4 62.50% 12.5 8 95.83% 15 1 100.00% 17.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 24 Figure I-190. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 24214 34214 Milil0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 i) Frequency 0% dde Non-Lthophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More Indrect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 2.5 0 .00% 5 1 7.69% 7.5 2 23.08% 10 2 38.46% 12.5 2 53.85% 15 4 84.62% 17.5 2 100.00% More 0 100.00% 13 Figure I-191. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 34214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-68 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 44214 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 00 .00% i0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 ) Frequency 0% Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More Indirect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 0 2 3 6 1 1 0 0 .00% 15.38% 38.46% 84.62% 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 13 Figure I-192. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 44214 14214 24214 0 0 .00% 2.5 2 4.65% 5 11 30.23% 7.5 12 58.14% 10 7 74.42% 12.5 9 95.35% 15 2 100.00% 17.5 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% il 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 5 15 iil) Frequency 0% Upper and Lower Lthophysa50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 17.5 More Indrect Tense Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 43 Figure I-193. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214 34214 44214 0 0 .00% 2.5 0 .00% 5 3 11.54% 7.5 5 30.77% 10 8 61.54% 12.5 3 73.08% 15 5 92.31% 17.5 2 100.00% More 0 100.00% Mii0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 ) Frequency 0% ddle and Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More Indirect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 26 Figure I-194. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 34214, 44214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-69 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 14214 34214 24214 44214 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 2.5 2 2.90% 5 14 23.19% 7.5 17 47.83% 10 15 69.57% 12.5 12 86.96% 15 7 97.10% 17.5 2 100.00% More 0 100.00% All0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 iil) Frequency 0% 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More Indrect Tense Strength (Mpa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 69 Figure I-195. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214, 34214, 44214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-70 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.10 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH: POROSITY 14214 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 0 .00% 12 2 10.53% 15 4 31.58% 18 7 68.42% 21 3 84.21% 24 3 100.00% More 0 100.00% l0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 3 6 9 15 18 24 i0% Upper Lithophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 12 21 More Porosty Frequency10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 19 Figure I-196. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 14214 24214 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 2 8.33% 12 11 54.17% 15 9 91.67% 18 2 100.00% 21 0 100.00% 24 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% l0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 24 More Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 21 Porosity Bin Frequency Cumulative % 24 Figure I-197. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 24214 34214 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 1 7.69% 12 9 76.92% 15 1 84.62% 18 1 92.31% 21 1 100.00% 24 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% Mil 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 iFrequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle Non-Lithophysa50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 More Porosty Bin Frequency Cumulative % 13 Figure I-198. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 34214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-71 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 3 6 9 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 12 15 18 21 24 More Porosity 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 0 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 .00% 7.69% 53.85% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% More 13 Figure I-199. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 44214 14214 24214 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 9 2 4.65% 12 13 34.88% 15 13 65.12% 18 9 86.05% 21 3 93.02% 24 3 100.00% More 0 100.00% l0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Frequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Upper and Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 More Porosity Bin Frequency Cumulative % 43 Figure I-200. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214 34214 44214 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 1 3.85% 9 7 30.77% 12 15 88.46% 15 1 92.31% 18 1 96.15% 21 1 100.00% 24 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% Mil 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 iFrequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ddle and Lower Non-Lithophysa50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 Porosty Bin Frequency Cumulative % 26 Figure I-201. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 34214, 44214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-72 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 14214 34214 24214 44214 Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 3 0 .00% 6 1 1.45% 9 9 14.49% 12 28 55.07% 15 14 75.36% 18 10 89.86% 21 4 95.65% More 24 3 0 100.00% 100.00% All0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 iFrequency 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 50.8mm Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 Porosty 100% 69 Figure I-202. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 34214, 24214, 44214 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-73 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.11 DYNAMIC ELASTIC DATA: YOUNG’S MODULUS Tac O13T7N1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 ) 0% Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPaFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 4 40.00% 18 2 60.00% 24 4 100.00% 30 0 100.00% 36 0 100.00% 42 0 100.00% 48 0 100.00% 54 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 10 Figure I-203. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N1 Tac O 13T7N2 0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 () Frequency 0% Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 2.1 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynam ic Young's M odulusG Pa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin F re quency C u m ulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 3 60.00% 24 2 100.00% 30 0 100.00% 36 0 100.00% 42 0 100.00% 48 0 100.00% 54 0 100.00% M ore 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-204. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N2 Tac O13T7N3 0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 i () Frequency 0% Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 4.1 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynam c Young's ModulusGPa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 3 60.00% 24 2 100.00% 30 0 100.00% 36 0 100.00% 42 0 100.00% 48 0 100.00% 54 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-205. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N3 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-74 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tac O13T7N4 0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 iFrequency 0% Cumulative % Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 6.9 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamc Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 60.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 5 Figure I-206. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N4 Tpc_un O13T7N1 0 1 2 3 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tpc_un, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 16.67% 33.33% 33.33% 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6 Figure I-207. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tpc_un O13T7N1 Tpcpmn O43T1N0 i0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambent Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% 28.57% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 7 Figure I-208. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-75 December 2003 Bin Frequency Cumulative % Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tpcpmn O43T1N1 i0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambent Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 14.29% 42.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 7 Figure I-209. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N1 Tpcpul O43T1N0 i0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 () Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's ModulusGPa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% 25.00% 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 8 Figure I-210. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tpcpul O43T1N0 Tpcpul O43T1N1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 More 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 .00% .00% .00% .00% 85.71% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 7 Figure I-211. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition, Tpcpul O43T1N1 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-76 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tptpmn 31211N0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 6 12 24 36 42 48 54 () Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 18 30 More Dynamic Young's ModulusGPa10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 0 .00% 24 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 36 0 .00% 42 28 93.33% 48 1 96.67% 54 1 100.00% More 0 100.00% 30 Figure I-212. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition 31211N0 Tptpmn 34111N0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tptpmn, 60mm, Dry, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 0 .00% 24 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 36 0 .00% 42 1 20.00% 48 4 100.00% 54 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-213. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition 34111N0 Tptpmn 34211N0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tptpmn, 60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bin Frequency Cumulative % 0 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 0 .00% 24 0 .00% 30 0 .00% 36 0 .00% 42 2 33.33% 48 4 100.00% 54 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-214. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition 34211N0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-77 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tptpul Bi11C3T1N1 umulative % n Freq0 uency 0 .00% 6 0 .00% 12 0 .00% 18 0 .00% 24 0 .00% 30 2 33.33% 36 1 50.00% 42 3 100.00% 48 0 100.00% 54 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 0 1 2 3 4 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Frequency 0% Cumulative % Tptpul, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 42 48 54 More Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6 Figure I-215. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Young’s Modulus Condition 113T1N1 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-78 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report I.12 DYNAMIC ELASTIC DATA: POISSON’S RATIO Tac O13T7N1 i0 1 2 3 4 5 >0 0 io 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ive % Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 More Dynamic Poisson's RatFrequency 100% Cumulat Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 1 10.00% 00 10.00% 0.05 0 10.00% 0.1 0 10.00% 0.15 2 30.00% 0.2 0 30.00% 0.25 0 30.00% 0.3 4 70.00% 0.35 3 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 10 Figure I-216. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N1 Tac O13T7N2 iiConfi0 1 2 3 >0 0 i0% ive % Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD rato 3.0 to 4.0, ning Pressure = 2.1 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 More Dynamc Poisson's Ratio Frequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulat Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 1 20.00% 00 20.00% 0.05 1 40.00% 0.1 1 60.00% 0.15 0 60.00% 0.2 0 60.00% 0.25 0 60.00% 0.3 2 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-217. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N2 Tac O13T7N3 i0 1 2 3 >0 0 0.4 io 0% lTac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 4.1 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's RatFrequency 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumuative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 2 40.00% 00 40.00% 0.05 0 40.00% 0.1 1 60.00% 0.15 0 60.00% 0.2 0 60.00% 0.25 0 60.00% 0.3 0 60.00% 0.35 1 80.00% 0.4 1 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-218. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N3 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-79 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tac O13T7N4 Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0 1 2 >0 0 0.15 0.4 Frequency 0% Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 6.9 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 0.05 0 0.00% 0.1 1 20.00% 0.15 1 40.00% 0.2 0 40.00% 0.25 1 60.00% 0.3 1 80.00% 0.35 1 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-219. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N4 Tpc_un O13T7N1 0 1 2 3 >0 0 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tpc_un, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 3.0 to 4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 1 16.67% 00 16.67% 0.05 0 16.67% 0.1 0 16.67% 0.15 2 50.00% 0.2 2 83.33% 0.25 1 100.00% 0.3 0 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-220. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tpc_un O13T7N1 Tpcpmn O43T1N0 i0 1 2 3 4 >0 0 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 1 14.29% 0.1 1 28.57% 0.15 3 71.43% 0.2 1 85.71% 0.25 0 85.71% 0.3 0 85.71% 0.35 1 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 7 Figure I-221. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-80 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tpcpmn O43T1N1 0 1 2 3 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 1 14.29% 0.1 1 28.57% 0.15 2 57.14% 0.2 2 85.71% 0.25 0 85.71% 0.3 0 85.71% 0.35 1 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 7 Figure I-222. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N1 Tpcpul O43T1N0 i0 1 2 3 4 >0 0 0.35 0.4 Frequency 0% Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 0 0.00% 0.1 0 0.00% 0.15 3 37.50% 0.2 1 50.00% 0.25 2 75.00% 0.3 0 75.00% 0.35 1 87.50% 0.4 1 100.00% More 0 100.00% 8 Figure I-223. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tpcpul 043T1N0 Tpcpul O43T1N1 i0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 0 0.00% 0.1 0 0.00% 0.15 4 57.14% 0.2 0 57.14% 0.25 2 85.71% 0.3 0 85.71% 0.35 0 85.71% 0.4 1 100.00% More 0 100.00% 7 Figure I-224. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tpcpul 043T1N1 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-81 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tptpmn 31211N0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 7 23.33% 0.1 4 36.67% 0.15 5 53.33% 0.2 3 63.33% 0.25 0 63.33% 0.3 6 83.33% 0.35 0 83.33% 0.4 5 100.00% More 0 100.00% 30 Figure I-225. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 31211N0 Tptpmn 34111N0 0 1 2 3 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tptpmn, 60mm, Dry, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 0 0.00% 0.1 1 20.00% 0.15 1 40.00% 0.2 1 60.00% 0.25 0 60.00% 0.3 2 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 5 Figure I-226. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 31211N0 Tptpmn 34211N0 i0 1 2 3 4 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tptpmn, 60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confinng Pressure = 0 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.00% 00 0.00% 0.05 0 0.00% 0.1 0 0.00% 0.15 2 33.33% 0.2 1 50.00% 0.25 0 50.00% 0.3 3 100.00% 0.35 0 100.00% 0.4 0 100.00% More 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-227. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 34211N0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-82 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tptpul 113T1N1 Bin Frequency Cumulative % >0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 More 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.15 0.2 0.4 Frequency 0% Tptpul, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa >0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cumulative % 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 66.67% 0 66.67% 2 100.00% 0 100.00% 0 100.00% 6 Figure I-228. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poisson’s Ratio Condition, Tptpul 113T1N1 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-83 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT II MATHCAD WORKSHEETS TO DEVELOP INTACT ROCK HOEK-BROWN FAILURE ENVELOPE 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT II MATHCAD WORKSHEETS TO DEVELOP INTACT ROCK HOEK-BROWN FAILURE ENVELOPE II.1 HOEK-BROWN FIT OF TPTPMN DATA MathCAD worksheet for calculating the Hoek-Brown failure envelope for the Tptpmn unit is presented in Figure II1. Complete results of curve fitting (Answer(try)) for the Tptpmn unit are presented in Table II-1. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) Inputs for Calculation . . . ... . . Tensile DataUCS Data6 MPa10 MPa15 MPa MUCS0MSDUCSUCS ... MT - := 11MUCS := 117.38 M6 := 194.9 M10 := 258.6 M15 := 258.9 SD4.16SD20.67SD29.6SD49.1SD50.4:=:=:=:=:=TUCS61015 + + + + MT 0MTSDT 0 ....... . . . 0 Inputs x := 6 Inputs y := M6 SD1x := 6 SD1y := M6 SD6 + - 10 M10 10 M10 SD10 . .. . . 15 M15 .. . M15 SD15 + 15 MTSDT 0 MUCS SDUCS 0 ...... . . ... . . MTSDT 0 SD2x := 6 SD2y := M6 SD6 SD3x := SD3y := MTSDT 0 10 M10 SD10 - - - - . ... . . MSD1515 .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . - 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = try 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 -13.879 143.6 232.43 320.41 322.2 -12.557 122.92 202.82 271.6 272.2 1 -15.437 132.97 217.21 295.38 296.58 -11.377 115.59 192.33 254.23 254.38 2 -1.115 77.512 137.81 163.85 161.63 -7.543 100.29 170.43 217.95 217.15 3 -10.806 116.7 193.92 256.87 257.09 -9.412 95.943 164.2 207.62 206.55 4 -10.475 113.81 189.78 250.01 250.05 -18.714 149.39 240.7 333.89 335.97 5 -7.485 90.589 156.53 194.91 193.5 -10.148 107.67 180.99 235.44 235.1 6 -13.22 123.05 203.02 271.93 272.53 -18.963 150.49 242.27 336.43 338.56 7 -6.652 93.059 160.07 200.77 199.52 -12.711 118 195.78 259.95 260.25 8 -13.915 127.98 210.07 283.59 284.5 -12.747 135.33 220.59 300.96 302.3 9 -11.472 121.26 200.45 267.67 268.17 -8.275 96.93 165.61 209.96 208.95 10 -8.84 114.05 190.13 250.58 250.64 -10.415 110.15 184.54 241.34 241.15 11 -11.409 130.27 213.35 289 290.04 -9.095 103.72 175.34 226.08 225.5 12 -7.479 95.099 162.99 205.61 204.49 -7.103 93.207 160.28 201.12 199.88 13 -11.096 126.48 207.93 280.05 280.86 -12.106 131.55 215.18 292.03 293.14 14 -14.39 140.19 227.55 312.41 314.02 -8.576 112.44 187.81 246.76 246.71 15 -3.53 81.089 142.93 172.35 170.35 -6.87 109.12 183.07 238.9 238.65 (( rows try) = 500 cols try) = 18 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) u1 vx u 2 vx u0 + 1 Equation that will best fit data u 0 u1 u1 u2 1u2 u2 Derivative of fit equation with vx + 1 vx + 1 u1 · vx repsect to compressiveu0 u0 u0 vxu2 + 1 strength term, u0 u 0 . . . . . . . . . .Fvx u) :=. . . . . . . . .. ( . . u1 uvx u2 + 1 ln vx u2 + 1 Derivative of fit equation with 0u 0 · repsect to exponent, u1u0 ... . . . u1 . . · u 2 vx vx + 1 u1 Derivative of fit equation with u0 u2 repsect to Hoek-Brown mi, u2 · . . + 1 u ·vx · 0 .. .. . . .. .. · · . . · · 122 ... · . . vg := .47 Initial guess vector for genfit equation + .. .. · · 30 · - .. .. · .. .. Application of genfit to data and guess vectorPgenfit vx vyF):= vg,, ( . . , . . . . 113.023 · P 0.474 Results of genfit routine . . . . ... . .... 29.49 ................... . = where u0 = UCS c := Pa := Pm := P , 01 2 u1 = alpha u2 = Hoek-Brown Parameter Uniaxial Compressive Strength c = 113.023MPa Alpha a = 0.474 Hoek-Brown Parameter m = 29.49 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) t c- m .0001+:=t 3.833 Sets plotting limits and analysis limits for the fit equation gr() ,( )0:=Equation describing best fit line r t ,36..:=Plotting Rangesi 0 8..:=Plot of one line of data and best fit Hoek-Brown parameters 20 15 10 5 0 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Data From Gold SIM Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope Minor Principal Stress (MPa) Major Principal Stress (MPa) Confined Test Results Unconfined Test Results Tensile Data ( ) vxj tryij 5+,. vy j tryij 1+,. j0 8...for vx0 0. vx1 6. vx2 10. vx3 15. vx4 tryi0,. vx9 tryi5,. vy 4 0.0. vy 9 0.0. P genfit ,vg,F,( ). Pans ij,Pj. j0 2...for i 0 499...for Pansreturn :=Calculation Loop that looks at all lines of data and calculates as shown above, the results for all lines of data, each line consisting of 16 points -= F r P .1 10 15 20 Answer try vx vy 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 20 15 10 5 0 50 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Sigma 3 (MPa) Sigma 1 (MPa) SDa ():=( ) 0.011= SDMi ( ):=( ) 6.65= SDc ():=MPa( ) 15.993= Ma ():=( ) 0.473=( ) 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 135.571 0.479 38.438 127.148 0.477 35.203 64.566 0.417 57.886 110.433 0.473 28.451 134.03 0.478 37.952 103.784 0.47 25.833 138.856 0.479 39.886 109.711 0.472 28.265 134.052 0.479 37.885 113.023 0.474 29.49 115.823 0.475 30.577 120.384 0.476 32.38 99.24 0.466 24.1 131.601 0.479 36.831 129.09 0.478 35.884 97.059 0.453 27.664 = MMi ( ):=( ) 33.866= Mc ():=MPa( ) 119.563= Mi ( ) 2<> := A ( ) 1<> := C ( ) 0<> := Results of the best fit routine for all data 10 15 20 25 stdev Astdev A stdev Mi stdev Mi stdev Cstdev C mean Amean A Answer try mean Mi mean Mi mean Cmean C Answer try Answer try Answer try 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 20 15 10 5 0 50 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Hoek Brown Failure Envelope Sigma 3 (MPa) Sigma 1 (MPa) Solid Blue Lines Indicate Standard Devaition of Results, Blue Bars are One SD of Input Data Red Lines Indicate Mean Results, Red Dots Mean Input 10 15 20 25 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) Indirect Tensile Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength 6 MPa Major Stress 10 MPa Major Stress 15 MPa Major Stress Indirect Tensile Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength 6 MPa Major Stress 10 MPa Major Stress 15 MPa Major Stress Unconfined Minor Stress 6 MPa Confined Minor Stress 10 MPa Confined Minor Stress 15 MPa Confined Minor Stress Unconfined Minor Stress 6 MPa Confined Minor Stress 10 MPa Confined Minor Stress 15 MPa Confined Minor Stress -13.879 143.6 232.43 320.41 322.2 -12.557 122.92 202.82 271.6 272.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.437 132.97 217.21 295.38 296.58 -11.377 115.59 192.33 254.23 254.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.1153 77.512 137.81 163.85 161.63 -7.5425 100.29 170.43 217.95 217.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.806 116.7 193.92 256.87 257.09 -9.4124 95.943 164.2 207.62 206.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.475 113.81 189.78 250.01 250.05 -18.714 149.39 240.7 333.89 335.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.4848 90.589 156.53 194.91 193.5 -10.148 107.67 180.99 235.44 235.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.22 123.05 203.02 271.93 272.53 -18.963 150.49 242.27 336.43 338.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.6523 93.059 160.07 200.77 199.52 -12.711 118 195.78 259.95 260.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.915 127.98 210.07 283.59 284.5 -12.747 135.33 220.59 300.96 302.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.472 121.26 200.45 267.67 268.17 -8.2746 96.93 165.61 209.96 208.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.8399 114.05 190.13 250.58 250.64 -10.415 110.15 184.54 241.34 241.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.409 130.27 213.35 289 290.04 -9.0947 103.72 175.34 226.08 225.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.4788 95.099 162.99 205.61 204.49 -7.1029 93.207 160.28 201.12 199.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.096 126.48 207.93 280.05 280.86 -12.106 131.55 215.18 292.03 293.14 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.39 140.19 227.55 312.41 314.02 -8.5765 112.44 187.81 246.76 246.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.5305 81.089 142.93 172.35 170.35 -6.8697 109.12 183.07 238.9 238.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.541 135.66 221.06 301.73 303.08 -10.414 116.97 194.31 257.52 257.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.329 152.87 245.67 341.91 344.13 -7.8596 112.7 188.2 247.39 247.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.446 103.81 175.46 226.28 225.7 -9.0163 88.538 153.59 190.04 188.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.5296 108 181.47 236.24 235.92 -1.0443 84.505 147.82 180.46 178.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.296 134.75 219.76 299.58 300.88 -13.197 129.12 211.7 286.29 287.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.3452 86.869 151.2 186.07 184.44 -9.8116 111.81 186.91 245.26 245.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.39 139.84 227.04 311.57 313.16 -7.1955 103.91 175.61 226.54 225.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.941 133.74 218.32 297.21 298.45 -6.6421 75.979 135.61 160.21 157.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.805 125.17 206.04 276.93 277.66 -12.673 118.05 195.85 260.07 260.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.1249 98.605 168.01 213.93 213.03 -16.321 146.42 236.46 326.99 328.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.378 128.11 210.25 283.89 284.8 -7.6676 73.096 131.48 153.37 150.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.9834 97.967 167.1 212.42 211.48 -10.409 113.92 189.93 250.26 250.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.14 133.41 217.85 296.43 297.66 -12.293 124.24 204.71 274.73 275.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2314 104.4 176.31 227.7 227.16 -9.3989 117.16 194.58 257.97 258.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.08 125.89 207.09 278.65 279.43 -12.157 132.81 216.98 295.01 296.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.4574 91.763 158.21 197.69 196.36 -5.2312 100.22 170.32 217.76 216.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.2206 106.41 179.19 232.46 232.05 -13.482 131.02 214.43 290.79 291.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.3342 119.46 197.88 263.42 263.81 -10.978 109.18 183.16 239.04 238.8 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.143 120.06 198.73 264.83 265.25 -19.151 137.34 223.47 305.7 307.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1692 89.019 154.28 191.18 189.68 -12.071 115.79 192.62 254.72 254.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2589 87.598 152.25 187.8 186.22 -11.054 110.54 185.1 242.26 242.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.008 132.07 215.92 293.25 294.4 -15.164 128.42 210.7 284.62 285.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.153 115.9 192.78 254.98 255.15 -10.436 105.47 177.84 230.24 229.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.9599 113.48 189.31 249.23 249.25 -16.088 135.23 220.44 300.71 302.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5894 96.168 164.52 208.15 207.1 -12.275 124.65 205.31 275.71 276.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.2026 107.76 181.12 235.66 235.33 -8.5052 111.29 186.17 244.03 243.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.609 134.21 218.99 298.31 299.59 -9.2545 110.75 185.4 242.75 242.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.134 120.43 199.26 265.7 266.15 -11.676 119.41 197.8 263.29 263.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.4319 82.904 145.53 176.66 174.78 -14.988 135.15 220.33 300.53 301.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.194 132.49 216.52 294.24 295.41 -14.159 127.73 209.71 283 283.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.611 140.78 228.39 313.79 315.43 -13.706 131.62 215.28 292.2 293.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.5862 106.12 178.77 231.77 231.34 -8.7165 113.84 189.83 250.09 250.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.677 143.21 231.87 319.5 321.27 -1.2983 81.753 143.88 173.92 171.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1282 106.15 178.82 231.84 231.41 -13.846 132.12 215.99 293.37 294.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.564 127.87 209.91 283.32 284.22 -13.572 129.99 212.95 288.34 289.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.2256 92.974 159.95 200.57 199.31 -12.586 141.06 228.79 314.45 316.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.738 129.64 212.44 287.51 288.51 -6.7759 99.068 168.67 215.03 214.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.205 122.47 202.19 270.55 271.12 -11.055 110.61 185.2 242.43 242.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.193 114 190.06 250.47 250.53 -12.246 138.25 224.77 307.83 309.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.629 123.48 203.63 272.94 273.58 -9.9828 112.05 187.26 245.83 245.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.668 120.86 199.87 266.72 267.19 -13.565 122.32 201.97 270.2 270.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.012 123.02 202.97 271.85 272.46 -16.658 136.01 221.57 302.57 303.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.5262 88.45 153.47 189.83 188.29 -9.6253 62.28 115.99 127.68 124.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.1637 108.62 182.35 237.7 237.43 -11.691 130.58 213.8 289.75 290.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.3528 107.33 180.5 234.64 234.28 -2.9897 66.714 122.34 138.21 135.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.363 122.4 202.08 270.37 270.94 -11.226 117.02 194.38 257.63 257.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1651 99.891 169.85 216.99 216.17 -9.5374 99.102 168.72 215.12 214.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.2206 49.2 97.263 96.619 92.625 -6.3105 75.069 134.31 158.05 155.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.6979 93.422 160.59 201.63 200.41 -17.981 138.38 224.96 308.15 309.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2597 108.13 181.65 236.54 236.23 -10.252 105.77 178.27 230.95 230.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.726 131.21 214.69 291.22 292.31 -10.69 109.43 183.51 239.62 239.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.9566 94.375 161.95 203.89 202.73 -11.844 131.07 214.5 290.9 291.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.446 82.457 144.89 175.6 173.69 -11.999 121.89 201.35 269.17 269.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8349 117.21 194.65 258.08 258.33 -7.0144 99.316 169.03 215.62 214.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.175 116.13 193.1 255.5 255.69 -11.839 117.23 194.68 258.12 258.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.709 97.582 166.55 211.51 210.54 -9.0378 96.718 165.31 209.46 208.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.7972 109.67 183.86 240.19 239.98 -4.6312 92.436 159.18 199.29 198 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.085 113.06 188.71 248.23 248.23 -7.4339 102.3 173.3 222.71 222.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.0676 102.87 174.12 224.06 223.43 -6.3188 113.46 189.28 249.18 249.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.8508 111.44 186.38 244.38 244.28 -9.8156 123.65 203.87 273.33 273.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.713 85.545 149.31 182.93 181.21 -14.201 145.44 235.05 324.7 326.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.135 128.85 211.31 285.64 286.6 -14.102 125.34 206.3 277.35 278.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.5871 103.53 175.07 225.63 225.04 -12.412 135.85 221.34 302.19 303.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.331 120.66 199.59 266.25 266.71 -14.575 133 217.25 295.45 296.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.744 114.92 191.38 252.66 252.77 -14.708 149.03 240.19 333.06 335.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.152 119.78 198.33 264.17 264.58 -11.187 130.94 214.3 290.58 291.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.232 117.36 194.86 258.42 258.68 -10.924 118.16 196.01 260.32 260.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8203 109.26 183.27 239.22 238.98 -9.5256 115.03 191.53 252.91 253.02 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.664 121.03 200.12 267.14 267.62 -10.084 107.02 180.06 233.91 233.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.43 116.87 194.16 257.27 257.5 -10.609 128.57 210.92 285 285.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.372 105.65 178.1 230.65 230.19 -8.9372 116.01 192.93 255.23 255.4 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.9142 96.606 165.15 209.19 208.16 -13.527 134.3 219.11 298.52 299.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.674 103.27 174.7 225.02 224.41 -15.499 146.14 236.06 326.35 328.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.769 131.99 215.81 293.07 294.21 -11.557 119.37 197.75 263.2 263.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.8629 101.93 172.77 221.83 221.14 -12.73 140.32 227.73 312.7 314.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.146 106.88 179.87 233.58 233.2 -15.014 127.97 210.05 283.56 284.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.543 115.67 192.45 254.43 254.58 -12.4 128.2 210.39 284.12 285.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.859 110.96 185.7 243.25 243.11 -11.451 129.03 211.57 286.07 287.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1 Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) -20.383 139.29 226.26 310.29 311.85 -13.87 131.33 214.86 291.51 292.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -21.997 159.49 255.11 356.82 359.2 -14.434 137.5 223.7 306.07 307.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.8601 102.54 173.65 223.28 222.62 -12.111 102.08 172.98 222.18 221.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.1069 88.118 152.99 189.04 187.48 -13.031 123.97 204.33 274.09 274.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.486 114.75 191.13 252.24 252.34 -9.1067 124.85 205.6 276.19 276.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.113 130.37 213.49 289.24 290.29 -13.439 142.47 230.81 317.75 319.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.4247 103.69 175.3 226.01 225.42 -16.153 140.61 228.14 313.38 315.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.0487 117.12 194.52 257.86 258.1 -9.4798 113.57 189.44 249.44 249.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1729 94.447 162.06 204.07 202.9 -1.0019 62.991 117.01 129.37 126.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.166 117.84 195.55 259.57 259.86 -11.504 114.68 191.03 252.08 252.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.624 104.81 176.89 228.66 228.14 -21.948 157.14 251.77 351.61 353.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.534 153.72 246.88 343.85 346.1 -13.087 115.31 191.93 253.58 253.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.474 107.96 181.41 236.14 235.82 -10.447 112.26 187.57 246.35 246.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.453 128.29 210.51 284.32 285.24 -3.9156 89.164 154.49 191.52 190.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.98 120.17 198.89 265.09 265.52 -16.099 175.8 277.93 387.58 389.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.0629 99.803 169.73 216.78 215.95 -12.756 116.23 193.24 255.75 255.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.9816 108.81 182.63 238.16 237.89 -8.1177 103.11 174.46 224.62 224 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.567 110.11 184.48 241.23 241.04 -12.16 127.01 208.68 281.29 282.14 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.2682 87.635 152.3 187.89 186.3 -8.8826 115.96 192.87 255.12 255.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.352 130.74 214.02 290.11 291.18 -15.342 145.64 235.34 325.17 327.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.6897 115.37 192.01 253.71 253.85 -15.65 127.5 209.38 282.44 283.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.7819 109.21 183.19 239.09 238.85 -4.2111 77.923 138.4 164.83 162.64 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.213 113.61 189.49 249.53 249.56 -13.839 135.77 221.22 301.99 303.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.781 136.32 222.01 303.3 304.7 -13.812 133.9 218.54 297.58 298.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.496 105.43 177.79 230.14 229.67 -13.396 136.76 222.63 304.32 305.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.589 144.08 233.11 321.53 323.35 -11.6 117.59 195.2 258.99 259.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.2817 117.66 195.3 259.15 259.43 -18.7 152.2 244.71 340.37 342.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.259 125.52 206.55 277.78 278.53 -8.7547 102.75 173.94 223.76 223.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.844 76.636 136.55 161.78 159.5 -6.7954 96.791 165.41 209.63 208.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.713 134.4 219.26 298.77 300.05 -11.717 119.54 197.99 263.61 264 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.706 118.97 197.17 262.24 262.6 -7.2764 92.882 159.82 200.35 199.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.041 127.58 209.5 282.64 283.52 -10.789 114.31 190.5 251.21 251.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.8332 106.44 179.23 232.53 232.12 -11.944 130.3 213.39 289.08 290.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.252 100.83 171.2 219.22 218.46 -8.362 94.66 162.36 204.57 203.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.848 143.37 232.09 319.86 321.65 -10.189 116.85 194.14 257.22 257.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.184 118.84 196.99 261.95 262.3 -9.5363 103.49 175.01 225.54 224.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.28 130.06 213.04 288.5 289.53 -5.1608 79.818 141.11 169.33 167.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.086 157.45 252.21 352.29 354.65 -10.521 110.82 185.5 242.92 242.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.573 145.84 235.63 325.64 327.55 -15.624 125.38 206.35 277.44 278.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.2363 100.62 170.9 218.72 217.95 -10.088 122.04 201.57 269.53 270.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.937 125.66 206.75 278.1 278.87 -11.56 127.27 209.06 281.92 282.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.161 117.3 194.78 258.29 258.55 -9.1469 94.76 162.5 204.81 203.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.092 147.5 238 329.5 331.49 -10.281 120.73 199.69 266.42 266.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.756 165.72 263.94 370.04 372.37 -12.505 124.13 204.56 274.48 275.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.9688 108.78 182.58 238.08 237.81 -7.974 110.38 184.88 241.89 241.72 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.0349 102.37 173.4 222.87 222.2 -9.6202 100.52 170.75 218.48 217.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.3 135.49 220.82 301.33 302.67 -11.388 121.76 201.17 268.87 269.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4157 112.96 188.56 247.99 247.98 -5.5596 87.446 152.03 187.44 185.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.4981 92.464 159.22 199.36 198.07 -15.549 134.02 218.71 297.85 299.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.5548 95.49 163.55 206.54 205.45 -6.7632 71.126 128.66 148.69 146.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.776 149.74 241.2 334.69 336.79 -8.7749 102.03 172.92 222.07 221.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.763 140.53 228.03 313.19 314.82 -13.865 137.14 223.19 305.23 306.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2503 95.737 163.9 207.13 206.05 -11.765 121.17 200.32 267.47 267.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.389 135.91 221.42 302.32 303.69 -11.632 122.45 202.16 270.51 271.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.148 156.38 250.68 349.89 352.22 -7.3445 98.1 167.29 212.74 211.8 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.871 152.32 244.89 340.65 342.85 -9.0349 114.28 190.45 251.12 251.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.545 134.98 220.09 300.13 301.44 -12.953 131.45 215.03 291.79 292.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.608 162.24 259.02 362.8 365.19 -7.0642 83.646 146.59 178.42 176.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.9969 102.99 174.29 224.35 223.72 -3.8831 85.824 149.71 183.59 181.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.207 119.24 197.56 262.89 263.26 -8.2182 107.82 181.21 235.81 235.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.367 119.15 197.43 262.67 263.04 -11.146 120.24 198.99 265.26 265.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.0157 105.63 178.07 230.6 230.14 -10.124 105.02 177.2 229.17 228.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.865 124.74 205.42 275.91 276.62 -9.0416 94.275 161.81 203.66 202.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.066 129.73 212.58 287.74 288.75 -7.1279 96.495 164.99 208.93 207.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.735 115.19 191.76 253.29 253.42 -9.2967 123.85 204.16 273.81 274.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.061 105.83 178.35 231.07 230.62 -10.09 128.62 210.98 285.09 286.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.6423 101.03 171.48 219.69 218.94 -9.1615 108.95 182.82 238.48 238.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.561 125.83 206.99 278.5 279.27 -11.566 121.81 201.23 268.97 269.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.7887 83.249 146.02 177.48 175.62 -6.0776 97.084 165.83 210.33 209.33 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.6262 115.27 191.87 253.47 253.6 -2.5129 75.664 135.16 159.47 157.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1212 109.01 182.9 238.62 238.36 -15.134 140.73 228.32 313.67 315.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.263 142.63 231.03 318.13 319.87 -7.8453 104.92 177.06 228.93 228.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.492 114.39 190.61 251.38 251.46 -10.444 123.76 204.03 273.6 274.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.161 120.51 199.38 265.9 266.36 -7.6087 104.36 176.26 227.6 227.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.441 98.823 168.32 214.45 213.56 -17.461 160.88 257.09 359.87 362.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.916 127.29 209.09 281.97 282.83 -14.768 156.8 251.28 350.83 353.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.172 114.51 190.78 251.67 251.76 -9.9715 112.32 187.64 246.47 246.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.918 144.68 233.96 322.92 324.77 -6.4906 92.344 159.04 199.07 197.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.6643 82.764 145.33 176.33 174.43 -12.39 120.32 199.1 265.45 265.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.9304 90.265 156.07 194.14 192.71 -8.192 103.36 174.82 225.22 224.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.047 120.67 199.6 266.27 266.73 -9.3343 94.805 162.57 204.91 203.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.3205 93.662 160.93 202.2 200.99 -6.4288 91.518 157.86 197.11 195.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.09 138.33 224.88 308.02 309.53 -7.8226 109.32 183.36 239.37 239.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.5312 90.495 156.4 194.68 193.27 -15.66 150.25 241.93 335.89 338 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.2939 111.18 186.01 243.77 243.64 -10.339 112.77 188.29 247.54 247.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.212 111.56 186.56 244.68 244.58 -10.419 113.73 189.67 249.83 249.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.15 108.31 181.91 236.97 236.67 -8.8583 106.05 178.67 231.6 231.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.512 128.69 211.09 285.28 286.22 -11.489 119.25 197.57 262.91 263.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.456 137.87 224.22 306.93 308.42 -7.4526 92.69 159.54 199.89 198.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.1011 103.44 174.93 225.4 224.8 -11.19 121.63 200.98 268.55 269.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.7818 105.32 177.63 229.88 229.39 -15.018 146.91 237.16 328.14 330.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.0769 95.784 163.97 207.24 206.16 -11.688 102.7 173.87 223.65 223 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.31 138.48 225.11 308.39 309.91 -11.766 125.49 206.51 277.7 278.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.504 105.34 177.65 229.91 229.43 -16.715 144.96 234.37 323.59 325.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4219 114.23 190.39 251.02 251.09 -11.261 136.09 221.68 302.75 304.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) -11.626 124.72 205.4 275.86 276.57 -21.008 173.01 274.14 383.43 385.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.499 144.13 233.18 321.65 323.47 -7.597 109.05 182.97 238.73 238.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.6648 78.888 139.78 167.12 164.99 -9.8611 123.26 203.31 272.4 273.02 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.532 161.2 257.54 360.55 362.94 -11.594 136.89 222.82 304.63 306.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.4557 80.344 141.86 170.58 168.54 -15.553 125.68 206.78 278.16 278.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.8551 118.54 196.55 261.22 261.56 -12.75 115.75 192.57 254.63 254.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.1494 109.58 183.73 239.98 239.76 -8.8354 101.43 172.05 220.64 219.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.185 122.59 202.35 270.83 271.41 -14.791 151.04 243.06 337.71 339.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.027 90.012 155.71 193.54 192.1 -7.5237 99.621 169.47 216.35 215.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.1008 81.562 143.61 173.47 171.5 -5.499 98.177 167.4 212.92 211.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.6494 116.79 194.05 257.08 257.31 -15.63 141.02 228.73 314.35 316 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.8196 107.41 180.62 234.84 234.48 -4.8176 92.236 158.89 198.82 197.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.62 136.81 222.71 304.45 305.88 -9.8371 116.06 193.01 255.36 255.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.026 142.19 230.41 317.11 318.83 -7.6189 108.69 182.45 237.87 237.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.0392 121.01 200.09 267.08 267.57 -8.2639 86.244 150.31 184.59 182.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -20.181 141.43 229.32 315.32 316.99 -11.336 122.96 202.89 271.71 272.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5726 114.97 191.45 252.77 252.88 -3.7411 91.216 157.43 196.39 195.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.936 129.3 211.96 286.71 287.7 -11.093 110.23 184.66 241.52 241.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.8725 95.599 163.71 206.8 205.71 -16.472 151.77 244.11 339.39 341.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.5863 74.128 132.96 155.82 153.39 -14.266 123.96 204.31 274.07 274.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.434 106.58 179.43 232.86 232.45 -5.6445 87.247 151.75 186.97 185.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.0668 88.808 153.98 190.68 189.16 -14.536 126.98 208.64 281.22 282.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.693 117.74 195.41 259.33 259.62 -18.968 144.35 233.49 322.15 323.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.144 155.48 249.4 347.86 350.17 -8.239 101.7 172.45 221.29 220.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.289 124.21 204.67 274.66 275.34 -15.663 137.82 224.15 306.82 308.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.5747 70.331 127.52 146.8 144.13 -16.541 166.32 264.8 371.25 373.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.719 115.05 191.55 252.95 253.07 -6.5452 90.673 156.65 195.11 193.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.922 113.99 190.04 250.43 250.49 -20.013 154.84 248.48 346.4 348.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.107 114.8 191.2 252.36 252.46 -13.907 139.92 227.15 311.76 313.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.1667 77.746 138.14 164.41 162.2 -3.2754 79.502 140.66 168.58 166.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.787 129 211.52 285.99 286.96 -10.182 129.1 211.67 286.23 287.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.8494 108.39 182.02 237.15 236.85 -12.051 116.42 193.52 256.21 256.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2382 107.09 180.15 234.06 233.69 -10.258 117.75 195.42 259.36 259.64 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.5183 126.24 207.58 279.47 280.27 -19.94 139.44 226.47 310.63 312.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.318 139.17 226.09 310.01 311.57 -10.826 122.8 202.66 271.33 271.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.214 118.4 196.36 260.9 261.23 -12.256 125.02 205.83 276.58 277.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.6511 80.473 142.05 170.89 168.85 -12.64 133.18 217.51 295.87 297.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.034 124.5 205.09 275.35 276.05 -2.8564 85.052 148.6 181.76 180.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.8588 105.2 177.45 229.58 229.09 -9.9102 114.88 191.31 252.54 252.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.972 142.92 231.46 318.82 320.58 -5.4268 101.08 171.56 219.82 219.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.5101 72.592 130.76 152.17 149.64 -8.429 96.232 164.61 208.3 207.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.6174 108.26 181.83 236.84 236.54 -7.0217 86.524 150.71 185.25 183.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.673 108.08 181.58 236.43 236.12 -8.7055 110.07 184.42 241.14 240.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.1134 96.83 165.47 209.72 208.71 -8.7513 99.596 169.43 216.29 215.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -2.7142 87.052 151.47 186.51 184.88 -10.322 113.34 189.12 248.91 248.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.0591 113.04 188.68 248.19 248.19 -7.7321 108.52 182.21 237.47 237.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4604 113.22 188.94 248.62 248.63 -4.1286 76.302 136.07 160.98 158.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.6941 79.976 141.33 169.71 167.64 -14.867 126.92 208.55 281.08 281.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.612 131.83 215.58 292.69 293.82 -2.0603 80.742 142.43 171.53 169.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.13 157.59 252.41 352.61 354.96 -13.823 156.18 250.39 349.43 351.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.802 134.55 219.48 299.12 300.41 -17.827 150.87 242.81 337.31 339.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.218 90.31 156.13 194.24 192.82 -13.563 132.68 216.8 294.71 295.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.511 128.79 211.24 285.52 286.47 -9.252 95.578 163.68 206.75 205.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.5702 104.47 176.41 227.85 227.32 -1.5184 59.144 111.5 120.24 116.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.141 122.74 202.57 271.18 271.77 -16.185 143.76 232.65 320.77 322.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.912 116.38 193.46 256.1 256.3 -4.3219 81.924 144.12 174.33 172.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.25 119.58 198.05 263.7 264.1 -9.1049 97.326 166.18 210.9 209.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.3691 93.872 161.23 202.7 201.5 -14.159 116.92 194.24 257.4 257.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.809 115.1 191.63 253.08 253.2 -9.9723 122.13 201.7 269.74 270.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.008 148.64 239.63 332.16 334.2 -8.4611 103.98 175.7 226.68 226.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.6293 89.541 155.03 192.42 190.95 -14.078 127.15 208.88 281.61 282.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.365 137.2 223.26 305.35 306.8 -6.4068 106.21 178.89 231.98 231.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.662 124.36 204.89 275.02 275.71 -6.382 89.756 155.34 192.93 191.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.342 138.9 225.69 309.36 310.9 -11.131 125.96 207.18 278.81 279.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.304 112.03 187.24 245.8 245.74 -14.594 138.83 225.6 309.21 310.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.109 126.78 208.35 280.75 281.58 -9.1487 111.71 186.78 245.04 244.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.263 144.55 233.79 322.63 324.48 -12.156 127.07 208.77 281.44 282.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.7435 104.15 175.95 227.09 226.53 -14.164 148.95 240.07 332.88 334.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.002 130.12 213.13 288.64 289.67 -5.8347 88.645 153.75 190.29 188.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.5592 102.45 173.52 223.07 222.41 -9.1274 111.51 186.49 244.57 244.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.783 142.54 230.9 317.91 319.65 -10.733 117.85 195.57 259.6 259.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.365 106.95 179.96 233.74 233.35 -6.6337 104.6 176.59 228.16 227.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.281 126.08 207.34 279.08 279.87 -12.649 118.49 196.49 261.12 261.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.3148 103.24 174.64 224.93 224.32 -12.746 149.92 241.46 335.13 337.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.249 124.95 205.73 276.42 277.14 -8.2272 105.09 177.29 229.32 228.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.391 125.11 205.96 276.79 277.52 -10.319 117.58 195.19 258.96 259.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.3907 67.923 124.07 141.08 138.26 -10.447 121.97 201.46 269.36 269.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.7418 86.58 150.79 185.39 183.73 -12.637 126.03 207.28 278.97 279.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.489 164.03 261.56 366.58 368.95 -12.497 131.14 214.59 291.06 292.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.509 147.38 237.82 329.22 331.2 -12.084 118.6 196.64 261.37 261.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.708 132.55 216.62 294.4 295.58 -9.8643 110.86 185.56 243.03 242.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.895 97.82 166.89 212.07 211.12 -1.5562 78.756 139.59 166.81 164.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.916 143.64 232.48 320.5 322.29 -12.727 128.26 210.47 284.25 285.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.712 126.43 207.85 279.92 280.73 -9.6761 108.44 182.09 237.27 236.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.445 125.76 206.89 278.32 279.09 -18.51 149.27 240.53 333.61 335.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.494 141.67 229.66 315.87 317.57 -11.999 118.83 196.96 261.91 262.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.331 139.79 226.98 311.47 313.06 -18.531 153.84 247.05 344.13 346.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.49 109.87 184.14 240.67 240.47 -10.983 120.38 199.19 265.6 266.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.902 148.16 238.95 331.05 333.07 -9.8315 119.06 197.3 262.46 262.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.3905 90.123 155.86 193.8 192.37 -11.946 134.64 219.6 299.32 300.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.3527 101.28 171.84 220.28 219.54 -17.953 131.69 215.39 292.37 293.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.729 143.92 232.88 321.15 322.96 -12.409 128.7 211.11 285.3 286.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.4425 101.22 171.75 220.13 219.39 -11.103 113.19 188.9 248.54 248.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.3811 110.01 184.34 241 240.81 -20.431 141.77 229.81 316.12 317.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.726 136.27 221.94 303.18 304.57 -7.7864 96.02 164.31 207.8 206.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) -7.6785 101.59 172.28 221.02 220.3 -6.6548 109.49 183.59 239.76 239.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8595 113.39 189.17 249.01 249.02 -7.0171 95.323 163.31 206.14 205.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.432 145.27 234.81 324.3 326.18 -7.8959 104.68 176.7 228.34 227.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.879 151.89 244.27 339.66 341.84 -1.001 74.683 133.75 157.14 154.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2691 110.67 185.28 242.56 242.4 -11.549 127.85 209.89 283.28 284.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.614 138.56 225.21 308.56 310.08 -19.802 168.41 267.73 375.32 377.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.6161 91.831 158.31 197.85 196.53 -11.109 126.39 207.8 279.84 280.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.6331 100.02 170.04 217.3 216.48 -10.079 114.65 190.98 252 252.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.3753 103.85 175.52 226.38 225.8 -12.006 125.25 206.17 277.14 277.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.034 111.97 187.15 245.65 245.58 -5.1817 91.401 157.69 196.83 195.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.38 120.47 199.32 265.81 266.26 -18.636 140.05 227.35 312.08 313.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.811 154.16 247.51 344.85 347.11 -15.972 140.15 227.49 312.31 313.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.615 187.75 292.44 397.82 398.19 -13.516 146.38 236.39 326.89 328.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.5792 97.372 166.25 211.01 210.03 -13.075 119.99 198.63 264.67 265.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.379 132.31 216.27 293.82 294.99 -13.866 167.15 265.96 372.88 375.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.3623 111.61 186.64 244.8 244.71 -13.873 150.75 242.64 337.03 339.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.333 124.32 204.83 274.93 275.61 -6.8145 93.726 161.02 202.35 201.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.037 137.68 223.96 306.5 307.97 -16.373 133.24 217.59 296.01 297.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.673 135.06 220.2 300.32 301.64 -14.088 148.83 239.9 332.6 334.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.318 115.85 192.7 254.85 255.01 -21.325 153.23 246.18 342.73 344.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.459 130.49 213.66 289.52 290.57 -17.274 144.73 234.04 323.05 324.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.78 148.28 239.12 331.33 333.35 -13.248 126.18 207.49 279.33 280.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.676 117.52 195.1 258.82 259.09 -11.302 125.41 206.39 277.5 278.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.969 138.14 224.62 307.59 309.09 -11.523 133.91 218.56 297.6 298.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.7931 105.21 177.47 229.61 229.12 -10.895 139.59 226.68 310.98 312.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.794 135.07 220.22 300.35 301.67 -13.563 118.76 196.87 261.76 262.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.876 137.63 223.88 306.38 307.85 -11.856 118.08 195.89 260.13 260.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.141 152.58 245.26 341.24 343.45 -10.276 110.71 185.34 242.65 242.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.1115 73.836 132.54 155.12 152.67 -12.53 136.6 222.4 303.94 305.35 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.566 129.98 212.93 288.32 289.34 -16.03 142.1 230.28 316.9 318.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.1159 84.279 147.5 179.92 178.13 -9.832 111.12 185.94 243.64 243.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.237 112.2 187.48 246.2 246.14 -13.295 132.62 216.71 294.55 295.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.54 123.63 203.84 273.29 273.94 -10.467 122.54 202.28 270.7 271.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.0718 91.251 157.48 196.48 195.12 -12.363 101.68 172.42 221.24 220.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.977 93.973 161.38 202.94 201.75 -10.116 112.91 188.5 247.89 247.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.674 78.25 138.86 165.61 163.43 -14.248 135.44 220.75 301.21 302.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.406 133.52 218 296.69 297.92 -12.122 128.51 210.83 284.85 285.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.077 154.66 248.23 346.01 348.29 -11.39 103.16 174.53 224.74 224.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.2432 100.95 171.36 219.49 218.74 -11.281 121.68 201.05 268.67 269.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.502 136.68 222.52 304.13 305.55 -13.795 113.76 189.71 249.9 249.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.781 131.97 215.79 293.03 294.17 -9.5039 110.94 185.68 243.22 243.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.91 123.28 203.34 272.46 273.08 -14.79 129.92 212.84 288.17 289.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.984 121.59 200.93 268.47 268.99 -9.5446 127.69 209.65 282.89 283.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.932 108.68 182.44 237.85 237.58 -15.014 149.63 241.04 334.45 336.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.187 122.72 202.54 271.13 271.72 -13.039 139.01 225.86 309.63 311.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.031 148.43 239.33 331.67 333.7 -13.117 116.48 193.61 256.35 256.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.074 109.64 183.81 240.11 239.9 -15.226 127.57 209.48 282.61 283.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.551 142.39 230.69 317.57 319.3 -17.212 145.99 235.85 326 327.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.115 128.08 210.21 283.82 284.73 -8.3694 100.37 170.53 218.12 217.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.196 151.5 243.71 338.76 340.93 -8.453 113.65 189.55 249.63 249.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8176 94.993 162.84 205.36 204.23 -8.6581 102.63 173.77 223.49 222.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.2247 87.88 152.65 188.47 186.9 -12.637 131.49 215.09 291.89 293 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.53 136.96 222.92 304.79 306.22 -9.2556 104.25 176.1 227.34 226.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.37 155.33 249.18 347.52 349.81 -6.7555 104.27 176.13 227.39 226.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.021 151.21 243.3 338.09 340.24 -7.7138 100.13 170.2 217.56 216.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.6 129.85 212.75 288.02 289.03 -15 133.6 218.12 296.88 298.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.3003 100.88 171.27 219.34 218.58 -20.444 154.34 247.77 345.28 347.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.221 112.88 188.45 247.81 247.79 -13.032 132.73 216.87 294.82 296 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.595 130.19 213.23 288.82 289.85 -19.369 152.74 245.49 341.62 343.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4218 114.14 190.25 250.79 250.86 -11.69 126.76 208.32 280.69 281.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.72 126.63 208.14 280.39 281.21 -10.894 119.31 197.66 263.06 263.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.2596 101.53 172.2 220.88 220.16 -12.922 121.54 200.85 268.33 268.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.74 169.96 269.9 378.2 380.32 -15.954 143.14 231.77 319.33 321.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.705 124.45 205.02 275.24 275.94 -11.993 115.65 192.42 254.38 254.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.995 107.3 180.46 234.57 234.21 -10.286 126.32 207.7 279.67 280.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.773 133.63 218.15 296.94 298.18 -8.0175 112.51 187.92 246.92 246.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.778 130.77 214.07 290.19 291.26 -14.112 132.4 216.39 294.03 295.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.345 125.91 207.11 278.69 279.47 -7.3461 92.036 158.6 198.34 197.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.0072 54.624 105.03 109.5 105.84 -10.646 116.72 193.96 256.93 257.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1432 89.332 154.73 191.92 190.44 -14.174 137.43 223.59 305.9 307.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.032 81.371 143.33 173.02 171.04 -9.692 106.78 179.72 233.34 232.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.3819 85.986 149.94 183.98 182.29 -18.776 136.48 222.23 303.66 305.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.362 113.14 188.82 248.42 248.42 -8.0299 84.116 147.26 179.54 177.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.98 134.46 219.35 298.91 300.2 -11.855 129.59 212.37 287.39 288.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.71 107.93 181.37 236.07 235.75 -12.373 120.97 200.03 266.98 267.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.47 139.65 226.78 311.14 312.72 -13.167 124.61 205.24 275.61 276.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.819 131.85 215.61 292.74 293.88 -12.002 121.98 201.48 269.38 269.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5979 109.72 183.93 240.32 240.11 -6.7914 99.716 169.6 216.57 215.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4481 122.84 202.71 271.41 272.01 -13.416 123.87 204.18 273.85 274.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.719 140.93 228.6 314.14 315.79 -16.388 146.99 237.27 328.32 330.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.674 118.31 196.23 260.69 261.01 -8.5802 105.73 178.21 230.83 230.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.526 124.06 204.46 274.32 274.99 -9.2596 107.44 180.66 234.9 234.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.816 135.56 220.91 301.49 302.84 -14.683 121.43 200.69 268.08 268.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -21.331 164.84 262.7 368.24 370.6 -7.4681 104.77 176.83 228.56 228.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.985 127.77 209.76 283.08 283.97 -11.049 96.433 164.9 208.78 207.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.1755 91.001 157.12 195.88 194.51 -8.833 102.12 173.05 222.29 221.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -2.141 85.17 148.77 182.04 180.3 -7.8663 99.528 169.33 216.13 215.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.994 112.1 187.33 245.95 245.89 -8.5908 110.26 184.7 241.59 241.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.915 127.18 208.93 281.7 282.56 -7.3141 100.12 170.18 217.53 216.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.068 129.22 211.85 286.53 287.5 -5.7395 106.48 179.29 232.63 232.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.8131 93.516 160.72 201.85 200.63 -11.301 116.63 193.82 256.71 256.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.701 128.9 211.39 285.76 286.72 -8.5325 112.55 187.98 247.02 246.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.6761 115.22 191.8 253.35 253.48 -10.798 121.23 200.41 267.61 268.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -21.851 177.7 280.47 390.04 391.4 -13.691 142.08 230.25 316.84 318.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.7057 112.36 187.71 246.58 246.54 -4.8538 105.57 177.99 230.47 230 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) -5.5483 90.848 156.9 195.52 194.13 -7.4067 94.491 162.12 204.17 203.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.661 134.56 219.5 299.15 300.44 -18.629 163.49 260.78 365.43 367.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -1.1147 69.614 126.5 145.1 142.38 -15.488 171.1 271.48 380.22 382.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.669 114.55 190.84 251.76 251.85 -9.2054 106.75 179.67 233.27 232.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.379 121.87 201.32 269.12 269.65 -6.6611 111.75 186.84 245.13 245.05 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.3 158.87 254.23 355.45 357.82 -7.7127 99.212 168.88 215.38 214.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.575 121.31 200.52 267.79 268.29 -8.3436 111.02 185.79 243.4 243.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.921 127.35 209.17 282.1 282.97 -10.717 98.357 167.65 213.35 212.43 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.9041 101.78 172.56 221.47 220.76 -8.4391 97.782 166.83 211.98 211.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.5738 111.07 185.86 243.51 243.39 -2.6085 82.974 145.63 176.82 174.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.0587 100.43 170.63 218.27 217.48 -13.563 121.45 200.72 268.13 268.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.9195 91.947 158.48 198.13 196.81 -15.92 133.07 217.35 295.62 296.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.186 118.45 196.43 261.03 261.35 -12.23 122.16 201.73 269.8 270.35 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.0984 71.608 129.35 149.84 147.24 -13.076 138.64 225.32 308.75 310.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.96 129.47 212.2 287.11 288.1 -12.04 130.87 214.21 290.43 291.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1773 98.021 167.17 212.55 211.61 -19.781 147.15 237.51 328.7 330.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.996 111.37 186.29 244.23 244.12 -11.552 111.85 186.98 245.38 245.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.7098 91.012 157.14 195.91 194.53 -10.584 101.9 172.73 221.76 221.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4188 101.16 171.67 220 219.25 -13.644 127.4 209.24 282.22 283.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.57 120.09 198.78 264.91 265.33 -9.284 109.82 184.06 240.54 240.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.343 126.53 208 280.16 280.98 -15.24 123.14 203.14 272.14 272.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.7822 101.37 171.98 220.51 219.78 -17.16 136.16 221.78 302.91 304.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.246 129.51 212.26 287.2 288.2 -8.0488 102.94 174.22 224.22 223.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5396 104.88 177 228.83 228.32 -10.195 119.13 197.4 262.63 263 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.7623 96.125 164.46 208.05 206.99 -6.8581 102.43 173.48 223.01 222.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.7434 106.99 180.01 233.82 233.44 -4.1785 97.225 166.03 210.66 209.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.4824 108.87 182.71 238.31 238.04 -12.17 123.72 203.97 273.51 274.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.1557 93.179 160.24 201.06 199.81 -8.9972 124.09 204.5 274.38 275.05 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.432 118.92 197.1 262.13 262.49 -19.953 153.49 246.56 343.34 345.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.2667 84.659 148.04 180.83 179.05 -21.403 155.9 249.99 348.8 351.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.7578 118.13 195.97 260.27 260.57 -12.087 107.19 180.3 234.31 233.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.1529 97.028 165.75 210.19 209.19 -12.171 126.85 208.45 280.91 281.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.552 159.95 255.77 357.84 360.23 -7.4108 107.18 180.28 234.28 233.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.615 119.83 198.41 264.3 264.71 -14.163 134.88 219.95 299.9 301.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.215 112.15 187.4 246.07 246.01 -9.4169 116.25 193.28 255.81 256 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.9211 114.62 190.95 251.94 252.03 -12.687 125.61 206.68 277.99 278.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.891 135.75 221.19 301.94 303.3 -10.007 111.46 186.42 244.44 244.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.5148 68.891 125.46 143.38 140.62 -15.324 131.72 215.43 292.44 293.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -2.8165 65.103 120.04 134.39 131.39 -3.7732 88.284 153.23 189.43 187.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.366 158.19 253.26 353.94 356.3 -10.345 98.873 168.39 214.57 213.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.404 141.2 228.99 314.77 316.44 -16.601 123.42 203.54 272.79 273.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.121 158.35 253.49 354.31 356.68 -6.7151 100.74 171.06 219 218.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.04 133.79 218.38 297.32 298.57 -9.4991 118.29 196.19 260.63 260.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.122 122.66 202.45 270.99 271.57 -10.162 104.57 176.55 228.09 227.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.9845 93.367 160.51 201.5 200.27 -11.891 117.48 195.03 258.71 258.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.662 143.02 231.6 319.05 320.82 -13.919 141.31 229.14 315.03 316.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4095 97.691 166.7 211.77 210.81 -16.422 142.74 231.19 318.38 320.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.47 128.38 210.65 284.54 285.47 -9.2532 108.2 181.74 236.7 236.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.3568 104.09 175.87 226.96 226.39 -6.2152 84.784 148.22 181.12 179.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.7195 87.921 152.71 188.57 187 -10.665 110.31 184.78 241.72 241.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.3771 117.91 195.65 259.73 260.02 -16.317 146.56 236.66 327.33 329.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -17.664 145.54 235.21 324.95 326.84 -13.669 131.32 214.85 291.48 292.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.0552 107.6 180.89 235.29 234.94 -2.8464 65.724 120.93 135.86 132.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.237 123.17 203.18 272.2 272.81 -10.066 111.92 187.08 245.53 245.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.9843 82.303 144.67 175.23 173.31 -11.193 111.26 186.13 243.96 243.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.536 134.79 219.82 299.69 300.99 -6.2308 106.62 179.49 232.96 232.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.085 132.86 217.05 295.11 296.31 -11.857 123.36 203.46 272.66 273.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -15.552 140.39 227.83 312.86 314.49 -6.5339 108.51 182.19 237.43 237.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.656 138.73 225.46 308.98 310.51 -7.8076 89.489 154.96 192.29 190.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.345 116.55 193.71 256.52 256.73 -11.25 125.18 206.06 276.95 277.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.663 162.21 258.98 362.73 365.12 -13.886 130.81 214.12 290.29 291.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.822 118.22 196.09 260.46 260.77 -3.7056 86.934 151.3 186.23 184.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.491 139.15 226.05 309.95 311.5 -8.2102 91.651 158.05 197.43 196.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.455 115.44 192.11 253.87 254.01 -12.502 141.63 229.6 315.78 317.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.7762 115.5 192.2 254.03 254.17 -13.412 120.23 198.97 265.23 265.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.84 112.79 188.32 247.59 247.57 -8.2687 109.78 184.02 240.47 240.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.91 96.339 164.77 208.56 207.51 -15.679 141.93 230.03 316.49 318.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.677 122.28 201.91 270.09 270.65 -2.8997 95.193 163.12 205.84 204.72 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.058 130.43 213.57 289.38 290.43 -11.123 104.99 177.15 229.09 228.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.859 119.66 198.16 263.89 264.3 -6.5603 98.629 168.05 213.99 213.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8615 106.68 179.57 233.1 232.7 -13.71 126.66 208.19 280.47 281.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.3388 106.26 178.97 232.1 231.67 -14.094 124.96 205.75 276.44 277.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.6231 120.8 199.79 266.59 267.06 -12.131 117.38 194.9 258.48 258.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.756 134.07 218.79 297.98 299.25 -14.36 124.54 205.14 275.44 276.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.8401 107.84 181.24 235.86 235.54 -6.1504 109.96 184.28 240.89 240.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.1453 98.988 168.56 214.84 213.97 -15.091 116.34 193.4 256.01 256.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -4.9298 94.911 162.72 205.17 204.03 -12.241 102.83 174.05 223.95 223.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.685 126.26 207.6 279.51 280.31 -17.529 132.33 216.29 293.87 295.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.4144 103.58 175.13 225.73 225.14 -14.724 137.96 224.36 307.17 308.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.556 143.45 232.21 320.04 321.83 -14.497 119 197.22 262.33 262.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.5617 106.36 179.11 232.34 231.92 -12.787 132.2 216.1 293.55 294.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.4432 94.057 161.5 203.14 201.95 -9.9873 120.9 199.93 266.82 267.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -12.221 118.72 196.81 261.65 261.99 -6.6845 97.411 166.3 211.1 210.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5735 100.7 171 218.9 218.13 -13.118 130.62 213.86 289.84 290.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1313 121.38 200.62 267.96 268.46 -6.8496 72.446 130.55 151.82 149.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.038 147.79 238.41 330.18 332.18 -3.0171 92.674 159.52 199.85 198.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -3.2694 83.911 146.97 179.05 177.23 -13.375 133.36 217.77 296.3 297.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.609 76.913 136.95 162.43 160.17 -7.1574 99.427 169.19 215.89 215.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.856 102.2 173.16 222.48 221.8 -11.277 119.88 198.48 264.41 264.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.733 129.32 211.99 286.77 287.75 -9.3532 85.677 149.5 183.24 181.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.34 138.09 224.53 307.45 308.94 -12.224 124.83 205.57 276.14 276.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.0663 98.279 167.54 213.16 212.24 -21.37 146.09 235.99 326.23 328.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.082 136.45 222.19 303.59 304.99 -11.864 114.2 190.34 250.94 251 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8047 105.93 178.5 231.32 230.88 -16.091 133.31 217.7 296.18 297.4 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.875 119.73 198.26 264.06 264.46 -9.8389 119.63 198.11 263.8 264.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) -8.5763 123.43 203.55 272.81 273.44 -8.8849 98.436 167.77 213.53 212.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -18.507 134.19 218.95 298.26 299.53 -20.321 163.22 260.41 364.87 367.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.3889 112.58 188.03 247.1 247.07 -5.8388 112.65 188.11 247.25 247.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.575 147.91 238.59 330.46 332.47 -11.159 122.2 201.8 269.91 270.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.8791 107.55 180.82 235.17 234.82 -5.7767 85.36 149.04 182.49 180.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.709 109.36 183.41 239.46 239.22 -13.2 150.13 241.77 335.62 337.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.1489 98.504 167.87 213.7 212.79 -8.6785 97.569 166.53 211.48 210.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.2006 113.28 189.03 248.77 248.78 -15.431 144.24 233.34 321.91 323.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.1643 89.824 155.44 193.09 191.64 -14.269 116.17 193.17 255.62 255.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -5.434 79.376 140.47 168.28 166.18 -17.058 146.84 237.06 327.97 329.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.953 139.43 226.46 310.62 312.18 -9.5959 110.41 184.92 241.96 241.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -21.837 160.59 256.68 359.24 361.63 -10.939 123.58 203.78 273.18 273.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -11.758 115.54 192.26 254.12 254.27 -5.9791 94.143 161.62 203.34 202.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4828 121.08 200.19 267.25 267.74 -7.297 88.997 154.25 191.13 189.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.824 119.92 198.54 264.51 264.93 -16.091 141.5 229.43 315.49 317.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -10.309 116.5 193.64 256.4 256.6 -7.2964 99.305 169.01 215.6 214.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.7355 118.64 196.7 261.47 261.81 -1.2691 86.251 150.32 184.61 182.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -19.53 147.63 238.19 329.81 331.81 -12.149 105.94 178.52 231.35 230.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.59 137.04 223.04 304.99 306.42 -6.5877 99.975 169.97 217.19 216.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -7.3119 107.51 180.77 235.08 234.73 -14.06 129.68 212.5 287.61 288.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -6.4699 95.38 163.39 206.28 205.18 -13.149 129.37 212.06 286.88 287.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -13.626 137.55 223.77 306.19 307.66 -14.742 120.57 199.46 266.05 266.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -16.187 159.35 254.91 356.5 358.89 -1.6795 83.511 146.4 178.1 176.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -14.167 145.16 234.66 324.06 325.93 -5.6602 98.719 168.17 214.21 213.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -9.4424 110.51 185.06 242.19 242.02 -20.919 144.93 234.33 323.53 325.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 -8.5992 104.02 175.77 226.79 226.22 -7.5523 114.45 190.7 251.53 251.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report II.2 HOEK-BROWN FIT OF TPTPLN DATA MathCAD worksheet for calculating the Hoek-Brown failure envelope for the Tptpln unit is presented in Figure II-2. Complete results of curve fitting (Answer(try)) for the Tptpln unit are presented in Table II-2. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) Inputs for Calculation . . . . . . Tensile DataUCS Data5 MPa10 MPa MSDUCSUCS .. . MT - := 7.92MUCS := 155.51 M5 := 216.4 M10 := 265.6 + + + SDT := 2.55 SDUCS := 30.35 SD5 := 64 SD10 := 21.7 . . MT 0MTSDT 0 . . . . . . 0 MUCS Inputs x := Inputs y := SD1x := SD1y := 5 M5 5 M5SD5 0 + - .. . 10 M10 10 M10 SD10 . . . . MTSDT 0 + 0 MUCS SDUCS MT SDT 0 . . . . SD2x := SD2y := SD3x := SD3y := M5SD5 MTSDT 0 .. . . . . 5 10 M10 SD10 - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .. . . . . .. . . . . try 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 -9.834 194.02 297.61 293.13 -8.988 163.64 233.57 271.41 0 1 -10.835 178.4 264.68 281.97 -8.235 152.88 210.88 263.72 0 2 -1.137 96.971 93.317 223.75 -5.781 130.42 163.56 247.66 0 3 -7.87 154.51 214.33 264.89 -6.98 124.03 150.11 243.1 0 4 -7.658 150.27 205.38 261.85 -13.01 202.52 315.53 299.21 0 5 -5.744 116.17 133.57 237.47 -7.45 141.25 186.37 255.4 0 6 -9.412 163.84 233.99 271.56 -13.185 204.13 318.94 300.36 0 7 -5.207 119.8 141.2 240.07 -9.086 156.42 218.35 266.25 0 8 -9.857 171.08 249.25 276.73 -9.11 181.87 272 284.45 0 9 -8.296 161.21 228.44 269.67 -6.251 125.48 153.16 244.13 0 10 -6.614 150.62 206.12 262.1 -7.62 144.9 194.06 258.01 0 11 -8.255 174.44 256.33 279.13 -6.777 135.46 174.17 251.26 0 12 -5.74 122.79 147.5 242.21 -5.498 120.02 141.66 240.22 0 13 -8.055 168.88 244.61 275.16 -8.7 176.32 260.29 280.48 0 14 -10.162 189.01 287.06 289.55 -6.445 148.25 201.13 260.41 0 15 -3.134 102.22 104.29 227.5 -5.348 143.39 190.88 256.93 0 = (( rows try) = 496 cols try) = 14 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) u1 vx u 2 vx u+ 1 Equation that will best fit data 0u0 u1 u1 u2 1u2 u2 Derivative of fit equation with vx + 1 vx + 1 u1 · vx repsect to compressive uuu u 0 0 vx2 + 1 strength term, u0 u 0 Fvx u) := ( . . . . . . . . . . .u1. . . . . . . . . 0 u0 u0 repsect to exponent, u1 · u1 u vx ... . . . 2 Derivative of fit equation with . . · 1+vxu u0 1u2 repsect to Hoek-Brown mi, u2 vx + 1 u · . . · 0 .. .. · . . .. .. · · · 150 . . · ... · . . uu22 Derivative of fit equation with1ln1++uvxvx Initial guess vector for genfit equation.47:=vg . . + .. .. 27 · · · Application of genfit to data and guess vectorPgenfit vx vyF):= vg,, - .. .. · ( .. .. . . 139.387 , . . . . P 0.48 Results of genfit routine · . . . . 29.369 ... . ... . ................... . = where u0 = UCS c := P a := Pm := P 0 1 2 u1 = alpha , u2 = Hoek-Brown Parameter Uniaxial Compressive Strength c = 139.387 Alpha a = 0.48 Hoek-Brown Parameter m = 29.369 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) t := -c+ .0001 t - = 4.746Sets plotting limits and analysis limits for the fit equation m () := F r P)0 Equation describing best fit line gr( , r := t , .1 .. 36 Plotting Ranges i := 0.. 7 20 15 10 5 0 50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Sigma 3 (MPa) Sigma 1 (MPa) Plot of one line of data and best fit Hoek-Brown parameters ( ) vxj try. vy j try. j0 6...for vy7 0.0. vx3 tryi0,. vy3 0.0. vx2 10. vx7 tryi4,. vx0 0. vx1 5. P ,vg,F,( ). Pans ij,Pj. j0 2...for i 0 494...for:= Calculation Loop that looks at all lines of data and calculates as shown above, the results for all lines of data, each line consisting of 12 points 10 15 20 Answer try ij 4 +, ij 1 +, genfit vx vy Pans return 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 20 15 10 5 0 50 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Sigma 3 (MPa) Sigma 1 (MPa) SDa ():=( ) 0.056= SDMi ( ):=( ) 7.224= SDc ():=( ) 29.625= Ma ():=( ) 0.483= MMi ( ):=( ) 29.973= Mc ():=( ) 153.901= ( ) 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 186.542 0.471 26.859 168.75 0.475 27.756 74.416 0.456 65.411 134.152 0.481 29.586 182.874 0.473 27.158 120.641 0.485 30.177 193.381 0.472 26.361 132.549 0.481 29.789 183.345 0.472 26.997 139.387 0.48 29.369 145.133 0.478 29.106 =Mi ( ) 2<> := A ( ) 1<> := C ( ) 0<> := Results of the best fit routine for all data 10 15 20 25 stdev Astdev A stdev Mi stdev Mi stdev Cstdev C mean Amean A mean Mi mean Mi mean Cmean C Answer try Answer try Answer try Answer try 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 20 15 10 5 0 50 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Tptpln Hoek Brown Failure Envelope Sigma 3 (MPa) Sigma 1 (MPa) Solid Blue Lines Indicate Standard Devaition of Results, Blue Bars are One SD of Input Data Red Lines Indicate Mean Results, Red Dots Mean Input 10 15 20 25 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) Indirect Tensile Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength 5 MPa Major Stress 10 MPa Major Stress Indirect Tensile Strength Unconfined Compressive Strength 5 MPa Major Stress 10 MPa Major Stress Unconfined Minor Stress 5 MPa Confined Minor Stress 10 MPa Confined Minor Stress Unconfine d Minor Stress 5 MPa Confined Minor Stress 10 MPa Confined Minor Stress -9.8336 194.02 297.61 293.13 -8.9884 163.64 233.57 271.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.835 178.4 264.68 281.97 -8.2348 152.88 210.88 263.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.1373 96.971 93.317 223.75 -5.7814 130.42 163.56 247.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8703 154.51 214.33 264.89 -6.9797 124.03 150.11 243.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6584 150.27 205.38 261.85 -13.01 202.52 315.53 299.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7443 116.17 133.57 237.47 -7.4496 141.25 186.37 255.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.412 163.84 233.99 271.56 -13.185 204.13 318.94 300.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2075 119.8 141.2 240.07 -9.0864 156.42 218.35 266.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.8569 171.08 249.25 276.73 -9.1097 181.87 272 284.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2955 161.21 228.44 269.67 -6.2514 125.48 153.16 244.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6135 150.62 206.12 262.1 -7.6205 144.9 194.06 258.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2553 174.44 256.33 279.13 -6.7766 135.46 174.17 251.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7404 122.79 147.5 242.21 -5.4984 120.02 141.66 240.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0553 168.88 244.61 275.16 -8.6999 176.32 260.29 280.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.162 189.01 287.06 289.55 -6.4449 148.25 201.13 260.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.134 102.22 104.29 227.5 -5.348 143.39 190.88 256.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7007 182.35 273.01 284.79 -7.6196 154.91 215.17 265.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.765 207.63 326.31 302.87 -5.9851 148.64 201.95 260.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6402 135.58 174.43 251.35 -6.7264 113.16 127.24 235.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.8157 141.74 187.41 255.75 -1.0541 107.24 114.81 231.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.048 181.01 270.19 283.83 -9.3972 172.75 252.78 277.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.6919 110.71 122.09 233.57 -7.2349 147.33 199.18 259.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.521 188.49 285.95 289.18 -5.5581 135.74 174.76 251.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.515 179.54 267.08 282.78 -5.2009 94.72 88.629 222.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.7863 166.94 240.53 273.77 -9.0622 156.49 218.5 266.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.8656 127.94 158.34 245.89 -11.408 198.15 306.34 296.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5969 171.26 249.64 276.86 -5.8618 90.487 79.844 219.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7054 127.01 156.37 245.22 -7.6162 150.42 205.71 261.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7218 179.05 266.07 282.43 -8.8198 165.58 237.66 272.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2237 136.46 176.27 251.98 -6.9711 155.19 215.76 265.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.6836 168.01 242.79 274.54 -8.7329 178.17 264.2 281.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.0814 117.9 137.19 238.71 -4.2813 130.31 163.33 247.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8571 139.41 182.49 254.09 -9.5794 175.55 258.67 279.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9298 158.57 222.88 267.79 -7.9797 143.48 191.07 257 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4466 159.44 224.72 268.41 -13.32 184.82 278.23 286.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8242 113.87 128.72 235.83 -8.6779 153.18 211.52 263.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2414 111.78 124.34 234.33 -8.0282 145.47 195.26 258.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9992 177.08 261.9 281.02 -10.659 171.72 250.6 277.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0914 153.34 211.86 264.05 -7.6334 138.03 179.58 253.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.3296 149.78 204.36 261.51 -11.257 181.72 271.68 284.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4531 124.37 150.81 243.33 -8.8078 166.19 238.94 273.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.9161 141.38 186.65 255.5 -6.3992 146.57 197.58 259.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7441 180.22 268.53 283.27 -6.8787 145.77 195.9 258.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1612 159.98 225.86 268.8 -8.4253 158.49 222.71 267.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.0649 104.89 109.87 229.41 -10.546 181.61 271.44 284.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3956 177.69 263.2 281.46 -10.014 170.71 248.47 276.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.938 189.87 288.88 290.17 -9.7233 176.43 260.52 280.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0909 138.98 181.59 253.78 -6.5345 150.31 205.48 261.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.99 193.44 296.41 292.72 -1.3375 103.2 106.33 228.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.798 139.02 181.68 253.81 -9.8129 177.15 262.05 281.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9927 170.91 248.89 276.61 -9.6372 174.03 255.47 278.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.931 119.67 140.94 239.98 -9.0067 190.28 289.74 290.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.03 173.51 254.38 278.47 -5.2874 128.62 159.77 246.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.043 162.99 232.2 270.95 -8.0293 145.57 195.49 258.5 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8395 150.55 205.98 262.06 -8.7892 186.15 281.04 287.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.3957 164.47 235.32 272.01 -7.3442 147.68 199.92 260 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4206 160.62 227.19 269.25 -9.6329 162.77 231.74 270.79 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.279 163.8 233.9 271.53 -11.628 182.87 274.11 285.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.8134 113.03 126.97 235.23 -7.1158 74.607 47.731 207.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.8908 142.65 189.32 256.41 -8.435 174.9 257.31 279.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.6594 140.75 185.32 255.05 -2.7491 81.118 60.66 212.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2259 162.88 231.97 270.87 -8.1381 154.98 215.32 265.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8216 129.83 162.32 247.24 -7.0596 128.67 159.88 246.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.9282 120.33 142.32 240.45 -12.505 186.35 281.45 287.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2419 141.93 187.8 255.89 -7.5162 138.47 180.51 253.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.0961 175.81 259.23 280.12 -7.7962 143.84 191.82 257.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.4041 121.73 145.26 241.45 -8.533 175.62 258.82 279.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7194 104.23 108.5 228.94 -8.6317 162.13 230.39 270.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9693 155.26 215.91 265.42 -5.4414 128.99 160.54 246.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4673 153.67 212.55 264.28 -8.5295 155.29 215.96 265.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.808 126.44 155.18 244.82 -6.7401 125.17 152.51 243.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.5862 144.19 192.57 257.51 -3.8836 118.88 139.27 239.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.048 149.17 203.06 261.06 -5.7116 133.37 169.77 249.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1187 134.21 171.54 250.37 -4.9915 149.75 204.29 261.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6205 146.78 198.03 259.36 -7.2375 164.71 235.83 272.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.9382 108.77 118.01 232.18 -10.04 196.71 303.3 295.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3574 172.35 251.93 277.64 -9.9768 167.2 241.08 273.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.1654 135.18 173.58 251.06 -8.8955 182.64 273.62 285 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4828 160.32 226.57 269.04 -10.28 178.45 264.78 282 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8305 151.91 208.83 263.02 -10.366 201.99 314.43 298.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) -9.3684 159.03 223.86 268.12 -8.1136 175.42 258.4 279.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7807 155.48 216.36 265.58 -7.9455 156.65 218.84 266.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9599 143.59 191.3 257.08 -7.0521 152.06 209.16 263.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4178 160.87 227.74 269.44 -7.4087 140.3 184.38 254.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.5465 154.76 214.85 265.07 -7.7441 171.95 251.08 277.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.8702 138.29 180.13 253.28 -6.6758 153.5 212.18 264.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.661 125.01 152.16 243.79 -9.6083 180.35 268.8 283.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4245 134.8 172.78 250.79 -10.875 197.75 305.48 295.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.485 176.96 261.66 280.94 -8.3497 158.44 222.59 267.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.6951 132.83 168.63 249.38 -9.0989 189.19 287.44 289.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4486 140.1 183.95 254.58 -10.562 171.06 249.2 276.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7018 153 211.14 263.81 -8.8878 171.41 249.94 276.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2651 146.08 196.56 258.86 -8.2816 172.61 252.49 277.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 -14.29 187.69 284.27 288.61 -9.8283 175.99 259.61 280.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -18.91 217.36 346.83 309.82 -10.189 185.06 278.72 286.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.3418 133.72 170.51 250.02 -8.7035 133.04 169.08 249.54 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1438 112.55 125.94 234.88 -9.2912 165.18 236.82 272.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6659 151.65 208.29 262.84 -6.7842 166.49 239.57 273.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7048 174.59 256.64 279.24 -9.5522 192.35 294.1 291.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.3476 135.41 174.08 251.23 -11.299 189.62 288.34 289.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1065 155.13 215.62 265.33 -7.0228 149.91 204.63 261.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8266 121.84 145.49 241.52 -1.0024 75.651 49.77 208.5 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3773 156.19 217.85 266.08 -8.3157 151.55 208.08 262.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7537 137.05 177.53 252.4 -17.303 213.91 339.56 307.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.547 208.88 328.94 303.76 -9.3271 152.47 210.03 263.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0191 141.68 187.28 255.71 -7.6406 148 200.6 260.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2831 171.53 250.2 277.05 -3.4003 114.08 129.17 235.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.2586 159.61 225.07 268.53 -11.263 241.42 397.53 327.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.8253 129.7 162.04 247.15 -9.1153 153.82 212.87 264.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7042 142.93 189.92 256.61 -6.1508 134.56 172.27 250.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.3558 144.83 193.92 257.96 -8.7345 169.65 246.24 275.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.3057 111.84 124.45 234.37 -6.6408 153.43 212.05 264.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2189 175.13 257.78 279.62 -10.774 197.01 303.92 295.27 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.157 152.56 210.21 263.49 -10.973 170.36 247.74 276.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2159 143.51 191.13 257.02 -3.6014 97.576 94.579 224.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8522 149.97 204.75 261.64 -9.8085 182.51 273.36 284.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.413 183.33 275.08 285.49 -9.791 179.77 267.57 282.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6724 137.97 179.46 253.06 -9.5246 183.96 276.42 285.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.289 194.72 299.1 293.64 -8.3772 155.83 217.09 265.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8962 155.93 217.31 265.9 -12.999 206.64 324.23 302.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.1593 167.47 241.64 274.15 -6.5589 134.02 171.14 250.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.852 95.686 90.639 222.83 -5.3 125.28 152.73 243.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.369 180.51 269.13 283.47 -8.4518 158.69 223.13 267.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.7229 157.84 221.34 267.27 -5.6102 119.54 140.65 239.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.9375 170.49 248 276.31 -7.8594 151.01 206.94 262.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.6757 139.45 182.58 254.12 -8.5963 174.49 256.43 279.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.516 131.21 165.23 248.23 -6.3074 122.15 146.14 241.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.101 193.68 296.89 292.89 -7.4758 154.73 214.79 265.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3891 157.66 220.96 267.14 -7.0589 135.12 173.46 251.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.091 174.12 255.67 278.91 -4.2349 100.36 100.39 226.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.9662 214.36 340.51 307.68 -7.688 145.88 196.12 258.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.572 197.3 304.54 295.48 -10.956 167.26 241.21 274 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.5844 130.91 164.58 248.01 -7.4114 162.35 230.86 270.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5922 167.67 242.07 274.3 -8.3516 170.04 247.06 275.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4581 155.39 216.19 265.52 -6.81 122.3 146.45 241.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.613 199.74 309.67 297.22 -7.5344 160.43 226.8 269.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.396 226.52 366.15 316.37 -8.9552 165.42 237.33 272.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.0552 142.88 189.81 256.57 -6.0586 145.24 194.78 258.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.4546 133.47 169.98 249.84 -7.1125 130.76 164.26 247.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4634 182.1 272.49 284.61 -8.2415 161.95 229.99 270.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9819 149.01 202.74 260.96 -4.497 111.56 123.87 234.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.1077 118.93 139.36 239.44 -10.908 179.94 267.93 283.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0708 123.37 148.71 242.62 -5.2792 87.596 73.877 217.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.789 203.03 316.61 299.57 -6.5719 132.98 168.94 249.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.046 189.5 288.08 289.9 -9.8252 184.53 277.61 286.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2358 123.73 149.47 242.88 -8.4824 161.08 228.17 269.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.452 182.72 273.79 285.06 -8.3975 162.96 232.14 270.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.619 212.79 337.19 306.56 -5.654 127.2 156.78 245.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.12 206.82 324.61 302.29 -6.7383 150.95 206.82 262.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.905 181.35 270.91 284.08 -9.2412 176.17 259.98 280.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.936 221.41 355.36 312.72 -5.4734 105.98 112.16 230.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.43 134.38 171.91 250.5 -3.378 109.18 118.87 232.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7643 158.24 222.19 267.55 -6.2152 141.48 186.85 255.57 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5895 158.11 221.9 267.46 -8.087 159.71 225.28 268.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.4422 138.25 180.06 253.26 -7.4348 137.37 178.2 252.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.112 166.31 239.2 273.32 -6.7426 121.59 144.96 241.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.3975 173.65 254.68 278.57 -5.5145 124.84 151.82 243.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8248 152.3 209.66 263.3 -6.9057 165.01 236.46 272.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.3944 138.55 180.67 253.47 -7.4125 172.01 251.22 277.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.551 131.51 165.84 248.44 -6.8193 143.13 190.34 256.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.6305 167.92 242.58 274.47 -8.3551 162.01 230.13 270.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.5807 105.4 110.94 229.77 -4.8349 125.71 153.64 244.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.8352 152.41 209.89 263.38 -2.3938 94.259 87.668 221.81 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7935 143.21 190.51 256.81 -10.64 189.8 288.72 290.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) -9.4393 192.59 294.6 292.11 -5.9759 137.22 177.88 252.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6692 151.12 207.17 262.46 -7.6388 164.88 236.18 272.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0966 160.11 226.13 268.89 -5.8239 136.4 176.15 251.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.4192 128.26 159.01 246.12 -12.157 219.41 351.15 311.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9402 170.07 247.12 276.01 -10.405 213.4 338.49 306.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.1037 151.3 207.55 262.59 -7.337 148.08 200.76 260.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.501 195.59 300.94 294.26 -5.1029 118.75 138.99 239.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.2271 104.68 109.44 229.26 -8.8817 159.83 225.53 268.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6714 115.7 132.57 237.13 -6.1984 134.92 173.04 250.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.024 160.34 226.6 269.05 -6.9298 122.36 146.59 241.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.9926 120.69 143.06 240.7 -5.0628 117.54 136.44 238.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.912 186.27 281.28 287.59 -5.9614 143.68 191.49 257.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.1345 116.03 133.28 237.38 -10.98 203.78 318.21 300.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.6214 146.4 197.23 259.09 -7.5718 148.74 202.15 260.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7675 146.97 198.42 259.49 -7.6229 150.16 205.14 261.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7283 142.2 188.37 256.08 -6.6253 138.87 181.36 253.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6826 172.12 251.45 277.48 -8.3059 158.25 222.21 267.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.204 185.59 279.85 287.11 -5.7236 119.26 140.06 239.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1401 135.04 173.29 250.96 -8.1154 161.75 229.58 270.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9352 137.8 179.11 252.94 -10.565 198.88 307.87 296.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.5103 123.8 149.62 242.93 -8.4332 133.95 170.99 250.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4697 186.5 281.77 287.76 -8.4829 167.42 241.54 274.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.3159 137.83 179.16 252.96 -11.665 196.02 301.83 294.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9858 150.89 206.69 262.3 -8.1605 182.98 274.35 285.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.3934 166.28 239.14 273.3 -14.909 237.29 388.83 324.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.875 194.79 299.25 293.69 -5.8165 143.28 190.65 256.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.2274 98.992 97.535 225.19 -7.2665 164.14 234.62 271.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.6117 219.87 352.12 311.62 -8.3729 184.16 276.82 286.08 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7256 101.13 102 226.72 -10.91 167.71 242.14 274.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2627 157.21 220.02 266.82 -9.1116 153.12 211.4 263.89 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.2274 144.06 192.29 257.41 -6.6106 132.09 167.07 248.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4736 163.16 232.56 271.07 -10.419 204.94 320.65 300.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.0926 115.33 131.79 236.87 -5.7693 129.44 161.48 246.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.1207 102.92 105.75 228 -4.4572 127.31 157.02 245.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4915 154.64 214.6 264.98 -10.96 190.22 289.61 290.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6005 140.87 185.58 255.14 -4.0078 118.59 138.66 239.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.6678 184.05 276.59 286 -7.2512 153.58 212.36 264.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.23 191.95 293.25 291.65 -5.8305 142.75 189.54 256.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7411 160.84 227.67 269.41 -6.2446 109.79 120.16 232.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -14.115 190.83 290.89 290.85 -8.2082 163.71 233.71 271.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4424 151.98 208.98 263.07 -3.2803 117.09 135.51 238.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.158 173.02 253.33 278.12 -8.0535 145.01 194.3 258.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.0443 123.53 149.05 242.73 -11.506 206.02 322.92 301.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.6208 92.002 82.983 220.19 -10.082 165.17 236.8 272.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6327 139.65 183 254.26 -4.5525 111.27 123.26 233.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1181 113.56 128.07 235.61 -10.255 169.61 246.14 275.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7978 156.04 217.55 265.98 -13.188 195.11 299.92 293.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.315 211.47 334.41 305.61 -6.2286 132.49 167.92 249.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.1786 165.54 237.57 272.77 -10.981 185.52 279.7 287.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.8459 86.428 71.478 216.21 -11.552 227.41 368.03 317.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8142 152.09 209.21 263.15 -5.1382 116.3 133.83 237.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5823 150.53 205.93 262.04 -13.977 210.52 332.41 304.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4234 151.72 208.44 262.89 -9.852 188.6 286.2 289.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.135 172.57 252.39 277.8 -7.4714 172.72 252.7 277.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.259 142.3 188.59 256.16 -8.6648 154.11 213.47 264.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2281 140.39 184.57 254.79 -7.5201 156.05 217.58 265.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0474 168.52 243.86 274.9 -13.918 187.9 284.72 288.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.115 187.51 283.9 288.48 -7.8825 163.47 233.21 271.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4917 157.01 219.6 266.67 -8.7958 166.73 240.08 273.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.5568 101.32 102.4 226.85 -9.0412 178.7 265.33 282.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.2933 165.97 238.47 273.08 -2.6516 108.04 116.49 231.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6256 137.62 178.73 252.81 -7.2979 151.83 208.68 262.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.2533 193.02 295.51 292.42 -4.4099 131.58 166.01 248.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.4645 89.747 78.314 218.58 -6.3504 124.46 151 243.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.8296 142.12 188.2 256.02 -5.446 110.2 121.03 233.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7852 141.86 187.66 255.84 -6.5275 144.77 193.8 257.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.148 125.34 152.85 244.03 -6.5568 129.4 161.41 246.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -2.5461 110.98 122.65 233.76 -7.5609 149.59 203.94 261.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7538 149.14 203.01 261.05 -5.9033 142.5 189.01 256.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0104 149.41 203.57 261.24 -3.5455 95.196 89.618 222.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.9256 100.59 100.87 226.33 -10.468 169.52 245.96 275.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.663 176.73 261.16 280.77 -2.0348 101.72 103.23 227.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.995 214.57 340.94 307.83 -9.7983 212.49 336.56 306.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.071 180.73 269.59 283.63 -12.402 204.69 320.11 300.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.4946 115.76 132.71 237.18 -9.6313 177.98 263.81 281.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.239 172.27 251.77 277.59 -6.8772 123.5 148.98 242.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3618 163.38 233.02 271.23 -11.319 194.25 298.1 293.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.215 154.04 213.33 264.55 -3.6762 103.45 106.86 228.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4311 158.75 223.25 267.91 -6.7831 126.06 154.38 244.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.372 120.99 143.71 240.92 -10.013 154.84 215.02 265.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8716 152.17 209.38 263.21 -7.3376 162.49 231.14 270.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.559 201.42 313.22 298.42 -6.371 135.83 174.95 251.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.1927 114.63 130.33 236.37 -9.9611 169.85 246.66 275.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.145 184.61 277.78 286.41 -5.0486 139.1 181.85 253.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2 Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) -9.0551 165.76 238.04 272.93 -5.0325 114.95 131 236.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2125 187.11 283.04 288.19 -8.0772 168.11 243 274.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5496 147.66 199.89 259.99 -10.293 187.01 282.85 288.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0634 169.31 245.53 275.47 -6.8111 147.19 198.89 259.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.026 195.41 300.56 294.13 -8.7322 169.74 246.44 275.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2665 136.08 175.48 251.71 -10.017 201.87 314.17 298.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.9127 174.21 255.86 278.97 -4.6767 113.32 127.57 235.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7921 133.59 170.24 249.93 -6.7975 146.9 198.27 259.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4938 192.45 294.31 292.01 -7.8232 156.21 217.9 266.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9494 140.19 184.15 254.65 -5.1955 136.74 176.88 252.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4511 168.28 243.35 274.73 -9.0468 157.14 219.87 266.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.3363 134.74 172.67 250.75 -9.1091 203.3 317.19 299.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.071 166.63 239.86 273.55 -6.221 137.46 178.39 252.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.805 166.86 240.35 273.71 -7.559 155.81 217.06 265.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.4319 82.892 64.254 213.68 -7.6405 162.25 230.64 270.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.9574 110.29 121.2 233.27 -9.0394 168.21 243.21 274.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.176 224.04 360.92 314.6 -8.9497 175.71 259.02 280.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.882 199.56 309.3 297.1 -8.6862 157.3 220.2 266.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.661 177.79 263.4 281.53 -7.2685 145.94 196.26 258.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9267 126.79 155.91 245.07 -1.5925 98.798 97.13 225.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.499 194.07 297.73 293.17 -9.097 171.48 250.11 277.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.0873 168.8 244.44 275.1 -7.1483 142.38 188.76 256.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9168 167.81 242.36 274.39 -12.867 202.34 315.16 299.08 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.872 191.18 291.62 291.1 -8.6315 157.63 220.91 267.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.124 188.42 285.82 289.13 -12.882 209.05 329.31 303.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6684 144.49 193.19 257.72 -7.9831 159.92 225.72 268.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.136 200.72 311.74 297.92 -7.2476 157.98 221.63 267.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.0358 115.49 132.13 236.99 -8.5981 180.85 269.85 283.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.6593 131.87 166.61 248.7 -12.487 176.53 260.74 280.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.02 194.48 298.6 293.47 -8.8933 172.14 251.49 277.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.359 131.78 166.41 248.63 -8.0594 149.36 203.46 261.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9597 144.69 193.63 257.87 -14.332 191.33 291.95 291.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.0962 183.25 274.92 285.44 -5.9382 124.15 150.35 243.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.8688 132.33 167.57 249.02 -5.2091 143.92 192 257.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9851 149.65 204.07 261.41 -5.4431 123.12 148.19 242.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.481 196.46 302.77 294.88 -6.0084 136.86 177.12 252.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.773 206.18 323.27 301.83 -1.0012 92.818 84.674 220.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2479 145.65 195.65 258.55 -8.3445 170.89 248.85 276.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.0247 186.61 281.99 287.84 -13.808 230.49 374.51 319.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.5339 118 137.4 238.78 -8.0635 168.75 244.34 275.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4811 130.02 162.72 247.38 -7.4057 151.5 207.98 262.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.3159 135.64 174.56 251.39 -8.6361 167.07 240.81 273.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0156 147.57 199.69 259.92 -4.2487 117.36 136.08 238.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.5142 160.05 226 268.85 -12.955 188.81 286.63 289.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.391 209.52 330.3 304.22 -11.182 188.95 286.93 289.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.26 259.65 435.8 340.08 -9.6012 198.09 306.2 296.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.805 126.13 154.53 244.6 -9.3192 159.34 224.51 268.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.154 177.43 262.65 281.27 -9.8257 228.63 370.58 317.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9477 147.04 198.58 259.55 -9.8299 204.51 319.74 300.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.8453 165.7 237.92 272.89 -5.3123 120.78 143.26 240.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.877 185.32 279.28 286.92 -11.442 178.79 265.51 282.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4239 181.47 271.16 284.16 -9.9677 201.7 313.8 298.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5582 153.26 211.69 263.99 -15.317 208.16 327.43 303.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.206 174.76 257 279.36 -12.033 195.67 301.1 294.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.055 200.89 312.11 298.05 -9.4301 168.43 243.67 274.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7869 155.72 216.87 265.75 -8.1869 167.3 241.28 274.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.8916 186 280.71 287.4 -8.3281 179.78 267.6 282.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2231 137.64 178.77 252.82 -7.9268 188.12 285.18 288.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.1398 181.49 271.2 284.18 -9.6317 157.54 220.71 267.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.867 185.25 279.12 286.86 -8.5406 156.53 218.59 266.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.313 207.2 325.41 302.56 -7.5314 145.71 195.78 258.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.2024 91.574 82.094 219.89 -8.9708 183.73 275.92 285.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.918 174.01 255.43 278.83 -11.219 191.82 292.97 291.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.5068 106.91 114.11 230.85 -7.2479 146.33 197.07 259.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5066 147.91 200.41 260.17 -9.4602 177.88 263.59 281.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7 164.69 235.78 272.16 -7.6538 163.09 232.4 271.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.1762 117.15 135.61 238.17 -8.8644 132.46 167.86 249.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.7694 121.14 144.02 241.03 -7.4294 148.95 202.61 260.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2215 98.055 95.579 224.52 -10.07 182.03 272.33 284.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2534 179.21 266.4 282.55 -8.7103 171.86 250.89 277.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.571 210.27 331.87 304.75 -8.2426 134.63 172.42 250.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.5888 131.38 165.58 248.35 -8.1734 161.82 229.74 270.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.5925 183.85 276.17 285.86 -9.7801 150.2 205.23 261.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.1315 176.94 261.61 280.92 -7.0382 146.06 196.51 258.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.214 164.17 234.69 271.79 -10.419 173.92 255.23 278.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9836 161.7 229.48 270.03 -7.0643 170.64 248.33 276.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9506 142.74 189.52 256.47 -10.562 202.87 316.28 299.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.1133 163.35 232.95 271.21 -9.2963 187.28 283.4 288.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.539 201.11 312.57 298.2 -9.346 154.19 213.65 264.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7633 144.14 192.46 257.47 -10.699 170.47 247.96 276.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.909 192.24 293.86 291.86 -11.992 197.53 305.02 295.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.0675 171.22 249.54 276.83 -6.3121 130.53 163.79 247.74 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.679 205.62 322.07 301.43 -6.3658 150.03 204.87 261.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9582 122.64 147.17 242.1 -6.4971 133.85 170.79 250.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) -3.6105 112.2 125.21 234.63 -9.0395 176.23 260.11 280.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9707 184.26 277.03 286.15 -6.8795 136.24 175.81 251.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.481 211.24 333.93 305.45 -5.2742 136.27 175.88 251.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.213 205.18 321.16 301.12 -5.8915 130.19 163.07 247.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.296 173.83 255.04 278.7 -10.554 179.34 266.66 282.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.908 131.29 165.38 248.28 -14.344 209.79 330.88 304.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7738 148.9 202.5 260.88 -9.2916 178.05 263.95 281.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.6521 174.32 256.09 279.05 -13.48 207.44 325.92 302.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9857 150.75 206.4 262.2 -8.4344 169.28 245.45 275.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.0923 169.09 245.06 275.31 -7.9265 158.35 222.41 267.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.2418 132.24 167.39 248.96 -9.2215 161.61 229.3 269.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.344 232.78 379.33 320.85 -11.17 193.34 296.19 292.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8057 165.9 238.33 273.03 -8.6279 152.97 211.08 263.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9908 140.71 185.24 255.02 -7.5382 168.64 244.12 274.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.053 179.37 266.73 282.66 -6.0865 148.36 201.35 260.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.1296 175.17 257.89 279.66 -9.9831 177.56 262.92 281.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5758 168.03 242.83 274.56 -5.6551 118.3 138.04 238.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.0089 63.366 27.222 199.72 -7.768 154.55 214.4 264.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8076 114.33 129.69 236.15 -10.023 184.95 278.49 286.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.1499 102.64 105.16 227.8 -7.1584 139.95 183.63 254.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.3804 109.41 119.37 232.64 -13.053 183.55 275.55 285.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5863 149.28 203.31 261.15 -6.0945 106.67 113.61 230.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.2584 180.6 269.31 283.54 -8.5397 173.44 254.22 278.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8087 141.64 187.19 255.68 -8.8707 160.78 227.53 269.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9329 188.22 285.38 288.99 -9.3782 166.12 238.8 273.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.437 176.76 261.23 280.79 -8.6339 162.27 230.67 270.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4585 144.27 192.73 257.56 -5.2974 129.57 161.78 247.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0026 163.53 233.33 271.33 -9.5376 165.03 236.51 272.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.7313 190.09 289.34 290.33 -11.452 198.99 308.1 296.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7855 156.88 219.32 266.58 -6.4472 138.4 180.36 253.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6911 165.33 237.12 272.62 -6.882 140.92 185.67 255.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.732 182.2 272.7 284.68 -10.349 161.46 228.97 269.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 -15.325 225.23 363.42 315.45 -5.7335 136.99 177.39 252.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.2617 170.76 248.58 276.51 -8.025 124.75 151.62 243.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.2446 116.78 134.84 237.91 -6.6091 133.11 169.22 249.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 -2.1009 108.22 116.85 231.79 -5.9895 129.3 161.2 246.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9898 147.75 200.08 260.05 -6.454 145.06 194.39 258.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5779 169.9 246.77 275.89 -5.6345 130.17 163.03 247.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3147 172.9 253.09 278.03 -4.6145 139.51 182.71 254.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.8252 120.47 142.61 240.55 -8.1859 154.41 214.12 264.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.361 172.43 252.09 277.69 -6.4167 148.42 201.48 260.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.1483 152.34 209.74 263.33 -7.865 161.17 228.36 269.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -16.579 244.24 403.47 329.05 -9.7134 191.78 292.9 291.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2421 148.15 200.91 260.33 -4.0318 138.17 179.89 253.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.4895 116.55 134.37 237.75 -5.6941 121.9 145.62 241.57 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4157 180.75 269.63 283.64 -12.95 223.24 359.22 314.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 -1.1367 85.376 69.32 215.45 -10.868 234.45 382.86 322.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7824 151.35 207.66 262.63 -6.8473 139.9 183.54 254.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.154 162.1 230.32 270.31 -5.2132 147.25 199.01 259.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4633 216.44 344.9 309.17 -5.8908 128.83 160.22 246.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.7223 161.28 228.59 269.72 -6.2956 146.18 196.75 258.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5821 170.15 247.3 276.07 -7.8132 127.58 157.57 245.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.3702 132.6 168.16 249.22 -6.3568 126.74 155.8 245.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0829 146.25 196.9 258.98 -2.4666 104.99 110.09 229.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.4979 130.62 163.99 247.81 -9.6315 161.49 229.03 269.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.732 118.17 137.76 238.9 -11.147 178.55 265 282.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3905 157.09 219.76 266.73 -8.7791 162.52 231.21 270.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7789 88.303 75.335 217.55 -9.3198 186.72 282.23 287.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.528 173.26 253.85 278.29 -8.658 175.32 258.2 279.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8294 127.09 156.53 245.28 -13.792 199.23 308.61 296.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.909 146.69 197.83 259.29 -8.3466 147.4 199.33 259.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.5952 116.79 134.87 237.92 -7.7283 132.78 168.53 249.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9838 131.69 166.24 248.57 -9.6832 170.23 247.45 276.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9967 159.49 224.82 268.45 -6.8976 144.41 193.02 257.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5742 168.95 244.76 275.21 -10.708 163.97 234.27 271.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -3.9842 132.01 166.9 248.8 -11.958 183.09 274.57 285.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.712 173.32 253.97 278.33 -6.1066 134.31 171.74 250.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4213 137.16 177.75 252.48 -7.4796 158.08 221.85 267.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2786 124.3 150.67 243.29 -5.3405 133.55 170.16 249.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.5517 140.25 184.26 254.69 -3.5793 125.92 154.07 244.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.3846 143.02 190.11 256.67 -8.7407 164.82 236.06 272.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.8857 119.98 141.57 240.19 -6.7142 165.37 237.21 272.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6315 157.77 221.2 267.22 -13.929 208.54 328.24 303.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.604 107.47 115.28 231.25 -15.436 212.08 335.7 306.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2005 156.62 218.76 266.39 -8.6883 140.55 184.9 254.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1734 125.63 153.47 244.23 -8.7414 169.41 245.74 275.54 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.266 218.04 348.27 310.31 -5.6967 140.53 184.86 254.89 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.3862 159.12 224.03 268.18 -10.016 181.21 270.61 283.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7698 147.83 200.24 260.11 -6.9826 153.86 212.94 264.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.6655 151.46 207.9 262.71 -9.0715 167.6 241.92 274.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5629 182.48 273.29 284.88 -7.3598 146.82 198.11 259.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.1185 84.314 67.15 214.7 -10.762 176.57 260.83 280.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.094 215.44 342.79 308.45 -7.5754 128.34 159.17 246.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.506 190.49 290.17 290.61 -11.591 164.38 235.12 271.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) -9.9886 215.69 343.31 308.63 -5.2481 131.07 164.93 248.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.297 179.61 267.23 282.83 -7.0351 156.84 219.24 266.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.3491 163.26 232.77 271.14 -7.4589 136.7 176.79 252.15 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.0653 120.25 142.15 240.39 -8.5628 155.66 216.74 265.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.336 193.17 295.82 292.52 -9.8594 190.65 290.5 290.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9779 126.6 155.51 244.93 -11.474 192.75 294.93 292.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.2939 171.67 250.5 277.15 -6.878 142.03 188.01 255.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.3041 136 175.31 251.65 -4.9243 107.65 115.66 231.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.2509 112.25 125.33 234.67 -7.7797 145.14 194.56 258.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.3171 156.29 218.07 266.16 -11.405 198.37 306.78 296.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.293 196.87 303.63 295.17 -9.6994 175.98 259.57 280.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7513 141.15 186.17 255.34 -2.6442 79.664 57.734 211.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5069 164.01 234.35 271.68 -7.3975 147.5 199.53 259.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.7741 104.01 108.03 228.78 -8.1172 146.52 197.48 259.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.9746 181.08 270.34 283.88 -4.9344 139.71 183.13 254.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.048 178.24 264.34 281.85 -8.5414 164.3 234.95 271.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.909 189.3 287.66 289.76 -5.1309 142.48 188.97 256.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.627 186.87 282.54 288.02 -5.9518 114.56 130.17 236.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.853 154.3 213.87 264.73 -8.1538 166.96 240.56 273.79 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.631 221.36 355.26 312.68 -9.8382 175.24 258.01 279.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5187 156.74 219.02 266.48 -3.2557 110.81 122.29 233.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.5853 187.47 283.81 288.45 -6.2101 117.73 136.85 238.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.6456 152.66 210.41 263.56 -8.953 191.12 291.49 291.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.5727 152.75 210.62 263.63 -9.535 159.69 225.24 268.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.892 148.77 202.21 260.78 -6.2476 144.36 192.92 257.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9365 124.62 151.33 243.51 -10.992 191.56 292.43 291.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4261 162.71 231.6 270.75 -2.6834 122.93 147.79 242.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.6693 174.67 256.82 279.3 -8.0724 137.32 178.09 252.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.1813 158.87 223.5 268 -5.148 127.98 158.41 245.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9863 139.8 183.31 254.37 -9.7256 169.14 245.17 275.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.0045 139.18 182.01 253.93 -9.9719 166.64 239.9 273.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.1144 160.53 227.02 269.19 -8.7162 155.51 216.44 265.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.1155 180.02 268.1 283.12 -10.142 166.02 238.58 273.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.2531 141.51 186.92 255.59 -4.8822 144.62 193.48 257.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.1685 128.51 159.52 246.29 -10.612 153.98 213.21 264.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.0822 122.52 146.92 242.01 -8.786 134.14 171.39 250.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4313 168.55 243.91 274.92 -12.203 177.46 262.7 281.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.699 135.24 173.71 251.11 -10.376 185.74 280.16 287.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.562 193.79 297.13 292.97 -10.23 157.89 221.45 267.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7938 139.33 182.32 254.03 -9.1352 177.27 262.29 281.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.7175 121.27 144.28 241.12 -7.3472 160.68 227.32 269.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.7736 157.47 220.57 267 -5.2283 126.19 154.65 244.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4429 131.01 164.81 248.09 -9.3466 174.96 257.43 279.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8 161.38 228.81 269.8 -5.335 89.533 77.871 218.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.224 200.17 310.58 297.53 -2.769 119.23 140.01 239.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 -2.95 106.37 112.97 230.46 -9.5111 178.97 265.89 282.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4657 96.092 91.485 223.12 -5.5336 129.15 160.88 246.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.9018 133.23 169.47 249.67 -8.1707 159.18 224.17 268.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.382 173.05 253.4 278.14 -6.9419 108.96 118.41 232.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.4889 185.92 280.53 287.34 -8.7751 166.46 239.5 273.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.7584 127.46 157.33 245.55 -15.385 197.68 305.33 295.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.27 183.51 275.45 285.62 -8.5453 150.84 206.58 262.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9499 138.7 181 253.58 -11.259 178.9 265.74 282.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.5524 158.97 223.72 268.07 -7.2523 158.81 223.38 267.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4447 164.39 235.15 271.95 -6.6423 127.69 157.82 245.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 -12.865 180.19 268.46 283.24 -14.235 222.85 358.4 313.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.6826 148.47 201.59 260.57 -4.6794 148.56 201.78 260.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.634 200.34 310.95 297.66 -8.0953 162.59 231.36 270.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.9976 141.08 186.01 255.28 -4.6389 108.49 117.44 231.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.808 143.73 191.61 257.18 -9.399 203.61 317.84 299.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.2271 127.8 158.03 245.78 -6.5102 126.42 155.14 244.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8443 149.5 203.76 261.3 -10.831 194.96 299.6 293.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.8211 115.05 131.21 236.67 -10.084 153.74 212.7 264.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 -4.4146 99.709 99.032 225.7 -11.89 198.77 307.64 296.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.523 187.89 284.69 288.75 -7.0971 145.28 194.87 258.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 -16.514 218.98 350.25 310.98 -7.9552 164.62 235.63 272.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 -8.4776 152.81 210.74 263.67 -4.7708 121.39 144.55 241.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.0248 160.94 227.88 269.49 -5.6234 113.84 128.65 235.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.8813 159.25 224.31 268.27 -11.258 190.94 291.12 290.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 -7.5524 154.22 213.71 264.68 -5.623 128.97 160.5 246.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.5466 157.36 220.33 266.92 -1.3067 109.8 120.18 232.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 -13.6 199.94 310.09 297.36 -8.7272 138.72 181.04 253.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.583 184.38 277.3 286.24 -5.1658 129.95 162.58 247.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.6331 141.02 185.89 255.24 -9.9501 173.57 254.51 278.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 -5.0894 123.21 148.37 242.5 -9.3668 173.12 253.55 278.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 -9.6721 185.13 278.88 286.78 -10.387 160.2 226.31 268.95 0 5 10 0 5 10 -11.321 217.15 346.38 309.67 -1.7064 105.78 111.74 230.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 -10.019 196.31 302.44 294.77 -4.5628 128.11 158.69 246.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.9989 145.42 195.17 258.39 -14.81 195.97 301.74 294.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 -6.4594 135.9 175.09 251.58 -5.7877 151.21 207.36 262.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report II.3 OUTPUT RESULTS OF MATHCAD FITTING ROUTINE The results of the MathCAD fitting routine for the Tptpmn unit are listed in Table II-3. The result of the MathCAD fitting routine for the Tptpln unit are listed in Table II-4. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-3. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn Fitted Fitted Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Fitted Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 1 135.571 0.479 38.438 2 127.148 0.477 35.203 3 64.566 0.417 57.886 4 110.433 0.473 28.451 5 134.03 0.478 37.952 6 103.784 0.47 25.833 7 138.856 0.479 39.886 8 109.711 0.472 28.265 9 134.052 0.479 37.885 10 113.023 0.474 29.49 11 115.823 0.475 30.577 12 120.384 0.476 32.38 13 99.24 0.466 24.1 14 131.601 0.479 36.831 15 129.09 0.478 35.884 16 97.059 0.453 27.664 17 129.092 0.479 35.788 18 135.196 0.479 38.202 19 101.019 0.469 24.71 20 71.836 0.399 68.786 21 134.294 0.478 38.123 22 103.773 0.466 26.398 23 124.956 0.477 34.243 24 109.088 0.471 28.066 25 124.646 0.477 34.195 26 125.567 0.476 34.606 27 105.153 0.471 26.352 28 110.09 0.473 28.307 29 131.414 0.479 36.787 30 114.609 0.474 30.098 31 131.907 0.479 36.976 32 101.061 0.462 25.167 33 121.976 0.476 33.074 34 117.884 0.476 31.401 35 131.284 0.477 36.984 36 106.783 0.471 27.031 37 103.706 0.47 25.796 38 132.736 0.478 37.381 39 114.482 0.474 30.072 40 127.23 0.477 35.242 41 114.238 0.474 29.987 42 113.476 0.473 29.755 43 125.513 0.478 34.374 44 123.118 0.477 33.479 45 109.77 0.468 31.964 46 132.599 0.478 37.338 47 138.29 0.479 39.74 48 113.857 0.474 29.794 49 82.205 0.451 63.301 50 122.368 0.476 33.236 51 131.501 0.478 36.873 52 120.436 0.475 32.467 53 117.918 0.474 31.607 54 119.92 0.475 32.316 55 128.915 0.478 35.743 56 121.089 0.476 32.678 57 124.636 0.477 34.162 58 132.032 0.478 37.206 59 81.107 0.45 17.89 60 122.836 0.476 33.435 61 84.822 0.443 28.354 62 122.897 0.477 33.405 63 104.107 0.47 25.934 64 69.751 0.411 13.748 65 119.333 0.472 32.43 66 111.035 0.473 28.691 67 123.467 0.477 33.643 68 116.418 0.474 30.862 69 106.592 0.471 26.972 70 112.306 0.473 29.254 71 120.073 0.476 32.285 72 101.92 0.469 25.075 73 105.537 0.467 26.929 74 111.715 0.473 28.991 75 112.22 0.472 29.265 76 120.907 0.476 32.567 77 118.98 0.473 32.082 78 129.775 0.478 36.233 79 122.92 0.476 33.45 80 129.524 0.478 36.149 81 134.395 0.479 37.921 82 128.171 0.478 35.521 83 121.072 0.476 32.7 84 115.885 0.475 30.606 85 117.596 0.475 31.307 86 125.703 0.477 34.557 87 114.624 0.474 30.145 88 118.938 0.475 31.861 89 127.569 0.477 35.311 90 128.478 0.478 35.607 91 124.266 0.476 34.012 92 120.752 0.476 32.658 93 124.977 0.477 34.236 94 123.177 0.477 33.486 95 137.444 0.478 39.501 96 149.922 0.48 44.147 97 106.72 0.471 27.058 98 110.177 0.472 28.404 99 123.006 0.477 33.404 100 138.536 0.48 39.577 101 125.194 0.476 34.422 102 118.865 0.476 31.773 103 54.56 0.413 54.451 104 119.659 0.476 32.187 105 133.494 0.476 37.74 106 136.774 0.479 38.898 107 113.963 0.474 29.845 108 112.194 0.47 30.03 109 150.086 0.481 42.091 110 112.026 0.472 29.22 111 110.131 0.473 28.331 112 121.816 0.476 33 113 106.29 0.469 27.036 114 140.199 0.48 40.263 115 124.498 0.476 34.161 116 98.09 0.462 24.537 117 127.561 0.478 35.274 118 137.282 0.479 39.203 119 124.193 0.477 33.936 120 133.303 0.479 37.551 121 137.175 0.478 39.147 122 117.717 0.475 31.332 123 73.97 0.425 40.105 124 129.667 0.478 36.173 125 110.07 0.472 28.41 126 124.039 0.477 33.926 127 121.686 0.475 33.012 128 102.485 0.47 25.301 129 132.627 0.478 37.322 130 114.925 0.474 30.293 131 109.14 0.47 28.206 132 136.486 0.479 38.533 133 137.745 0.479 39.468 134 115.127 0.474 30.326 135 129.209 0.478 35.906 136 110.17 0.473 28.337 137 136.393 0.479 38.733 138 146.737 0.481 42.175 139 113.513 0.474 29.689 140 105.943 0.471 26.71 141 131.229 0.479 36.721 142 104.802 0.469 26.388 143 116.889 0.473 31.192 144 89.207 0.46 20.068 145 128.7 0.476 35.9 146 140.779 0.48 40.587 147 112.422 0.473 29.263 148 131.73 0.478 37.047 149 130.038 0.476 36.231 150 135.652 0.478 38.553 151 135.505 0.479 38.515 152 126.116 0.475 34.463 153 98.301 0.456 25.838 154 117.15 0.475 31.145 155 122.893 0.477 33.381 156 109.539 0.472 28.136 157 113.374 0.473 29.771 158 116.793 0.475 30.977 159 122.741 0.477 33.304 160 120.598 0.476 32.446 161 109.251 0.471 28.137 162 126.723 0.477 34.977 163 95.543 0.464 22.673 164 88.579 0.444 35.235 165 127.731 0.477 35.374 166 126.733 0.477 34.905 167 122.317 0.477 33.143 168 116.143 0.475 30.734 169 132.549 0.477 37.115 170 143.885 0.481 41.491 171 117.031 0.475 31.069 172 121.828 0.475 33.061 173 104.001 0.466 28.36 174 101.644 0.469 24.967 175 111.752 0.473 28.97 176 97.88 0.463 23.715 177 126.756 0.476 35.108 178 122.219 0.473 34.873 179 115.724 0.474 30.561 180 116.301 0.475 30.815 181 111.227 0.473 28.797 182 126.886 0.478 34.958 183 118.791 0.475 31.847 184 116.232 0.475 30.753 185 128.927 0.477 35.808 186 103.3 0.466 26.585 187 134.375 0.479 37.959 188 127.976 0.477 35.529 189 128.014 0.478 35.37 190 150.719 0.48 43.099 191 129.361 0.477 36.031 192 103.639 0.465 28.257 193 150.518 0.482 43.861 194 107.352 0.47 27.391 195 120.503 0.476 32.483 196 109.728 0.47 28.413 197 138.942 0.48 39.673 198 99.828 0.467 24.289 199 66.915 0.405 60.784 200 131.509 0.478 36.886 201 104.422 0.467 26.426 202 129.189 0.478 35.91 203 128.27 0.476 35.79 204 107.963 0.472 27.463 205 134.549 0.477 38.31 206 106.106 0.465 28.81 207 122.925 0.476 33.563 208 126.671 0.475 35.091 209 77.847 0.447 49.059 210 101.734 0.467 25.159 211 111.892 0.473 29.134 212 133.488 0.478 37.806 213 131.278 0.477 36.782 214 133.456 0.479 37.679 215 121.867 0.473 32.622 216 107.249 0.471 27.257 217 136.685 0.478 38.973 218 130.056 0.478 36.247 219 79.961 0.422 24.499 220 131.634 0.479 36.849 221 116.085 0.475 30.716 222 116.128 0.475 30.698 223 135.168 0.478 38.542 224 133.441 0.479 37.609 225 124.768 0.477 34.148 226 110.929 0.472 28.79 227 99.827 0.462 34.929 228 113.908 0.474 29.812 229 125.086 0.476 34.367 230 90.257 0.458 20.686 231 102.23 0.468 25.282 232 113.002 0.474 29.47 233 102.944 0.469 25.489 234 94.266 0.456 34.713 235 114.618 0.474 30.113 236 99.106 0.463 25.076 237 107.692 0.469 27.765 238 91.313 0.455 44.304 239 157.887 0.483 46.758 240 144.42 0.48 42.071 241 115.232 0.474 30.407 242 115.876 0.474 30.704 243 68.186 0.399 44.903 244 135.545 0.479 38.53 245 103.516 0.467 26.317 246 112.403 0.473 29.294 247 109.568 0.47 28.362 248 121.889 0.477 32.977 249 129.111 0.478 35.846 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-3. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn (continued) Fitted Fitted Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Fitted Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 250 112.328 0.472 29.335 251 124.793 0.476 34.259 252 111.138 0.472 28.837 253 134.808 0.48 38.05 254 128.243 0.478 35.573 255 122.483 0.477 33.208 256 137.949 0.479 39.496 257 129.354 0.477 35.943 258 113.297 0.472 29.762 259 111.083 0.473 28.726 260 132.722 0.479 37.218 261 109.972 0.472 28.326 262 125.282 0.477 34.427 263 129.391 0.477 35.99 264 118.528 0.475 31.755 265 124.41 0.476 34.123 266 72.319 0.436 51.991 267 110.383 0.47 28.743 268 149.177 0.481 43.371 269 135.324 0.479 38.358 270 124.747 0.476 34.304 271 69.637 0.436 44.736 272 138.085 0.48 39.465 273 120.778 0.476 32.58 274 139.557 0.479 40.137 275 132.741 0.478 37.387 276 148.302 0.48 43.512 277 118.624 0.476 31.702 278 135.924 0.479 38.576 279 112.764 0.469 33.37 280 119.898 0.474 32.471 281 138.408 0.479 39.751 282 111.263 0.473 28.788 283 128.666 0.476 35.999 284 119.601 0.476 32.106 285 109.785 0.471 28.293 286 108.676 0.471 27.821 287 127.849 0.477 35.457 288 75.056 0.449 74.963 289 122.503 0.477 33.227 290 154.84 0.481 45.296 291 113.059 0.472 29.626 292 111.391 0.473 28.823 293 118.103 0.475 31.508 294 106.134 0.469 26.97 295 132.722 0.477 37.558 296 148.619 0.48 43.642 297 169.053 0.482 45.757 298 112.633 0.473 29.398 299 151.284 0.482 43.845 300 133.674 0.479 37.565 301 112.964 0.473 29.529 302 137.583 0.478 39.484 303 143.737 0.481 41.566 304 136.799 0.477 39.112 305 139.622 0.479 40.2 306 139.278 0.479 40.072 307 124.543 0.477 34.039 308 138.162 0.48 39.452 309 125.44 0.478 34.332 310 129.615 0.478 36.135 311 130.473 0.477 36.713 312 134.092 0.478 37.943 313 109.417 0.47 28.251 314 138.142 0.479 39.626 315 102.468 0.469 25.327 316 125.421 0.477 34.425 317 126.063 0.478 34.617 318 101.251 0.467 25.096 319 107.799 0.471 27.518 320 110.941 0.472 28.765 321 133.472 0.479 37.569 322 131.542 0.477 36.85 323 115.102 0.474 30.331 324 128.024 0.477 35.53 325 124.538 0.477 34.059 326 129.309 0.478 36.066 327 127.523 0.478 35.186 328 131.754 0.478 36.888 329 133.332 0.479 37.524 330 134.808 0.478 38.276 331 121.863 0.476 33.101 332 145.804 0.48 42.611 333 117.808 0.475 31.362 334 134.985 0.479 38.128 335 103.505 0.47 25.721 336 113.412 0.471 30.119 337 123.753 0.477 33.721 338 132.423 0.476 37.289 339 128.531 0.477 35.637 340 134.1 0.478 38 341 130.336 0.476 36.493 342 125.777 0.477 34.594 343 143.268 0.479 41.603 344 123.602 0.477 33.661 345 125.94 0.477 34.63 346 115.286 0.474 30.427 347 157.775 0.482 46.229 348 123.215 0.477 33.537 349 120.201 0.476 32.315 350 126.047 0.477 34.776 351 133.985 0.479 37.867 352 112.931 0.474 29.451 353 58.651 0.424 58.223 354 117.004 0.475 31.108 355 99.079 0.465 24.248 356 115.008 0.471 30.668 357 103.309 0.47 25.63 358 134.411 0.479 37.97 359 117.984 0.475 31.483 360 134.509 0.479 38.017 361 129.61 0.478 36.165 362 109 0.471 27.945 363 126.306 0.477 34.782 364 145.603 0.48 42.441 365 115.75 0.475 30.55 366 119.223 0.476 31.916 367 131.062 0.477 36.874 368 137.253 0.477 38.829 369 115.789 0.475 30.628 370 101.428 0.466 25.154 371 81.655 0.438 38.126 372 114.963 0.475 30.248 373 117.275 0.475 31.199 374 121.194 0.475 32.861 375 87.019 0.449 47.98 376 123.852 0.476 33.867 377 121.527 0.477 32.831 378 161.376 0.481 46.297 379 113.026 0.469 29.943 380 97.919 0.463 23.76 381 150.519 0.481 43.967 382 82.757 0.45 74.226 383 114.466 0.474 30.043 384 120.212 0.475 32.473 385 131.767 0.478 36.594 386 119.618 0.476 32.076 387 116.499 0.475 30.878 388 104.424 0.469 26.131 389 90.33 0.452 34.612 390 117.201 0.474 28.854 391 116.204 0.473 30.976 392 123.433 0.477 33.689 393 109.326 0.472 28.015 394 132.658 0.478 37.365 395 125.599 0.475 34.705 396 115.314 0.474 30.501 397 101.308 0.467 24.984 398 117.832 0.475 31.446 399 118.466 0.475 31.668 400 127.674 0.477 35.402 401 122.014 0.474 33.444 402 119.654 0.475 32.236 403 115.74 0.475 30.542 404 104.004 0.468 26.055 405 106.307 0.466 27.554 406 119.726 0.476 32.158 407 112.645 0.473 29.412 408 138.363 0.478 39.655 409 123.527 0.473 33.835 410 116.323 0.475 30.812 411 115.67 0.474 30.55 412 136.009 0.479 38.283 413 130.032 0.478 36.293 414 117.761 0.475 31.382 415 123.287 0.477 33.572 416 126.552 0.478 34.814 417 104.854 0.469 26.411 418 77.272 0.396 27.478 419 131.239 0.477 36.578 420 134.619 0.477 38.414 421 132.232 0.478 36.865 422 128.822 0.478 35.747 423 117.205 0.475 31.19 424 109.605 0.472 28.154 425 143.916 0.481 41.749 426 123.379 0.476 33.698 427 121.589 0.477 32.86 428 99.497 0.466 24.237 429 103.773 0.469 25.871 430 134.64 0.478 38.113 431 140.398 0.479 40.493 432 82.736 0.446 29.048 433 120.894 0.476 32.574 434 101.606 0.468 25.07 435 123.867 0.476 33.848 436 130.754 0.479 36.491 437 127.359 0.477 35.302 438 117.69 0.474 31.497 439 123.97 0.477 33.851 440 148.124 0.481 43.07 441 105.127 0.466 28.691 442 118.904 0.475 31.833 443 131.164 0.479 36.626 444 121.181 0.476 32.769 445 115.066 0.475 30.292 446 122.358 0.476 33.275 447 104.273 0.463 35.941 448 121.028 0.476 32.673 449 113.074 0.473 29.606 450 120.076 0.475 32.351 451 119.096 0.475 32.035 452 122.325 0.477 33.18 453 131.848 0.478 37.037 454 112.874 0.473 29.509 455 111.667 0.472 29.081 456 103.473 0.468 25.997 457 131.829 0.478 37.142 458 123.914 0.476 33.887 459 133.636 0.478 37.835 460 122.522 0.476 33.276 461 111.541 0.473 28.901 462 112.074 0.473 29.183 463 119.132 0.475 31.939 464 101.76 0.468 25.053 465 116.679 0.47 38.654 466 107.826 0.467 32.96 467 93.695 0.464 21.846 468 114.81 0.474 30.207 469 111.509 0.473 28.977 470 133.88 0.479 37.774 471 125.218 0.475 34.648 472 128.109 0.476 35.744 473 122.825 0.476 33.525 474 122.877 0.477 33.388 475 114.756 0.474 30.142 476 150.162 0.48 44.096 477 116.38 0.473 30.987 478 137.25 0.478 39.289 479 101.383 0.466 25.06 480 132.322 0.479 37.03 481 102.801 0.466 25.703 482 131.377 0.478 36.805 483 107.319 0.471 27.314 484 116.787 0.472 31.215 485 127.773 0.477 35.392 486 143.946 0.479 41.722 487 109.08 0.471 28.039 488 109.281 0.472 28.011 489 133.179 0.478 37.571 490 111.933 0.473 29.068 491 76.495 0.433 60.267 492 129.498 0.476 36.245 493 121.801 0.475 33.17 494 121.877 0.476 33.086 495 116.087 0.474 30.797 496 131.613 0.478 36.977 497 97.011 0.459 57.746 498 125.033 0.476 34.348 499 130.385 0.476 36.68 500 113.19 0.473 29.558 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-4. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln Fitted Fitted Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Fitted Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 1 186.542 0.471 26.859 2 168.75 0.475 27.756 3 74.416 0.456 65.411 4 134.152 0.481 29.586 5 182.874 0.473 27.158 6 120.641 0.485 30.177 7 193.381 0.472 26.361 8 132.549 0.481 29.789 9 183.345 0.472 26.997 10 139.387 0.48 29.369 11 145.133 0.478 29.106 12 154.56 0.476 28.667 13 104.518 0.741 17.998 14 178.161 0.47 27.462 15 172.033 0.472 28.202 16 92.46 0.852 17.245 17 172.866 0.47 27.893 18 180.372 0.468 30.319 19 115.209 0.486 30.509 20 83.574 0.787 21.695 21 183.824 0.474 26.87 22 118.427 0.484 32.051 23 161.975 0.472 29.623 24 131.355 0.481 29.919 25 163.556 0.476 28.002 26 158.532 0.472 32.56 27 123.434 0.484 30.087 28 133.426 0.482 29.616 29 177.767 0.472 27.377 30 142.582 0.479 29.282 31 178.818 0.471 27.343 32 112.017 0.55 26.212 33 157.87 0.476 28.458 34 149.417 0.477 28.881 35 177.191 0.474 27.44 36 126.803 0.483 29.982 37 120.561 0.484 30.248 38 180.437 0.472 27.236 39 142.464 0.479 29.165 40 168.805 0.475 27.853 41 141.908 0.479 29.241 42 139.701 0.478 29.864 43 165.25 0.471 28.318 44 160.003 0.473 28.651 45 124.956 0.47 40.75 46 180.265 0.473 27.117 47 192.279 0.473 26.391 48 141.071 0.479 29.301 49 99.902 0.453 74.676 50 158.655 0.476 28.427 51 177.943 0.473 27.28 52 151.476 0.473 30.913 53 148.787 0.477 29.372 54 153.719 0.478 28.56 55 172.224 0.47 28.011 56 156.072 0.476 28.528 57 163.524 0.476 28.037 58 179.059 0.474 27.134 59 78.294 0.504 31.483 60 155.035 0.47 31.825 61 94.1 0.495 34.197 62 159.865 0.476 28.299 63 121.344 0.485 30.167 64 142.059 0.472 36.143 65 135.314 0.481 29.542 66 161.038 0.476 28.223 67 146.023 0.477 29.315 68 126.339 0.483 30.01 69 137.665 0.479 29.634 70 153.972 0.477 28.605 71 117.011 0.485 30.432 72 122.101 0.485 31.413 73 136.657 0.48 29.53 74 137.305 0.479 29.786 75 155.617 0.474 28.758 76 141.841 0.471 35.996 77 174.312 0.474 27.422 78 156.951 0.473 30.362 79 173.783 0.475 27.432 80 183.831 0.471 27.154 81 170.899 0.474 27.715 82 156.07 0.477 28.466 83 145.155 0.477 29.236 84 148.859 0.478 28.859 85 165.714 0.475 27.988 86 142.715 0.479 29.185 87 151.561 0.477 28.768 88 169.605 0.475 27.696 89 171.564 0.473 27.726 90 155.708 0.469 33.143 91 155.408 0.477 28.5 92 164.198 0.475 28.097 93 160.4 0.475 28.358 94 190.482 0.473 26.466 95 216.566 0.471 25.132 96 126.551 0.483 30.012 97 133.625 0.481 29.668 98 160.019 0.473 28.519 99 192.896 0.468 26.65 100 164.213 0.475 28.321 101 151.309 0.475 29.04 102 61.167 0.472 60.951 103 153.181 0.478 28.58 104 181.654 0.473 27.187 105 188.962 0.472 26.626 106 141.349 0.48 29.244 107 128.367 0.47 37.732 108 215.914 0.464 25.575 109 136.879 0.48 29.831 110 133.42 0.482 29.624 111 157.627 0.477 28.368 112 125.171 0.486 30.082 113 196.085 0.468 26.596 114 163.124 0.475 28.146 115 109.896 0.493 30.485 116 169.371 0.473 28.003 117 190.205 0.472 26.571 118 162.541 0.475 28.147 119 181.678 0.472 27.136 120 187.687 0.471 27.915 121 149.028 0.477 28.93 122 71.348 1.118 12.023 123 174.057 0.474 27.483 124 133.361 0.481 29.73 125 162.253 0.476 28.131 126 151.746 0.47 32.559 127 118.097 0.485 30.329 128 180.006 0.472 27.369 129 143.378 0.479 29.137 130 129.706 0.48 31.162 131 188.032 0.468 27.109 132 191.151 0.473 26.412 133 143.523 0.478 29.346 134 173.114 0.473 27.648 135 133.594 0.482 29.606 136 187.767 0.469 27.161 137 209.899 0.463 25.913 138 140.245 0.479 29.464 139 124.921 0.484 29.966 140 177.341 0.472 27.398 141 122.468 0.486 30.058 142 146.486 0.477 29.603 143 92.001 0.495 31.359 144 171.3 0.474 28.007 145 197.624 0.47 26.172 146 138.173 0.48 29.426 147 178.361 0.474 27.248 148 170.379 0.473 30.111 149 184.483 0.472 28.07 150 186.394 0.472 26.784 151 163.006 0.474 30.023 152 92.555 0.853 16.995 153 147.832 0.478 29.006 154 159.832 0.475 28.357 155 132.18 0.482 29.718 156 140.217 0.479 29.351 157 146.849 0.476 29.312 158 159.474 0.474 28.493 159 155.027 0.476 28.641 160 131.114 0.482 30.007 161 167.875 0.475 27.824 162 104.198 0.493 30.584 163 101.556 0.47 42.404 164 169.645 0.473 27.98 165 166.653 0.472 28.81 166 158.629 0.475 28.441 167 145.68 0.478 29.184 168 164.726 0.467 37.256 169 203.134 0.464 26.818 170 147.681 0.478 28.925 171 154.584 0.474 30.464 172 117.438 0.476 36.368 173 116.356 0.487 30.318 174 136.834 0.481 29.456 175 101.58 0.698 19.814 176 166.516 0.474 28.755 177 139.58 0.464 44.513 178 144.741 0.478 29.294 179 146.219 0.479 28.969 180 135.779 0.481 29.524 181 168.196 0.473 27.973 182 150.971 0.477 29.003 183 145.92 0.478 29.112 184 170.305 0.472 29.069 185 116.96 0.481 33.294 186 184.021 0.47 27.071 187 170.454 0.475 27.649 188 170.486 0.47 28.068 189 215.239 0.469 26.446 190 170.31 0.472 29.579 191 116.957 0.476 36.216 192 217.354 0.452 26.688 193 127.953 0.481 30.059 194 154.865 0.477 28.563 195 130.762 0.481 30.906 196 192.75 0.467 27.216 197 112.666 0.489 30.337 198 73.39 0.968 15.422 199 176.604 0.471 28.202 200 121.001 0.487 30.49 201 172.906 0.472 27.761 202 168.485 0.473 29.302 203 129.041 0.483 29.795 204 184.179 0.473 26.961 205 120.251 0.472 36.637 206 159.954 0.477 28.222 207 153.304 0.468 37.887 208 93.073 0.463 57.405 209 116.475 0.487 30.333 210 137.128 0.48 29.525 211 181.847 0.473 27.158 212 175.186 0.473 28.614 213 181.96 0.472 27.124 214 144.583 0.47 37.574 215 127.546 0.483 29.926 216 188.597 0.473 26.693 217 174.723 0.472 27.637 218 178.111 0.47 27.555 219 145.742 0.479 29.011 220 145.706 0.478 29.137 221 184.531 0.472 27.504 222 181.915 0.471 27.229 223 163.749 0.474 28.146 224 134.911 0.482 29.58 225 115.168 0.468 43.414 226 141.183 0.479 29.282 227 154.682 0.467 35.056 228 93.937 0.499 30.737 229 110.32 0.717 18.826 230 139.356 0.48 29.355 231 118.939 0.486 30.191 232 108.706 0.469 42.675 233 142.541 0.478 29.35 234 111.087 0.49 31.303 235 125.937 0.48 32.056 236 108.117 0.462 53.117 237 235.879 0.44 24.956 238 205.349 0.471 25.633 239 144.023 0.479 29.093 240 145.322 0.479 29.057 241 186.455 0.473 26.756 242 118.259 0.483 32.143 243 138.206 0.48 29.413 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table II-4. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln (continued) Fitted Fitted Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Fitted Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 244 131.389 0.48 30.5 245 157.736 0.475 28.492 246 171.859 0.472 28.272 247 137.792 0.479 29.624 248 158.839 0.472 31.439 249 135.335 0.48 29.73 250 185.054 0.466 27.273 251 170.97 0.474 27.747 252 158.921 0.474 28.509 253 191.45 0.472 26.572 254 167.153 0.47 31.717 255 138.734 0.479 30.246 256 135.326 0.481 29.577 257 180.525 0.469 27.446 258 132.962 0.482 29.718 259 164.879 0.476 27.943 260 160.356 0.463 36.962 261 150.663 0.477 28.869 262 163.001 0.476 28.105 263 85.931 0.46 59.992 264 129.914 0.478 32.804 265 214.508 0.466 25.779 266 185.922 0.472 26.87 267 163.664 0.476 28.098 268 81.724 0.471 51.292 269 191.865 0.47 26.559 270 155.417 0.477 28.547 271 194.797 0.472 26.366 272 180.498 0.473 27.134 273 213.523 0.469 25.322 274 150.983 0.477 28.756 275 186.434 0.47 27.372 276 129.156 0.464 42.527 277 153.124 0.476 28.996 278 192.415 0.472 26.478 279 135.805 0.481 29.52 280 171.599 0.474 27.808 281 152.731 0.476 28.888 282 132.486 0.482 29.739 283 131.659 0.542 24.116 284 168.601 0.473 28.758 285 90.679 0.449 90.547 286 158.803 0.474 28.644 287 224.911 0.466 25.847 288 137.909 0.48 30.392 289 136.048 0.481 29.504 290 149.796 0.477 28.916 291 124.885 0.484 30.322 292 180.513 0.474 27.028 293 214.326 0.469 25.171 294 250.318 0.454 26.42 295 138.567 0.48 29.46 296 220.102 0.459 25.272 297 181.717 0.469 27.738 298 139.098 0.479 29.523 299 190.832 0.474 26.407 300 203.788 0.463 26.368 301 188.311 0.472 27.025 302 195.125 0.472 26.228 303 194.299 0.472 26.317 304 163.291 0.474 28.178 305 192.007 0.468 26.747 306 165.115 0.472 28.215 307 173.97 0.474 27.468 308 175.725 0.475 27.347 309 182.879 0.473 27.202 310 130.316 0.481 30.985 311 192.018 0.473 26.378 312 124.309 0.534 22.516 313 165.091 0.475 28.05 314 166.479 0.472 28.119 315 115.594 0.486 30.577 316 128.52 0.483 29.925 317 135.043 0.48 29.731 318 182.147 0.469 27.266 319 177.799 0.474 27.274 320 143.484 0.478 29.311 321 170.629 0.475 27.609 322 163.206 0.474 28.22 323 173.326 0.475 27.465 324 169.498 0.47 28.097 325 178.305 0.473 27.342 326 181.785 0.47 27.243 327 184.849 0.474 26.812 328 157.612 0.476 28.462 329 208.359 0.47 25.505 330 149.174 0.477 28.964 331 182.125 0.469 28.967 332 120.036 0.486 30.127 333 131.446 0.472 36.385 334 161.537 0.475 28.326 335 171.316 0.471 32.46 336 169.143 0.473 29.229 337 183.461 0.474 26.878 338 174.817 0.474 27.722 339 165.899 0.475 27.911 340 202.723 0.471 25.875 341 161.26 0.474 28.354 342 166.218 0.474 27.967 343 144.026 0.479 29.164 344 233.589 0.463 24.278 345 160.528 0.476 28.269 346 154.235 0.477 28.617 347 165.566 0.474 28.53 348 183.193 0.472 26.996 349 139.086 0.48 29.455 350 67.988 0.463 67.343 351 147.608 0.478 28.943 352 111.247 0.49 30.379 353 139.594 0.476 32.016 354 119.735 0.485 30.25 355 184.117 0.47 27.076 356 149.683 0.478 28.787 357 184.312 0.471 27.006 358 173.947 0.474 27.47 359 130.997 0.483 29.75 360 166.856 0.474 28.06 361 207.896 0.468 25.691 362 144.967 0.478 29.124 363 152.17 0.476 28.789 364 177.045 0.475 27.195 365 181.322 0.471 31.603 366 145.176 0.479 29.015 367 115.758 0.49 30.102 368 94.087 0.471 44.763 369 143.361 0.479 29.183 370 147.896 0.477 29.158 371 150.537 0.472 32.601 372 103.73 0.457 56.817 373 161.589 0.475 28.388 374 156.969 0.475 28.548 375 237.278 0.467 25.286 376 121.726 0.672 23.195 377 110.084 0.55 24.443 378 215.802 0.466 26.467 379 101.775 0.445 89.521 380 142.366 0.479 29.205 381 153.048 0.477 29.333 382 174.822 0.469 29.655 383 152.907 0.475 28.86 384 146.618 0.479 28.947 385 124.772 0.549 23.157 386 103.996 0.471 42.141 387 131.924 0.471 37.695 388 143.715 0.477 30.635 389 161.022 0.476 28.155 390 131.968 0.481 29.757 391 180.358 0.473 27.152 392 165.256 0.475 28.105 393 144.252 0.479 29.062 394 115.638 0.487 30.381 395 149.334 0.478 28.843 396 150.623 0.477 28.796 397 169.796 0.474 27.78 398 146.298 0.471 36.699 399 152.921 0.477 28.797 400 144.938 0.478 29.142 401 116.454 0.632 21.702 402 121.366 0.478 33.884 403 153.151 0.476 28.767 404 138.066 0.479 29.82 405 191.519 0.472 26.936 406 159.54 0.475 29.217 407 146.237 0.479 28.987 408 144.791 0.478 29.14 409 179.855 0.466 31.644 410 174.822 0.474 27.468 411 149.181 0.478 28.861 412 160.546 0.475 28.408 413 167.452 0.473 28.031 414 122.931 0.482 30.374 415 176.952 0.473 27.432 416 184.563 0.475 26.733 417 171.271 0.467 32.614 418 172.088 0.472 27.883 419 148.07 0.478 28.88 420 132.44 0.481 29.701 421 204.418 0.467 25.894 422 160.748 0.476 28.279 423 157.071 0.475 28.549 424 111.952 0.491 30.254 425 120.606 0.485 30.198 426 181.577 0.471 28.72 427 196.742 0.472 26.181 428 93.07 0.49 35.168 429 155.654 0.476 28.605 430 116.274 0.486 30.419 431 156.851 0.471 31.765 432 176.374 0.471 27.553 433 163.025 0.471 31.881 434 148.884 0.477 29.011 435 162.114 0.476 28.154 436 213.043 0.467 25.442 437 119.038 0.475 36.541 438 151.393 0.477 28.848 439 177.15 0.471 27.558 440 156.177 0.476 28.58 441 143.551 0.479 29.198 442 158.734 0.477 28.295 443 120.528 0.464 44.899 444 155.981 0.477 28.466 445 139.245 0.479 29.579 446 153.727 0.476 28.819 447 149.82 0.475 30.214 448 158.626 0.475 28.425 449 178.67 0.473 27.208 450 138.533 0.479 29.797 451 136.692 0.48 29.554 452 119.797 0.485 30.519 453 178.564 0.474 27.218 454 160.716 0.474 29.051 455 182.441 0.474 26.908 456 158.401 0.474 28.893 457 136.27 0.481 29.546 458 137.274 0.48 29.603 459 151.933 0.477 28.788 460 116.562 0.488 30.269 461 134.64 0.462 48.608 462 123.329 0.468 41.787 463 89.277 0.958 13.16 464 143.145 0.479 29.126 465 136.421 0.48 29.532 466 182.976 0.471 27.074 467 164.462 0.475 28.178 468 170.779 0.475 27.611 469 159.161 0.475 28.677 470 159.786 0.475 28.365 471 142.871 0.478 29.275 472 217.379 0.471 24.873 473 144.438 0.468 31.211 474 189.708 0.472 26.761 475 115.62 0.491 29.991 476 179.528 0.471 27.391 477 118.413 0.489 30.028 478 177.014 0.472 27.781 479 127.932 0.482 29.987 480 142.488 0.476 32.253 481 169.874 0.474 27.877 482 202.523 0.471 26.624 483 131.106 0.482 29.92 484 131.66 0.482 29.715 485 181.308 0.472 27.2 486 137.057 0.48 29.527 487 91.652 0.445 70.129 488 173.658 0.475 27.443 489 155.092 0.476 29.999 490 156.878 0.475 29.033 491 144.961 0.477 29.6 492 178.187 0.474 27.19 493 117.424 0.453 68.799 494 155.643 0.47 34.091 495 175.078 0.474 27.673 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT III ALTERNATE ROCK MASS COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE CALCULATION BY HOEK TUNNEL METHOD 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ALTERNATE ROCK MASS COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE CALCULATION BY HOEK TUNNEL METHOD III.1 INTRODUCTION Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion c (cohesion), and f(friction angle), are dependant on the stress range over which the criterion is applied. The stress range selected will vary depending on the intended use of the data. Attachment II develops Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in the Hoek-Brown “general” case where the stress range selected is greater than the rock mass tensile strength and less than one quarter of the intact rock compressive strength. An alternate method developed by Hoek for deep tunnels sets the range for Mohr-Coulomb parameter development between rock mass tensile strength and the maximum minor principal stress anticipated at tunnel depth (Hoek, Carranza, Corkum 2002 Section 6). III.2 COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE CALCULATION Mohr-Coulomb Criterion can be calculated from the following equations as suggested by Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is determined by fitting an average linear relationship to the curve generated by solving the general fit equation for a range of minor principal stress values defined by st0 denoting e va va contraction (Vermeer and de Borst, 1984). A.3 Characterization of the Lithophysal Tuff and the PFC Material The tuff can be divided into lithophysal and nonlithophysal types. These two rock types differ significantly in their microstructural and mechanical properties. In the lithophysal tuff, the vast majority of the porosity is concentrated in lithophysae and surrounding vapor phase-altered material, whereas porosity is more evenly distributed throughout the material in the nonlithophysal tuffs. The nonlithophysal tuffs have effective porosities that increase from 0.12 to 0.38 as the extent of welding decreases. The high-porosity nonlithophysal tuffs have large effective porosities because of the voids between grains, whereas similar effective porosities in lithophysal tuffs arise from the presence of lithophysae and vapor phase-altered material. The matrix fabric of the lithophysal tuff is microscopically identical to that of moderately to densely welded nonlithophysal tuff. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Price et al. (1985) divide the lithophysal tuff into the following three components: a fine-grained matrix (M), large lithophysae (L), and vapor phase-altered material (A) surrounding the lithophysae. Denote the porosity of component -iby vi Vi ,, f= (V) , i={M AL } (A.10) i and the volume fraction of component -iby V ,, P= Vi , i={M AL } (A.11) i where () is the void volume of component - i,V is the solid volume of component -i and Vis V vi i the total volume. The total porosity can be expressed as VV vM vA f= ()+()+(Vv)L =f PM +f P +fP. (A.12) V M A A L L The void porosity of the PFC material V n = v (A.13) v V material has zero porosity. The void porosity of the PFC base material before deleting any particles is zero; the void porosity can be compared with the lithophysal volume fraction, PL. Voids are created in the PFC base material by deleting particles that lie in the void regions. If we designate the inherent porosity of the PFC base material by n (approximately 0.17 and 0.36, for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively), then the void volume in (A.13) can be expressed as a sum of the volume of deleted particles, V, and the volume of space between those particles, V , such that bm V = Vb + V = Vb + nV. (A.14) vm v Solving for V and substituting into (A.13) yields the following expression for the void porosity: v n = Vv Vb (A.15) v V . V(1- n) . Equation (A.15) is used to obtain the void porosity of the PFC specimens. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The PFC model represents lithophysal tuff as a base material with discrete voids. The base material represents both the matrix (M) and the vapor phase-altered material (A) in a smeared fashion, and the discrete voids represent the lithophysae (L). The void porosity of the PFC model, n , corresponds with the volume fraction, P , of the lithophysal tuff. The relative distributions of these Lcomponents for the lithophysal tuff and the PFC model are shown in Figure A-2. Note that the PFC base material has an inherent porosity that does not correspond with that of the tuff — the tuff microstructure at this small scale is not reproduced by the PFC material. Only the void porosity of the PFC material can be compared with the lithophysal volume fraction. Also, note that PA as a function of P is not known for the lithophysal tuff, but P must approach zero as P approaches LALzero. This effect is not accounted for in the PFC material, because the microproperties of the PFC material are kept constant for all void porosities. Therefore, the PFC materials with low void porosity overestimate the softening and weakening effects of the vapor phase-altered material.5 Figure A-2. Relative distributions of the three components of lithophysal tuff for (a) real material and (b) PFC material 5 One approach to incorporate this effect in the PFC models would be to modify the PFC microproperties as a function of n such that they match the laboratory data for the lithophysal tuff in the non-zero range of n and match the vv nonlithophysal tuff when n = 0 . This approach has not been adopted here; thus, the properties of the PFC base v material will not match those of the nonlithophysal tuff — the modulus and UCS values of the PFC base material will be less than those of the nonlithophysal tuff. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A.4 PFC Material for Lithophysal Tuff The PFC material for lithophysal tuff (see Table A-1 and note that this PFC material is designated as the bf4-material) consists of a set of microproperties for the base material (Appendix C) and a specification of the void geometry. In general, the void geometry is characterized by shape, size distribution and spatial distribution. The following simplified void geometry is used. Circular (PFC2D) and spherical (PFC3D) voids of the same size are distributed randomly in space subject to the constraint that the length of bridging material between any two voids is greater than Bmin . PFC specimens are created such that the voids may intersect the specimen boundary. The properties of the PFC material are obtained by testing 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens. The PFC2D specimens are rectangular and are tested in the material vessel in which they were formed. The PFC3D specimens are formed in a parallelepiped material vessel, and then trimmed into a cylindrical shape before testing. All PFC specimens have a one-meter diameter. The fundamental length scale of a PFC material is the particle size (diameter, Davg ), which provides a discrete lower limit to mechanisms that can be resolved by the model. Additional length scales for PFC models of lithophysal tuff include specimen size (diameter, D ), void size (diameter, D ) and minimum bridge sv length between voids ( B ). The specimen, void and bridge resolutions are defined by min .= D , respectively, and shown in Table A-2. s DDs avg , .v =DDv avg and .B =Bmin avg Representative PFC specimens for different void porosities are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4. Table A-1 PFC microproperties for lithophysal tuff (bf4-material) Grains Cement .2510 kg m 3= ( )max min avg 1.5 17.1 mm, PFC2D 52.3 mm, PFC3D D D D = . =. . .1= 14.8 GPa, PFC2D 17.2 GPa, PFC3D cE . =. . 14.8 GPa, PFC2D 17.2 GPa, PFC3D cE . =. . ( ) 2.1, PFC2D 1.8, PFC3D n skk . =. . ( ) 2.1, PFC2D 1.8, PFC3D nkk s . =. . µ0.5= (mean std. dev. 48 11 MPa, 34 8 MPa, c cs t= = ± ±. =. ±. ) PFC2D PFC3D Void Geometry: circular or spherical, vD 166 mm = , min 41.5 mm B = Table A-2 PFC resolutions for lithophysal tuff specimens 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Resolution ( )1000 mm sD= PFC2D PFC3D avg specimen, s sDD.= 58.5 19.1 avg void, v vDD.= 9.7 3.2 min avg bridge, B B D. = 2.4 0.8 Figure A-3. PFC2D UCS test specimens of lithophysal tuff (void porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure A-4. PFC3D UCS test specimens of lithophysal tuff (void porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.19; voids depicted as black spheres) A.5 PFC Material Properties A.5.1 Unconfined Compression Tests The microproperties of the PFC material for lithophysal tuff have been chosen to match the variation of modulus and strength with lithophysal volume fraction measured from UCS tests on large- diameter (approximately 12-inch) specimens. The best available laboratory data for lithophysal tuff are the strength data from Price et al. (1985, DTNs SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002) and the strength and modulus data from 2002 test results (DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006). A subset of the 2002 data, shown in Table A-3, consisting of 14 tests performed at room temperature and under room dry and saturated conditions is used. Results from heated tests are excluded. The 2002 data show lower modulus values than the 1985 data. The strain measurements in the 1985 data are suspect, but the strength values are believed to be correct. For the PFC calibration, we use the strength values from both the 1985 and the 2002 tests and the modulus values from only the 2002 tests. Note that the lithophysal volume fractions (denoted as “Lith Porosity” in Table A-3) are estimates only and should be considered preliminary values until measurements that are more accurate have been completed. Also note that the 1985 tests and four of the 2002 tests were performed under saturated conditions, while the 10 remaining 2002 tests were performed under room dry conditions. The saturated samples, in general, show strength values at the lower end of the strength and modulus range. No attempt is made here to differentiate between the saturated and room dry tests. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table A-3 Strength and modulus data for lithophysal tuff used in the PFC calibration 2002 Tests Moisture Sample Strength Strain Young's Poisson's Porosity L:D Lith Porosity Batch 1 Room Dry 59A - UL 13.5 3.0 5.8 0.39 0.48 2.0 0.303 61A - UL 17.7 2.8 8.8 0.44 1.9 0.239 62A - UL 25.9 2.6 13.7 0.30 1.7 0.127 64A - UL 33.5 2.0 20.5 0.32 1.7 0.128 65A - UL 26.2 1.8 19.5 0.29 2.0 0.119 66A - UL 16.5 1.8 12.4 0.36 1.7 0.167 Saturated 60A - UL 12.7 2.7 6.7 0.36 1.8 0.186 63A - UL 9.4 2.5 5.0 0.24 0.42 1.8 0.2 68A - UL 11.6 2.6 5.9 0.03 0.44 2.0 0.258 Batch 2 Room Dry 50A - UL 22.1 2.0 14.9 0.21 1.5 0.285 Room Dry 23A - LL 28.7 4.6 9.2 1.8 0.192 24A - LL 13.3 4.0 5.0 1.8 0.222 46A - LL 21.7 3.9 8.5 1.8 0.284 Saturated 87A - LL 15.7 4.5 5.3 1.9 0.145 E (GPa) Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. The PFC material properties are compared with the best available laboratory data in Figures A-5 and A-6, and the strength-modulus relation derived from these results is shown in 0. When comparing 2D and 3D properties, it should be kept in mind that, although both specimens are 2:1 aspect ratio with a one-meter diameter, the 2D material contains cylindrical holes, whereas the 3D material contains spherical holes of the same diameter. One result of this different geometry is that the maximum void porosity obtainable for the PFC3D material, 0.19, is less than for the PFC2D material, 0.36. Nevertheless, the results show good correlation between the 2D and 3D properties, which suggests that void porosity is a unifying parameter that can be used to relate 2D and 3D behavior. 25 20 15 10 5 0 R2R2) l) y = 20.245e-4.1815x = 0.9779 y = 17.866e-3.457x = 0.9981 Lith. tuff (2002) PFC2D (2:1, bf4PFC3D (2:1 cy, bf4 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 void porosity, nv Figure A-5. Young’s modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC bf4material 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report R2R20 10 20 30 40 50 qu (MPa) ( (f4) (l) y = 52.167e-5.9159x = 0.943 y = 38.467e-4.792x = 0.9898 Lith. tuff1985 & 2002) PFC2D2:1, bPFC3D2:1 cy, bf4 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 void porosity, nv Figure A-6. Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC bf4-material yR2R2R20 10 20 30 40 50 qu (MPa) Li () ) l) = 10.004e0.0579x = 0.6479 y = 4.1467e0.1394x = 0.9687 y = 5.9798e0.1067x = 0.984 th. tuff2002PFC2D (2:1, bf4PFC3D (2:1 cy, bf4 0 5 10152025 modulus, E (GPa) Figure A-7. Unconfined compressive strength versus modulus for lithophysal tuff and PFC bf4-material 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A.5.2 Polyaxial-Cell and Direct-Tension Tests A comparison of the PFC3D and PFC2D bf2-material response during polyaxial-cell and direct- tension tests on 2:1 aspect ratio parallelepiped specimens of one-meter diameter is provided here. The PFC material is described by the microproperties in Table A-4. Note that the micro-moduli have been increased and the micro-strengths have been reduced relative to the bf4-material. A set of PFC specimens of differing void porosity was created, and these specimens were tested in a polyaxial cell at confinements of 0.1, 1, 3 and 10 MPa. The properties of the PFC bf2-material are listed in Tables A-5 and A-6. Damage plots and plots of deviatoric stress, volumetric strain and total number of cracks versus axial strain are provided in the December 2002 Draft of PFC Lithophysal Investigation (Appendix E). Only a subset of that material is repeated here to support the following discussion. Table A-4 PFC microproperties for lithophysal tuff (bf2-material) Grains Cement .2510 kg m 3= ( )max min avg 1.5 17.1 mm, PFC2D 52.3 mm, PFC3D D D D = . =. . .1= 23.4 GPa, PFC2D 24.5 GPa, PFC3D cE . =. . 23.4 GPa, PFC2D 24.5 GPa, PFC3D cE . =. . ( ) 2.1, PFC2D 1.8, PFC3D n skk . =. . ( ) 2.1, PFC2D 1.8, PFC3D nkk s . =. . µ0.5= ( )mean std. dev. 34 8 MPa, PFC2D 28 6 MPa, PFC3D c cs t= = ± ±. =. ±. Void Geometry: circular or spherical, 166 mm vD = , min 41.5 mm B = 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table A-5. Material properties of PFC3D bf2-material () ill diiE sig_f siili phi ) () ( ) () (( ) ( ) ( ) ( 0 NA NA NA NA 1 3 5 0 NA NA 5 NA NA 5 1 5 3 5 10 0 NA NA 10 NA NA 10 1 10 3 10 10 15 0 NA NA 15 NA NA 15 1 15 3 15 10 19 0 NA NA 19 NA NA 19 1 19 3 19 10 sC1_mGvBx_tCy PFC3D 3D, 2:1 par, bf2UCS + polyaxal cerect-tenson x: vary Pc nu g_t E-sg_t t_vporos N_phcoh (MPaGPaMPa) (MPaGPa) MPa) base 24.9 0.200 34.3 -9.5 14.3 0.000 NA base 0.1 24.7 0.190 35.4 0.000 NA base 25.8 0.181 37.5 0.000 2.37 24.0 11.5 base 26.8 0.157 41.2 0.000 1.83 17.1 13.1 base 10 29.0 0.133 53.5 0.000 1.76 15.9 13.3 21.0 0.186 27.2 -6.5 12.5 0.052 NA 0.1 21.5 0.197 28.2 0.052 NA 22.1 0.183 29.9 0.052 1.97 19.0 10.0 23.0 0.156 33.6 0.052 1.86 17.4 10.3 10 24.9 0.118 43.2 0.052 1.36 8.7 12.1 18.2 0.195 22.2 -6.2 10.7 0.100 NA 0.1 18.4 0.204 22.9 0.100 NA 18.8 0.185 24.6 0.100 1.84 17.3 8.4 20.1 0.158 27.1 0.100 1.24 6.0 10.3 21.9 0.131 34.0 0.100 0.99 -0.4 11.5 15.0 0.212 17.8 -4.6 8.9 0.149 NA 0.1 15.1 0.212 18.1 0.149 NA 15.6 0.193 19.5 0.149 1.61 13.5 7.1 16.7 0.163 22.1 0.149 1.32 7.8 7.9 18.1 0.110 28.4 0.149 0.89 -3.4 9.6 13.3 0.246 15.3 -4.1 7.9 0.186 NA 0.1 13.4 0.212 15.8 0.186 NA 14.1 0.189 17.1 0.186 1.46 10.7 6.5 15.0 0.162 19.6 0.186 1.25 6.4 7.1 15.7 0.060 24.5 0.186 0.70 -10.3 9.4 Table A-6. Material properties of PFC2D bf2-material (ill iE sig_f sig_t ig_t li phi ) () ( ) () ) () ( ) ( ) ( ) () 0 1 3 5 0 5 5 1 5 3 IV/0! 5 10 0 10 10 1 10 3 10 10 15 0 15 15 1 15 3 15 10 20 0 20 20 1 20 3 20 10 25 0 25 25 1 25 3 25 10 30 0 30 30 1 30 3 30 10 35 0 35 35 1 35 3 35 10 sC1_mHbx_tD PFC2D 2D, 2:1, bf2) UCS + polyaxal cedirect-tenson x: vary Pc nu E-st_vporos N_phcoh (MPaGPaMPa(MPaGPaMPabase 31.0 0.204 44.6 -7.3 0.000 NA NA NA base 0.1 29.6 0.211 45.0 0.000 NA NA NA base 30.1 0.201 48.3 0.000 3.64 34.7 11.8 base 30.9 0.189 53.3 0.000 2.51 25.5 14.2 base 10 32.5 0.165 66.8 0.000 1.92 18.4 16.2 25.1 0.168 23.9 -5.7 0.053 NA NA NA 0.1 22.8 0.314 25.7 0.053 NA NA NA 24.8 0.223 30.8 0.053 5.64 44.3 5.4 25.3 0.203 30.8 0.053 0.00 -90.0 #D10 26.9 0.175 36.8 0.053 0.86 -4.4 13.9 21.0 0.193 19.2 -4.6 0.103 NA NA NA 0.1 18.8 0.307 19.7 0.103 NA NA NA 20.3 0.230 22.7 0.103 3.37 32.8 5.4 20.8 0.215 25.5 0.103 1.38 9.1 8.4 22.1 0.203 30.3 0.103 0.69 -10.5 11.8 18.1 0.276 16.1 -4.3 0.153 NA NA NA 0.1 16.3 0.291 16.6 0.153 NA NA NA 17.1 0.243 19.4 0.153 3.06 30.5 4.7 17.5 0.230 22.3 0.153 1.46 10.8 6.9 17.9 0.222 27.1 0.153 0.69 -10.6 10.0 13.0 0.133 8.9 -2.5 0.201 NA NA NA 0.1 11.3 0.388 9.5 0.201 NA NA NA 12.6 0.287 12.3 0.201 3.14 31.1 2.7 13.1 0.278 14.3 0.201 0.99 -0.3 4.8 17.2 0.201 0.42 -24.3 7.3 11.2 0.216 8.0 -2.0 0.253 NA NA NA 0.1 9.9 0.351 8.7 0.253 NA NA NA 10.7 0.263 11.9 0.253 3.60 34.4 2.3 11.3 0.242 12.7 0.253 0.41 -25.1 6.8 13.5 0.253 0.11 -53.8 13.2 9.1 0.344 7.1 -2.1 0.297 NA NA NA 0.1 7.8 0.362 7.3 0.297 NA NA NA 8.4 0.304 9.3 0.297 2.16 21.5 2.5 8.8 0.286 11.0 0.297 0.84 -5.0 4.0 14.3 0.297 0.47 -20.9 5.3 6.6 0.199 4.6 -1.3 0.350 NA NA NA 0.1 5.6 0.375 5.2 0.350 NA NA NA 6.2 0.292 5.9 0.350 0.79 -6.6 2.9 6.8 0.282 7.4 0.350 0.74 -8.6 3.0 12.6 0.350 0.74 -8.6 3.0 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The PFC2D and PFC3D responses are remarkably similar and are summarized in the following. A. The strength envelopes are compared in Figure A-8. The slopes are similar, but the PFC2D material is weakened more by the addition of voids than is the PFC3D material. A possible explanation is that, for a given void porosity, the PFC3D material has more load paths available to transfer load as damage begins to develop than does the PFC2D material. The observation that there is more scatter in the strengths of the PFC2D material than in those of the PFC3D material also supports this hypothesis. B. The stress-strain curves are compared in Figures A-9 and A-10. The response becomes more plastic-like as confinement increases. Although the PFC3D material is more compliant and weaker than the PFC2D material, both materials have the same post-peak residual deviatoric stress at 0.3% strain. At 10% void porosity, both materials fail at approximately the same deviatoric stress for all confinements (The shear strength is independent of confinement.), and the PFC3D material has a larger post-peak residual strength when confined than does the PFC2D material. The addition of voids makes the shear strength independent of confinement. Does this mean that failure is governed by the breaking of bridging material, and that most bridging material is essentially unconfined and, thus, not affected by external confinement? Examination of the damage plots of the PFC2D material reveals a failure mechanism whereby damage forms in the bridging material; as confinement increases, this bridging material crushes (see Figures A-11 to A-13). C. The volumetric strain curves are compared in Figures A-14 and A-15. The point of strain reversal for both materials when unconfined is approximately at peak load. The PFC2D material exhibits a more brittle response than does the PFC3D material in that the post-peak dilation develops more rapidly and the dilation angle is much larger for the PFC2D material than for the PFC3D material. At 10% void porosity, the PFC3D material begins to dilate at a larger strain than the PFC2D material. Both materials exhibit no dilation at 10-MPa confinement. (A local region of bridging material is crushing in the PFC2D material as seen in Figure A-13.) The behavior of the PFC material is summarized as follows. As void porosity increases: (a) the strength is reduced, (b) the friction angle is decreased (and becomes negative for large void porosities and confinements), (c) the response becomes more plastic-like (but the PFC2D material is more brittle than the PFC3D material), and (d) dilation is inhibited and failure occurs by crushing of material bridges between voids. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-35 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2) 0 20 40 60 ()sig1MPanv = 0, PFC2D nv = 0, PFC3D nv = 0.10, PFC2D nv = 0.10, PFC3D nv = 0.20, PFC2D nv = 0.19, PFC3D -10 -5 0 5 10 sig3 (MPa) Figure A-8. Comparison of strength envelopes for PFC bf2-material ) l0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0PFC3D: thickerines deviatoric stress (MPa) sig3 = 0.1 MPa sig3 = 1 MPa sig3 = 3 MPa sig3 = 10 MPa 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 axial strain (%) Figure A-9. Comparison of stress-strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void porosity = 0) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-36 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 30 deviatoric stress (MPa) 20 10 0 ) iPFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0.10PFC3D: thcker lines sig3 = 0.1 MPa sig3 = 1 MPa sig3 = 3 MPa sig3 = 10 MPa 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 axial strain (%) Figure A-10. Comparison of stress-strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10) Figure A-11. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 0.1 MPa) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-37 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure A-12. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 3 MPa) Figure A-13. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 10 MPa) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report () li (%) PFC3D + PFC2D2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0PFC3D: thickernes -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 volumetric strainsig3 = 0.1 MPa sig3 = 1 MPa sig3 = 3 MPa sig3 = 10 MPa 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 axial strain (%) Figure A-14. Comparison of volumetric strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void porosity = 0) ) ili (%) PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0.10PFC3D: thcker nes -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 volumetric strainsig3 = 0.1 MPa sig3 = 1 MPa sig3 = 3 MPa sig3 = 10 MPa 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 axial strain (%) Figure A-15. Comparison of volumetric strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10) A.5.3 Summary of PFC Material Response 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-39 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The PFC model for lithophysal tuff reproduces the failure mechanisms observed in the laboratory, which are believed to be tensile splitting in (followed by crushing of) the bridging material between the voids. Localized crushing is enhanced with increasing confinement. As void porosity increases, the following occurs. • Dilation is inhibited, and failure occurs by crushing of bridging material. • The response becomes less brittle with post-peak load capacity as load redistributes to unbroken webs. • Stiffness and strength are reduced, and these reductions are similar to laboratory measurements on large cores (approximately 12-inch diameters). The PFC model for lithophysal tuff accounts for the reduction of strength and modulus with increasing lithophysal volume fraction. A.6 References Price, R. H., F. B. Nimick, J. R. Connolly, K. Keil, B. M. Schwartz and S. J. Spence (1985). “Preliminary Characterization of the Petrologic, Bulk, and Mechanical Properties of a Lithophysal Zone within the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff,” Sandia National Laboratories, SAND84-0860, February. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-40 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report APPENDIX B SPECIMEN DAMAGE PLOTS The damage that occurred in some of the PFC specimens subjected to unconfined-compression tests is presented here in the form of specimen damage plots. These plots provide information about the intensity, location and orientation of the cracks (and possible coalescence into macro-fractures) that have formed throughout the specimens. A plot of the axial stress (in units of Pa) versus axial strain is overlaid on the damage plots, which correspond with the state at an axial strain of 0.5%. The particles are drawn in yellow, the platens are drawn as black lines, and the stress-strain curves use the same scales for which stress ranges, from 0 to 55 MPa, and strain ranges, from 0 to 0.5%. Each crack is depicted as a line lying between the two previously bonded particles with a length equal to the average diameter of the two previously bonded particles. The line is oriented perpendicular to the line joining the centers of the two previously bonded particles. The cracks are colored such that blue and red indicate those cracks that have formed prior to or after, respectively, the peak stress. The view title of each plot lists the total number of cracks, the number of cracks that have formed prior to and after the peak stress, the strain at peak stress and the void porosity, n , of the specimen. vDamage plots are provided for each of the 54 PFC2D specimens extracted from the 18 panel maps of the walls of the ECRB cross drift. Each page includes a photograph of the 1-m by 3-m panel, with outlines of the lithophysal cavities used to define the voids in the three non-overlapping 1-m by 1-m PFC2D specimens. Damage plots also are provided for a representative sampling of the 120 PFC2D specimens containing circular-, triangular- and star-shaped voids. All damage plots and panel photographs are included on the attached CD to facilitate closer inspection. The information on the CD is described in Table B-1. Table B-1 Contents of the attached CD CD Folder Description of Contents PFC Shape Study Appendix B PDF file of PFC Shape Study Appendix B Panel Maps PDF Separate PDF files of panel map photo and damage plots included in Appendix B Simplified Shapes Separate PDF files of simplified shape damage plots included in Appendix B 90-mm Circles PDF PDF files of individual 90-mm circle damage plots 139-mm Triangles PDF PDF files of individual 139-mm triangle damage plots 197-mm Stars PDF PDF files of individual 197-mm star damage plots To appear in Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. as part of a special issue on rock mechanics research at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s Underground Research Laboratory (2003-2004). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-41 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-1. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-42 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-2. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 15+51 to 15+54 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-43 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-3. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+10 to 16+13 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-44 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-4. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+24 to 14+27 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-45 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-5 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+41 to 16+44 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-46 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-6 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+41 to 16+44 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-47 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-7 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+56 to 16+59 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-48 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-8. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+26 to 17+29 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-49 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-9 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+68 to 17+71 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-50 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-10. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+68 to 17+71 (Right Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-51 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-11. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 18+05 to 18+08 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-52 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-12. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 18+86 to 18+89 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-53 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-13. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 19+19 to 19+22 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-54 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-14. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 20+18 to 20+21 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-55 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-15. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 20+69 to 20+72 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-56 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-16. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 21+24 to 21+27 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-57 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-17. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 22+32 to 22+35 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-58 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-18. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 22+94 to 22+97 (Left Wall) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-59 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-19. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post- peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.006 cm3/cm3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-60 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-20. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post- peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.037 cm3/cm3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-61 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-21. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post- peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.047 cm3/cm3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-62 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-22. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post- peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.090 cm3/cm3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-63 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure B-23. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post- peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.14 cm3/cm3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-64 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Potyondy, D. O., and P. A. Cundall. (2003). “A Bonded-Particle Model for Rock,” to appear in Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. as part of a special issue on rock mechanics research at the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Underground Research Laboratory. APPENDIX C A BOUNDED-PARTICLE MODEL FOR ROCK David O. Potyondy & Peter A. Cundall dpotyondy@itascacg.com, pac@compuserve.com Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Abstract A numerical model for rock is proposed in which the rock is represented by a dense packing of non- uniform-sized circular or spherical particles that are bonded together at their contact points and whose mechanical behavior is simulated by the distinct-element method using the two- and three- dimensional discontinuum programs PFC2D and PFC3D. The microproperties consist of stiffness and strength parameters for the particles and the bonds. Damage is represented explicitly as broken bonds, which form and coalesce into macroscopic fractures when load is applied. The model reproduces many features of rock behavior, including elasticity, fracturing, acoustic emission, damage accumulation producing material anisotropy, hysteresis, dilation, post-peak softening and strength increase with confinement. These behaviors are emergent properties of the model that arise from a relatively simple set of microproperties. A material-genesis procedure and microproperties to represent Lac du Bonnet granite are presented. The behavior of this model is described for two- and three-dimensional biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests and for two-dimensional tunnel simulations in which breakout notches form in the region of maximum compressive stress. The sensitivity of the results to microproperties, including particle size, is investigated. Particle size is not a free parameter that only controls resolution; instead, it affects the fracture toughness and thereby influences damage processes (such as notch formation) in which damage localizes at subfracture tips experiencing extensile loading. Keywords: Rock fracture; Distinct-element method; Numerical model; Micromechanics. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-65 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Formulation of the BPM 2.1 Distinct-element method 2.2 Damping of particle motion 2.3 Grain-cement behavior and parameters 2.4 Microproperty characterization 2.5 Material-genesis procedure 3.0 Measured macroscopic properties (laboratory scale) 3.1 Choosing microproperties 3.2 PFC2D model behavior during biaxial and Brazilian tests 3.3 Macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite 3.4 Macroproperties of the PFC models 3.5 Effect of particle size on macroproperties 3.5.1 PFC2D material response 3.5.2 PFC3D material response 3.6 Effect of stress and damage on elastic constants 4.0 Measured macroscopic properties (field scale) 4.1 Coupling the BPM with a continuum model 4.2 PFC2D model behavior during excavation-damage studies 4.3 Discussion of simulation results for the Mine-by models 5.0 Emergent properties of the BPM 5.1 The reproduction of fracture mechanics behavior 5.2 Relating Brazilian strength to fracture toughness 6.0 Conclusions Acknowledgements 7.0 Appendices 7.1 Stress-measurement procedure 7.2 Strain rate measurement procedure 7.3 Stress-installation procedure 7.4 Ball-generation procedure 7.5 Isotropic stress installation procedure 7.6 Floater-elimination procedure 7.7 Biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian testing procedures References 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-66 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 1.0 Introduction In this paper, we argue that rock behaves like a cemented granular material of complex-shaped grains in which both the grains and the cement are deformable and may break, and that such a conceptual model can, in principle, explain all aspects of the mechanical behavior. Various numerical models have been proposed that mimic such a system with differing levels of fidelity. The bonded-particle model for rock (referred to hereafter as the BPM) directly mimics this system and thus exhibits a rich set of emergent behaviors that correspond very well with those of real rock. The BPM provides both a scientific tool to investigate the micro-mechanisms that combine to produce complex macroscopic behaviors and an engineering tool to predict these macroscopic behaviors. The mechanical behavior of rock is governed by the formation, growth and eventual interaction of microcracks. Microscopic observations of rock [1–5] reveal detailed information about initial defects and load-induced cracks, such as length, density, aspect ratio and orientation. Acoustic- emission (AE) based observations of rock [6] record the acoustic signals that are generated spontaneously from this microcracking, thereby providing information about the size, location and deformation mechanisms of the acoustic events as well as properties of the medium through which the acoustic waves travel (e.g., velocity, attenuation and scattering). Experimental observations reveal that most of the compression-induced cracks nucleate at the initial defects, such as grain boundaries or crack-like, low aspect-ratio cavities, and that all compression-induced cracks are almost parallel to the direction of the maximum compression. The micromechanism responsible for the formation of these cracks is not understood fully; however, many possible models exist (e.g., sliding deformation between the faces of initial defects inclined to the direction of maximum compression leading to formation of a wing crack at each of the two defect tips) that can reproduce many of the essential features of the brittle fracture phenomenon [1, 7–15]. Kemeny [10] asserts that: Although the actual growth of cracks under compression may be due to many complicated mechanisms, as revealed by laboratory tests, it appears that they can all be approximated by the crack with a central point load. The origins of these “point” loads in rock under compression are small regions of tension that develop in the direction of the least principal stress. Kemeny and Cook [11] emphasize the importance of producing compression-induced tensile cracks: Laboratory testing of rocks subjected to differential compression have revealed many different mechanisms for extensile crack growth, including pore crushing, sliding along pre-existing cracks, elastic mismatch between grains, dislocation movement, and hertzian contact. Because of the similarity in rock behavior under compression in a wide range of rock types, it is not surprising that micromechanical models have many similarities. This may explain the success of models based on certain micromechanisms (such as the sliding crack and pore models) in spite of the lack of evidence for these mechanisms in microscopic studies. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-67 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report One mechanism [16] for the formation of compression-induced tensile cracks is shown in Figure 1(c), in which a group of four circular particles is forced apart by axial load, causing the restraining bond to experience tension. These axially aligned “microcracks” occur during the early loading stages of compression tests on bonded assemblies of circular or spherical particles. Similar crack- inducing mechanisms occur even when different conceptual models for rock microstructure are used. For example, “wedges” and “staircases” also induce local tension if angular grains replace circular grains — see Figure 1(a and b). In addition to the formation and growth of microcracks, the eventual interaction of these cracks is necessary to produce localization phenomena such as axial splitting or rupture-zone formation during unconfined or confined compression tests. Thus, any model intending to reproduce these phenomena must allow the microcracks to interact with one another. Figure 1 Physical mechanisms for compression-induced tensile cracking (a-b) and idealization as bonded assembly of circular particles (c). Rock can be represented as a heterogeneous material comprised of cemented grains. In sedimentary rock, such as sandstone, a true cement is present, whereas in crystalline rock, such as granite, the granular interlock can be approximated as a notional cement. There is much disorder in this system, including locked-in stresses produced during material genesis, deformability and strength of the grains and the cement, grain size, grain shape, grain packing and degree of cementation (i.e., how much of the inter-grain space is filled with cement). All of these items influence the mechanical behavior, and many of them evolve under load application. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-68 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The mechanical behavior of both rock and a BPM is driven by the evolution of the force-chain fabric, as will be explained here with the aid of Figure 2. An applied macroscopic load is carried by the grain and cement skeleton in the form of force chains that propagate from one grain to the next across grain contacts, some of which may be filled with cement. The force chains are similar to those that form in a granular material [17]. The cement-filled contacts experience compressive, tensile and shear loading and also may transmit a bending moment between the grains, whereas the empty contacts experience only compressive and shear loading. Thus, applied loading produces heterogeneous force transmission and induces many sites of tension/compression oriented perpendicular to the compression/tension direction — for the reasons illustrated in Figure 1(c). In addition, the force chains are highly non-uniform, with a few high-load chains and many low-load chains. The chain loads may be much higher than the applied loads, such that a few grains will be highly loaded while others will be less loaded or carrying no load (see Figure 5(b)) — because the forces will arch around these grains, thereby forming chains with a fabric that is larger than the grain size, as seen in the compression rings in Figure 6. (The existence of such large-scale features in the force chains provides evidence that, in general, the mechanism shown in Figure 1(c) will be operative at a length scale larger than the grain size.) It is these micro-forces and micro-moments that provide the local loading to produce grain and/or cement breakage, which, in turn, induces global force redistribution (because damaged material is softer and sheds load to stiffer, undamaged material) and the eventual formation of macroscopic fractures and/or rupture zones. As more and more grains and cement are broken, the material behaves more and more like a granular material with highly unstable force chains. The key to explaining material behavior is the evolving force-chain fabric, which is related in a complex way to the deformability and strength of the grains and the cement, the grain size, grain shape, grain packing and degree of cementation. Computational models of rock can be classified into two categories, depending on whether damage is represented indirectly, by its effect on constitutive relations, or directly, by the formation and tracking of many microcracks. Most indirect approaches idealize the material as a continuum and utilize average measures of material degradation in constitutive relations to represent irreversible microstructural damage [18], while most direct approaches idealize the material as a collection of structural units (springs, beams, etc.) or separate particles bonded together at their contact points and utilize the breakage of individual structural units or bonds to represent damage [19–22]. Most computational models used to describe the mechanical behavior of rock for engineering purposes are based upon the indirect approach, while those used to understand the behavior in terms of the progress of damage development and rupture are based upon the direct approach. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-69 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 2 Force and moment distributions and broken bonds (in magenta) in a cemented granular material with six initial holes idealized as a bonded-disk assembly in the post-peak portion of an unconfined compression test. (Blue is grain-grain compression, while black and red are compression and tension, respectively, in the cement drawn as two lines at the bond periphery. Line thicknesses and orientations correspond with force magnitude and direction, respectively, and the moment in the cement contributes to the forces at the bond periphery.) The BPM is an example of a direct modeling approach in which particles and bonds are related to similar objects observed microscopically in rock [23–30]. Alternative rock models in which the material is represented as a continuum include those in [31,32], where a network of weak planes is superimposed on an otherwise homogeneous elastic continuum, and those in [33,34], where the stiffness and strength of elements in a continuum with initial heterogeneous strength are allowed to degrade based on a strength failure criterion in the form of an elastic-brittle-plastic constitutive relation. These rock models exhibit more realistic responses in terms of shear and post-failure behavior than most lattice models, because they can carry compressive and shear forces arising from loading subsequent to bond breakage, whereas most lattice models retain no knowledge of the particles after each bond has broken. Comprehensive review articles [35,36] summarize rock models and approaches for simulating crack growth, and [37] provides additional discussion of the BPM and its relation to other rock models. The micromechanisms occurring in rock are complex and difficult to characterize within the framework of existing continuum theories. Microstructure controls many of these micro- mechanisms. The BPM approximates rock as a cemented granular material with an inherent length scale that is related to grain size and provides a synthetic material that can be used to test hypotheses about how the microstructure affects the macroscopic behavior. This is a comprehensive model that exhibits emergent properties (such as fracture toughness, which controls the formation of macroscopic fractures) that arise from a small set of microproperties for the grains and cement. The 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-70 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report BPM does not impose theoretical assumptions and limitations on material behavior as do most indirect models (such as models that idealize the rock as an elastic continuum with many elliptical cracks — in the BPM, such cracks form, interact, and coalesce into macroscopic fractures automatically). Behaviors not encompassed by current continuum theories can be investigated with the BPM. In fact, continuum behavior itself is simply another of the emergent properties of a BPM when averaged over the appropriate length scale. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The formulation of the BPM, which includes a microproperty characterization expressed in terms of grain and cement properties and a material- genesis procedure, is presented in the next section. In Sections 3 and 4, the measured macroscopic properties of a BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite are presented and discussed. In Section 3, the focus is on laboratory-scale behavior (during biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests), and Section 4 focuses on field-scale behavior (involving damage formation adjacent to an excavation). In both sections, the effect of particle size on model behavior is investigated. In Section 5, the emergent properties of the BPM are listed, and the general source of some of these behaviors is identified. As a particular example, a formal equivalence between the mechanisms and parameters of the BPM and the concepts and equations of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is established and then used to explain the effect of particle size on model behavior. The capabilities and limitations of the BPM, as well as suggestions for overcoming these limitations, are presented in the conclusion. For completeness, the algorithms used to measure average stress and strain within the BPM, to install an initial stress field within the BPM, to create a densely packed BPM with low locked-in forces to serve as the initial material, and to perform typical laboratory tests on the BPM are described in the appendices. Throughout the paper, all vector and tensor quantities are expressed using indicial notation. 2.0 Formulation of the BPM The BPM simulates the mechanical behavior of a collection of non-uniform-sized circular or spherical rigid particles that may be bonded together at their contact points. The term “particle,” as used here, differs from its more common definition in the field of mechanics, where it is taken as a body of negligible size that occupies only a single point in space; in the present context, the term “particle” denotes a body that occupies a finite amount of space. The rigid particles interact only at the soft contacts, which possess finite normal and shear stiffnesses. The mechanical behavior of this system is described by the movement of each particle and the force and moment acting at each contact. Newton’s laws of motion provide the fundamental relation between particle motion and the resultant forces and moments causing that motion. The following assumptions are inherent in the BPM. 1. The particles are circular or spherical rigid bodies with a finite mass. 2. The particles move independently of one another and can both translate and rotate. 3. The particles interact only at contacts; because the particles are circular or spherical, a contact is comprised of exactly two particles. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-71 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4. The particles are allowed to overlap one another, and all overlaps are small in relation to particle size such that contacts occur over a small region (i.e., at a point). 5. Bonds of finite stiffness can exist at contacts, and these bonds carry load and can break. The particles at a bonded contact need not overlap. 6. Generalized force-displacement laws at each contact relate relative particle motion to force and moment at the contact. The assumption of particle rigidity is reasonable when movements along interfaces account for most of the deformation in a material. The deformation of a packed-particle assembly, or a granular assembly such as sand, is described well by this assumption, because the deformation results primarily from the sliding and rotation of the particles as rigid bodies and the opening and interlocking at interfaces — not from individual particle deformation. The addition of bonds between the particles in the assembly corresponds with the addition of real cement between the grains of a sedimentary rock, such as sandstone, or notional cement between the grains of a crystalline rock, such as granite. The deformation of a bonded-particle assembly, or a rock, should be similar, and both systems should exhibit similar damage-formation processes under increasing load as the bonds are broken progressively and both systems gradually evolve toward a granular state. If individual grains or other microstructural features are represented as clusters of bonded particles, then grain crushing and material inhomogeneity at a scale larger than the grain size can also be accommodated by this model [38–40]. 2.1 Distinct-element method The BPM is implemented in the two- and three-dimensional discontinuum programs PFC2D and PFC3D [41] using the distinct-element method (DEM). The DEM was introduced by Cundall [42] for the analysis of rock-mechanics problems and then applied to soils by Cundall and Strack [43]. Thorough descriptions of the method are given in [44,45]. The DEM is a particular implementation of a broader class of methods known as discrete-element methods, which are defined in [46] as methods that allow finite displacements and rotations of discrete bodies, including complete detachment, and recognize new contacts automatically as the calculation progresses. Current development and applications of discrete-element methods are described in [47]. In the DEM, the interaction of the particles is treated as a dynamic process with states of equilibrium developing whenever the internal forces balance. The contact forces and displacements of a stressed assembly of particles are found by tracing the movements of the individual particles. Movements result from the propagation through the particle system of disturbances caused by wall and particle motion, externally applied forces and body forces. This is a dynamic process in which the speed of propagation depends on the physical properties of the discrete system. The calculations performed in the DEM alternate between the application of Newton’s second law to the particles and a force- displacement law at the contacts. Newton’s second law is used to determine the translational and rotational motion of each particle arising from the contact forces, applied forces and body forces 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-72 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report acting upon it, while the force-displacement law is used to update the contact forces arising from the relative motion at each contact. The dynamic behavior is represented numerically by a timestepping algorithm in which the velocities and accelerations are assumed to be constant within each timestep. The solution scheme is identical to that used by the explicit finite-difference method for continuum analysis. The DEM is based upon the idea that the timestep chosen may be so small that, during a single timestep, disturbances cannot propagate from any particle farther than its immediate neighbors. Then, at all times, the forces acting on any particle are determined exclusively by its interaction with the particles with which it is in contact. Because the speed at which a disturbance can propagate is a function of the physical properties of the discrete system (namely, the distribution of mass and stiffness), the timestep can be chosen to satisfy the above constraint. The use of an explicit, as opposed to an implicit, numerical scheme provides the following advantages. Large populations of particles require only modest amounts of computer memory, because matrices are not stored. Also, physical instability may be modeled without numerical difficulty, because failure processes occur in a realistic manner — one need not invoke a nonphysical algorithm, as is done in some implicit methods. 2.2 Damping of particle motion Because the DEM is a fully dynamic formulation, some form of damping is necessary to dissipate kinetic energy. In real materials, various microscopic processes such as internal friction and wave scattering dissipate kinetic energy. In the BPM, local non-viscous damping is used by specifying a damping coefficient, a. The damping formulation is similar to hysteretic damping [48], in which the energy loss per cycle is independent of the rate at which the cycle is executed. The damping force applied to each particle is given by Fd =-aF sign () (1) V where F is the magnitude of the unbalanced force on the particle, and sign (V) is the sign (positive or negative) of the particle velocity. This expression is applied separately to each degree-of- freedom. A common measure of attenuation or energy loss in rock is the seismic quality factor, Q. The quality factor is defined as 2p times the ratio of stored energy to dissipated energy in one wavelength: Q =2p(W / .W ) (2) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-73 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report where W is energy [49]. For a single degree-of-freedom system, or for oscillation in a single mode, the quality factor can be written as [41] Q =p/2a. (3) All BPMs described in this paper were run with a damping coefficient of 0.7, which corresponds with a quality factor of 2.2. The quality factor of Lac du Bonnet granite in situ is about 220 [50]; therefore, the models were heavily damped to approximate quasi-static conditions. Hazzard et al. [49] ran similar models using a damping coefficient corresponding with a quality factor of 100 and found that the energy released by crack events (i.e., bond breakages) may have a significant influence on the rock behavior, because the waves emanating from cracks are capable of inducing more cracks if nearby bonds are close to failure. Hazzard and coworkers showed that the effect of this dynamically induced cracking was to decrease the unconfined compressive strength by up to 15%. In addition, if low numerical damping is used, then seismic source information (such as magnitude and mechanism) can be determined for every modeled crack [51]. 2.3 Grain-cement behavior and parameters The BPM mimics the mechanical behavior of a collection of grains joined by cement. The following discussion considers each grain as a PFC2D or PFC3D particle and each cement entity as a parallel bond. The total force and moment acting at each cemented contact is comprised of a force, Fi, arising from particle-particle overlap, denoted in Figure 3 as the grain behavior, and a force and moment, Fi and Mi , carried by the parallel bond and denoted as the cement behavior. These quantities contribute to the resultant force and moment acting on the two contacting particles. The force-displacement law for this system will now be described, first for the grain behavior and then for the cement behavior. Note that if a parallel bond is not present at a contact, then only the grain- based portion of the force-displacement behavior occurs. The grain-based portion of the force-displacement behavior at each contact is described by the following six parameters (see Figure 3): the normal and shear stiffnesses, k and k , and the friction ns coefficient, µ, of the two contacting particles, which are assumed to be disks of unit thickness in PFC2D and spheres in PFC3D. Whenever two particles overlap, a contact is formed at the center c of the overlap region along the line joining the particle centers ( xi() in Figure 3), and two linear springs are inserted (with stiffnesses derived from the particle stiffnesses assuming that the two particle springs act in series) along with a slider in the shear direction. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-74 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 3 Force-displacement behavior of grain-cement system. The contact force vector, Fi (which represents the action of particle A on particle B), can be resolved into normal and shear components with respect to the contact plane as ns Fi = F ni + F ti (4) ns where F and F denote the normal and shear force components, respectively, and ni and ti are the unit vectors that define the contact plane. The normal force is calculated by n nn F = KU (5) nn where U is the overlap, and K is the contact normal stiffness given by () ( B ) A n kk nn K = A ( B ) k () + k nn (6) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-75 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report with k()A and k()B being the particle normal stiffnesses. nn s The shear force is computed in an incremental fashion. When the contact is formed, F is initialized s to zero. Each subsequent relative shear-displacement increment, .U, produces an increment of s ss elastic shear force, .F, that is added to F (after F has been rotated to account for motion of the contact plane). The increment of elastic shear force is given by s ss k .F =- . U (7) s where k is the contact shear stiffness given by () ( B ) A s kk ss k = A ( B ) k () +k ss (8) with k()A and k()B being the particle shear stiffnesses. The relative displacement increment during ss the timestep .t is given by .Ui =V .t , where Vi is the contact velocity i () ) (c ) ) c Vi =(x &i -(x &i BA ( B ) ()( c ) -xk ( B ) &() ()(c ) () B AA =(x &i +ei jk .j (xk ))-(xi +eijk .j (xk -xkA )), (9) x &i and .j are the particle translational and rotational velocities, respectively, and eij k is the permutation symbol. The relative shear-displacement increment vector is ss .Ui =Vi . =(Vi -V ). =(V -Vjnjni ).t . t int i (10) n If U =0 (a gap exists), then both normal and shear forces are set to zero; otherwise, slip is accommodated by computing the contact friction coefficient 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-76 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report A ( B ) ) µ = min (µ (),µ (11) ()()s nsn with µA and µB being the particle friction coefficients, and setting F =µ F if F >µ F. Note that Kn is a secant stiffness in that it relates total displacement and force, whereas ks is a tangent stiffness in that it relates incremental displacement and force. In this paper, an upper-case K denotes a secant stiffness, and a lower-case k denotes a tangent stiffness. Use of a secant stiffness to compute normal force makes the computations less prone to numerical drift and able to handle arbitrary placement of particles and changes in particle radii after a simulation has begun. The cement-based portion of the force-displacement behavior at each cemented contact is described by the following five parameters that define a parallel bond (see Figure 3): normal and shear stiffnesses per unit area, kn and ks ; tensile and shear strengths, s and t ; and bond-radius cc multiplier, . , such that parallel-bond radius A ( B ) ) R =. min ( R(), R (12) R A RB with () and () being the particle radii. A parallel bond approximates the mechanical behavior of a brittle elastic cement joining the two bonded particles. Parallel bonds establish an elastic interaction between these particles that acts in parallel with the grain-based portion of the force- displacement behavior; thus, the existence of a parallel bond does not prevent slip. Parallel bonds can transmit both force and moment between particles, while grains can only transmit force. A parallel bond can be envisioned as a set of elastic springs uniformly distributed over a rectangular cross-section in PFC2D and a circular cross-section in PFC3D lying on the contact plane and centered at the contact point. These springs behave as a beam whose length, L in Figure 3, approaches zero to approximate the mechanical behavior of a joint. The total force and moment carried by the parallel bond are denoted by Fi and Mi , respectively, which represent the action of the bond on particle B. The force and moment vectors can be resolved into normal and shear components with respect to the contact plane as ns Fi = F ni + F i ns Mi = Mni + M i (13) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-77 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ns ns ,where FF and M , M denote the axial- and shear-directed forces and moments, respectively, and ni and ti are the unit vectors that define the contact plane. (For the PFC2D model, the twisting ns moment, M = 0 , and the bending moment, M , acts in the out-of-plane direction.) When the parallel bond is formed, Fi and Mi are initialized to zero. Each subsequent relative displacement- n snsB ( A ) and rotation-increment ( .U, .U, .., .. with ..= (.() -.i ).t ) produces an increment ii of elastic force and moment that is added to the current values (after the shear-component vectors have been rotated to account for motion of the contact plane). The increments of elastic force and moment are given by nn n .F = kA .U sss .F = - kA .U n sn .M = - k J .. s ns .M = - k I .. (14) where A , I and J are the area, moment of inertia and polar moment of inertia of the parallel bond cross-section, respectively. These quantities are given by . Rt .2, t = 1, PFC2D A =. 2 .pR , PFC3D . . 2 Rt, t = 1, PFC2D . 33 I =. 4 . 1 pR , PFC3D . 4 .NA, PFC2D J =. 4. 1 pR ,PFC3D . 2 (15) The maximum tensile and shear stresses acting on the parallel-bond periphery are calculated from beam theory to be 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-78 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report s n M R - F max s= + AI s n F M R max t= + . AJ (16) max If the maximum tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength (s =s ) or the maximum shear stress c max exceeds the shear strength ( t =t ), then the parallel bond breaks, and it is removed from the c model along with its accompanying force, moment and stiffnesses. A simplified form of the BPM represents the cement using contact bonds instead of parallel bonds. A contact bond approximates the physical behavior of a vanishingly small cement-like substance lying between and joining the two bonded particles. The contact bond behaves, essentially, as a parallel bond of radius zero. Thus, a contact bond does not have a radius or shear and normal stiffnesses, as does a parallel bond, and cannot resist a bending moment or oppose rolling; rather, it can only resist a force acting at the contact point. Also, slip is not allowed to occur when a contact bond is present. A contact bond is defined by the two parameters of tensile and shear strengths, f n and f , expressed in force units. When the corresponding component of the contact force exceeds seither of these values, the contact bond breaks, and only the grain-based portion of the force- displacement behavior occurs. 2.4 Microproperty characterization In general, the BPM is characterized by the grain density, grain shape, grain size distribution, grain packing and grain-cement microproperties. Each of these items influences the model behavior. The grain density, . , does not affect the quasi-static behavior but is included for completeness. In this paper, we focus on circular or spherical grains comprised of individual PFC2D or PFC3D particles, although the effect on the strength envelope of introducing particle clusters of complex interlocking shapes into the PFC2D particle assembly is discussed in Section 3.4. The particle diameters satisfy a uniform particle-size distribution bounded by Dmin and D , and a dense packing is obtained max using the material-genesis procedure of Section 2.5. The packing fabric, or connectivity of the bonded assembly, is controlled by the ratio ( D D min ) ; for a fixed ratio, varying Dmin changes the max absolute particle size but does not affect the packing fabric. Such a microproperty characterization separates the effects of packing fabric and particle size on material behavior and clearly identifies Dmin as the controlling length scale of the material. The final item that characterizes the BPM is the grain-cement microproperties: 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-79 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ({ ,c nE k ) },sk µ grain microproperties { ,. (,cE k n k ) }, , s c cs t cement microproperties (17) where cE and cE are the Young’s moduli of the grains and cement, respectively; kk( )n s and n (kks ) are the ratios of normal to shear stiffness of the grains and cement, respectively; . is the radius multiplier used to set the parallel-bond radii via (12); µ is the grain friction coefficient; and s and t are the tensile and shear strengths, respectively, of the cement. In the analysis below, the ccgrain and cement moduli are related to the corresponding normal stiffnesses such that the particle and parallel-bond stiffnesses are assigned as .2 tEc , t =1, PFC2D kn :=. .4RE , PFC3D c k n k := s (kks ) n E c kn := () ( B ) RA +R n k ks := ns (kk ) (18) where R is particle radius. The usefulness of these modulus-stiffness scaling relations is confirmed in Section 3.5, where it is shown that the macroscopic elastic constants are independent of particle size for the PFC2D material and exhibit only a minor size effect for the PFC3D material. The deformability of an isotropic linear elastic material is described by two elastic constants. These quantities are emergent properties of the BPM and cannot be specified directly. It is possible, however, to relate the grain and cement moduli, E and E , respectively, to the normal stiffnesses cc by envisioning the material at each contact as an elastic beam with its ends at the particle centers, as shown in Figure 4. The axial stiffness of such a beam is K =AE L , where A, E and L are the cross-sectional area, modulus and length, respectively, of the beam. For the grain-based behavior, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-80 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Lt E k nn k =()c =Et . E = , t =1, PFC2D cc 2 L 2t 2 k LE kk n nn =()c =EL . E == ,PFC3D cc 2 L 2L 4R (19) () by assuming that k =kA =k ( B ) in (6). For the cement-based behavior, nn n B nAEc c nA () ). kA == RAAE. E =k (R() +R c L +RB (20) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-81 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 4 Equivalent continuum material of grain-cement system. The cement modulus is dependent on particle size; to achieve a constant cement modulus, parallel-bond stiffnesses must be scaled with the particle radii. For the PFC3D material, the grain modulus is dependent on particle size; to achieve a constant grain modulus, particle stiffnesses must be scaled with particle radius. This analysis does not yield a relation between Poisson’s ratio and particle stiffness at the microlevel; however, a macroscopic Poisson’s ratio will be observed, and its value will be affected by grain shape, grain packing and the ratios kk and ( )n s kk .( )n s For a fixed grain shape and packing, increasing these ratios increases the Poisson’s ratio. 2.5 Material-genesis procedure The BPM represents rock as a dense packing of non-uniform-sized circular or spherical particles that are joined at their contact points with parallel bonds. The material-genesis procedure produces this system such that the particles are well connected and the locked-in forces are low. Both the packing and the locked-in forces are arbitrary and isotropic at a macroscale — i.e., when averaged over approximately one dozen adjacent particles. (This would not occur if the material were created by gravity compaction — in which case, the force chains would be aligned vertically and their magnitudes would increase with depth.) The material-genesis procedure employs the following five- step process (illustrated in Figures 5 and 6 for the PFC2D Lac du Bonnet granite model of Table 1). 1. Compact initial assembly. A material vessel consisting of planar frictionless walls is created, and an assembly of arbitrarily placed particles is generated to fill the vessel. The vessel is a rectangle bounded by four walls for PFC2D and a rectangular parallelepiped bounded by six walls for PFC3D. The wall normal stiffnesses are made just larger than the average particle normal stiffness to ensure that the particle-wall overlap remains small. The 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-82 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report D particle diameters satisfy a uniform particle-size distribution bounded by min and D . To ensure a reasonably tight initial packing, the number of max particles is determined such that the overall porosity in the vessel is 16% for PFC2D and 35% for PFC3D. The particles, at half their final size, are placed randomly such that no two particles overlap. Then, the particle radii are increased to their final values, as shown in Figure 5(a), and the system is allowed to rearrange under zero friction. The ball-generation procedure is described in more detail in the Appendices. 2. Install specified isotropic stress. The radii of all particles are reduced uniformly to achieve a specified isotropic stress, s , defined as the average o of the direct stresses. These stresses are measured by dividing the average of the total force acting on opposing walls by the area of the corresponding specimen cross-section. Stresses in the PFC2D models are computed assuming that each particle is a disk of unit thickness. When constructing a granite material, s is set equal to approximately 1% of the uniaxial o compressive strength. This is done to reduce the magnitude of the locked-in forces that will develop after the parallel bonds are added and the specimen is removed from the material vessel and allowed to relax, as shown in Figure 6. The magnitude of the locked-in forces (both tensile and compressive) will be comparable to the magnitude of the compressive forces at the time of bond installation. The contact-force distribution at the end of this step is shown in Figure 5(b). The isotropic stress installation procedure is described in more detail in the Appendices. 3. Reduce the number of “floating” particles. An assembly of non- uniform-sized circular or spherical particles, placed randomly and compacted mechanically, can contain a large number (perhaps as high as 15%) of “floating” particles that have less than Nf contacts, as shown in Figure 5(c), where Nf = 3 . It is desirable to reduce the number of floating particles such that a denser bond network is obtained in step 4. In our granite models, we wish to obtain a densely packed and well-connected assembly to mimic a highly interlocked collection of grains. By setting Nf =3 and the allowed number of floating particles to zero, we obtain a bonded assembly for whichnearly all particles away from the specimen boundaries have at least threecontacts. The floater-elimination procedure is described in more detail in the Appendices. Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 5 Material-genesis procedure for PFC2D model: (a) particle assembly after initial generation but before rearrangement; (b) contact-force distribution (All forces are compressive, thickness proportional to force magnitude.) after step 2; (c) floating particles (with less than three contacts) and contacts after step 2; (d) parallel-bond network after step 4. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-84 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 6 Force and moment distributions in PFC2D material after removal from material-genesis vessel followed by relaxation (color convention described in Figure 2). Table 1 Model microproperties for Lac du Bonnet granite. grains cement 32630 kg m.= ( )max min min 1.66, varies D D D= 1.= 62 GPa, PFC2D 72 GPa, PFC3D cE . = . . 62 GPa, PFC2D 72 GPa, PFC3D cE . = . . ( ) 2.5n skk = ( ) 2.5nkk s = 0.5µ = ( )mean std. dev. 157 36 MPa, PFC2D 175 40 MPa, PFC3D c cs =t = ± ±. = . ±. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-85 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4. Install parallel bonds. Parallel bonds are installed throughout the assembly between all particles that are in near proximity (with a separation less than 10-6 times the mean radius of the two particles), as shown in Figure 5(d). The parallel-bond properties are assigned to satisfy (17) and (18), with s c and t picked from a Gaussian (normal) distribution. The grain property of c µ is also assigned. 5. Remove from material vessel. The material-genesis procedure is completed by removing the specimen from the material vessel and allowing the assembly to relax. This is done by deleting the vessel walls and stepping until static equilibrium is achieved. During the relaxation process, the material expands and generates a set of self-equilibrating locked-in forces, as shown in Figure 6. These are similar to locked-in stresses that may exist in a free specimen of rock. The locked-in forces can be divided into two types, depending upon their existence at a macro- or a micro-scale. The macro-scale forces exist within self-contained clusters of approximately one dozen particles, in which the inner particles are in tension and the outer particles are in compression, or vice versa. Such compression rings can be seen in Figure 6. The micro-scale forces exist within individual parallel bonds and are mostly tension to equilibrate the tendency of the contact springs to repel the compressed particles. There is a net energy stored in the assembly in the form of strain energy in both the particle-particle contacts and the parallel bonds. These locked-in forces can have a significant effect upon behavior (e.g., feeding energy into a rockburst or causing strain to occur when the assembly is cut). Holt [52] used a BPM to investigate stress-relief effects induced during coring of sandstone by setting s equal to the o compaction stresses existing at the time of grain cementation. 3.0 Measured macroscopic properties (laboratory scale) The BPM consists of a procedure for material genesis and two independent sets of microproperties for short- and long-term behavior. A set of short-term microproperties are described in Section 2.4, and a set of long-term microproperties are described in [53]. No model is complete or fully verifiable [54], but the validity of the BPM is demonstrated by comparing model behavior with measured and observed responses of Lac du Bonnet granite at both laboratory and field scales in this and the next section. 3.1 Choosing microproperties For continuum models, the input properties (such as modulus and strength) can be derived directly from measurements performed on laboratory specimens. For the BPM, which synthesizes macro- scale material behavior from the interactions of micro-scale components, the input properties of the components usually are not known. The relation between model parameters and commonly 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-86 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report measured material properties is only known a priori for simple packing arrangements. For the general case of arbitrary packing of arbitrarily sized particles, the relation is found by means of a calibration process in which a particular instance of a BPM — with a particular packing arrangement and set of model parameters — is used to simulate a set of material tests, and the BPM parameters then are chosen to reproduce the relevant material properties measured in such tests. The BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite is described by the microproperties in Table 1. These microproperties were chosen to match the macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite discussed in Section 3.3. The ratio ( D D min ) is set greater than 1 to produce an arbitrary isotropic packing. max As ( D D min ). 1, the packing tends toward a crystalline arrangement. Such a uniform packing max exhibits anisotropic macroproperties and is not representative of the more complex grain connectivity of a granite. . is set equal to 1 to produce a material with cement that completely fills the throat between cemented particles. As .. 0 , the material behavior approaches that of a granular material. The grain and cement moduli and ratios of normal to shear stiffness are set equal to one another to reduce the number of free parameters. Then, the moduli are chosen to match the Young’s modulus, and the ratios of normal to shear stiffness are chosen to match the Poisson’s ratio. Next, the cement strengths are set equal to one another so as not to exclude mechanisms that may only be activated by micro-shear failure (see below). The ratio of standard deviation to mean of the cement strengths is chosen to match the crack-initiation stress (defined in Section 3.3), and the mean value of the cement strengths is chosen to match the unconfined compressive strength. The particle- friction coefficient appears to affect only post-peak response, and it is not clear to what it should be calibrated; thus, µ=0.5 is used as a reasonable non-zero value. By setting s =t , both tensile and shear microfailures are possible. If micro-tensile failure is cc excluded (by setting s to infinity), then cracking does not localize onto a single macrofracture cplane under macroscopic extensile loading. Because this mechanism does occur in granite, micro-tensile failure is allowed to occur in the granite model. The alternative cases for which micro-shear failure is excluded fully (by setting t to infinity) or allowed (by setting s =t ) are ccc investigated for the PFC2D material by Potyondy and Autio [39], who study damage formation adjacent to a circular hole subjected to far-field compressive loading. Both materials produce breakout notches in compressive regions and tensile macrofractures in tensile regions that are generally similar. The material with s =t allows more well-defined notches to form than does cc the material that can only fail in the micro-tensile mode (see Figure 7). The former material accommodates the shearing deformation along the notch outline by forming a string of shear microcracks, whereas the latter material must form several sets of en echelon tensile microcracks (which requires that additional deformation and accompanying damage occur within the notch region). For the granite model, s =t so as not to exclude mechanisms that may only be activated cc via micro-shear failure. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-87 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 7 Damage in the notch region for the same compressive load (acting vertically) for a PFC2D material with (a) micro-shear failure allowed (3267 cracks), and (b) micro-shear failure excluded (3800 cracks). 3.2 PFC2D model behavior during biaxial and Brazilian tests Typical stress-strain response and damage patterns are shown in Figure 8 for the PFC2D granite model with an average particle diameter of 0.72 mm. The testing procedures are described in the Appendices. The crack distributions in this and all such figures are depicted as bi-colored lines (in which red represents tension-induced parallel-bond failure for which bond tensile strength has been exceeded and blue represents shear-induced parallel-bond failure for which bond shear strength has been exceeded) lying between the two previously bonded particles with a length equal to the average diameter of the two previously bonded particles. The cracks are oriented perpendicular to the line joining the centers of the two previously bonded particles. The damage mechanisms during biaxial tests are summarized in observations 1 to 3, and those during Brazilian tests in observation 4. Similar observations apply to the PFC3D granite model subjected to triaxial and Brazilian tests. 1. During the early stages of biaxial loading, relatively few cracks form, and those that do form tend to be aligned with the direction of maximum compression. These cracks are distributed throughout the specimen and do not seem to be interacting. The onset of this early cracking is quantified by the crack-initiation stress. 2. Near peak load in a biaxial test, one or more macroscopic failure planes develop that cut across the specimen. When confinement is low, a set of secondary macrofractures oriented parallel with the loading direction form on either side of these failure planes, as seen in Figure 8(b). The secondary macrofractures are comprised of tensile microcracks and suggest an axial- splitting phenomenon. As the confinement increases, the number of failure planes and their widths increase, as seen in Figures 8(c and d). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-88 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 8 Stress-strain response and damage patterns formed during biaxial tests at confinements of 0.1, 10 and 70 MPa for a 63.4x126.8-mm specimen of the PFC2D granite model with D = 0.72 mm . avg 3. Damage at peak load is quite similar for all confinements, and most damage occurs after peak load as the specimen expands laterally — volumetric strain is dilational [53]. This observation, combined with observation 2, suggests that the post-peak damage-formation process is affected more by confinement than is the pre-peak damage-formation process. This change in behavior is related in part to the fact that, as confinement increases, the ratio of shear microcracks to tensile microcracks increases. The confinement reduces the tensile forces that develop in a direction perpendicular to the specimen axis and thereby causes more shear microcracks to form. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-89 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4. During Brazilian tests, a wedge of cracks forms inside of the specimen below each platen. Then, one of the wedges initiates a single macrofracture that travels across the specimen parallel with the direction of loading. The macrofracture is comprised of tensile microcracks and is driven by extensile deformation across the crack path (similar to an LEFM mode-I crack). This observation suggests that the Brazilian strength measured in these tests is related to the material fracture toughness, as is shown in Section 5.2, and that it may not correspond with the Brazilian strength measured in a valid Brazilian test on a real rock specimen. Such difficulties are inherent in tests that attempt to measure the tensile strength of a rock, because it is rarely possible to force the failure to occur simultaneously across the entire final fracture plane. 3.3 Macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite The following short-term laboratory properties of Lac du Bonnet granite [55] obtained from 63mm diameter specimens with a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 are used to calibrate the short-term response of the granite model (See Table 2 for mean, standard deviation and number of tests.): (a) the elastic constants of Young’s modulus, E , and Poisson’s ratio, ., measured from unconfined compression tests; (b) the unconfined compressive strength, qu; (c) the crack-initiation stress, s; ci (d) the strength envelope for confining pressures in the range 0.1–10 MPa approximated as an equivalent Mohr-Coulomb material with a secant slope, Nf, friction angle, f, and cohesion, c ; and (e) the Brazilian strength, s. t Table 2 Macroproperties of the models and Lac du Bonnet granite. property Lac du Bonnet granite PFC2D model, avg 0.72 mm D = PFC3D model, avg 1.53 mm D = E (GPa) 69 5.8 (n=81) ± 70.9 0.9 (n=10) ± 69.2 0.8 (n=10) ± . 0.26 ±0.04 (n=81) 0.237 0.011 (n=10) ± 0.256 ±0.014 (n=10) (MPa)qu200 22 (n=81) ± 199.1 13.0 (n=10) ± 198.8 ±7.2 (n=10) (MPa) cis 3 390 , 30 s s+ < 371.8 21.8 (n=10, = 0.1)s ± 386.6 11.0 (n=10, = 0.1)s± (MPa) cds 3150, 0s= NA 3190.3 7.5 (n=10, = 0.1)s ± Nf 13 3.01 0.60 (n=10) ± 3.28 0.33 (n=10) ± (degrees)f 59 29.5 4.8 (n=10) ± 32.1 2.4 (n=10) ± c (MPa) 30 58.5 ±8.5 (n=10) 55.1 4.2 (n=10) ± (MPa) ts 9.3 1.3 (n=39) ± 44.7 ±3.3 (n=10) 27.8 ±3.8 (n=10) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-90 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The crack-initiation stress is defined as the axial stress at which non-elastic dilation just begins, identified as the point of deviation from linear elasticity on a plot of axial stress versus volumetric strain. The strength envelope, which is the relation between peak strength and confining pressure, is obtained by fitting the Hoek-Brown strength criterion [56] to results of triaxial tests at confining pressures up to 70 MPa. The Hoek-Brown strength criterion is given by 2 sf =s3 - s s -ssm c 3 c (21) where s and m are dimensionless material parameters, and s is equal to the unconfined c compressive strength when s = 1. The Hoek-Brown parameters for the strength envelope of Lac du Bonnet granite [57] are s= 213 MPa , m =31 and s = 1. In general, the strength envelope will c exhibit a decreasing slope for increasing confinement; however, it can be linearized using a secant approximation defined by the strength, sf, at two confinements, P0 and P 1. If the slope is defined by sf ()-s ( P ) N f= PPP 10 f 0, - 1 (22) then the friction angle and cohesion can be written as [58] . N f- 1 . -1 f= sin .. . N f+ 1 . q c = u 2 N f (23) where qu is the unconfined compressive strength. The Brazilian strength is computed via 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-91 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Ff st = pRt (24) where Ff is the peak force acting on the platens, and R and t are the radius and thickness, respectively, of the Brazilian disk. The crack-damage stress, scd, is defined as the axial stress at which the volumetric strain reverses direction and becomes dilational. The crack-damage stress for saturated Lac du Bonnet granite is related to the peak strength, sf, by the following fourth-order polynomial [53]: 3 s cd = 0.75 - 0.031x + 0.00285x2 - 0.000104x + 0.00000138x4 sf (25) where x is the confining stress (in MPa). The crack-damage stress is measured for the PFC3D material, but it is not used in the present calibration. 3.4 Macroproperties of the PFC models The microproperties in Table 1 with Dmin =0.55 mm and Dmin = 1.19 mm were used to produce PFC2D and PFC3D materials with average particle diameters of 0.72 mm and 1.53 mm, respectively. Then, ten rectangular PFC2D specimens (63.4 by 31.7 mm) and ten rectangular parallelepiped PFC3D specimens (63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm) with different packing arrangements and microstrengths were created by varying the seed of the random-number generator during material genesis. Typical PFC2D/PFC3D specimens (shown in Figure 9) contain approximately 4000/20,000 particles and have 44/20 particles across the specimen width. Biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests were performed upon these specimens to obtain the model macroproperties shown in Table 2. The testing procedures are described in the Appendices. The strength envelopes were obtained by performing a set of biaxial and triaxial tests at confining pressures of 0.1, 1, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 70 MPa. The test results for the PFC2D material are shown in Figure 10, which includes the peak strength and crack-initiation stress from each test with lines joining the average values at each confining pressure. The strength envelope for the PFC3D material is similar. The PFC models match the macroproperties of E , . and qu of the Lac du Bonnet granite, and the variability of these macroproperties (expressed as a ratio of standard deviation to mean) is less than that of the physical material. The unconfined compressive strength of the PFC3D material exhibits less variability than that of the PFC2D material. The model materials also exhibit the onset of significant internal cracking (measured by sci) before ultimate failure. However, the model strengths only match that of the Lac du Bonnet granite for stresses near the uniaxial state. The slope 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-92 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report of the strength envelope is too low (3 for both PFC2D and PFC3D versus 13 for the granite), and the Brazilian strength is too high (the ratio ( q st ) is 4.5 and 7.2 for PFC2D and PFC3D, u respectively, versus 21.5 for the granite). This discrepancy may arise from the use of circular and spherical grains in the present model, and it could be reduced by using grain shapes that more closely resemble the complex-shaped and highly interlocked crystalline grains in granite. A preliminary investigation, described below, suggests that introducing finite-strength particle clusters of complex interlocking shapes into the PFC2D particle assembly will increase the slope of the strength envelope and will lower the crack-damage stress. A similar effect is expected for the PFC3D material. If these grains are also allowed to break, then damage mechanisms that more closely resemble those in granite will be possible. One mechanism that contributes to the large difference in the compressive and tensile strengths of granite is suggested by Mosher et al. [59], who have studied the cracking within granite thin sections when stressed in tension or compression under the microscope and have found that intergranular fractures predominate in tension and intragranular in compression. In the preliminary investigation, unbreakable particle clusters of complex interlocking shapes were introduced into the PFC2D particle assembly so that cracking is forced to occur along cluster boundaries (the white dots in Figure 11(a)). The clustering algorithm is controlled by S , the maximum number of particles in a cluster. A cluster is defined as a set of particles that are adjacent to one another, where adjacent means that a connected path can be constructed between any two particles in a cluster by traversing bonded particle-particle contacts. The algorithm begins with a densely packed bonded material and identifies particle clusters by traversing the list of particles. Each cluster is grown by identifying the current particle as a seed particle and then adding adjacent particles to the cluster until either all adjacent particles have been added or the cluster size has reached S . The algorithm provides no control over cluster shape but does produce a collection of c complex cluster shapes that are fully interlocking — similar to the interlocking grains in a crystalline rock. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-93 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 9 Typical specimens of the granite model: (a) PFC2D specimen (4017 particles, 7764 parallel bonds); and (b) PFC3D specimen (19749 particles, 55042 parallel bonds). Figure 10 Strength envelopes for PFC2D granite model (results of all 10 tests) and Lac du Bonnet granite. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-94 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 11 Introducing complex grain-like shapes into the PFC2D material using particle clusters: (a) clusters of size 7 and bonds (black: intra-cluster bonds, white: inter-cluster bonds); and (b) effect of cluster size on strength envelope for unbreakable clusters. The strength-envelope slope for such a material can be made to exceed that of Lac du Bonnet granite, as shown in Figure 11(b), and dilation begins at lower stresses relative to peak ( s is cdlowered) as cluster size is increased. However, the biaxial-test damage does not localize into discrete macroscopic failure planes, and the post-peak response is plastic-like and does not exhibit the abrupt stress drop of Lac du Bonnet granite. Experiments on Barre granite [4] indicate that, after loading to approximately 87% of peak strength, almost all grain boundaries were cracked along their entire length. Because this had occurred before the peak strength had been reached, it suggests that additional damage, in the form of transgranular fracture (or grain splitting) may be occurring in this loading regime. If a finite strength were assigned to the bonds within clusters, then transgranular fractures could form, and this might produce the desired localization and abrupt post-peak stress drop. This presents a promising avenue for further study [60]. 3.5 Effect of particle size on macroproperties If the BPM is used to predict damage formation surrounding an excavation, then the absolute size of the potential damage region is fixed, and successively finer resolution models can be produced by decreasing Dmin while keeping all other microproperties fixed. The investigation in this section demonstrates that particle size is an intrinsic part of the material characterization that affects the Brazilian strength (and the unconfined compressive strength for PFC3D material); thus, particle size cannot be regarded as a free parameter that only controls model resolution. If the damage mechanisms involve extensile conditions similar to those existing in a Brazilian test, then particle size should be chosen to match the Brazilian strength or another appropriate property of the rock, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-95 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report perhaps the fracture toughness. For the PFC3D material, it may not be possible to match the ratio (q st ) without introducing non-spherical grains. u Four PFC2D and four PFC3D granite materials were produced using the microproperties in Table 1 with different values of D min . The PFC2D and PFC3D materials have average particle diameters ranging from 2.87 to 0.36 mm and 5.95 to 1.53 mm, respectively. For each PFC2D and PFC3D material, ten rectangular specimens (63.4 by 31.7 mm) or ten rectangular parallelepiped specimens (63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm), respectively, with different packing arrangements and microstrengths were created by varying the seed of the random-number generator during material genesis. Each specimen was then subjected to a Brazilian test and to two biaxial or triaxial tests at confinements of 0.1 and 10 MPa. The PFC3D Brazilian disk thicknesses were chosen to produce approximately 2.6 particles across the thickness. The test results are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in terms of the mean and coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of each macroproperty. Table 3 Effect of particle size on PFC2D macroproperties. particle macroproperty size (63.4 by 31.7 mm specimens, n=10, mean and coefficient of variation) avg D (mm) E (GPa, %) . ( , %) q u(MPa, %) f (degrees, %) c (MPa, %) ts (MPa, %) 2.87 68.3 10.5 0.231 19.0 186.8 12.7 34.9 18.1 48.5 12.8 65.5 26.1 1.44 68.8 3.3 0.249 7.6 184.4 7.9 30.3 23.8 53.4 18.9 54.3 12.2 0.72 70.9 1.3 0.237 4.6 199.1 6.5 29.5 16.3 58.5 14.5 44.7 7.4 0.36 71.5 0.8 0.245 2.9 194.8 4.1 33.0 17.3 53.3 14.4 35.4 7.6 Table 4 Effect of particle size on PFC3D macroproperties. particle macroproperty size (63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm specimens, n=10, mean and coefficient of variation) avg D (mm) E (GPa, %) . ( , %) q u(MPa, %) f (degrees, %) c (MPa, %) ts (MPa, %) 5.95 57.3 10.0 0.231 21.2 127.9 11.9 25.9 14.2 40.0 11.4 43.6 27.8 3.05 64.0 3.9 0.254 8.1 169.6 3.4 30.6 9.8 48.4 7.6 35.4 26.1 2.04 67.6 1.8 0.255 5.8 186.9 1.5 32.3 9.2 51.6 6.9 33.0 21.9 1.53 69.2 1.2 0.256 5.5 198.8 3.6 32.1 7.4 55.1 7.6 27.1 13.7 It is expected that as particle size continues to decrease, the coefficients of variation will converge to specific values. These values should be a true measure of the effect of both packing and strength heterogeneities in the model materials, because the number of particles across the specimen has 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-96 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report become large enough to obtain a representative sampling of the material response. As the number of particles across the specimen is reduced, the scatter in measured properties increases. Also, a sufficient number of particles must be present for the model to resolve and reproduce the failure mechanisms that influence the strength properties. 3.5.1 PFC2D material response The elastic constants appear to be independent of particle size. The mean values of Poisson’s ratio are approximately the same for all particle sizes, and the mean values of Young’s modulus increase slightly (by less than 5%) as particle size decreases from 2.87 to 0.36 mm. This slight increase in Young’s modulus may be an artifact of having sampled too few data points to obtain a true measure of the mean values. If the elastic constants truly are independent of particle size, then the n ,characterization of the elastic grain-cement microproperties in terms of EE , (k k ), and (k ks ) cc n s provides a size-independent means of specifying the elastic properties of the material. The size- independence is achieved by scaling the parallel-bond stiffnesses as a function of particle size via (18). The unconfined compressive strength also appears to be independent of particle size. The mean values differ by less than 8% and exhibit no clear increasing or decreasing trend. This behavior may be an artifact of having sampled too few data points to obtain a true measure of the mean values; however, the decreasing coefficients of variation are reasonable and indicate a possible convergence to a specific value. It is also reasonable that the variability of qu is greater than the variability of the elastic constants, because qu measures a complex critical-state phenomenon involving extensive damage formation and interaction, whereas the elastic constants merely measure the deformability of the particle assembly before any significant damage has developed. No definitive statements about the effect of particle size on friction angle and cohesion can be made based on the results in Table 3. The mean values of fand c differ by 19% and 21%, respectively, and exhibit no clear increasing or decreasing trends. For the three smallest particle sizes, fand c exhibit the most variability of all measured properties. The Brazilian strength exhibits a clear dependence upon particle size, with s decreasing from 65.5 t to 35.4 MPa as particle size decreases from 2.87 to 0.36 mm. The coefficients of variation have converged to approximately 7.5%. The variability of s is slightly greater than that of qu. This tsuggests that the critical-state conditions in a Brazilian test are more sensitive to packing and strength heterogeneities than are the critical-state conditions in an unconfined compression test. The measured decrease in Brazilian strength with decreasing particle size is explained in Section 5.2, where it is shown that Brazilian strength is proportional to fracture toughness, which, in turn, is proportional to particle size. The lack of a similar size effect for qu suggests that the critical state in an unconfined compression test on the PFC2D material does not consist of the unstable growth of a single macrofracture subjected to extensile conditions. We speculate that a more complex 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-97 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report critical state exists in which a failure plane and secondary macrofractures form under mixed compressive-shear conditions, and that such conditions are not sensitive to particle size. 3.5.2 PFC3D material response The Poisson’s ratio is independent of particle size. The Young’s modulus exhibits a clear dependence on particle size, with E increasing from 57.3 to 69.2 GPa as particle size decreases from 5.95 to 1.53 mm. The characterization of the elastic grain-cement microproperties in terms of n s EE , (k , k ), and (k k) provides a size-independent means of specifying the Poisson’s ratio cc n s of the material, but the Young’s modulus exhibits a minor size effect. The unconfined compressive strength exhibits a clear dependence on particle size, with quincreasing from 127.9 to 198.8 MPa as particle size decreases from 5.95 to 1.53 mm. The coefficients of variation have converged to approximately 3.5%. The reason for this size effect is unknown. It corresponds with general observations that finer-grained rock is stronger than coarser- grained rock (medium and fine-grained Lac du Bonnet granite [61, 62]). A credible explanation must encompass the fact that qu of the PFC2D material is independent of particle size. No definitive statements about the effect of particle size on friction angle and cohesion can be made based on the results in Table 4, although both properties seem to increase as particle size decreases. The Brazilian strength exhibits a clear dependence upon particle size, with s decreasing from 43.6 t to 27.1 MPa as particle size decreases from 5.95 to 1.53 mm. The coefficients of variation have not yet converged. The variability of s is much greater than that of qu. This suggests that the critical- tstate conditions in a Brazilian test are more sensitive to packing and strength heterogeneities than are the critical-state conditions in an unconfined compression test. 3.6 Effect of stress and damage on elastic constants The elastic constants of the bonded-particle model are affected by both stress and damage. These effects have been quantified using a “strain probe,” which applies a specified strain path to the particles at the boundary of an extracted core and monitors the stress-strain response using measurement regions within the core. Preliminary measurements performed upon the granite model indicate a reasonable correspondence with the properties of Lac du Bonnet granite [53]. The elastic constants are affected by the stress state as follows. Compressive loading induces micro-tensile forces that act orthogonal to the compressive direction, and the particle motions that produce these micro-tensile forces modify the fabric (distribution of force chains) of the assembly. Increasing the mean stress increases the coordination number (average number of contacts per particle), which modifies the magnitudes of the elastic constants but does not produce anisotropy. Anisotropy is produced by deviatoric stresses that modify the directional distribution of the force chains — compressive loading increases the number of contacts oriented in the compressive direction and decreases the number of contacts oriented orthogonal to the compressive direction. These effects are enhanced by the presence of damage in the form of bond breakages. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-98 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The elastic modulus dependence on mean and differential stress, as identified in PFC modeling, has been qualitatively supported by in situ measurements of dynamic modulus [63]. Ongoing work [64] aims to develop a quantitative link between AE/MS field measurements of dynamic moduli and rock-mass damage by comparing the evolution of stress- and damage-induced modulus anisotropy in the PFC3D model with the results of both short- and long-term laboratory tests. 4.0 Measured macroscopic properties (field scale) Three sets of boundary-value simulations were performed to demonstrate the ability of the two- dimensional BPM to predict the extent and fabric of damage that forms adjacent to an excavation and the effect of this damage on rock strength and deformability [53]. The boundary-value simulations were of three experiments at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s (AECL) Underground Research Laboratory (URL) near Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada — namely, the Mine-by Experiment [65,66], the Tunnel Sealing Experiment [67] and Stage 1 of the Heated Failure Test [68]. The Excavation Stability Study [69] also was simulated using slightly different microproperties. A summary of comparisons between simulations and in situ observations is provided in [63]. Extensive work has been done at the URL to characterize excavation-induced damage [70]. One common feature of this damage is the formation of breakout notches (apparently in regions where the elastic tangential stress at the excavation boundary exceeds some critical value). This feature is investigated in the simulations, which embed the BPM within a larger continuum model such that only the region of a single notch is represented by the BPM. Only the results of the Mine-by Experiment simulations are presented here. The Mine-by Experiment took place on the 420-m level of the URL in sparsely fractured Lac du Bonnet granite and consisted of carefully excavating a 3.5-m diameter circular tunnel subparallel with the direction of the intermediate principal stress. The tunnel was excavated in 1-meter stages by drilling overlapping holes about the tunnel perimeter, and then removing the material using hydraulic rock splitters in closely spaced drill holes in the tunnel face. During tunnel excavation, a multi-stage process of progressive brittle failure resulted in the development of v-shaped notches, typical of borehole breakouts, in the regions of compressive stress concentration in the roof and floor (as shown in Figure 12). The major and minor in situ stresses are approximately 60 and 11 MPa, which produce an elastic tangential stress of 169 MPa in the roof and floor. This induced stress is lower than the 200 MPa unconfined compressive strength of the undamaged granite, and observation and analysis of other excavations at the 420-m level indicate that notches will form when the elastic tangential stress in horizontal tunnels exceeds approximately 120 MPa [69]. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-99 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 12 Photograph of broken and buckled rock slabs comprising the notch tip in the floor of the Mine- by Experiment tunnel. Various mechanisms have been suggested to account for the apparent degradation in material strength sufficient to cause breakout. Two such mechanisms include precracking, which results from the local increase and rotation of stresses ahead of the advancing tunnel face, and stress corrosion — time-dependent cracking in rock that depends on load, temperature and moisture [71,72]. Both of these mechanisms are investigated in [73] using a simplified form of the BPM that represents the cement using contact bonds. (A contact bond provides tensile and shear strengths only and behaves ns like a parallel bond with k = k = R = 0 .) In that work, a time- dependent strength-degradation process was included in the simplified BPM by reducing the contact-bond strength at a specified rate if the contact force was above a specified micro-activation force. It was found that (a) precracking coupled with uniform strength reduction (choosing microproperties to match the long- term instead of the short-term strength of the rock) produced spalling and not distinct notches, and (b) activation of stress corrosion (for micro-properties that match the short-term strength of the rock) produced notches that stabilized after approximately 56 hours. Subsequent work, summarized in [53], utilized the full BPM that represents the cement using parallel bonds, which allow one to mimic more closely the micro-mechanisms operative during stress corrosion by reducing the parallel-bond radius at a specified rate if the maximum tensile stress in the parallel bond is above a specified micro-activation stress. In such models, notches are formed either by uniformly reducing the material strength everywhere or by activating stress corrosion. The difference in model behavior, particularly the ability to replicate notch development using a uniform strength reduction for the parallel bonds, is believed to be related to the use of parallel versus contact bonds. The parallel-bonded material becomes much more compliant in the damaged region than does the contact-bonded material, thereby shedding more load to the notch perimeter. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-100 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 4.1 Coupling the BPM with a continuum model The Mine-by Experiment was simulated using a coupled PFC2D-FLAC [74] model in which only the potential damage region is represented by the PFC2D material. The rectangular sample produced by the material-genesis procedure is installed into a corresponding rectangular void created in a FLAC grid adjacent to the tunnel surface, and a circular arc is removed from the particle assembly, corresponding to the tunnel boundary (see Figure 13). The basis of the coupling scheme is that FLAC controls the velocities of a layer of particles on three sides of the PFC2D region. PFC2D returns the unbalanced forces of the same set of particles, and these are applied as boundary forces to the FLAC grid. A symmetry line, in the direction of the major principal stress, is used based on the assumption that cracking is similar in the roof and floor of the tunnel. The FLAC grid boundaries are placed at a distance of 10 times the tunnel radius from the center. The elastic constants to be used in the FLAC grid are specified, and the FLAC model is run in large-strain mode under conditions of plane strain. Coupling occurs during cycling such that each cycle in PFC2D corresponds with a cycle in FLAC. Figure 13 PFC2D portion of coupled PFC2D-FLAC Mine-by model (PFC2D granite model with D = 32 mm ). avg Initially, the system is regarded as stress-free. There are no initial stresses in the FLAC model, and the initial stresses in the PFC2D material are low relative to the final stresses that will develop as a result of the excavation. In situ stresses are applied to the outer boundaries of the FLAC grid, and cycling is performed until equilibrium is established, indicating that the excavation-induced stress redistribution is complete. An alternative procedure would be to initialize stresses in the FLAC grid and install the same mean stresses in the PFC2D sample (using the stress-installation procedure described in the Appendix) prior to its connection to the FLAC grid. The resulting relaxation would correspond to the tunnel being created in a stressed material. Three PFC2D granite materials were produced using the microproperties in Table 1 with different values of Dmin . The PFC2D materials have average particle diameters of 32, 16 and 8 mm, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-101 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report respectively, and this corresponds with model resolutions of 33, 66 and 132 particles across the 1.05- m extent of the potential damage region as shown in Figure 13. The elastic constants assigned to the FLAC grid were taken as the average values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio from Table 2. Although the PFC2D particle size that generated the data in Table 2 was much smaller ( Davg = 0.72 mm ), the results in Table 3 indicate that particle size has only a minimal effect on the macroscopic elastic constants. The modeling sequence mimics the rock genesis followed by the tunnel excavation. Two forms of strength reduction: uniform strength reduction, or activation of stress corrosion, were then applied to replicate the lower strength long-term response of the granite. The uniform strength reduction occurs by multiplying both the tensile and shear strengths of all parallel bonds by a specified factor. The activation of stress corrosion introduces a time scale into the simulations such that the time evolution of the damage-formation process can be investigated — and, in cases where all micro- tensile stresses fall below the micro-activation stress, a time to full damage stability can be determined. In this paper, the results from field-scale simulations using a uniform strength reduction factor are presented, whereas the stress-corrosion model is described elsewhere [53] and is only briefly discussed in the following sections. 4.2 PFC2D model behavior during excavation-damage studies In BPM simulations of the Mine-by Experiment, the notch-formation process is driven by either (a) monotonically increasing the far-field loading, (b) uniformly reducing the microstrengths (as shown in Figure 14, which includes the outline of the excavation, the outline of the PFC2D material, and a set of dashed circles spaced at intervals of 5R , where R is excavation radius), or (c) activating stress corrosion. The notch forms by a progressive failure process that starts at the excavation boundary in the region of maximum compression and proceeds inward. First, a small notch (group of microcracks) forms. Wing-cracks form near the notch tip and extend parallel with the current notch boundary, eventually curving toward and intersecting the boundary, forming slab- like pieces of material. These slabs do not detach fully, still being joined to the rock mass by some unbroken bonds, but do become much softer than the rock mass and, thus, shed load deeper into the rock mass. This increased load initiates additional wing cracks, which combine to extend the notch boundary. During this process, the notch is in a meta-stable state and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-102 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 14 Effect of strength-reduction factor on damage patterns in the potential damage region of the Mine-by model for PFC2D granite model with Davg = 8 mm . 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-103 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report only grows if the far-field load is increased, the microstrengths are reduced, or stress corrosion is active. The notch is meta-stable because the notch shape induces a compressive zone to form at the notch tip, which effectively strengthens the rock mass by reducing the micro-tensions that are driving the wing-crack growth. If the slabs are removed, the notch grows again to re-establish a new stable shape. This meta-stable growth process continues until the notch reaches a critical depth relative to the tunnel radius, at which time the wing-cracks do not curve back toward the notch boundary; instead, they curve away from the boundary, forming what looks like a macroscopic fracture (see Figure 14(c)). This secondary fracture is described in [39] as a “shear band” — an elongated cluster of microcracks that emanates from the apex of one or both notches and extends approximately parallel with the excavation surface. Although there is no clear evidence for, or against, the formation of a shear band in the Mine-by Experiment, such features are often observed in laboratory tests. The rupture zone that formed in both the numerical (using a simplified BPM that represents the cement using contact bonds instead of parallel bonds) and laboratory test of a rectangular prism of Berea sandstone containing a circular hole and loaded in a plane strain (biaxial) test [75] may be such a feature. Potyondy and Autio [39] offer the following hypothesis regarding this feature: It evolves from a band or “cloud” of microcracks. The formation of this band seems to be related to a punching-type failure occurring at the top and/or bottom of the [excavation], in which the applied load tries to drive an intact rectangular region of material into the unloaded region surrounding the [excavation]. (This unloaded region encompasses the notch tips and results from the presence of the notches, which are much more compliant than the surrounding rock and therefore shed load deeper into the rock away from the [excavation]). The micro-failure mode within the shear band need not be of a shearing type; many tensile microcracks may combine in an en-echelon fashion to accommodate the macroscopic shearing motion and thereby produce the shear band. 4.3 Discussion of simulation results for the Mine-by models No significant damage forms as a result of excavation in any of the BPM simulations of the Mine-by Experiment; however, application of a strength-reduction factor of 0.6 to the material with D =8 mm produces a stable breakout notch as seen in Figure 14(b). Activation of stress avg corrosion to the material with D =8 mm after excavation produces a notch that grows over time avg and does not fully stabilize before reaching the PFC2D-FLAC boundary, which occurs at a time of approximately 14 years. A notch of similar extent (but different internal damage fabric) as that produced by a uniform strength-reduction factor of 0.6 has formed after approximately two months of stress corrosion. The notch-formation process is sensitive to the strength-reduction factor, as seen in Figure 14. It is not clear what procedure should be used to calibrate the strength-reduction factor, other than comparing the final extent of any notches that form in boundary-value models of excavations. The use of a uniform strength-reduction procedure to predict excavation damage may be limited to qualitative assessments of the nature of the possible damage, and use of a properly calibrated stress- corrosion model may be required to make quantitative assessments. The stress-corrosion model was 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-104 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report calibrated to match the static-fatigue behavior of the granite [76]. The fact that similar notches form for both strength-reduction procedures supports such use of a uniform strength-reduction approach. The notch-formation process is sensitive to the particle size, as seen in Figure 15. Notches form more readily in material with smaller particles. One hypothesis to explain this behavior is that the material with smaller particles has a lower fracture toughness (as discussed below). The extent of the notch is controlled by macroscopic fracture formation in the form of the wing-cracks described above. Stress concentrations occur at the tips of these wing-cracks, giving rise to the conditions for which the principles of fracture mechanics apply, such that the material resistance to such macroscopic fracture formation is measured by the fracture toughness rather than the unconfined compressive strength. 5.0 Emergent properties of the BPM Systems composed of many simple objects commonly exhibit behavior that is much more complicated than that of the constituents [77]. The particles and contacts comprising the BPM are described by simple equations, with few parameters, but an assembly of such particles displays a rich spectrum of behaviors that closely resemble those of rock. The following behaviors are observed both in rock samples and in synthetic samples composed of bonded particles: 1. Continuously nonlinear stress-strain response, with ultimate yield, followed by softening or hardening. 2. Behavior that changes in character, according to stress state; for example, crack patterns are quite different in the tensile, unconfined-compressive and confined-compressive regimes. 3. Memory of previous stress or strain excursions, in both magnitude and direction. This behavior is commonly expressed in terms of moving yield surfaces, or evolving anisotropic damage tensors. 4. Dilatancy that depends on history, mean stress and initial state. 5. Hysteresis at all levels of cyclic loading/unloading; cyclic energy dissipation is strongly dependent on cyclic amplitude. 6. Transition from brittle to ductile shear response as the mean stress is increased. 7. Dependence of incremental stiffness on mean stress and history. 8. Induced anisotropy of stiffness and strength with stress and strain path. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-105 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 15 Effect of particle size on damage patterns in the potential damage region of the Mine-by model for PFC2D granite models with strength-reduction factors of 0.6. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-106 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9. Nonlinear envelope of strength. 10. Spontaneous appearance of microcracks and localized macrofractures. 11. Spontaneous emission of acoustic energy. It may be noted that there is no existing continuum constitutive model that reproduces all of these behaviors. Some models can reproduce selected items, but, usually, many ad hoc parameters are needed. An assembly of bonded particles exhibits all of the behaviors, using few micro-parameters (but at the expense of often quite lengthy calibration procedures). Further, continuum-based models (typically implemented via finite or boundary element techniques) have difficulty reproducing the spontaneous development of many microcracks and macrofractures. BPMs explicitly represent the evolution of damage (in terms of the density and orientation of microcracks), in contrast to continuum models, which commonly contain evolution laws that are phenomenological, and not mechanistically based. Many of the noted behaviors arise from the existence of many sites of nonlinear response, each of which may be activated at a different stress level. Thus, the memory of a previous stress level, at which unloading occurred, is encoded by a set of contacts that are either on the point of sliding or opening/closing. In either case, a change in response occurs at a particular stress level when a contact starts to slide or it opens or closes. Each such contact site contributes to the stress- dependent, nonlinear response of the entire assembly — not only in magnitude, but also in direction, because the contact activation depends critically on its orientation in relation to the direction of applied strain. Similar arguments may be made for the micromechanical bases of the other phenomena noted above. The following focus is on a single aspect of the emergent behavior of the BPM —namely, the ability to reproduce the fracturing behavior of a brittle material and its application to explain the size effect observed in Brazilian tests. 5.1 The reproduction of fracture mechanics behavior BPMs produce patterns of bond-breaks that are qualitatively similar to microcracks and extended cracks seen in real rock samples. Although bond-breaks in a particle assembly might appear conceptually different from monolithic cracks that propagate in a brittle continuum, it is possible to establish a formal equivalence between the mechanisms and parameters of the BPM and the concepts and equations of LEFM. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-107 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Consider the bonded-disk assembly shown in Figure 16, in which a “crack” (an unbonded line of contacts) is introduced into a cubic packing of unit-thickness ( t= 1) disks of radius Rjoined by contact bonds with =2.5 and subjected to an extension strain normal to the crack. Large kkn s tensile contact forces occur at contacts in front of the crack tip, as shown by the red lines. The force magnitudes conform well with those that would be induced over finite line segments in front of a crack tip in an isotropic linear elastic continuum; see Figure 17, in which the LEFM values are derived as follows. Figure 16 Force distribution and displacement field near the crack tip in a cracked cubically packed contact-bonded disk assembly. Figure 17 Normalized tensile force of LEFM and BPM at the five contacts ahead of the crack. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-108 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report For a through-thickness crack of half-width a in an infinitely wide plate of isotropic linear elastic material subjected to a remote tensile stress, sf, acting normal to the crack, the induced stress, s , n acting on the crack plane near the crack tip ( r . a ) is [78]: s =sfa n 2r (26) where r is the distance from the tip. The force, F , acting over a line segment equal to a disk n diameter ( 2R ) at a mean distance r =(2m -1) R is given by nF rR n f rR tdr ts s + - = =. 2 a 12 2 r R f rR r dr ts + - - =. (aR m - )1m - (27) where m is a positive integer denoting the disk sequence number. The tensile forces in the BPM are compared with those of LEFM in Figure 17 by plotting normalized force F % n F == m - m -1 n 2sftaR (28) versus disk sequence number. The BPM values are from a symmetric model containing 64.5 disks along the crack width and model boundaries at a distance of 3a and 2a above and in front of the crack, respectively. Having established that forces in the BPM conform well to those induced on line segments in a continuum, the next step is to examine the maximum contact force existing at m = 1, max F = 2sft aR . n (29) Noting that the mode-I stress intensity factor for the system is defined as KI =s pa , (29) can be f written as 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-109 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report max R F = 2tKI . n p (30) The true tensile strength of the BPM (i.e., the strength from a test in which no force concentrations exist) is denoted by s' . For a cubically packed BPM loaded parallel with the packing direction, t st ' =f 2Rt , where f is the contact-bond tensile strength (in force units). At the condition of n n max incipient failure, or crack extension, F =f and KI = KIc , where KIc is the mode-I fracture nn toughness. Substituting into (30), K Ic =st 'pR . (31) The fracture toughness is thus related to the properties of the BPM. Notably, because particle radius enters into the expression, particle sizes cannot be chosen arbitrarily if it is required to match fracture toughness. This is not surprising, as the concept of fracture toughness implies an internal length scale, whereby the ratio of fracture toughness to material strength has the dimension of square root of length. The particle size in the BPM supplies this internal length scale. The foregoing analysis is based on incipient failure and does not address the condition for propagation of a crack. Considering equation (29), the new induced force, F ' , following breakage nof the bond nearest the crack tip, is found by substituting the new crack length for the original crack length: max F '= 2sft (a + 2R R = F 1+ 2R a . ) n n (32) Thus, the new maximum contact force is always greater than the previous maximum and greater than the bond strength. This condition ensures that the crack will propagate in an unstable fashion. The analysis assumes that the crack is remote from other boundaries and that the far-field load remains max constant, but proximate boundaries or fixed-grip loading might cause F ' to be less than F if the nnbreaking of the critical bond leads to a force on the next bond that is less than the bond strength. In such a case, the crack would not propagate; thus, the condition for propagation is not necessarily a local one, but depends on the influence of the complete model on the contact forces near the crack tip. The derivation for fracture toughness in (31) is based on the assumption of a cubically packed contact-bonded assembly with perfectly brittle bonds. The toughness for more general cases is 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-110 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report obtained by testing a set of self-similar Center Cracked Tension specimens, as shown in the inset of Figure 18. This system is characterized by two length scales: 1 3 , a Wf= = 2 a R.= (33) where W is the specimen half-width, and . is the crack resolution. A set of self-similar specimens is generated by varying . while keeping f and particle size, R , fixed. For LEFM conditions, the applied far-field tensile stress at incipient failure, s' , is [78]: 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-111 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 18 Normalized strength of self-similar numerical specimens. . 24 s'= KIc a-12, C ()=.sec . .pf. . . . 12 .. 1-0.025 f+0.06f.. . f f p ..2 .. C () (34) This equation is normalized by dividing by the true tensile strength and setting a =.2R to obtain s' . KIc . . .-12 . (35) =. . t 'C () 2pR . st ' .s f . For each specimen, s' is measured and normalized strength versus crack resolution is plotted in log- log space. If the slope equals minus one-half, then LEFM conditions apply, and b 2 .' K Ic =.10 C () .f .spR t (36) where b is the y-intercept. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-112 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The results of a set of self-similar tests on the cubically packed contact-bonded material with brittle bonds and bonds that have softening slopes one-fifth and one-tenth of the loading slope are shown in Figure 18. Results similar to those for the softening slope of 10k were obtained for an arbitrarily packed contact-bonded assembly with brittle bonds assigned both uniform and normally distributed strengths. These results support the postulate that ' K Ic =spaR (contact-bonded material) t (37) where a=1 is a non-dimensional factor that increases with packing irregularity, strength heterogeneity and bond ductility. The value of aR represents the apparent internal length scale of the BPM. The a values are obtained from the y-intercepts of the tests by comparing Equations (36) and (37) to obtain ( 2 2 a= . . KIc . . = 210bC (1 3)) . .spR . ' t (38) For the cubically packed contact-bonded material with brittle bonds, softening slope 5k and softening slope 10k , using the last five data points, the slopes are –0.47, and the y-intercepts are –0.1590, -0.0980 and -0.0034, giving a values of 1.11, 1.46 and 2.26, respectively. Therefore, the effect of decreasing the softening slope is to increase the apparent internal length scale of the material, making it possible to match a given KIc for several different particle sizes. The asymptotic slope of all curves (at large crack resolutions) approaches minus one-half, but they are shifted to the right for increasing ductility. This is consistent with an increase in apparent length scale. The expression for fracture toughness in (37) only applies to a contact-bonded material. The results of a set of self-similar tests on the cubically packed parallel-bonded material (with .= 1, skkn =2.5 and s' =.s ) are also shown in Figure 18. The parallel-bonded material is weaker tc than the contact-bonded material for the same true tensile strength, because a non-zero bending moment, Ms , develops at the crack tip and increases the maximum tensile stress acting on the bond periphery (see Equation (16)). This leads us to postulate that ' K Ic = ßs paR (parallel-bonded material) t (39) where a=1 is a non-dimensional factor that increases with packing irregularity, strength heterogeneity and bond ductility, and ß<1 is a non-dimensional factor that accounts for the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-113 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report weakening effect of the bending moment. For the results shown in Figure 18, a= 1, and ß is obtained from the y-intercept of the tests (-0.3623) by comparing Equations (36) and (39) to obtain b ß= KIc = 10 C (1 3 ) 2 = 10 -0.3623 C (1 3 ) 2 = 0.66 . spR ' t (40) Figure 18 also provides evidence for a size effect whereby the behavior becomes plastic (strength independent of crack resolution) at small crack resolutions and brittle (conforming to LEFM with a slope of minus one-half) at large crack resolutions. This behavior, in terms of specimen size, is reported extensively for laboratory tests [79]. In the present analysis, increasing crack resolution corresponds with increasing specimen size. The BPM has been shown to be equivalent to a material described by LEFM in terms of observable behavior and mathematical description. However, the results cast fracture mechanics in a new light. The singularities discussed extensively in the literature of fracture mechanics simply do not arise in a discontinuous medium. Therefore, there is no need to propose devices, such as a process zone or tip plasticity, to eliminate the crack-tip singularity. The analysis of the initiation and stability of a crack in a BPM may be done in terms of forces, not global energy balance, as commonly done for fractures in a continuum [80,81]. Finally, the BPM shows naturally how size effect arises, in terms of the ratio between specimen size and particle size. A discontinuum interpretation of fracture mechanics has been given previously, notably by Eringen [82], who derives an equation almost identical to (31) and remarks: “No poorly known constant such as surface energy appears. . .” (in reference to the existence of surface energy in the Griffith criterion). An extensive comparison between BPMs and the results of fracture mechanics is given in [83]. 5.2 Relating Brazilian strength to fracture toughness During Brazilian tests on BPMs, a wedge-shaped region of cracks forms inside of the specimen below each platen. Then, at peak load, one of the wedges initiates a single macrofracture that travels across the specimen parallel with the direction of loading. The macrofracture is comprised of tensile microcracks and is driven by extensile deformation across the crack path similar to an LEFM mode-I crack as shown in Figure 19. The conditions at peak load can be idealized as shown in Figure 20, where the wedge-shaped damage regions are replaced by edge cracks of length a . If the two cracks are not interacting ( D - 2a > a ), then the mode-I stress-intensity factor at each crack tip is KI as. (41) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-114 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report where s is the tensile stress acting across the uncracked ligament. At peak load, KI =KIc , s=s t and a .0.2D (observed for all particle sizes of the granite models), which can be substituted into (41) to give K Ic s t . D (42) where D is the diameter of the Brazilian disk. The form of (42) is the same as the empirical relation between fracture toughness and tensile strength of s=6.88 KIc suggested by Zhang [84]. Equation t (42) suggests that the Brazilian strength should increase as specimen size decreases, and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-115 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Figure 19 Damage in Brazilian specimen just past peak load (148 cracks, tensile/shear = 125/23). Figure 20 Idealized conditions in Brazilian specimen at peak load showing two cracks subjected to tensile loading across the uncracked ligament. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-116 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report this trend is exhibited by Lac du Bonnet granite, for which the Brazilian strength is about 10 MPa for specimens greater than 50-mm diameter and increases to about 15 MPa for specimens smaller than 50-mm diameter [55]. The analysis leading to (39) supports the postulate that K Ic .s c R (43) where s =t is the mean parallel-bond strength with .= 1, and R is the mean particle radius. cc Combining (42) and (43) yields R s t .s (44) c D which suggests that the Brazilian strength is affected by the ratio of particle size to Brazilian disk diameter. If model resolution, . , is defined as the average number of particles across the Brazilian disk ( .= DR2), then models with constant . will have the same Brazilian strength. For example, if all other microproperties are kept fixed, then the same Brazilian strength will be measured by either doubling the size of the Brazilian disk for a fixed particle size, or halving the particle size for a fixed Brazilian disk size. The BPM for granite exhibits such dual-model similarity as shown in Figure 21. Figure 21 Dual-model similarity: If all microproperties are kept fixed, then the exact same six short-term macroproperties in Table 3 are measured for both models B and C. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-117 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The test results in Table 3 indicate that the Brazilian strength decreases as particle size decreases. The same trend is suggested by (44). The test results are compared with (44) by plotting (ssc ) t versus ( R D ) on a log-log scale. The test data are well-fit by a straight line with slope of approximately 0.3, whereas (44) suggests a slope of one-half. The slope will only be one-half if LEFM conditions apply, but such conditions do not apply here because (1) the microcracks at peak load do not form sharp macrofractures, and (2) the crack resolution ( .= aR2 . 0.2 D 2R ) is relatively small ranging from 2.2 to 17.6. Equation (44) can be expressed as -1 2 st .. s c (45) and the test data compared with Figure 18 to see that the test data lies in the range of . for which the slope is less than minus one-half (indicating a size effect whereby the behavior is more plastic than brittle) for the two reasons cited above. 6.0 Conclusions The BPM approximates the mechanical behavior of rock by representing it as a cemented granular material. The model has been used to predict damage formation adjacent to excavations in Lac du Bonnet granite. The damage-producing mechanisms activated in rock loaded in compression are complex and not understood fully. There is a complex interplay occurring between the macro-scale compression and the induced micro-scale tensions, which drives the damage processes. This interplay produces nonlinear, anisotropic elastic behavior under low loads before any significant damage forms, and it subsequently controls the damage that results under higher loads. In addition, it contributes to the long-term strength degradation processes, such as stress corrosion, that are activated by the increased stresses adjacent to an excavation but which appear to be inactive (at least on engineering time scales) under in situ conditions. Particle size controls model resolution but is not a free parameter; instead, particle size is related directly to the material fracture toughness. When modeling damage processes for which macroscopic fractures form, the particle size and model properties should be chosen to match the material fracture toughness as well as the unconfined compressive strength. Such processes occur at the boundary of an excavation and contribute to the formation of breakout notches. This poses a severe limitation on the size of a region that can be represented with a BPM, because the present microproperty characterization is such that the particle size must be chosen to be of the same order as the grain size. The BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite, as presented here, has the following limitations. The material strength matches that of Lac du Bonnet granite only for stresses near the uniaxial state — i.e., the tensile strength is too high, and the slope of the strength envelope as a function of confining stress is too low. However, there is evidence to support the postulate that including complex-shaped, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-118 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report breakable grains of a size comparable to that of the rock will remove this limitation. Also, computations are time-consuming and are limited to small volumes of rock, unless the BPM is embedded within a larger continuum model. Despite the limitations noted above, BPMs have a number of advantages when compared with conventional continuum approaches. Damage and its evolution are represented explicitly in the BPM as broken bonds; no empirical relations are needed to define damage or to quantify its effect on material behavior. Localized microcracks form and coalesce into macroscopic fractures without the need for re-meshing or grid reformulation. Complex nonlinear behaviors arise as emergent features, given simple behavior at the particle level; thus, there is no need to develop constitutive laws to represent these effects. BPMs provide a rational means of incorporating additional physical processes that occur at the grain scale, such as fluid flow [85], stress corrosion [53] and thermal loading [86]. In addition, secondary phenomena, such as acoustic emission, occur in the BPM without additional assumptions. In principle, the BPM is capable of representing all of the significant physical behavior mechanisms in rock. The BPM is complete in the sense of Linkov [87], who describes a hypothetical model that encompasses all aspects in a causal chain of events that occur in a geomechanical medium. The links in his chain of processes are elastic distortion, creep deformation, dynamic instability, bifurcation and localization and transient equilibrium. Linkov emphasizes that a model embracing all of these features would be able to produce synthetic seismograms during a simulation [88], for example, of underground construction. The BPM provides such a complete model and reproduces qualitatively all of the mechanical mechanisms and phenomena that occur in rock, although adjustments and modifications may be necessary to obtain quantitative matches in particular cases. Ongoing work [64] is addressing three-dimensional modeling of excavation damage. There are two thrusts to this work. The first addresses computational limitations inherent in performing such simulations. A scheme called AC/DC (Adaptive Continuum/DisContinuum) is being developed that replaces elastic regions (remote from cracks) by a continuum formulation, represented by a linear matrix, thus achieving economies in computation time. The switch between continuum and discontinuum is done automatically, such that a BPM is in place in time for cracking to occur. The second thrust focuses on rock physics and aims to develop a quantitative link between passive monitoring (of AE/MS events and velocity surveys) and rock mass damage by developing a BPM that can reproduce the evolution of the stress- and damage-induced modulus anisotropy in the rock. If it can be shown that such a BPM exhibits the same modulus anisotropy as the rock, then it is likely that the damage in such a BPM is similar to the damage in the rock. Also, the relations between BPM properties and fracture toughness are being explored to determine if one can develop a BPM material with a fracture toughness that is independent of particle size. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-119 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Acknowledgements Much of the development of the bonded-particle model has been funded by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Power Generation during the years 1995–2001 as part of its Thermal-Mechanical Stability Study, with a goal of producing a mechanistically based numerical model that can predict excavation-induced rock-mass damage and long-term strength of Lac du Bonnet granite. We also thank Fabian Dedecker (Itasca Consultants S.A.) for performing the triaxial and Brazilian tests on the PFC3D material as part of a project co-funded by the European Commission and performed as part of the fifth EURATOM framework program, Nuclear Fission (1998–2002). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-120 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 7.0 Appendices All vector and tensor quantities are expressed using indicial notation with respect to a fixed right- handed rectangular Cartesian coordinate system: the position vector is denoted by xi, and the stress tensor is denoted by sij. The Einstein summation convention is employed; thus, the repetition of an index in a term denotes a summation with respect to that index over its range. For example, the traction vector ti, acting in the direction ni, is given by ti =sijn j =sn +si 2n2 +sn3 . Vertical i11 i 3 braces denote the magnitude of a vector or the absolute value of a scalar. The notation ..denotes .. ,i differentiation with respect to the coordinate xi, and a dot over a variable indicates a derivative with respect to time (e.g., x&=..i xit ). The Kronecker delta, dij, and the permutation symbol, eijk , are employed. 7.1 Stress-measurement procedure The average stress, sij, in a volume, V , of material is defined by 1 s ij=sij dV . VV (46) where sij is the stress acting throughout the volume. For a particulate material, stresses exist only in the particles; thus, the integral can be replaced by a sum over the Np particles contained within V as pp s ij = 1 .s() V () V Np ij (47) () p where sij is the average stress in particle ( p) . In the same way, the average stress in a particle () can be written using (46) as p p p = () dV ( p ) . s ij () V 1() V . () sij p p (48) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-121 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The identity S ij =dSkj =xi kSkj =(xSkj ),k -xSkj k ik , ii , (49) holds for any tensor Sij. Applying this identity to the stress in a particle, one can write p () () . () p pp s () = V 1() V . () .. (xskj ),k -xiskj ,k .dV . ijp i p (50) The stress in each particle is assumed to be continuous and in equilibrium. In the absence of body forces, the equilibrium condition is s , =0 . The volume integral in (50) is rewritten as a surface ij i integral by applying the Gauss divergence theorem to the first term and noting that the second term vanishes in the absence of body forces such that p ( p ) p ()dS () pp s () = V 1() S . () (xs)ndS () = 1() . x tj ij ppikjk VpS () i p (51) p S p where () is the particle surface, nk is the unit outward normal to the surface, and tj () is the traction vector. If the moment carried by each parallel bond is neglected, then each particle is loaded by point forces acting at discrete contact locations, and the above integral can be replaced by a sum over the N contacts as c s ij ( p ) =- 1 () () cc () .xi Fj p V Nc (52) cc c where xi() is the location, and Fj () is the force acting at contact (c). Fj () includes both Fi and Fi from Equations (4) and (13), and the negative sign is introduced to ensure that compressive/tensile forces produce negative/positive stresses. The contact location can be expressed as 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-122 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report c + xi () = xi ( p ) c ( p ) , ni ( c p ) xi () - xi (53) p (, where xi() is the location of the particle centroid, and nicp ) is the unit-normal vector directed from the particle centroid to the contact location. By substituting (53) into (52) and noting that c .Fj () = 0 Nc (54) for a particle in equilibrium, one obtains p p x i ( c) - xi () , n i (c p ) Fj ( c) . s ij () =- 1 p V Nc () . (55) An expression for the average stress in a volume, V , is obtained by substituting (55) into (47); however, definition of the volume in the resulting expression is problematic because of the particles that intersect the measurement region. The problem is overcome by noting that, in a statistically () (1 - n ) , such that uniform assembly, the volume associated with each particle is Vp () Vp V = 1 - n (56) where n is the porosity of the region. The average stress in a measurement region is found by combining Equations (47), (55) and (56) to yield .. . 1 - n . c ( p ) , n i ( c p ) Fj ( c ) s ij=-..V () ... x i () - xi p Np Nc .. N . p . (57) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-123 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report where the summations are taken over the N particles with centroids contained within the p measurement region and the N contacts of these particles, n is the porosity within the c ()pc measurement region, Vp is the volume of particle ( p), xi() and xi() are the locations of a particle (, centroid and its contact, respectively, nicp ) is the unit-normal vector directed from a particle c centroid to its contact location, and Fj () is the force acting at contact (c) , which includes both Fi and Fi from Equations (4) and (13) but neglects the parallel-bond moment. 7.2 Strain-rate measurement procedure The procedure employed to measure local strain rate within a particle assembly differs from that used to measure local stress. In determining local stress, the average stress within a volume of material is expressed directly in terms of the discrete contact forces, as the forces in the voids are zero. It is not correct, however, to use the velocities in a similar way to express the average strain rate, as the velocities in the voids are non-zero. Instead of assuming a form for the velocity field in the voids, a velocity-gradient tensor, based on a best-fit procedure that minimizes the error between the predicted and measured velocities of all particles with centroids contained within the measurement region, is computed. The strain-rate tensor is the symmetric portion of the velocity- gradient tensor. Before describing the least-squares procedure, the relation between the strain and strain rate will be reviewed, and the corresponding terms defined. The relation between the displacements ui at two neighboring points is given by the displacement gradient tensor, aij. Let points P and P' be located instantaneously at xi and xi + dxi , respectively. The difference in displacement between these two points is dui = ui, jdxj =aijdx j . (58) The displacement-gradient tensor can be decomposed into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric tensor as 1 a ij = eij -.ij , where eij = 2 (ui, j + uj ,i ) , infinitesimal-strain tensor, and 1 . ij = 2 (uji - ui, j ) , rotation tensor. , (59) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-124 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In a similar fashion, the relation between velocities vi at two neighboring points is given by the & ivelocity-gradient tensor, aij. (The velocity field is related to the displacement field by ui = v dt , in which vi is the velocity, and dt is an infinitesimal interval of time.) Let points P and P' be located instantaneously at xi and xi + dxi , respectively. The difference in velocity between these two points is dvi = vi, jdxj =a dxj . & ij (60) The velocity-gradient tensor can be decomposed into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric tensor as a= e&ij -. , where e&ij = 2 (vi, j + vj ,i ) , strain-rate tensor, and & ij &ij 1 & 1 . ij = 2 (vji - vi , j ) , spin tensor. , (61) & a ij is computed using the following least-squares procedure. The velocity-gradient tensor computed () p over a measurement region represents the best fit to the Np -measured relative velocity values V% iof the particles with centroids contained within the measurement region. The mean velocity and position of the Np particles is given by () () p i .Vp . xi Vi = Np and xi = Np NN pp (62) pp where Vi() and xi() are the translational velocity and centroid location, respectively, of particle (). The measured relative velocity values are given by p pp V% () = Vi () - Vi . i (63) p & For a given aij, the predicted relative velocity values v%i() can be written, using (60), as 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-125 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report p &() =a v%i () p ( p ) =aij x%j &ij (xj -xj ). (64) A measure of the error in these predicted values is given by 2 p v%i ( p ) -V% i () pp ( p ) -Vi () p () ) % z =. =.(v%i %)(v%i () -Vi N N pp (65) where z is the sum of the squares of the deviations between predicted and measured velocities. The condition for minimum z is that .z =0. a . &ij (66) Substituting (64) into (65) and differentiating, the following set of nine equations is obtained: pp pp p () p () p % i %1 . . () p %%() %%() .. () () . %% () 2 ..xx1 .xx1 .xx1 . ..Vx & 13 i1 . .Np Np Np ..a .Np . () () p .xx2 p .&i 2 .=..V% i () %() . p 1 pp 2 p 3() () . ..a . . px2 p .. %%() %%() %% . ..xx2 .xx2 Np Np ..Np . ..a . .Np () p %%() .xx3() . &i3 . ..%() %() . pp p () p () p pp ..xx3 .xx3 %% . Vx3 . 1 .Np %%() Np 2 Np 3 .. .Ni . . p (67) These nine equations are solved by performing a single LU-decomposition upon the 33 coefficient × matrix and performing three back-substitutions for the three different right-hand sides obtained by setting i =1 , 2 and then 3. In this way, all nine components of the velocity-gradient tensor are obtained. (For the PFC2D model, four equations are used to obtain the four non-zero values of the velocity-gradient tensor.) 7.3 Stress-installation procedure The stress-installation procedure installs a general state of uniform stress (i.e., stress that does not vary with position) within an arbitrarily shaped particle ensemble. The intended use is to initialize internal stresses — not to apply stress boundary conditions. The procedure is based upon the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-126 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report following relations. The displacement-gradient tensor, aij, can be decomposed into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric tensor [89] as a= . . xuij =ui, j =eij -.ij ij 1 = 2 (uij +u )-1 (uj,i -ui, j ) , j,i 2 (68) where eij is the infinitesimal-strain tensor, and .ij is the rotation tensor. The velocity-gradient tensor, a &ij, relates the velocities vi =u&i at two neighboring points. Let the points P and P'be located instantaneously at xi and xi +dxi , respectively. The difference in velocity between these two points is dvi = . . xvij dx j =vi, jdxj =adxj . & ij (69) The velocity at an arbitrary point xj (expressed as vxj )) is found by integrating (69) with respect to position. Let xj be a fixed reference position, then i ( xjxj xj adxj = .(eij -.)dx .dvi =.&ij ijj ..t xjxj xj xj () -= e dxj i vxj vi .&ij xj (70) where a condition of no rotation has been enforced by setting .ij=0 in (68). If the time derivative of the strain tensor is approximated by 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-127 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report e&ij . .eij Nt . (71) where .eij is a strain increment applied over N timesteps, each of size .t, then the velocity field can be written as vxj () =+ ..e . ij .. (xj - xj ) i vi . . Nt . (72) by assuming that the strain field does not vary with position. (If the strain field did vary with position, one could express the variation explicitly before performing the integration and thus obtain a final expression for the velocity that would depend upon the parameters used to characterize the strain-field variation.) The stress-installation procedure utilizes an iterative approach whereby a set of boundary (and possibly also interior) particles is moved, then the boundary particles are fixed, the interior particles are freed and static-equilibrium conditions are allowed to develop. During each iteration, the applied particle displacements are computed from the strain increment that is related by linear elasticity to the stress increment needed to reach the target stress. The iterations continue until the target stress is obtained. The stress field is measured by averaging the stresses within a set of measurement regions that cover the ensemble. The stress increment is defined as the difference between the target stress and the current stress: t .sij =sij -sij (73) and the corresponding strain increment is found by assuming isotropic, elastic behavior: .1+. . . e ij .sd . .=. ..sij - E aa ij . E . (74) The applied particle velocities are given by (72), where xj and vi are chosen as the initial position and velocity of the ensemble centroid, respectively. Good performance is achieved by setting .= 0, 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-128 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report N =10 and E = 2E , where E is an estimate of the ensemble modulus. (Note that when E is oogreater than the true ensemble modulus, the strain required to reach the target stress will be underestimated; thus, the stresses will converge to the target stress from below in a smooth fashion. If E is too small, the stresses at the end of each iteration will overshoot the target stress; the stresses will then oscillate about the target stress and not converge.) A stress field can also be installed within an ensemble containing holes by including the hole boundaries in the set of boundary particles. For such a system, the installed stress field will not sense the presence of the holes. Such a scheme has been used to model a tunnel excavation without having to include particles within the tunnel itself. After installing the desired stress field, the tunnel boundary particles are freed to allow stress redistribution to occur as the tunnel is now sensed by the system. During the procedure, displacements can be applied to designated boundary particles or to all particles. For cases in which the material remains primarily elastic, applying displacements to all particles will: (1) speed convergence (as it will not be necessary to allow the entire system to respond to boundary displacements in order to reach final equilibrium; instead, the entire system is made to correspond with the required strain field instantaneously during each iteration); and (2) produce a stress field that is nearly uniform throughout the ensemble. Such would not be the case if either the boundary particles alone or a set of confining walls were moved, because then nonuniform force chains would develop throughout the ensemble, producing a locally non-uniform stress field — for compressive conditions, a compressive cage that shields the internal region from the full compressive stresses often forms. Note, however, that for cases in which localized failure occurs, the strain field is locally non-uniform. Thus, for such cases, it may be more appropriate to move only the boundary particles. 7.4 Ball-generation procedure A procedure is described to generate a collection of particles of a given uniform size distribution with radii in the range [R , Rmax ] that fill a given area, A , or volume, V , at a given porosity, n . min The basic algorithm is presented first. It makes use of two relations that are derived at the end of this section. The number of particles, N , that satisfies the above constraints is given by . A(1 - n) ,PFC2D 2 max N = .. . pR with R = Rmin + R . V .3(1 - n) ,PFC3D 2 .3 . 4pR (75) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-129 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report These particles are chosen from a uniform size distribution with radii in the range 1 [R , Rmax ] and 2 min placed randomly within the specified region such that they do not overlap one another or the region boundary. The particles are generated at half their target sizes to ensure that the no-overlap criterion can be satisfied. Next, the porosity of the generated assembly, n , is computed, and the radii of all o particles are multiplied by the factor 1 .1-n .. .2, PFC2D m =. . ,where.=. . .1-no ..3, PFC3D (76) The radius multiplier must be computed (i.e., it will not equal 2) because (75) is an approximation. Equation (76) is derived as follows. The porosity, n , of a collection of particles contained within an area, A , or volume, V , is defined as .AAp - .,PFC2D . A n =. .VVp - .,PFC3D . V (77) where A and V are the total area and volume, respectively, of all particles given by pp 2 Ap =.pR 3 4 pR p V =.3 (78) where . is over all particle radii, R . By combining (77) and (78), one can write 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-130 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report .R2 = A(1 -n) p .R =3(1 -n) 3 V . 4p (79) Denoting the old porosity and radii by n and R , the new porosity and radii by n and R , and using oo (79), one can write . 1-n .R = 1-n .R.. oo (80) If the same radius multiplier, m , is used for all particles, then R =mR , which can be substituted o into (80) to obtain (76). Thus, given a collection of particles of porosity, n , within an area, A , or o volume, V , (76) is an exact expression of the radius multiplier for all particles necessary to obtain a porosity, n . Equation (75) arises from the approximation that .R. of a uniform distribution is equal to .R. of a collection of same-size particles of size R . This approximation can be expressed as .R.=.R.=NR. (81) which can be substituted into (79) to obtain (75). 7.5 Isotropic stress installation procedure The isotropic stress, s, of a particle assembly is defined as the average of the direct stresses o .2, PFC2D s = skk ,where.=. . o ..3, PFC3D (82) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-131 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report s In the scheme described here, the radii of all particles are scaled iteratively to modify the isotropic stress of the assembly. Combining (55) and (47), an expression is obtained for the average stress, ij, in a volume, V, of material: 1 (, ni , cp)( cp ) Fj ( c) s ij =- ..R% VNp Nc (83) (, cp) xi ( c) -xi ( p) % where R = . The isotropic stress can then be evaluated by (, ( cp) Fnc ) s = skk =- 1 ..R% o ..VNp Nc (84) nc where F() is the normal component of the force acting at contact (c) . If the radii of all particles is scaled by the same factor, a, such that the change in radius is p ( p) .R() =aR (85) and it is assumed that all particles remain fixed, then the change in the normal component of force acting at each contact will be A nc () f() =... R() +R( B), particle-particle contact nc ()fc , c .F() =aK . p .R(), particle-wall contact (86) nc c where K() and f() are the normal stiffness and particle radii, respectively, at contact (c). Substituting in the incremental form of (84) gives cp) Knc)(c) .s =- a..R% (, ( f . o .VNp Nc (87) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-132 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Rearranging this expression gives .V.s o a=- cp) Knc )(c). (, ( f ..R% Np N (88) Ideally, this formula enables one to determine the change in radii that will produce a given change in isotropic stress. However, some particle rearrangement occurs when the radii are changed, so formula (88) is applied several times, until the measured isotropic stress is within some tolerance of the target isotropic stress. 7.6 Floater-elimination procedure When a particle assembly is compacted, even under the condition of zero friction, typically 10% to 15% of the particles are found to have no contacts. These particles are termed “floaters,” because they are detached from the material matrix and appear to be floating in space. In physical specimens of an unbonded, granular material, such as sand, floaters are believed to exist, and it is reasonable, therefore, to accept their presence in a numerical specimen. However, if a particle model is used to represent a solid material, such as rock, each floater is equivalent to a void in the material. The effect of such voids on material response can be minimized by adjusting microproperties to obtain correct ensemble properties — nevertheless, the voids introduce a pattern of inhomogeneity that has no physical counterpart. The effect of this inhomogeneity is unknown and may be small. To be safe, steps can be taken to eliminate its source; an algorithm to eliminate floaters is described here. It may be argued that a “solid” consisting of bonded circular or spherical particles, even with no floaters, contains many voids. However, in a dense assembly, these voids are inaccessible during deformation, because they are too small to allow particles to move into them. In this sense, they are invisible as far as potential mechanisms are concerned. The starting point for the algorithm is a stable, compacted assembly with no bonds in which all contacts carry similar levels of force (i.e., the force distribution is fairly uniform). Further, the average stress level is low compared to the final stress level to be carried by the material. The algorithm expands and moves floaters until every particle has the specified minimum number of contacts. The key to success (i.e., elimination of all floaters) is the recognition that it is not necessary to enforce local equilibrium. If the assembly were destined to become an unbonded granular medium, then equilibrium of the final state would be required (and floater elimination made more difficult). However, a bonded material always carries locked-in forces of magnitudes that are related to the levels of contact forces existing at the instant of bonding. These locked-in forces typically are made low compared to the forces carried by the material in its operating range. Extra forces of low magnitude (e.g., one-tenth of pre-bonding contact forces) introduced by the floater- elimination algorithm add little to the existing “noise” of locked-in forces, even though the forces are not in local equilibrium. After bonding, equilibrium is again established, with final forces at levels comparable to their pre-bonding levels. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-133 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report In summary, the algorithm is described as follows. All particles except floaters are fixed and given zero velocities. Floaters are then expanded by a large amount (30%), sufficient to ensure contact with all of their immediate neighbors. After being cycled to local equilibrium, the floaters are contracted by an amount (see (94)) that is calculated to reduce their mean contact normal force below a target force (one-tenth of the mean contact normal force for the assembly). If the mean contact normal force for a particle is below the target force, then it is declared “inactive” and is not contracted further at this stage. The contraction step is applied repeatedly until all floaters become inactive. After executing this iteration, the number of active floaters is reduced considerably. The complete procedure is repeated several times until all floaters have been removed. The algorithm works well, because the adjustments to floater radii (and positions, through the law of motion) are done for small groups within a “cage” of fixed particles. As mentioned, it is only necessary to establish equilibrium within this trapped group. Then, as floaters themselves become part of the cage, the scheme becomes increasingly more efficient as the number of particles in each floater group decreases. The following parameters control the algorithm: Nf (minimum number of contacts to be a non- floater, set to 3 in our granite models); M (initial radius multiplier, set to 1.3); f (target fraction rm of F , set to 0.1); F (relaxation factor, set to 1.5); and H (hysteresis factor, set to 0.9). The arfollowing variables are used in the algorithm: aF (mean contact normal force for entire assembly); F (mean contact normal force for single particlek (particle normal ); R (particle radius); and pn stiffness). The algorithm is defined by the following pseudo-code. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-134 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Perform this outer loop up to 10 times. Get current mean contact normal force for the assembly,F. a Scan all particles to identify floaters: a floater is a particle with less than Nf contacts. If no floaters, then EXIT outer loop. Fix all non-floaters. For all floaters: - expand byMr, - set friction to zero. Cycle 200 steps to get floater groups to equilibrium. Perform this inner loop up to 100 times. Define "active" floaters. An active floater is a particle with more than one contact and mean contact normal force greater than fF. ma If no active floaters, then EXIT inner loop. Shrink each active floater according to the formula: R:=- r( R F F - HFm) k. pa n Cycle 100 steps to obtain approximate equilibrium. End of inner loop. End of outer loop. In order to speed up the algorithm, contact calculations are inhibited whenever the two particles comprising any contact are fixed. The inhibit flags are removed upon exit from the algorithm. For a large assembly, it is found that one or two floaters may be positioned almost exactly between two non-floaters such that the two contact directions are nearly coaxial. The algorithm cannot establish more than two contacts in this case. To allow convergence, the parameter N is reduced by one if f the same number of overall floaters is observed between iterations of the outer loop. The objective of the shrinkage procedure is to reduce the mean contact normal force on a particle below some target force, Ftarget = Ff , by setting am RF F - HFm) k . R.- r( pa n (89) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-135 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report This expression is now derived. The mean normal force on a single particle is given by () 1 nc N Fp =.F c Nc (90) nc where F() is the normal component of the force acting at contact (c) . The normal force at each contact is changed by the following amount, if the radius is changed by .R, assuming that particles remain fixed during the radius change: n . .F = 1 k R 2 n (91) where k is the particle normal stiffness. Thus, the new mean normal force, Fp' , is n nc n F'= 1 .( F() + . F ) . N p c Nc (92) Then, for the new mean normal force to be below the target normal force, set Fp'= HFtarget , where His a factor less than unity. Thus, ( ( nn. 1 nc ) HF target = 1 .( Fnc) + . F )= kR+. F 2 Nc Nc N c Nc (93) and .= - 2 ( F- HFm) k . R pa n (94) This expression is identical to (89), except that F replaces the factor of two. It is found that setting r F equal to 1.5 gives smoother convergence, because the radii of several neighboring particles are r 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-136 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report likely to be adjusted simultaneously. A value of F less than 2 provides some damping in the r algorithm, preventing excessive oscillation and possibly instability. A value of H =0.9 also prevents “noise,” caused when particles satisfy the force criterion by only a small margin (thus possibly requiring multiple adjustments). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-137 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 7.7 Biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian testing procedures The macroscopic properties of the model material are obtained by performing biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests, in which each specimen is confined and loaded by pairs of opposing frictionless walls. These are the walls of the material vessel used during material genesis. For the biaxial and triaxial tests, the top and bottom walls act as loading platens, and the velocities of the lateral walls are controlled by a servo-mechanism that maintains a specified confining stress. Strictly speaking, the biaxial and triaxial tests simulate a polyaxial loading test — not a triaxial test, in which a specimen is encased in a membrane and confined by fluid pressure. Such a triaxial test could be simulated by replacing the side walls with a sheet of particles joined by parallel bonds to mimic the elastic membrane. The current biaxial and triaxial tests inhibit specimen bulging, whereby the specimen sides deform into a barrel shape, because the side walls remain straight. Such bulging should be minimal for granite, but may be important for softer rocks or cohesive soils. The lateral wall normal stiffnesses are set equal to a fraction (0.001–0.02 in PFC2D and 0.001–0.10 in PFC3D for confinements of 0.1–70 MPa) of the average particle normal stiffness to simulate a soft confinement. For the Brazilian test, the specimen is trimmed into a circular (in PFC2D) and cylindrical (in PFC3D) shape that is in contact with the lateral walls, and the lateral walls act as loading platens. For all tests, the loading-platen normal stiffnesses are set equal to the average particle normal stiffness. The tests are run under displacement control such that the platens move toward one another at a constant rate. Hazzard et al. [49] ran similar tests with a servo-control to move the platens, so as to maintain a constant cracking rate, and observed a snap-back in the stress- strain response. Platen velocities of 0.05 m/s are chosen to ensure quasi-static test conditions, which are confirmed by demonstrating that reducing the platen velocities does not alter the measured macroproperties. The advantage of using the material-vessel walls to perform these tests is that the boundary particle alignment produces a rather uniform force transmission from the walls to the specimen — i.e., there are no particles protruding from the specimen and producing localized loading. However, the boundary particles tend to be aligned with these walls (see Figure 5(d)) and, thus, are not fully representative of the internal microstructure. The model material mimics a sandstone created by first filling a vessel with sand, compacting the sand, and then cementing the sand at grain-grain contacts. A rock specimen that has been cored and polished is also not fully representative of the internal microstructure, but for a different reason — namely, there is grain-scale damage at the specimen boundaries. Both of these specimen-creation processes will affect measured properties, but if the grains in the real rock and the particles in the modeled rock are small relative to the specimen dimensions, then these effects should be minimal. A more representative measure of the internal microstructural properties of the model material can be obtained by removing all particles outside of a nominal core region, identifying a set of boundary particles and specifying their motion while monitoring stress and strain within the core using a stress-installation procedure. Such measures are used to measure the evolving properties within selected regions of the model surrounding an excavation. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-138 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Stresses and strains are computed using the specimen dimensions at the start of the test. Stresses are computed by dividing the average of the total force acting on opposing walls by the area of the corresponding specimen cross section. Stresses in the PFC2D models are computed assuming that each particle is a disk of unit thickness. Strains are computed by monitoring the motion of pairs of gauge particles that lie along the global coordinate axes at the centers of the specimen faces. (For both PFC2D and PFC3D models, the specimen axis is parallel with the global y-axis.) Computing strains via gauge particles removes the error introduced by particle-wall overlap when using the distances between opposing walls to compute strain. The elastic constants are computed using the stress and strain increments occurring between the start of the test and the point at which one-half of the peak stress has been obtained. For the PFC3D material, the Young’s modulus is computed by .s y E = (PFC3D material) .e y (95) and the Poisson’s ratio is computed by e .e 1 (.+ ez ) 1 . . 1 - .e . xx .=- =- 2 = v . (PFC3D material) .e .e 2 . .ey . yy (96) where the average of the two lateral strains is used to approximate the lateral strain, and volumetric estrain .= e+ e+ e . These relations are valid for constant lateral stress during the test. v xyz For the PFC2D material, first the Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus corresponding with a state of plane stress are computed as x .'=- .e (PFC2D material, plane stress) .e y .s y E'= . .e y (97) Equation (97) is valid for the case of plane stress (s =0) and constant lateral stress (.s= 0) zx during the stress and strain increments. Then, the elastic constants corresponding with a state of plane strain are obtained via 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-139 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report .' .= (PFC2D material, plane strain) 1+.' 2 EE'(1-. ) . = (98) Equation (98) is the general relation between plane-stress and plane-strain conditions [90]. When calibrating the PFC2D model, E and . (not E' and .' ) are compared with the elastic constants measured during triaxial tests on real rock specimens. Recall that the PFC2D model behaves as an assembly of unit-thickness disks. The conditions are neither plane strain nor plane stress, because the corresponding stress-strain constitutive relations are not employed — i.e., the out- of-plane forces and displacements do not enter into the force-displacement law. Therefore, the elastic constants of the PFC2D model are measured by interpreting the force-displacement response. For the same PFC2D model, one force-displacement response is measured, but two sets of elastic constants, corresponding with plane-stress and plane-strain conditions, are computed. If a region of a 2D isotropic elastic continuum were extracted and replaced with this model material, and the corresponding set of elastic constants were assigned to the remaining continuum, then the deformation state of the model material would match that of the continuum — i.e., there would be full displacement compatibility along the extraction boundary. This procedure is used in the construction of boundary-value models of excavation damage in which the model material is inserted into a pre-defined region within a larger continuum model. For a tunnel simulation, the continuum model is run in plane-strain mode and assigned the plane-strain elastic constants E and .. The initiation of cracking in the PFC models is controlled by the ratio of standard deviation to mean material strength. Increasing this ratio lowers the stress at which the first crack initiates. However, the axial stress at the time of the initiation of the first crack in a synthetic specimen will underestimate the crack-initiation stress, sci, measured in typical laboratory experiments. Therefore, sci measured during a biaxial or triaxial test of a PFC model is defined as the axial stress at which there exists a specified fraction (chosen as 1% in the present simulations) of the total number of cracks existing at peak stress. The choice of 1% is rather arbitrary, and sciserves as a qualitative calibration property providing a means to match the onset of significant internal cracking before ultimate failure. (For Lac du Bonnet granite, s= 0.45qu.) ci References [1] Okui Y and Horii H. A micromechanics-based continuum theory for microcracking localization of rocks under compression. In Mühlhaus HB, Ed. Continuum Models for Materials with Microstructure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995: 27–68. [2] Bieniawski ZT. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock, part II — experimental studies. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1967;4:407–423. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-140 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [3] Hallbauer DK, Wagner H and Cook NGW. Some observations concerning the microscopic and mechanical behaviour of quartzite specimens in stiff, triaxial compression tests. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1973;10:713–726. [4] Kranz RL. Crack growth and development during creep of Barre granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1979;16:23–35. [5] Kranz RL. Crack-crack and crack-pore interactions in stressed granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1979;16:37–47. [6] Lockner D. The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1993;30(7):883–899. [7] Aubertin M, Julien MR and Li L. The semi-brittle behavior of low porosity rocks. In Proc. 3rd North American Rock Mech Symp., Vol. 2. Mexico: International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1998: 65–90. [8] Blair SC and Cook NGW. Analysis of compressive fracture in rock using statistical techniques: part I. a non-linear rule-based model. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1998;35(7):837–848. [9] Blair SC and Cook NGW. Analysis of compressive fracture in rock using statistical techniques: part II. effect of microscale heterogeneity on macroscopic deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1998;35(7):849–861. [10] Kemeny JM. A model for non-linear rock deformation under compression due to sub-critical crack growth. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1991;28(6):459–467. [11] Kemeny JM and Cook NGW. Micromechanics of deformation in rocks. In Shah SP, Ed. Toughening Mechanisms in Quasi-Brittle Materials. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991: 155–188. [12] Lockner DA and Madden TR. A multiple-crack model of brittle fracture, 1, non-time- dependent simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 1991;96:19623–19642. [13] Lockner DA and Madden TR. A multiple-crack model of brittle fracture, 2, time-dependent simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 1991;96:19643–19654. [14] Lockner D. A generalized law for brittle deformation of westerly granite. J. Geophys. Res., 1998;103(B3):5107–5123. [15] Okui Y and Horii H. Stress and time-dependent failure of brittle rocks under compression: a theoretical prediction. J. Geophys. Res., 1997;102(B7):14869–14881. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-141 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [16] Cundall PA, Potyondy DO and Lee CA. Micromechanics-based models for fracture and breakout around the mine-by tunnel. In Martino JB and Martin CD, Eds. Proc. Excavation Disturbed Zone Workshop, Designing the Excavation Disturbed Zone for a Nuclear Repository in Hard Rock. Toronto: Canadian Nuclear Society, 1996: 113–122. [17] Cundall PA, Drescher A and Strack ODL. Numerical experiments on granular assemblies, measurements and observations. In Vermeer PA and Luger HJ, Eds. Deformation and Failure of Granular Materials. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1982: 355-370. [18] Krajcinovic D. Damage mechanics. Mech. Mater., 1989;8:117–197. [19] Herrmann HJ and Roux S. Statistical Models for the Fracture of Disordered Media. New York: North-Holland, 1990. [20] Charmet JC, Roux S and Guyon E. Disorder and Fracture. New York: Plenum Press, 1989. [21] Schlangen E and Garboczi EJ. Fracture simulations of concrete using lattice models: computational aspects. Engr. Frac. Mech., 1997;57:319–332. [22] D’Addetta GA, Kun F and Ramm E. On the application of a discrete model to the fracture process of cohesive granular materials. Granular Matter, 2002;4:77–90. [23] Donzé F and Magnier SA. Formulation of a 3-D numerical model of brittle behaviour. Geophys. J. Int., 1995;122:790–802. [24] Handley MF. An investigation into the constitutive behaviour of brittle granular media by numerical experiment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, USA, 1995. [25] Jirasek M and Bazant ZP. Discrete element modeling of fracture and size effect in quasibrittle materials: analysis of sea ice. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Discrete Element Methods. Cambridge, Massachusetts: IESL Publications, 1993: 357–368. [26] Bazant ZP, Tabbara MR, Kazemi MT and Cabot GP. Random particle model for fracture of aggregate or fiber composites. J. Eng. Mech., 1990;116(8):1686–1705. [27] Trent BC, Margolin LG, Cundall PA and Gaffney ES. The micro-mechanics of cemented granular material. In Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials: Theory and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987:795–802. [28] Lorig LJ and Cundall PA. Modeling of reinforced concrete using the distinct element method. In Proc. SEM/RILEM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Bethel, Connecticut: SEM, 1987:459–471. [29] Plesha ME and Aifantis EC. On the modeling of rocks with microstructure. In Rock Mechanics — Theory-Experiment-Practice. New York: Assoc. of Engr. Geologists, 1983:27–35. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-142 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [30] Zubelewicz, A and Mroz Z. Numerical simulation of rockburst processes treated as problems of dynamic instability. Rock Mech., 1983;16:253–274. [31] Napier JAL and Malan DF. A viscoplastic discontinuum model of time-dependent fracture and seismicity effects in brittle rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1997;34(7):1075–1089. [32] Steen B, Vervoort A and Napier JAL. Numerical modelling of fracture initiation and propagation in biaxial tests on rock samples. Int. J. Frac., 2001;108:165–191. [33] Fang Z and Harrison JP. Development of a local degradation approach to the modelling of brittle fracture in heterogeneous rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2002;39:443–457. [34] Tang CA. Numerical simulation of progressive rock failure and associated seismicity. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1997;34(2):249–261. [35] Jing L. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in numerical modelling for rock mechanics and rock engineering. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2003;40:283–353. [36] Ingraffea AR and Wawrzynek PA. Crack propagation. In Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and Technology. New York: Elsevier Science, 2001. [37] Potyondy DO, Cundall PA and Lee C. Modeling rock using bonded assemblies of circular particles. In Aubertin M, Hassani F and Mitri H, Eds. Rock Mechanics Tools and Techniques. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1996:1937–1944. [38] Robertson D and Bolton MD. DEM simulations of crushable grains and soils. In Kishino Y, Ed. Powders and Grains 2001.Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:623–626. [39] Potyondy D and Autio J. Bonded-particle simulations of the in-situ failure test at Olkiluoto. In Elsworth D, Tinucci JP and Heasley KA, Eds. Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, Vol. 2. Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:1553-1560. [40] Autio J, Wanne T and Potyondy D. Particle mechanical simulation of the effect of schistosity on strength and deformation of hard rock. In Hammah R, Bawden W, Curran J and Telesnicki M, Eds. NARMS-TAC 2002. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002:275– 282. [41] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D/3D (Particle Flow Code in 2/3 Dimensions), Version 2.0. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 1999. [42] Cundall PA. A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in blocky rock systems. In Proc. Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (Nancy, France, 1971), Vol. 1, 1971:paper No. II-8. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-143 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [43] Cundall PA and Strack ODL. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique, 1979;29(1):47–65. [44] Cundall PA. Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model — part I. a scheme to detect and represent contacts in a system composed of many polyhedral blocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1988;25(3):107–116. [45] Hart R, Cundall PA and Lemos J. Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model — part II. mechanical calculations for motion and interaction of a system composed of many polyhedral blocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1988;25(3):117–125. [46] Cundall PA and Hart R. Numerical modeling of discontinua. J. Engr. Comp., 1992;9:101– 113. [47] Cook BK and Jensen RP. Discrete element methods: numerical modeling of discontinua (Proc. 3rd int. conf. on discrete element methods), Geotechnical special publication No. 117. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002. [48] Cundall PA. Distinct element models of rock and soil structure. In Brown ET, Ed. Analytical and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics. London: Allen and Unwin, 1987;129–163. [49] Hazzard JF, Young RP and Maxwell SC. Micromechanical modeling of cracking and failure in brittle rocks. J. Geophys. Res., 2000;105(B7):16683–16697. [50] Feustel AJ. Seismic attenuation in underground mines: measurement techniques and applications to site characterization. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1995. [51] Hazzard JF and Young RP. Simulating acoustic emissions in bonded-particle models of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2000;37:867–872. [52] Holt, RM. Particle vs. laboratory modelling of in situ compaction. Phys. Chem. Earth (A), 2001;26(1–2):89–93. [53] Potyondy D and Cundall P. The PFC model for rock: predicting rock-mass damage at the underground research laboratory. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-10061-R00, May 2001. [54] Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K and Belitz K. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 1994;263:641–646. [55] Martin CD. The strength of massive lac du bonnet granite around underground openings. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, June 1993. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-144 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [56] Hoek E and Brown ET. Underground Excavations in Rock. London: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1980. [57] Read RS. Interpreting excavation-induced displacements around a tunnel in highly stressed granite. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 1994. [58] Brady BHG and Brown ET. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. London: Allen and Unwin, 1985. [59] Mosher S, Berger RL and Anderson DE. Fracture characteristics of two granites. Rock Mech., 1975;7:167–176. [60] Boutt DF and McPherson BJOL. Simulation of sedimentary rock deformation: lab-scale model calibration and parameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 2002;29(4):10.1029/2001 GL013987. [61] Everitt RA and Lajtai EZ. The influence of rock fabric on excavation damage in Lac du Bonnet granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., this issue. [62] Paterson MS. Experimental Rock Deformation — The Brittle Field. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978:35. [63] Read RS and Chandler NA. An approach to excavation design for a nuclear fuel waste repository. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-10086-R00, 2002. [64] SAFETI. Seismic validation of 3D thermo-mechanical models for the prediction of rock damage around radioactive waste packages in geological repositories. Project for European Atomic Energy Community, 2001–2004. [65] Read RS and Martin D. Technical summary of AECL’s mine-by experiment, phase 1: excavation response. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Report AECL-11311, 1996. [66] Martin CD and Read RS. AECL’s mine-by experiment: a test tunnel in brittle rock. In Aubertin M, Hassani F and Mitri H, Eds. Rock Mechanics Tools and Techniques. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1996:13–24. [67] Chandler N, Dixon D, Gray M, Hara K, Cournut A and Tillerson J. The tunnel sealing experiment: an in-situ demonstration of technologies for vault sealing. In Proc. 19th Annual Conf. Canadian Nuclear Society. Toronto: Canadian Nuclear Society, 1998. [68] Read RS, Martino JB, Dzik EJ, Oliver S, Falls S and Young RP. Analysis and interpretation of AECL’s heated failure tests. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0070-R00, 1997. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-145 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [69] Read RS, Martino JB, Dzik EJ and Chandler NA. Excavation stability study — analysis and interpretation of results. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0028-R00, 1998. [70] Martino JB. A review of excavation damage studies at the underground research laboratory and the results of the excavation damage zone study in the tunnel sealing experiment. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP- 01200-10018-R00, 2000. [71] Anderson OL and Grew PC. Stress corrosion theory of crack propagation with applications to geophysics. Rev. Geophys. and Space Phys., 1977;15(1):77–104. [72] Atkinson BK and Meredith RG. The theory of subcritical crack growth with applications to minerals and rocks. In Atkinson BK, Ed. Fracture Mechanics of Rock. London: Academic Press, 1987:111–166. [73] Potyondy DO and Cundall PA. Modeling notch-formation mechanisms in the URL mine-by test tunnel using bonded assemblies of circular particles. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1998;35(4–5), Paper No. 067. [74] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), Version 4.0. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 2000. [75] Fakhimi A, Carvalho F, Ishida T and Labuz JF. Simulation of failure around a circular opening in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2002;39:507–515. [76] Lau JSO and Chandler NA. Innovative laboratory testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., this issue. [77] Johnson S. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. [78] Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1991. [79] Bazant ZP and Planas J. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1998. [80] Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 1920;221:163–198. [81] Griffith AA. The theory of rupture. In Biezeno CB and Burgers JM, Eds. Proc. 1st Int. Congr. Appl. Mech.. Delft: Tech. Boekhandel en Drukkerij J. Walter Jr., 1924:54–63. [82] Eringen AC. Continuum mechanics at the atomic scale. Crystal Lattice Defects, 1977;7:109– 130. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-146 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report [83] Huang H. Discrete element modeling of tool-rock interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, USA, 1999. [84] Zhang ZX. An empirical relation between mode I fracture toughness and the tensile strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2002;39:401–406. [85] Li L and Holt RM. Simulation of flow in sandstone with fluid coupled particle model. In Elsworth D, Tinucci JP and Heasley KA, Eds. Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, Vol. 1. Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:165-172. [86] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D (Particle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions), Version 3.0. In Optional Features Volume, Thermal Option. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 2002. [87] Linkov AM. Keynote lecture: new geomechanical approaches to develop quantitative seismicity. In Gibowicz SJ and Lasocki S, Eds. Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997:151–166. [88] Hazzard JF and Young RP. Dynamic modelling of induced seismicity. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., this issue. [89] Fung YC. A First Course in Continuum Mechanics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977. [90] Ugural AC and Fenster SK. Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity, second SI ed. New York: Elsevier Science, 1987:71. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-147 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report APPENDIX D DOCUMENTATION OF USE OF QUALIFIED SOFTWARE The material in this Appendix, which includes a total of 18 CDs, provides sufficient information to allow a technically qualified person to understand the report and verify the results without recourse to the originator. All results described in this report, with the exception of those described in the manuscript in Appendix C, were produced using PFC2D 2.00-081 and PFC3D 2.00-081, which are the qualified versions of the software for this project. The runs were performed on personal computers running the Windows 2000 operating system. The results were produced by testing PFC specimens in a polyaxial cell and in a direct-tension device, and measuring material properties as described in Section A.2. The PFC specimens were created using the material-genesis procedures described in the 2003 paper of Potyondy and Cundall (Appendix C). FISH is an embedded language within PFC, and the material-genesis and specimen- testing procedures are implemented as an environment of FISH functions known as the Augmented Fishtank (Itasca, 1999). All runs used the Augmented Fishtank, FisT_04lb, and an additional set of FISH functions contained in FisT_04l-YM. Upon completion of each test, the material properties (elastic constants and peak strength) were extracted automatically from histories of relevant stress and strain quantities and written to an ASCII log file by restoring the SAV file and calling the FISH functions “et2_gd_biax” and “et3_gd3_triax,” for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively. These properties were manually extracted from this log file (by searching for the string “results”), and entered into the relevant EXCEL spreadsheet; derived quantities, such as cohesion and friction angle, were computed within the spreadsheet using the equations in Section A.2. Some of the PFC specimens contained discrete voids, and the procedures by which these voids were produced are described in Section A.3. The void porosity for each specimen is returned by the FISH functions “lt_vporos” in lt.FIS and “lt3_vporos” in lt3.FIS for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively. The material on the CDs is divided into a single master CD, and a set of 17 additional CDs that include the SAV files. The SAV files are binary files containing all program-state information (including any defined FISH functions and variables, histories, tables and plot views), and these files are not included on the master CD. D.1 Contents of the Master CD The material on the master CD, labelled 1, is stored in the following directories. • FISH-env. The PFC executables and Augmented Fishtank functions are contained in the directory “FISH-env.” • PFC_runs. The input files that produce each set of results are arranged in separate directories, each of which contains a file “doall.DVR,” which produces the associated set of SAV files and ASCII log files. The EXCEL spreadsheets containing the PFC material 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-148 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report properties, and the laboratory data with which these properties are compared, are also in this directory. The PFC_runs directory contains the following subdirectories. • Sec_A.5.1 contains the EXCEL spreadsheet and associated input files for Section A.5.1 of the report. • Sec_A.5.2 contains the EXCEL spreadsheet and associated input files for Section A.5.2 of the report. • ShapeStudy contains the EXCEL spreadsheets and associated input files for the body of the report. The input files are contained in the following subdirectories. • circles(90 mm) • stars(197 mm) • triangles(139 mm) • stencils contains 18 directories, each with the input files for the corresponding panel map that served as a stencil to produce the stenciled-lithophysae specimens. Additional information describing the input files in the ShapeStudy directory follows. D.2.1 Circles, triangles and stars The file “doall.DVR” is the main driver file, which generates all of the PFC specimens and conducts the unconfined compressive strength tests. The contents of doall.DVR is described as follows. sC1_mK-spc.DVR ; create initial specimen (no lithophysae) This file generates a 1 by 1 meter PFC specimen with bf5-material properties assigned with the file “mK-param.DAT.” The specimen is generated with the specimen-genesis procedure assigned by the file “et2.FIS.” sC1_mKb1-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-1 sC1_mKb2-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-2 These files invoke the lithophysal generation procedure assigned by “lt.FIS,” “lt_ori_tri_139.FIS” and “lt_ori_str_197.FIS” for the circles, triangles and stars, respectively. The lithophysal parameters are assigned by the file “mXb-param.DAT.” sC1_mKb1_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-1 sC1_mKb2_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-2 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-149 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report These files conduct the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix “-bw0.sav” are generated at the beginning of the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix “-bw1.sav” are generated during the unconfined compression test, when the axial stress has dropped to 80% of the peak stress. The test control parameters are assigned by the file “tD00-param.DAT.” extendstrain.DVR ; extend strain This file continues the unconfined compression test to an axial strain of 5e-3. Save files with the suffix “-bw3.sav” are generated. get_porosity.DAT This file generates the log file “get_porosity.log,” which contains the actual void porosity of each specimen. p2d-results.DVR This file generates the log file “results.log,” which contains the Young’s Modulus and peak strength of each specimen. The value of Young’s Modulus used in the results is “E (plane strain, fully wall-based),” while the peak strength is “peak strength (wall-based).” D.2.2 Stencils The file “doall.DVR” is the main driver file, which generates all of the PFC specimens and conducts the unconfined compressive strength tests. The contents of doall.DVR is described as follows. sC1_mK-spc.DVR ; create initial specimen (no lithophysae) This file generates a 1 by 1 meter PFC specimen with bf5-material properties assigned with the file “mK-param.DAT.” The specimen is generated with the specimen-genesis procedure assigned by the file “et2.FIS.” sC1_mKb1-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-1 sC1_mKb2-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-2 These files invoke the lithophysal generation procedure. The panel maps of the walls of the ECRB cross drift were used as stencils to generate the true lithophysal shapes in PFC. The lithophysal panel map drawings were opened in Corel Draw (version 11). The layer containing the lithophysal cavities was isolated, then divided into three square pieces. Each piece was then converted into a 100 pixel by 100 pixel black and white bitmap (literally, a 1 bit bitmap containing black and white only). The bitmaps were then opened in Corel PhotoPaint (version 11). A macro was created using the program's built-in Visual Basic for Applications facility. The macro was used to map the entire array of 10000 pixels contained in each bitmap, noting whether the pixel at each coordinate pairing contained either white or black. The results were stored in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet as x and y coordinates of the pixels that represent lithophysal void space. This data was then directly mapped into a FISH file to delete PFC particles with centroids 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-150 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report lying within each x and y range of the pixel data. These FISH files are located in the subdirectory “FisT_04l-YM” of the folder “FISH-env.” sC1_mKb1_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-1 sC1_mKb2_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-2 These files conduct the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix “-bw0.sav” are generated at the beginning of the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix “-bw1.sav” are generated during the unconfined compression test, when the axial stress has dropped to 80% of the peak stress. The test control parameters are assigned by the file “tD00-param.DAT.” extendstrain.DVR ; extend strain This file continues the unconfined compression test to an axial strain of 5e-3. Save files with the suffix “-bw3.sav” are generated. get_porosity.DAT This file generates the log file “get_porosity.log,” which contains the actual void porosity of each specimen. p2d-results.DVR This file generates the log file “results.log,” which contains the Young’s Modulus and peak strength of each specimen. The value of Young’s Modulus used in the results is “E (plane strain, fully wall-based),” while the peak strength is “peak strength (wall-based).” D.2 Contents of the 17 Additional CDs The 17 additional CDs, labelled 2 to 18, contain information that corresponds with the directories on the master CD as follows. 2. Sec_A.5.1 3. Sec_A.5.2\P2D-LithTuff_bf2\sC1_mHbX-ALL 4. Sec_A.5.2\P3D-LithTuff_bf2\p3d_21par_bf2-CD1 5. Sec_A.5.2\P3D-LithTuff_bf2\p3d_21par_bf2-CD2 6. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-A 7. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-B 8. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-C 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-151 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 9. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-A 10. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-B 11. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-C 12. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-A 13. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-B 14. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-C 15. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1493_96, 1551_54, 1610_13, 1624_27, 1641_44} 16. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1641_44R, 1656_59L, 1726_29L, 1768_71L, 1768_71R, 1805_08L} 17. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1886_89L, 1919_22L, 2018_21L, 2069_72L, 2124_27, 2232_35} 18. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{2294_97} D.3 References Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D/3D (Particle Flow Code in 2/3 Dimensions), Version 2.0. In Fish in PFC2/3D Volume, Augmented Fishtank. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 1999. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-152 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VI LITHOPHYSAL ROCK MODELING USING UDEC 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VI LITHOPHYSAL ROCK MODELING USING UDEC The total sample size in all UDEC models for calibrating the lithophysal rock properties was 1.0 m by 1.0 m. Each sample starts out as an assemblage of small blocks. The shapes of the small blocks are generated by a technique known as Voronoi tesselation. In this technique points are first randomly positioned. The point locations are then adjusted such that each point moves toward a location that is equidistant from each of its neighbors. This is done incrementally and the final position depends on the number of iterations. Increasing the number of iterations increases the uniformity of the block sizes and shapes. The line segments between points are then bisected by perpendicular cracks and connected to form polygons. This process results in the Voronoi polygons of the sample. Changing the initial seed of a random number generator can modify the point placement. This allows different test samples to be created. VI.1 CALIBRATION OF NONLITHOPYSAL BASE CASE The objective of the calibration process is to produce numerical sample behavior that matches the mechanical properties of a nonlithophysal tuff (no lithophysae or voids are present). The following parameters characterize the mechanical behavior of the UDEC Voronoi model and these micro properties are illustrated in Figure VI-1. • The block size scaled to the model size, or a number of blocks in the model. • Elastic properties of blocks (Em , .m). • Properties of joints (interfaces between the blocks), both elastic (normal stiffness, kn, and shear stiffness, ks) and plastic (tensile strength, tm, cohesion, cm, and friction, fm). Note that plastic joint parameters are functions of shear and tensile plastic strains. In the simulations presented in this report, it is assumed that cohesion and tensile strength soften to zero at the onset of yield. Figure VI-1. Micro Properties of the UDEC Voronoi Model 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The cohesion and friction angle of the micro-joints are used to control the sample’s unconfined compressive strength. The normal and shear stiffness of micro-joints as well as the bulk and shear modulus of the intact rock (blocks) are used to control the sample modulus. The elastic and strength properties can be decoupled during the iteration process (i.e., model deformability and strength can be calibrated separately). It is common to calibrate model elastic parameters first. Clearly, calibration of the elastic properties is a problem with a non-unique solution. The two elastic macro-properties (E and .) are functions of block size and four micro properties (kn, ks, Em, and .m). The average block size is determined based on having a sufficient number of blocks to allow for consistent and repeatable results in the two-dimensional sample given the sample size and lithophysal void size and shape (e.g., fracture development and propagation is independent of block size and orientation). In this preliminary exercise, experience was relied upon to choose the block size, and a full evaluation according to the preceding criterion will be carried out in the next phase of the UDEC analysis. The Poisson’s m ratio of the blocks is selected to be equal to the macro Poisson’s ratio, such that .= .. The additional requirement needed to match the macro Poisson’s ratio is that the ratio between normal and shear joint stiffnesses is larger than 1. Simulations confirmed that a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is matched when kn / ks ˜ 2. It is reasonable that the contribution of joints to model deformability is larger than the contribution of blocks, but it was desirable, from the perspective of convergence of the numerical model, that stiffnesses of blocks and joints were of the same order of magnitude. Therefore, based on guidance in the UDEC User’s Manual (Itasca 2002, Manuals/UDEC/User’s Guide/Section 3: Problem Solving, Section 3.2.3), it was selected that 4 m Km + G 5 < 3 < 10 (Eq. 16) bk n where b is the average block size, and Km and Gm are the bulk and shear moduli of the blocks, respectively. With these considerations, there is a single independent elastic micro-parameter (e.g., kn). The proper macro deformability of the model was than matched by rescaling of the elastic micro-properties (kn, ks, Km, and Gm). Calibration of strength micro-properties involved matching the macro (laboratory scale) failure- envelope and post-peak behavior by adjusting strength micro-properties. Note that model plastic deformation appears to be a function of the size and shape of blocks. The failure envelope, which, in general, is a surface in the principal stress space, reduces to a line if it is assumed that the failure envelope is not a function of the intermediate principal stress. Test runs have proven that the micro friction angle, which is initially equal to 35° and softens in a brittle fashion to 15°, results in the desired post-peak behavior and strength increase as a function of confinement. In order to match the observed mode of failure of non-lithophysal tuff under unconfined loading conditions (i.e., axial splitting), the micro tensile strength is assigned to be less than 50 percent of the micro cohesion. After these relations are established, the proper peak strength is matched by rescaling micro cohesion and tensile strength. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Each sample was tested with a loading condition that simulates tensile, unconfined compression (UCS) or triaxial compression (with confinement pressure of 1 MPa, 3MPa, and 5 MPa). The loading of each sample was controlled by a Fish function that adjusts the axial loading velocity to limit the axial stress difference between the top and the bottom of the sample. This insures that the sample is not loaded faster than the stresses can be numerically transferred through the entire sample. The axial stress is defined by the sum of the reaction forces at the loading ‘platen’ divided by the original sample width. The axial strain is defined as the change in distance between the ‘platens’ divided by the original sample height. The volumetric strain is calculated by integrating the sample width over the current sample height and dividing by the original sample volume. These quantities are automatically calculated and recorded at regular intervals during the test. The target modulus and unconfined compressive strength were selected to match the sample properties derived in the PFC shape study. The values of 20 GPa for Young’s modulus and 60 MPa for unconfined compressive strength were used as the target values in the nonlithophysal calibration. As shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3 from the PFC simulations, these values correspond to a lithophysal tuff with a zero percent porosity. The calibration process produced the micro- and fracture properties given in Table 9-2. The average values from five model samples (with different Voronoi seeds) were 19.8 GPa and 58.7 MPa for the modulus and UCS, respectively. VI.2 LITHOPHYSAE GENERATION The generation of the lithophysal samples consisted of cutting 90-mm diameter holes in the nonlithophysal samples as described above. The position of the holes was controlled using one of two techniques. Some of the samples were created so as to match specific samples used in the PFC shape study. The rest of the samples were generated using a fish function with a random number generator that selected the hole location. A file named litho.fis exists for each sample tested and contains the commands required to recreate each sample. New holes are cut until the total area of the removed material matches the desired void ratio. In both techniques of hole placement, there are general rules which are used for placement. The first rule is that the distance between the edges of adjacent holes can never be less than 0.041 m. The second rule is that there must be at least a 0.045-m distance between the edge of a hole and the sample sides (unless the hole intersects the side). If the hole intersects the sample side then the intersection is limited to half of the diameter or less. The samples with holes (lithophysae) were run through the same sequence of tests that were used in the nonlithophysal samples. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report VI.3 DATA REDUCTION For each sample, histories of the axial stress, axial strain, and volumetric strain were recorded. The history data were transferred to Excel spreadsheets for post processing. An Excel spreadsheet was created for each test conducted. In the Excel spreadsheet are the raw history data of axial strain, volumetric strain and axial stress. The following quantities are calculated in each Excel summary file: Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, dilation angle, UCS, internal angle of friction, cohesion, and the Hoek Brown factors s ci and mi. These quantities were calculated using the following methods: UCS The value of UCS was taken as the greatest compressive stress achieved during the unconfined test. Young’s Modulus Young’s modulus is taken as the ratio of the axial stress to axial strain calculated at a stress equal to 50% of the UCS value (secant method). Poisson’s Ratio Poisson’s ratio (. ) is calculated (at 50% of UCS) using the following formula (which can be derived from elastic theory for plane strain): volumetric strain S= e axial strain 1- S e .= 2 - S e Dilation Angle The dilation angle (. ) is calculated from the slope of the expansive (plastic) portion of volumetric strain versus axial strain curve. The slope is calculated by a linear fit to the data from the greatest volumetric contraction to the end of the test. The calculation is performed using the internal LINEST function in Excel. The slope is then used to calculate the dilation angle using the following formula: volumetric strain S = p axial strain . Sp . 180 .= arcsin. . 2 + Sp ... × p . 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Internal Angle of Friction The internal angle of friction (f ) is calculated from the slope of the graph s 1 vs. s 3. The slope (Sf ) is calculated by a linear fit to the data using the internal trend function in excel. The friction angle is calculated by the following formula: . Sf- 1. . 180 f= arcsin.. . Sf+ 1.× p . Cohesion The cohesion (c) is calculated from the friction angle and the UCS using the following formula: 1- sinf c = UCS × cos 2 f Hoek-Brown Failure Parameters The Hoek-Brown (HB) failure parameters s ci and mi were calculated from the triaxial compression test results using the spreadsheet formulae presented by Hoek (Hoek 2000, Section 11.6, pg. 179). Graphical Results Microsoft Excel was used for limited post-processing of the data. UDEC output data was first imported into Excel summary files. Then several standard types of graphs were produced from the test data including: stress vs. strain, axial strain vs. lateral strain, and s 1 vs. s 3. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VII DESCRIPTION OF LITHOPHYSAL ABUNDANCE AND LITHOPHYSAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VII DESCRIPTION OF LITHOPHYSAL ABUNDANCE AND LITHOPHYSAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT With the large volume of the proposed repository located in the lower lithophysal zone, a detailed study of the lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift has recently been completed (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The data package documents the distributions of size, shape, and abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts, and these data can be displayed and analyzed as (1) local variations, (2) along the tunnel (a critical type of variation), and (3) as values for the total zone. The percent of lengths and areas of features on the tunnel wall are typically referred as “abundance”. Because of the variations in scale of the features from lengths measured in millimeters to meters and variations in similar rock characteristics from tens to hundreds of meters, a variety of methods have been used to document the features in the rocks (Table VII-1). Full Peripheral Maps, Detailed Line Surveys, and Small-Scale Fracture Surveys are primarily to document fractures, although lithophysae are described or annotated in some of these products. Table VII-1. Methods Used to Document the Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Features in the Lower Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the ECRB Cross-Drift Method Location Procedure/Configuration Data Collected Full peripheral mapping ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+44 to 23+26) Map visible tunnel surfaces Discontinuities >1 m, contacts, tunnel supports Detailed line surveys ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+44 to 23+26) Tape line along one side of tunnel Discontinuities >1 m Small-scale fracture surveys ECRB Cross-Drift, 6 selected locations (11+15 to 24+30) Each 6 meter long horizontal traverse intersects three 2 meter long vertical traverses Discontinuities <1 m Panel maps ECRB Cross-Drift, 18 selected locations (14+93 to 22+94) 1 x 3 meter maps, 1:10 scale, overlays on photographs Lithophysae, rims, spots, lithic clasts ECRB Cross-Drift, 187 Traverses across tunnel, Tape traverses at 5 meter intervals (14+05 to 23+35) measured with tape attached to pole Lithophysae cavities only Angular traverses ECRB Cross-Drift, 22 selected locations (14+60 to 22+00) Traverses across tunnel, laser- prism measurements with geometric solutions Length of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, stringers, lithic clasts, and matrix- groundmass Large-lithophysae inventory ECRB Cross-Drift, continuous (14+40 to 17+55) 528 Lithophysae with long axis 0.5 m and greater Long axis, short axis, station, wall position VII.1 TAPE AND ANGULAR TRAVERSE DATA Tape and angular traverses, which are variations in linear or one-dimensional measurement techniques, include data from the upper half of the tunnel (typically from the compressed air pipe to the top of the conveyor belt, Figure VII-1). In linear traverses, total abundance (percent) of a type of feature is the sum of lengths of the features divided by the total length of the traverse. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Tape traverses include the measured length of lithophysal cavities along the traverse, length of the traverse, and a visual estimate of the abundance of rims and spots; therefore, tape data are discontinuous data (not all features are mapped). The advantage of tape traverses is that these data are every 5 m along the tunnel and indicate variations in the lithophysal cavity abundance along the tunnel (Figure VII-2; see Section VII.6.3), but abundance values are typically greater than those documented with angular traverses and panel maps. There are 22 angular traverses, but they consist of continuous data (specific lengths of each lithophysal cavity, rim, spot, lithic clast, and matrix-groundmass), and measurements are to the nearest 5 to 10 mm. Angular traverses consist of continuous data (all features are mapped) and provide a similar resolution of data to that of panel maps. Abundance of lithophysal cavities determined in angular traverses is similar to, or slightly less than, the abundance determined with tape traverses (Figure VII-2). Angular traverse data (Table VII-2; see Section VII.6.2) can be used to adjust the lithophysal cavity, rim, and spot data from tape traverses (Section VII.6.6). cm iib ib lt A) 25 cm Rail road tie 250 cm 175 Compressed ar pipe Left rRight rCrown Invert Top of conveyor be . cm cm ( ) ( ) e f) C)B) 250 cm 200 100 15 degrees of arc 0, 2.0) (0, 00, 2.5) (g, h(j, karc obstructed by vent line 50 cm FROM DTN: GS021008314224.002 Notes: A) Cross section view of tunnel (looking toward the heading) with parts of the tunnel (crown, ribs, and invert), positions of the compressed air pipe, conveyor belt, and railroad ties, and position of the laser-prism (175 cm above railroad tie). The shaded area is the most typically measured part of the tunnel. B) Tape traverse data are discontinuous in that only the length of the lithophysal cavities are measured. C) Angular traverse data are continuous in that the edges of all features are measured and lengths are calculated with analytical geometric relations. Figure VII-1. Geometric Relations of Tape and Angular Traverse Data from the Tptpll 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1400 1500 1600 1800 2100 2300 Abundance 1700 1900 2000 2200 Station Tape Percent Tape 10-m average Tape 20-m average Angular Percent NOTES: Abundance (percent of traverse length) of cavities are from angular traverse data. These tape data are from DTN: GS021008314224.002 and have not been adjusted as they are in Figure VII-9. Figure VII-2. Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverse Data Collected at 5-m Intervals from the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift with 10- and 20-m Moving Averages VII.2 PANEL MAP DATA In addition to the along-the-tunnel variation in the abundance of features such as lithophysae, there are variations in the sizes, shapes, and distances between features. These types of variations are most easily observed with the panel map data (Figures VII-3 to VII-8). Locations of the panel maps were positioned to capture representative variations in the rocks along the tunnel, and they were not positioned to capture a specific feature such as the largest lithophysae. The tunnel walls at panel map locations were washed prior to photographing and mapping the site. At each panel map location, three photographs were taken at 90° to the wall and with low- angle illumination to accentuate the relief of the wall caused by cavities (and fractures). The three photographs are merged (to form a mosaic) of an area about 1.6 x 4.3 m, and the 1 x 3 m map area is positioned to minimize the number and amount of partially included features. The panel maps, which have a 1:10 scale, are two-dimensional, continuous data because all features are mapped and documented Boundaries of all the features were drawn on the photographs in the field. During the mapping, the mapper attempted to represent the projected intersection of the feature with the tunnel wall, so there might be a slight difference in the mapped shape of the feature compare to the perceived shape in the photograph. On the panel maps, the boundaries of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts are depicted with different colors (red, green, blue, and gold, respectively) and the alpha-numeric labels of the features are L (lithophysal cavities and rims), S (spots), and C (clasts). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-2. Summary of Traverse Lengths and Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, Lithic Clasts and Matrix-Groundmass Based on Angular Traverses from Stations 14+60 to 22+00 in the ECRB Cross-Drift Station (m) Station (m) (numerical) Total arc length of traverse (degrees) Total length of traverse (mm) Total length of visible traverse (mm) Matrix-Groundmass (percent) Lithophysal cavities(percent) Rims (percent) Spots (percent) Lithic Clasts(percent) 14+60 1460 228.50 10851 7829 64.2 7.9 11.0 16.8 0.2 14+95 1495 232.33 11003 8967 62.0 18.7 7.2 12.1 0.0 15+25 1525 202.00 9784 7457 59.1 17.4 7.2 15.8 0.5 15+53 1553 202.08 9786 7759 59.9 22.5 8.0 9.6 0.0 16+10 1610 209.58 10095 7393 53.5 26.5 7.0 13.0 0.0 16+42 1642 360.00 15081 11614 70.7 13.1 6.3 8.8 1.1 16+58 1658 206.25 9960 7932 68.0 14.4 8.1 9.5 0.0 16+75 1675 192.25 9369 7316 49.6 30.7 13.7 6.0 0.0 17+00 1700 196.92 9569 7281 63.0 14.6 11.0 11.4 0.0 17+27 1727 208.33 10044 7958 68.2 16.1 8.0 7.7 0.0 17+50 1750 184.17 9016 6916 69.8 14.4 10.6 4.0 1.2 17+70 1770 233.67 10980 8989 74.9 15.0 6.9 3.2 0.0 18+00 1800 191.50 9292 7111 64.0 21.1 10.2 4.8 0.0 19+00 1900 195.08 9450 7046 60.8 17.7 13.9 6.6 1.0 19+20 1920 194.08 9404 7424 67.0 11.1 19.6 2.3 0.0 20+00 2000 192.25 9314 7353 70.3 13.7 6.4 7.2 7.2 20+70 2070 193.83 9387 7049 68.6 20.4 7.5 3.1 0.5 21+00 2100 180.08 9513 7367 66.1 17.8 10.5 5.5 5.5 21+25 2125 193.67 9372 7396 78.6 5.6 8.8 7.0 0.0 21+70 a 2170 a 176.67 8826 5731 57.9 12.0 5.7 24.3 0.0 21+75 a 2175 a 171.58 8532 6470 68.0 2.2 8.3 20.9 0.0 22+00 2200 198.00 9628 9196 67.2 3.9 4.8 23.5 0.6 DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTE: aOnly cavity data was collected in the angular traverse; however, the amounts of rims and spots were estimated in the field and all values were recalculated to 100 percent. Table from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet “SEP-Angular Trav. Data”. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Figure VII-3. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1493 Located on the Right Rib from Station 14+93 to 14+96 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Figure VII-4. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1641 Located on the Left rib from Station 16+41 to 16+44 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII- 7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Figure VII-5. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1641 Located on the Right Rib from Station 16+41 to 16+44 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII- 8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Figure VII-6. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1726 Located on the Left Rib from Station 17+26 to 17+29 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII- 9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Figure VII-7. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 2124 Located on the Left Rib from Station 21+24 to 21+27 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red “L” identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in green. Spots have blue “S” identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange “C” identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Figure VII-8. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 2232 Located on the Left Rib from Station 22+32 to 22+35 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report The selected panel maps (Figures VII-3 to VII-8) display good examples of many of the lithostratigraphic features. Some of these features are listed below. • “Simple” lithophysae: L25, L26, and L34 on Figure VII-3; L34 on Figure VII-4; L4 and L41 on Figure VII-6 • Merged lithophysae: L2 on Figure VII-4 • Lithophysae with expansion cracks where small cracks occur along the cavity wall: L44 on Figure VII-3 • Expansion-crack lithophysae where the expansion cracks dominate the geometry of the cavity wall: L17 and L25 on Figure VII-4; L7, L12, L21, and L24 on Figure VII-5 • Backfilled lithophysae (some partial): L26 on Figure VII-4; L2 on Figure VII-7 • Large-lithophysae (> 50 cm diameter): L2, L25, and L26 on Figure VII-4; L7, L12, L21, L24, and L42 on Figure VII-5 • Vapor-phase partings (and stringers): Figure VII-6 (lower half) • Spots: Any map, but especially Figure VII-7 and Figure VII-8 • Fractures mapped with detailed line survey: Red lines in Figure VII-8 • Small-scale fractures: Any map, especially the left side of Figure VII-5 and the right side of Figure VII-6. Panel maps provide 2-dimensional (area) data for specific features or as the total of the map area (DTN: GS021008314224.002; Table VII-3). Additionally, the “Data” files for the panel maps in the data package include 3-dimensional measurements (height, width, and depth) from which an equivalent ellipsoid can be calculated. The methods used in making panel maps and point- counting the areas of features result in values accurate to about 2 to 5 percent of the listed value (DTN: GS021008314224.002). To test the influence of positioning the map area, the panel map for 16+41 on the left wall was used to compare the reported values with values from four alternative positions. The descriptive statistics on the area percent determined from the five map positions indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 0.5 percent (DTN: GS021008314224.002, see data summary documentation in the records package). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-3. Summary of Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, and Matrix- Groundmass Based on Panel Maps in the ECRB CROSS-DRIFT from Stations 14+93 to 22+94 Station (m) Station (m) (numerical) Panel Maps Matrix / Groundmass (percent) Lithophysal Cavities (percent) Rims (percent) Spots(percent) Lithic Clasts (percent) 14+93 1493 14+93L 69.5 13.3 13.3 3.7 0.2 15+51 1551 15+51L 77.3 15.8 3.6 2.0 1.3 16+10 1610 16+10R 78.2 15.3 3.6 2.8 0.1 16+24 1624 16+24R 72.6 13.4 11.3 2.6 0.1 16+41 1641 16+41L 71.6 19.0 5.7 3.5 0.1 16+41 1641 16+41R 80.4 12.6 5.9 1.0 0.1 16+56 1656 16+56L 75.6 13.2 7.3 3.7 0.1 17+26 1726 17+26L 81.9 16.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 17+68 1768 17+68L 83.2 13.6 2.1 0.9 0.1 17+68 1768 17+68R 84.5 10.1 4.6 0.6 0.1 18+05 1805 18+05L 76.7 14.0 5.6 3.5 0.2 18+86 1886 18+86L 73.8 17.4 5.4 3.0 0.3 19+19 1919 19+19L 83.6 12.8 2.1 1.3 0.3 20+18 2018 20+18L 77.5 15.3 4.9 2.1 0.2 20+69 2069 20+69L 83.8 9.2 3.9 3.0 0.2 21+24 2124 21+24L 78.2 8.5 9.7 3.2 0.5 22+32 2232 22+32L 62.4 5.3 7.4 24.6 0.2 22+94 2294 22+94L 86.1 7.5 0.3 5.7 0.4 DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTES: Table is from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet “SEP - Panel Map Data” VII.3 VARIATION IN ABUNDANCE IN LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, AND SPOTS ALONG THE TUNNEL The abundance of lithophysal cavities varies along the Cross-Drift partially from actual variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to collect the data (i.e., tape or angular traverses or panel maps) (Figure VII-9). The abundance of cavities determined from the panel maps and angular traverses have not been adjusted. However, the original abundance values for lithophysal cavities from tape data (Figure VII-2) have been corrected using a “typical” traverse length, a 15-m moving average, and a linear equation of correlation for co- located tape and angular traverse data (Sections VII.6.3 and VII.6.6). Numerous correlation equations were examined, but in the end, a linear equation fitted to all the co-located data and having an intercept at 0, 0 with an R2 of 0.6204 was used which results in the corrected curve “Ct” in Figure VII-9. A set of cavity values were calculated for each location with two of more types of data using the weighting ratios 60:30:10 (panel:angular:tape) where all three data occur and 60:40 (panel:tape or angular:tape) where there are only two types of data (“Cpat fit” in Figure VII-9). These weighting ratios are empirically determined based on the relative detail of each type of data. The tape data was corrected one last time using an empirically determined proportional adjustment (i.e., corrected value (Ctc) equals tape value (Ct) plus the tape value (Ct) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report times a percent) (Section VII.6.6). The percents used include -0.05 from 14+05 to 21+40, -0.35 from 21+45 to 22+70, and –0.70 from 22+75 to 23+35. These percents, especially the larger amounts from 21+45 to 23+35, were used to correct large cavity abundance values inherited from the original tape data that resulted from initially identifying the abundant spots (some with thin veinlets in them) as lithophysal cavities. This correction of the tape data is warranted on the basis of comparisons with the angular traverse and panel map data (there are no angular traverse data from 22+00 to 23+35) and estimates of lithophysae described in Mongano et al. (1999) (Figure VII-9; see Section VII.6.5). Abundance (length) (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 Station (m) Cp Ca Ct )Cpat fit Ct c Lit hop (M NOTES: “Ct” data has been corrected based on an equation for correlation of tape and angular data. “Cpat fit” is the calculated value where two or more types of data occur together (map, angular, or tape data). “Ctc” has been corrected, especially from Station 21+25 to 23+35, to emulate the smaller amounts of lithophysal cavities determined from panel maps and angular traverses. Correlations and calculations for Ct, Cpat fit, and Ctc are described in Section VII.6.6. Figure VII-9. Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities from Panel Maps (Cp) and Angular and Tape Traverses (Ca and Ct, Respectively) Compared to the Cavity Values from Mongano et al. (1999) (Lithop M) Similar to the lithophysal cavity data, the abundance of rims and spots varies along the Cross- Drift partially from actual variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to collect the data (i.e., tape or angular traverses or panel maps) (Figure VII-10). The abundance of rims and spots determined from the panel maps and angular traverses have not been adjusted. However, the original visual estimates of “rims plus spots” in the tape traverses (see Section VII.6.3 and “RSt” in Figure VII-10) have been corrected using 5-m and a 2nd-order polynomial equation of correlation for co-located tape and angular traverse data (Section VII.6.6). Numerous correlation equations were examined, but in the end, a 2nd-order polynomial equation (which because of the very small x2 value approximates a linear equation) was fitted to the co- located data from 17+60 to 22+00, and although the Y-axis intercept is +11.086, the R2 is 0.7973 (Section VII.6.6). As with the lithophysal cavity data, a set of “rim+spot” values were calculated 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report for each location with two or more types of data using the empirically determined ratios of 60:30:10 (panel:angular:tape) where all three data occur and 60:40 (panel:tape or angular:tape) where there are only two types of data. These values were used during curve fitting, but are not displayed in Figure VII-10. The totals of “rims plus spots” from the panel and angular data have been calculated and compare well to the corrected “rim plus spot:” tape values (R+Sp, R+Sa, and RStc, respectively in Figure VII-10). There are no visual estimates of rims plus spots in the tape traverse data from 22+00 to 23+35, so these values are estimated from the panel map data and descriptions from Mongano et al. (1999) (Sections VII.6.3, VII.6.5, and VII.6.6). The sharp decrease in spots depicted in curves “RStc” and “Spot (M)” (Figures VII-10 and VII-11) result from changes in the abundance of spots across a fault at 22+38 (Mongano et al. 1999). 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 (m) Abundance (length) (%) Rp Ra (M) StationRSt R+Sp R+Sa RSt c Spot s NOTES: “R+Sp” is rims plus spot values in panel maps. “R+Sa” is rims plus spot values in angular traverses. “RStc” is the corrected tape values based on an equation for correlation of tape and angular data. Correlations and calculations for R+Sp, R+Sa, and RStc are described in Section VII.6.6. Spot values from Mongano et al. (1999) are described in Section VII.6.5. Figure VII-10. Abundance of Rims From Panel Maps (Rp) and Angular (Ra) and the Combined Rim and Spot Values from Tape Traverses (Rt) Compared to the Spot Values from Mongano et al. (1999) (Spot M) The “rim plus spot” values from the corrected tape data was separated into rim and spot values based on the general ratios of each feature in the panel and angular traverse data respectively. These proportions are not the same along the tunnel, so a series of proportions were empirically determined. The ratios of rims to spots include 0.50 from 14+45 to 15+35, 0.40 from 15+40 to 16+52, 0.53 from 16+55 to 17+35, 0.55 from 17+40 to 21+25, and 0.22 from 21+30 to 23+35. The total corrected “rim plus spot” (RStc) was multiplied by these ratios to calculate the amount of rims, and the amount of spots was determined by difference (Rtc and Stc, respectively in Figure VII-11). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 1450 1550 1750 1850 2050 2150 2250 2350 (m) Abundance (length) (%) Rp Sp Ra Sa (M) 1650 1950 StationRSt Rt c St c Spot s NOTES: “Rtc” represents fitted rim values from the corrected “RStc” (Figure VII-10) based on the ratio of rim and spot values in panels and angular data. “Stc” represents fitted spot values from the corrected “RStc” (Figure VII-10) based on the ratio of rim and spot values in panels and angular data. Correlations and calculations for Rtc and Stc are described in Section VII.6.6. Spot values from Mongano et al. (1999) are described in Section VII.6.5. Figure VII-11. Abundance of Rims and Spots from Panel Maps (Rp and Sp), Angular (Ra and Sa), and the Original Estimated Combined Rim and Spot Values from Tape Traverses (RSt) Compared to the Spot Values from Mongano et al. (1999) (Spot M) VII.4 LARGE LITHOPHYSAE The large-lithophysae inventory was designed to document the large lithophysae (those with a minimum diameter of 50 cm) in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+00 to 17+56. The inventory stopped at 17+56 because of a closed bulkhead and the field work to complete the inventory to 22+00 has been done, but the information is not yet in the record system. A few large lithophysae were documented (entirely or partially) in the tape and angular traverses and panel maps, but most were not included in these other techniques because of the scales and locations at which the other measurements were made. The long and short axis exposed on the wall of the tunnel was measured (with the same tape on a pole technique used in the tape traverses), and the station and position on the tunnel wall was recorded (DTN: GS021008314224.002; Figure VII-12). All large lithophysae have accurately surveyed station, northing, easting, and elevation values (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The large-lithophysae data can be displayed by station along the tunnel as discrete features and 5-m abundance (simply the number count) (Figure VII-12), or a cumulative frequency and frequency plots of axis length and area (Figure VII-13). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report l () lii0 5 10 15 20 25 1475 1500 1525 1550 1600 1625 1675 1725 1750 ) Abundance of arge> 50 cm diame te rthophys ae in 5-m nte rvals 1450 1575 1650 1700 1775 Station (m Abundance Abundance 15m Run. Ave. 17+62 Bulkhead RW Position of large lithophysae Sym bol s 1 - Left below equipment , 2 - Left wall, 3 - Left arch, 4 -Crown C LA LB RA RB 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 LC RC Invert LW along the ECRB and around the tunnel (3.5 and 4.5 are left and right side of t he crown) 5 - Right arch, 6 -Right wall, 7 -Right below equipment , and 8 -Invert 1 Niche 5 Position of segments in tunnel with view toward heading. Large lithophysae from 14+69 to 17+54 Lithophysae Position per meter Position around tunnel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LW (2) 0.50 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 C (4) 0.47 Station (m) RW (6) 0.50 DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTES: Diagram of tunnel cross-section shows the nomenclature used to identify the position of large lithophysae. The small inserted table lists the average number of large lithophysae per meter of tunnel for the left and right walls (LW and RW, positions 2 and 6, respectively) and the crown (C, position 4) from Stations 14+70 to 17+56. Figure VII-12. Abundance (number of large lithophysae) per 5-m Intervals and Locations of Large Lithophysae in the Tptpll from ECRB Cross-Drift Station 14+50 to 17+56 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report DTN: GS021008314224.002 Figure VII-13. Frequency and Cumulative Frequency of the Long Axes and Areas of Large Lithophysae in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift VII.5 CALCULATED POROSITY OF LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS AND TOTAL POROSITY ALONG THE TUNNEL The corrected tape traverse data for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots results in “fitted” abundance curves and indicates substantial variations along the tunnel in these features (Figure VII-14). Using these “fitted” abundance curves for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots, and (by difference) the matrix-groundmass (and ignoring the trace amount of lithic clasts), the porosity of these features and the total porosity along tunnel can be calculated (Figure VII-15). The porosities of each of the component features are variably constrained. Lithophysal cavities have a porosity of 1.00 cm3/cm3. The matrix-groundmass has a mean porosity of 0.13 cm3/cm3 (Flint 1998). Porosities of the rims and spots have typically not been specifically measured, but are estimated to range from 0.20 to 0.30 cm3/cm3. Although not used in these calculations, measured porosity values of the matrix-groundmass in samples from the lower lithophysal zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift range from 0.08 to 0.12 cm3/cm3, and rims and spots in these same samples range from 0.24 to 0.37 cm3/cm3 (DTN: GS030483351030.001). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 (m) () ) ) ) ) (M) 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 StationAbundance (length) (%) Cavitiesfitt edRims (fit t edSpot s (fit t edL-Lit ho (5mLit host rat . cont act Bulkheads Lit hop (MSpot s DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTE: Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. Figure VII-14. Abundance Curves of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots (Determined by Combining Panel Map and Tape and Angular Traverse Data), Large-Lithophysae Based on 5-m Segments of the Tunnel, and Estimates of Lithophysae and Spots from Mongano et al. (1999) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1500 1700 1900 2200 (m) Percent (vol.) (%) () () (fi) () ) () 1400 1600 1800 2000 2100 2300 StationCavitiesfittedRimsfit t edSpot st t edMGMfittedT ot al (fit t edL-Lit ho5-mLit host rat . cont act Bulkheads Equipment DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTES: Porosity of the 5-m averaged large-lithophysae inventory is not included in the total. Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. Figure VII-15. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed Along the ECRB Cross-Drift 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Because the large-lithophysal inventory is (for the near future) limited to Stations 14+50 to 17+56, with large lithophysae only from 14+70 to 17+56, the contribution of the large lithophysae to the total porosity along the tunnel has not been included in Figure VII-15. However, the large lithophysae can contribute as much as 8 percent to the total porosity in some 5-m sections of the tunnel (see sections 16+05 to 16+15; Figure VII-16). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 (m) () ) ) ) 1425 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 StationPercent (vol.) (%) CavitiesfittedRims (fit t edSpot s (fit t edMGM-LL5 T otal+LL5 L-Lit ho (5-mLithostrat. contact Bulkheads DTN: GS021008314224.002 NOTE: Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. Figure VII-16. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities (Including Large Lithophysae), Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+70 to 17+50 VII.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE TOTAL LOWER LITHOPHYSAL ZONE In addition to the along-the-tunnel variations in abundance, size, and shape of lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots, the distributions of these features can be summarized for the total lower lithophysal zone. For example, using the tape traverse data, the abundance of cavities in each traverse has a mean of 18 to 19 percent depending on the length of tunnel used in the calculation (Table VII-4, Figure VII-17, and Section VII.6.3). The tape data used in this figure has been adjusted to the “typical traverse length” but has not been “corrected” with the several “correlation functions” described previously and in Section VII.6.6. Similarly, the abundance (percent) of individual lithophysal cavities within a traverse indicates most lithophysal cavities form about 2 percent of a traverse length (Table VII-5, Figure VII-18, and Section VII.6.3), and the typical length of lithophysal cavities along the traverses is about 150 mm (Table VII-6, Figure VII-19, and Section VII.6.3). Descriptive statistics comparing the 5-m traverse data with 10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m “moving averages” indicates no effective change in the mean of 18.9 percent lithophysal cavities, but many of the statistics decrease with increasing length of the “moving average” (Table VII-7 and Section VII.6.3). However, the most significant change in the statistics for the abundance of lithophysal cavities, especially in the standard deviation and sample variance, occurs from the 5-m to 10-m or 15-m data (Table VII-7 and Section VII.6.3). The typical abundance of “rims plus spots” from the tape traverse data is about 8 percent depending on the length of tunnel used in the calculation (Table VII-8 and Section VII.6.3). 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-4. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities in Individual Tape Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift Statistic Data Package Revised Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 Mean 19.4 18.0 18.7 18.9 18.9 Standard Error 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Median 18.8 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 Mode 15.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.6 Standard Deviation 10.2 9.3 8.8 8.7 8.7 Sample Variance 103.3 86.7 76.9 74.8 75.4 Kurtosis 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Skewness 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 Range 53.9 48.4 47.2 47.2 47.2 Minimum 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 Maximum 53.9 48.4 48.4 48.4 48.4 Sum 3,608 3,355 3,298 3,254 2,793 Count 186 186 176 172 148 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 NOTE: Data in “Data Package” column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 40 44 48 52 ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 l 36 Percent of lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses Cumulative Frequency (% Frequency Cum % - DT N Cum.% - AlCum..% - T runc. Freq - DT N Freq. - All Freq. - T runc. NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by “DTN”, and the “All” and “trunc.” data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). Figure VII-17. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Abundance (Percent) Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 (All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or “trunc.”) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-5. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Individual Lithophysal Cavities in Individual Tape Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift Statistic Data Package Revised Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 Mean 2.17 2.02 2.02 2.06 2.00 Standard Error 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Median 1.49 1.34 1.34 1.46 1.34 Mode 1.49 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 Standard Deviation 1.99 1.85 1.83 1.82 1.84 Sample Variance 3.96 3.43 3.35 3.32 3.38 Kurtosis 6.32 6.05 6.13 6.16 6.34 Skewness 2.03 2.01 2.00 2.00 2.03 Range 17.91 16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09 Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum 17.91 16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09 Sum 3607.71 3355.24 3297.95 3254.38 2792.89 Count 1664 1664 1630 1583 1393 Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 NOTE: Data in “Data Package” column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Frequency Percent of individual lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses Cumulative Frequency (%) Cum. % - DT N Cum. % - All Cum. % - T runc. Freq. - DT N Freq. - All Freq. - T runc. NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by “DTN”, and the “All” and “Trunc.” data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). Figure VII-18. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Abundance (Percent) of Individual Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 (All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or “trunc.”) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-6. Descriptive Statistics for the Lengths (mm) of Individual Lithophysal Cavities in Individual Tape Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll zone in the Cross-Drift Statistic Data Package Revised Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 Mean 152.6 152.6 152.9 155.4 151.6 Standard Error 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 Median 100 100 110 110 100 Mode 100 100 100 100 100 Standard Deviation 138.6 138.6 137.0 136.3 137.6 Sample Variance 19208.3 19208.3 18757.0 18586.5 18926.2 Kurtosis 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.3 Skewness 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Range 1200 1200 1190 1190 1190 Minimum 0 0 10 10 10 Maximum 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Sum 251723 251723 247413 244143 209393 Count 1650 1650 1618 1571 1381 Confidence Level (95.0%) 6.69 6.69 6.67 6.74 7.26 NOTE: Data in “Data Package” column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Cumulative Frequency (%) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Frequency Lenghts (mm) of individual lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses Cum. % - All Cum. % - All Cum. % - T runc. Freq. - All Freq. - All Freq. - T runc. NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by “DTN”, and the “All” and “Trunc.” data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). Figure VII-19. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Lengths (mm) of Individual Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 (All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or “trunc.”) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-7. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities in Tape Traverses Calculated with 10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m “moving averages” for the Total Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift Statistic Value Stations 2200 to 1460 Length along tunnel (m) 5-m traverses 10-m average 15-m average 20-m average 25-m average 30-m average Mean 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 Standard Error 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Median 17.8 18.3 18.1 18.3 18.1 18.3 Mode 16.6 16.7 15.5 23.3 11.8 22.0 Standard Deviation 8.7 7.0 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.7 Sample Variance 75.4 48.6 41.8 37.6 35.3 33.0 Kurtosis 0.2 0.29 0.20 0.00 -0.15 -0.14 Skewness 0.6 0.55 0.59 0.56 0.49 0.48 Range 47.2 39.0 31.4 27.9 26.6 27.0 Minimum 1.2 3.4 7.6 8.9 8.4 8.1 Maximum 48.4 42.4 39.0 36.8 35.0 35.1 Sum 2,793 2,890.5 2,887.6 2,890.4 2,897.1 2,897.0 Count 148 153 153 153 153 153 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.4 1.10 1.02 0.97 0.94 0.91 NOTE: Data in “Data Package” column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. Table VII-8. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of “Rims Plus Spots” in Individual Tape Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift Statistic Data package Revised Stations 2200 to 1405 2200 to 1405 2200 to 1460 Length along tunnel (m) 795 795 740 Mean 8.0 8.0 8.4 Standard Error 0.6 0.6 0.6 Median 5.0 5.0 7.5 Mode 7.5 7.5 7.5 Standard Deviation 7.1 7.1 7.1 Sample Variance 50.1 50.1 50.5 Kurtosis 3.3 3.3 3.1 Skewness 1.9 1.9 1.9 Range 32.0 32.0 31.5 Minimum 0.5 0.5 1.0 Maximum 32.5 32.5 32.5 Sum 1257 1257 1233 Count 157 157 146 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.1 1.1 1.2 NOTE: Data in “Data Package” column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Comparison of the descriptive statistics for abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots in panel maps, angular traverses, and corrected tape traverses in the lower lithophysal zone indicate the corrected tape values are consistent with the values determined from the other methods (Table VII-9 and Section VII.6.6). These relations are also consistent for various lengths of the tunnel such as comparing the segments from 14+60 to 23+20 and 14+60 to 22+00 (Tables VII-9 and VII-10 and Section VII.6.6). The “prime” section of the tunnel for the lower lithophysal zone is from 14+60 to 23+20 where the tunnel is entirely within the lower lithophysal zone (i.e., there is no “mixing” from the adjacent rock units). The more restricted section from 14+60 to 22+00 is better to use for many detailed descriptions and comparative statistics because there is good overlap of the various types of data (panel maps and angular and tape traverses) and there is minimal need to extrapolate and convert some of the data. The abundance values for each of the lithostratigraphic features can be converted into rock-mass porosity values (using the porosity values of each component). This conversion indicates the lower lithophysal zone (as a whole and not including the large lithophysae) averages 13.1 percent lithophysal cavities, 1.4 percent rims, 1.9 percent spots, 10.9 percent matrix-groundmass for a total porosity of 27.3 percent (Table VII-10). VII.6.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, AND LITHIC CLASTS IN PANEL MAPS IN THE Tptpll OF THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+93 TO 22+97 The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in panel maps in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+93 to 22+97 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.2 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined using data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002 and are reproduced in Attachment VIII. Descriptive statistics are provided for the sizes (actually areas in mm2) and percent of the total area for lithostratigraphic features including lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts. The descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AA PMap.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. VII.6.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, AND LITHIC CLASTS IN ANGULAR TRAVERSES IN THE Tptpll OF THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+60 TO 22+00 The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, lithic clasts, and matrix- groundmass in angular traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 22+00 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.1 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined on data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were determined in support of this report. Descriptive statistics are provided for the sizes (actually lengths in mm) and percent of the total lengths for lithostratigraphic features including lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, lithic clasts, and the matrix-groundmass. The descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AB A-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-9. Descriptive Statistics for Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots in Panel Maps, Angular Traverses, and Corrected Tape Traverses in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 23+20 and 14+60 to 22+00 Descriptive Statistics 1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 2200 m 1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 2200 m 1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 2200 m Cp Ca Ct Ctc Ctc-m Rp Ra Rtc Rtc-m Sp Sa Stc Stc-m Mean 12.9 15.5 15.0 13.1 14.0 5.4 9.1 5.6 6.0 3.8 10.1 7.8 7.4 Standard Error 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 Median 13.4 15.0 14.6 12.9 13.6 5.2 8.1 5.2 5.3 2.9 8.3 5.7 5.7 Mode #N/A 15.0 17.9 17.0 17.0 2.1 11.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 #N/A 2.4 2.4 Standard Deviation 3.6 6.3 5.0 5.3 5.1 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.4 6.5 6.2 5.7 Sample Variance 12.9 39.8 24.7 28.6 26.0 11.9 11.2 9.2 8.5 28.7 42.3 38.4 32.4 Kurtosis -0.1 0.8 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.1 1.3 1.7 Skewness -0.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 3.8 1.0 1.5 1.5 Range 13.7 28.5 24.7 25.2 25.2 13.0 14.8 12.5 11.7 24.0 22.0 23.5 23.0 Minimum 5.3 2.2 6.0 4.0 4.0 0.3 4.8 0.9 1.7 0.6 2.3 1.4 1.4 Maximum 19.0 30.7 30.7 29.2 29.2 13.3 19.6 13.4 13.4 24.6 24.3 25.0 24.4 Sum 232.7 418.7 2693.3 2352.8 2182.9 97.5 200.8 1005.7 934.8 68.1 223.1 1402.7 1151.6 Count 18 27 180 180 156 18 22 179 155 18 22 179 155 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.7 2.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.5 2.7 0.9 0.9 Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 Notes: Symbols Cp, Ca, Ct, Ctc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-9, and Ctc-m are the Cavities in the converted tape data in the main (or prime) part of the tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. Symbols Rp, Ra, Rt, Rtc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-11, and Rtc-m are the Rims in the converted tape data in the main (or prime) part of the tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. Symbols Sp, Sa, St, Stc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-11, and Stc-m are the Spots in the converted tape data in the main (or prime) part of the tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. The symbol “#NA” indicates “not applicable”. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-10. Descriptive Statistics for Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots in Panel Maps, Angular Traverses and Corrected Tape Traverses in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 23+20 Descriptive Statistic Cavities (panel) Rims (panel) Spots(panel) Cavities (angular) Rims (angular) Spots(angular) Cavities (tape) Rim- Spot(tape) MGM (fitted) Cavities (fitted) Rims (fitted) Spots(fitted) Total (fitted) Mean 12.9 1.4 0.9 15.3 2.3 2.5 16.4 2.1 10.9 13.1 1.4 1.9 27.3 Standard Error 0.8 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 Median 13.4 1.3 0.7 14.8 2.0 2.1 16.0 1.6 10.8 12.9 1.3 1.4 27.4 Mode #N/A 0.5 0.9 #N/A 2.8 #N/A 16.2 1.3 10.5 17.0 0.7 0.6 30.0 Standard Deviation 3.6 0.9 1.3 6.9 0.8 1.6 4.8 1.7 0.7 5.3 0.8 1.6 4.5 Sample Variance 12.9 0.7 1.8 47.2 0.7 2.6 22.9 2.9 0.5 28.6 0.6 2.4 20.2 Kurtosis -0.14 0.42 15.49 0.37 3.45 0.08 0.14 3.58 0.66 -0.17 0.00 1.26 0.66 Skewness -0.51 0.76 3.82 0.10 1.63 0.98 0.44 1.99 -0.42 0.42 0.67 1.48 0.42 Range 13.7 3.2 6.0 28.5 3.7 5.5 27.0 7.8 3.5 25.2 3.3 6.2 23.2 Minimum 5.3 0.1 0.2 2.2 1.2 0.6 5.5 0.3 8.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 Maximum 19.0 3.3 6.2 30.7 4.9 6.1 32.5 8.1 12.2 29.2 3.3 6.2 41.7 Sum 232.7 24.4 17.0 336.8 50.2 55.8 2894.3 311.4 1955.9 2352.8 251.4 350.7 4910.7 Count 18 18 18 22 22 22 177 150 180 180 180 180 180 Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.7 0.4 0.6 2.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.7 NOTE: Rim-Spot (tape data) is only from 14+60 to 22+00. Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 Notes: The symbol “#NA” indicates “not applicable”. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report VII.6.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, AND LITHIC CLASTS IN TAPE TRAVERSES IN THE Tptpll OF THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+05 TO 23+35 The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in tape traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+05 to 23+35 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.1 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined on data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were determined in support of this report. The lengths of the tape traverses in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) were longer or shorter than those determined at the same locations with the angular traverses, so the tape traverse lengths were corrected using the angular traverse lengths and resulted in “typical traverse lengths”. The “typical traverse lengths” used to determine the abundance of lithophysal cavities are 7.46 m from 14+20 to 17+55 (double vent line), and 7.53 m from 17+65 to 23+35 (single vent line). Descriptive statistics and histograms are provided for the sizes (actually lengths in mm) and percent of the individual and total lengths for lithophysal cavities and the total percent of the visually estimated amounts of rims plus spots. Descriptive statistics were determined for individual traverses, 10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m “running averages” and for total lithophysal cavities. The descriptive statistics and histograms were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. Adjustments were made to the tape data in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), for the calculation of “moving averages” where there is a “gap” in the data. A gap occurs where a tape traverse was not made including the locations of a few panel maps. A description of the calculation of “moving averages” includes the following: 1. Running averages of tape traverse data were made for 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 meters. These cells (Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls) have no color fill. 2. The standard averaging practice includes: • 10 meter: value averaged with next value below (“down” tunnel to next station) • 15 meter: value averaged with value above and value below • 20 meter: value averaged with value above and next 2 values below • 25 meter: value averaged with 2 values above and 2 values below • 30 meter: value averaged with 2 values above and next 3 values below. 3. Where a gap in data occurs, the affected cell contains a comment, and may be color-coded. A gray color-coded cell indicates a null value was adjusted by 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report averaging values of adjacent cells. Gray cells may indicate adjustments of null values on 5-m increments or on less than 5-m increments. 4. In some cases where a gap in data occurs in an adjacent cell on an increment less than 5 m, the affected cell was not color coded, but a comment was included indicating a default to standard averaging practice using next the 5-m increment. Where a gap in data occurs on a 5-m increment, adjustments were made, and affected cells were colored light turquoise. 5. The standard adjustment (rule 1) for data gaps consists of: • 10 meter: two values below null value averaged • 15 meter: one value above and 2 values below null value are averaged • 20 meter: one value above and 3 values below null value are averaged • 25 meter: two values above and 3 values below null value are averaged • 30 meter: two values above and 4 values below null value are averaged. 6. A light yellow cell located in the first 12 rows indicates a gap in the data. A light yellow cell located in the running average section indicates a situation where rule 1 was altered to avoid using null values in adjacent cells. In an effort to lessen the effect of data spikes in the tape traverse data, the above procedure (rule 1) for adjustments was departed from to capture a smaller value in place of a larger value where the choice was available. (light green cells). Sample variance of the summed lengths of lithophysal cavities in the 5-m data and the 10-m to 30-m moving average data indicates (1) variations along the tunnel and (2) the most significant minimization in variance in the 10-m and 15-m moving average data. Sample variance is a measure of the variability of the values relative to the mean value, so variations in the variance provide insight into the internal lithostratigraphic features of the lower lithophysal zone. Sample variance along the tunnel indicates there are segments (from Stations 15+00 to 18+05 and 19+90 to 21+80) that have significantly greater amounts of cavities than is typical for the lithostratigraphic unit as a whole (Figure VII-20). As discussed elsewhere inSection VII-3, the amounts of lithophysal cavities measured behind the bulkhead at 22+01 are probably over estimates, so the larger variances from 22+45 to 23+35 must be viewed with caution. Comparison of the variance in the 5-m data and 10-m to 30-m moving average data provides a measure of length scales across which the data have large or small variations. The 5-m data has the largest variation in values and progressively longer moving average values have smaller variations, but regardless of moving average or not, all the data maintain the along-the- tunnel variations in the abundance of lithophysal cavities (Figure VII-20). Differences in sample variance pairs of data at each station indicate the greatest step in minimizing the variance is with the 10-m or 15-m moving averages (Figure VII-21). For example, subtracting the 10-m moving average value from the 5-m data results in numerous values larger or small than ±4,000, and subtracting the 15-m moving average value from the 10m moving average value results in only a few values larger or smaller than ±2,000. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00AVII-35December 20030200004000060000800001000001200001400001600001400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m) Sample Variance5 m data10-m ave. 15-m ave. 20-m ave. 25-m ave. 30-m ave. NOTE:Data and graph are from the adjusted length traverses (see Attachment VIII, file Drift Deg AMR ACT-Trav.xls). Figure VII-20. Sample Variance in the Summed Length of Lithophysal Cavities Based on 5-mData and 10-m to 30-m Moving Average Data from Tape Traverses in the Tptpllof the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 0 1400 1500 2300 (m) -100000 -80000 -60000 -40000 -20000 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 StationDifference in sample variance 5m - 10m 10m -15m 15m -20m 20m -25m 25m -30m NOTES: Data and graph are from the adjusted length traverses (see Attachment VIII, file Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls). “5m-10m” is the difference in sample variance at each station of the 5-m data minus the variance of 10-m data. Figure VII-21. Differences in Sample Variance in the Summed Length of Lithophysal Cavities with Pairs of Various Moving Average Data from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 VII.6.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LARGE LITHOPHYSAE FROM THE LARGE-LITHOPHYSAL INVENTORY IN THE Tptpll OF THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+50 TO 17+56 The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in largelithophysal inventory in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+50 to 17+56 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.4 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined on data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were determined in support of this report. Descriptive statistics are provided for the sizes (actually areas in mm2) and percent of the individual and total area for lithophysal cavities for 5-m long and 10-m long tunnel segments. The descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AD L- Litho.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-36 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report VII.6.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ABUNDANCE OF LITHOPHYSAE AND SPOTS IN THE Tptpll ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+05 TO 23+35 (MONGANO ET AL. 1999) The descriptive statistics for the abundance of lithophysae and spots in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+05 to 23+25 were compiled in support of the calculation of the distribution of the abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.3 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined from (and are consistent with) values described in Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 and 4). The descriptions presented in Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 and 4) are summarized in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AE Mongano.xls (Attachment VIII), and specific values are listed in 5-m station increments. The estimated “median” and “maximum” values are summarized in Table VII-11 where the “median” values do not include local maximum values and the “maximum” values include only the maximum values. The descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the- shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2. The Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AE Mongano.xls, can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. VII.6.6 CORRELATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO TAPE TRAVERSE DATA AND DETERMINATION OF “BEST FIT” VALUES OF LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, AND MATRIX-GROUNDMASS IN THE Tptpll ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT To produce the “best fit” values for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and matrix- groundmass located every 5 m along the ECRB Cross-Drift, the tape traverse data output for cavities and “rims plus spots” were initially corrected to the angular traverse data, then panel map data, and finally with one more set of empirical correction factors. The panel map and angular traverse data are not corrected and are from the original lithophysal study data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) and the tape traverse data are from the file Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII). The basic data including 10-m to 30-m moving averages of tape data, correlation equations, and empirical corrections are included in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P Fit.xls (Attachment VIII), and can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. The descriptive statistics in the “Length - Fit and Stats” and “Volume Percent - Stats” worksheets were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2. A description of the worksheets contained in Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P Fit.xls is provided as follows: 1. The “T-A-P Cav Fit” worksheet contains lithophysal cavity data from the tape and angular traverses and panel maps, and compares and correlates the tape and angular traverse data using equations of correlation. The abundance of cavities are calculated using the tape data and correlation equation and results in values every 5 meters along the tunnel (symbol Ct). The “Ct” values are used in the “Length - Fit and Stats” worksheet. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-37 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VII-11. Descriptive Statistics for “Median” and “Maximum” Abundance (Percent) of Lithophysal Cavities and Spots in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+44 to 23+26 Estimated from Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 and 4) Descriptive Statistics 1444 to 2326 1460 to 2320 Lithop (M) Spots (M) Spot(M Por) Lithop (M) Spots (M) Spot(M Por) Estimated Mean Values Mean 8.67 13.52 3.38 8.81 13.35 3.34 Standard Error 0.33 0.89 0.22 0.34 0.90 0.23 Median 7.50 7.00 1.75 7.50 7.00 1.75 Mode 10.00 6.00 1.50 10.00 6.00 1.50 Standard Deviation 4.56 12.15 3.04 4.57 12.14 3.03 Sample Variance 20.82 147.63 9.23 20.84 147.31 9.21 Kurtosis 3.21 -0.58 -0.58 3.18 -0.47 -0.47 Skewness 1.53 1.09 1.09 1.52 1.14 1.14 Range 23.00 37.00 9.25 23.00 36.00 9.00 Minimum 2.00 3.00 0.75 2.00 4.00 1.00 Maximum 25.00 40.00 10.00 25.00 40.00 10.00 Sum 1612.00 2514.50 628.63 1586.00 2403.50 600.88 Count 186 186 186 180 180 180 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.66 1.75 0.44 0.67 1.77 0.44 Estimated Maximum Values Mean 12.27 12.27 4.20 12.48 16.63 4.16 Standard Error 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.40 0.99 0.25 Median 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 Mode 15.00 15.00 1.75 15.00 7.00 1.75 Standard Deviation 5.39 5.39 3.33 5.35 13.27 3.32 Sample Variance 29.05 29.05 11.06 28.59 176.00 11.00 Kurtosis 1.78 1.78 -0.95 1.82 -0.86 -0.86 Skewness 1.13 1.13 0.87 1.15 0.92 0.92 Range 27.00 27.00 9.25 27.00 35.00 8.75 Minimum 3.00 3.00 0.75 3.00 5.00 1.25 Maximum 30.00 30.00 10.00 30.00 40.00 10.00 Sum 2283.00 2283.00 781.75 2247.00 2994.00 748.50 Count 186 186 186 180 180 180 Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.77 0.77 0.48 0.78 1.94 0.48 Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 2. The “T-A-P R-S Fit” worksheet contains estimated “rims plus spot” data from the tape traverses and angular traverse and panel map data, and compares and correlates the tape and angular traverse data using equations of correlation. The abundance of “rims plus spots” is calculated using the tape data and correlation equation and results in values every 5 meters along the tunnel. These calculated tape values are adjusted by to the angular traverse and panel map values by empirically determined correction factors and result in “best fit” values “Rims+Spots (tape-cor)”. The “Rims+Spots (tape-cor)” values are used in the “Length - Fit and Stats” worksheet. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 3. The “Length - Fit and Stats” worksheet summarize lithophysal cavity, rim, and spot data from the corrected tape traverses and the angular traverses and panel maps, and is used to develop “fitted” abundance along the tunnel. The “Ct” values are from the “T-A-P Cav Fit” worksheet, and the “Rims+Spots (tape-cor)” values are from the “T-A-P R-S Fit” worksheet. “Fitted” cavity, rim, and spot curves are developed using corrected tape values that are adjusted by to the angular traverse and panel map values with empirically determined correction factors. Descriptive statistics for abundance of cavities, rims, and spots are determined for data along the tunnel from Stations 14+60 to 23+20, the “best” technical data from 14+60 to 22+00, and as a “average” for the entire Tptpll zone. 4. The “Volume Percent - Stats” worksheet replicates the “Length - Fit and Stats” worksheet, but the porosity is calculated every 5 meters along the tunnel and is “averaged” for the total length of the Tptpll zone. The amount of matrix- groundmass is determined by difference (100 minus the sum of cavities, rims, and spots). Porosity of lithophysal cavities are assumed to be 1.00 (cm3/cm3), rims and spots are 0.25 (cm3/cm3), and the matrix-groundmass is 0.13 (cm3/cm3). Descriptive statistics for the porosity of cavities, rims, and spots are determined for data along the tunnel from Stations 14+60 to 23+20, the “best” technical data from 14+60 to 22+00, and as a “average” for the entire Tptpll zone. VII.6.7 ACCURACY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED VALUES The accuracy of measured values must be understood in the context of three conditions: (1) the specific measurements made on features, (2) conditions that affect the measurements, and (3) how well the measurements and the summed and calculated values represent the three-dimensional distributions of the features. Accuracy of measured data for each of the four data collection methods. The panel maps are at a 1:10 scale and measurements are recorded to the nearest millimeter. Individual measurements in the panel maps can be accurate to 1 or 2 mm for small or narrow features; however, large, irregularly shaped objects (those with dimensions of several decimeters) can be accurate to 10 to 50 mm depending on how the data collector identifies the long and short axes. Angular traverses are measured in degrees and minutes, and the recorded values are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes (5’). In the ECRB Cross-Drift, an arc of 5’ calculates to about 4 mm on the tunnel wall, and this is also about the diameter of the laser beam. Pragmatically, the identification of the edge of a feature is a function of how sharp (or gradational) is the edge and the conditions in the tunnel. The edges of most features including lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots are relatively sharp (can be identified to less than 2 mm in width) with close examination. However for most features, the distance from the data collector to the tunnel wall was 1 to 3.5 m, so even with binoculars, the accuracy of the measurement is about 15’ (about 10 mm). The conditions in the tunnel during collection of the angular traverse data included the need to wear safety glasses (and at times respirator), irregular distribution of tunnel illumination, dust cover on the tunnel walls, irregularities (breakouts) along the tunnel walls, and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-39 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report obstructions to the line of sight and the need to estimate positions of features. With these various conditions, a practical accuracy is probably 5’ to 40’ (about 4 to 30 mm) for any given measurement. The tape (stadia rod) used for the tape traverses is divided into decimeters and centimeters, and the data can be recorded to the nearest 1 cm. However, based on the projection of the cavity walls to the tape and the difficulties in positioning the tape along the wall results in a practical accuracy of probably 2 to 10 cm for any given measurement. Similar to the tape traverse measurements, the tape (stadia rod) used in the largelithophysae inventory is divided into decimeters and centimeters, and the data can be recorded to the nearest 1 cm. However, based on the projection of the cavity walls to the tape and the difficulties in positioning the tape along the wall results in a practical accuracy probably 2 to 10 cm for any given measurement. Conditions that affect the accuracy and use of measurements. In the panel maps there are a three main conditions that can affect the accuracy of the values (others are described in the data package for DTN: GS021008314224.002): 1. The boundaries of features in the Corel Draw panel maps are based on photographic interpretation, hand-drawn maps compiled in the tunnel, and values measured in the tunnel and recorded in the Excel workbooks. Boundaries of features are typically sharp (as described above); however, the portrayal of the boundaries, regardless of being observations in the tunnel or as photographic interpretation, is a bit subjective; therefore, it can affect the accuracy of the feature boundaries. The subjective aspects typically arise where the edge of a feature does not occur on the tunnel wall (i.e., in a broken out lithophysal cavity or block bounded by fractures). The attempted balance used by the mapper is to project the contact to the plane of the tunnel wall, which is the plane on which the map is made, but also depict the contact where it “appears” to be on the photograph and would be viewed by other users. In part, this is an issue of perspective, but it probably does not affect the total percent of features by more than 1 to 3 percent. 2. A few of the panels from 17+63 to 23+00 were not washed as well as the ones from 14+90 to 17+63; therefore, the photographs of the tunnel walls were not as helpful for mapping the features. One result of the incomplete washing was that some of the features were more difficult to identify in the photograph than in other locations. A second result was that some of the lithophysal cavities that had been backfilled with rock-flour from the tunnel boring machine were not cleaned out; therefore, they were excavated by hand and hammer. Because the photographs were taken before this additional excavation, the edges of the lithophysae were approximated and drawn on the photograph. 3. Rocks in the panel maps have distributions in the sizes and spatial positions of lithostratigraphic features; therefore, the position of the map-area (1x3 m) box can result in variations in areas. Panel map 1641-44L was used to compare the original 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-40 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report position of the map area (that which is included in the data package) and four other alternative positions. The alternative positions were selected such that one position is to the upper left of the original position, and the other alternative positions are to the upper right, lower right, and lower left (respectively) of the original position. Descriptive statistics on the percent areas determined from the five map positions indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent confidence levels of less than 0.5 percent (Table VII-12). Table VII-12. Comparative Values from the Original Position of the Panel Pap and Four Alternative-Position Maps Map positions No. of Objects MGM % L-cavities % L-rims % Spots % C-Lithic % Original position (OP) 117 71.61 19.01 5.75 3.49 0.14 Alternative position 1 (AP1) 90 70.35 21.70 5.13 2.77 0.05 Alternative position 2 (AP2) 110 75.69 15.52 5.01 3.54 0.24 Alternative position 3 (AP3) 106 76.75 14.45 4.91 3.65 0.24 Alternative position 4 (AP4) 99 75.77 15.89 5.20 3.08 0.05 Descriptive statistics No. of Objects MGM % L-cavities % L-rims % Spots % C-Lithic % Mean 104.40 74.03 17.31 5.20 3.31 0.15 Standard Error 4.63 1.28 1.33 0.15 0.17 0.04 Median 106.00 75.69 15.89 5.13 3.49 0.14 Standard Deviation 10.36 2.85 2.98 0.33 0.37 0.09 Sample Variance 107.30 8.15 8.89 0.11 0.14 0.01 Range 27.00 6.40 7.25 0.84 0.88 0.19 Minimum 90.00 70.35 14.45 4.91 2.77 0.05 Maximum 117.00 76.75 21.70 5.75 3.65 0.24 Confidence Level(95.0%) 12.86 3.54 3.70 0.40 0.46 0.12 NOTES: MGM = matrix-groundmass, L-cavities = lithophysal cavities, L-rims = rims on lithophysae, C-Lithic = lithic clasts. In the tape traverse data there are three main conditions that can affect the accuracy of the values (others are described in the data package for DTN: GS021008314224.002): 1. In the data package, the amounts of lithophysal cavities in the tape traverses from 21+25 to 23+35 are greater than (and from 22+01 to 23+35 much greater than) those documented in panel maps and angular traverses. This segment of the tunnel was the first to have data collected and it contains abundant spots. Re-examination of the exposures from 21+25 to 22+01 indicates many of the initially identified lithophysae are spots, although some spots have a thin stringer or veinlet inside, and this appears to have lead to the identification as lithophysae. 2. Tape traverse data were collected by three collectors, and there appears to be a slight variation in the estimated amounts of rims and spots depending on the different collectors. There are slightly smaller estimates in the section from 14+00 to 17+63 compared to the section from 17+63 to 22+01. Additionally, some of the 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-41 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report measurements of rims and spots from the panel maps and angular traverses in these sections of the tunnel appear to confirm the smaller visual estimates determined in the tape traverse. However, other panel map and angular traverse data appears to indicate the visual estimates determined in the tape traverse are a little small. Adjustments of the tape data are described in Sections VII.3 and VII.6. 3. In the tape traverse data, one component used in calculating the abundance of lithophysal cavities is the total length of the traverse. The length of the traverse results from the amount of construction materials in the tunnel and the height of the laser-prism above the invert (see Figure VII-1 and the data package for DTN: GS021008314224.002 for a detailed discussion). The traverses began at the top of the compressed air pipe and ended at the top of the conveyor belt, and the construction materials that affected the length include pipes, electrical lines, steel sets, vent lines, the conveyor belt and frame, and other equipment. Although the influence of the laser-prism height on the length was discussed by investigators, it was never specified and not explicitly recorded. Initially (from Station 22+00 to 19+80), the total and visible lengths were measured for each traverse with a wheel on the end of the extension rod/handle. At Station 19+80 the compiler determined that most measured lengths and tunnel conditions were similar enough that the visible length of 6.7 m was used as the standard value for the remainder of the traverses to Station 14+05. Some of the angular traverses were measured at the same locations as the tape traverses, and the calculated visible lengths vary from 7.0 to 7.8 m (these values do not include the traverses where there is no vent line or conveyor). This comparison indicates the 6.7-m visible length is probably too short for most of the tape traverses. The amount of difference in the calculated percent based on the total length of the traverse is proportional to the amount of cavities measured such that a traverse with only a few percent cavities is barely affected whereas the traverse with the most cavities is affected the most. For example, the greatest effect occurs in the traverse at 16+00 with 3.6-m length of cavities, so with a 6.7-m length, the cavities form 53.9 percent of the tunnel wall. If the visible length of the tape traverse is adjusted to 7.2 m, the calculated abundance of lithophysal cavities locally decreases by much as 3.7 percent (a 6.9 percent decrease). Additionally, and if the adjusted visible length is 7.4 m, the cavity value decreases by as much as 5.8 percent (a 10.7 percent decrease). The correction of tape data is described more in Sections VII.3 and VII.6. There were three main restrictions on the amount of time allowed to collect the data from Stations 17+63 to 23+35. The first two time constraints were related to the closing of the bulkheads at Stations 22+01 and 17+63. The bulkhead at 22+01 was closed on November 14, 2001 and the bulkhead at 17+63 was closed on December 20, 2001. The main affect of these closures was that a lot of data had to be collected in a very short amount of time, and some of the basic techniques of collection had not been thoroughly tested. The data behind the 22+01 bulkhead had to be technically reviewed prior to the closing of the bulkhead. All the data behind the 17+63 bulkhead was collected in respirators and Tivex suites as a result of issues with “mold.” The third time constraint was the 6-week long stand-down of work at the site from late March to early May when no one was allowed to work in the tunnel. These restrictions in access to the tunnel 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-42 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report necessitated a greater reliance on photographic interpretations than would be desirable. For example, the short time frame in which to collect all the panel data prior to closing of the bulkheads resulted in the mappers focusing on the lithophysal cavities and rims, and less attention was on the spots. In a few panel maps, spots appear to be slightly under represented and some spots were added to the maps during the photographic interpretation. Qualitatively, there are reasonably good comparisons of values measured with different techniques, and some data can be compared quantitatively. Differences in the values measured by the three methods (panel maps, angular traverses, and tape traverses) are expected because of how the data are collected, and these relations are implicit in the need to design three methods of data collection. The lithophysal cavity values from the tape traverses tend to be 1 to 3 times greater than in adjacent or co-located panel map and/or angular traverse values. The angular traverse values (for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and clasts) tend to be slightly greater than those for the panel maps; however, locally the panel map values can be greater. The average lithophysal-cavity value that is fully within the lower lithophysal zone (from Station 14+60 to 23+20) is 18.9 percent from tape traverses (nonadjusted values from Table VII-4) compared to 15.5 percent from angular traverses and 12.9 percent from panel maps Table VII-9). How well measurements represent the three-dimensional distributions of the features. Determining the 3-dimensional size, shape, and distribution of features and objects is one of the ultimate results of all the measurements described in this section. Most measurements in solid objects that can not be disaggregated (such as rocks) are made with 2-dimensional cross sections and 1-dimensional traverses, so it is important to appreciate the geometric relations of the three-dimensional objects with respect to how they are measured. For example, an ellipsoid consisting of three axes (A is the longest, B is intermediate in length, and C is the shortest) can be cut along many planes to create various two dimensional cross sections (Figure VII-22). The smallest cross sectional area is for a plane through the B-C axes, an intermediate cross sectional area is through the AC axes, and the maximum cross sectional area is through the A-B axes. An ellipsoid is a simplified rendition of many lithostratigraphic features, especially where a foliation is well developed such as rocks in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the ECRB Cross- Drift. With respect to the lower lithophysal zone in the tunnel, the left and right ribs approximate cuts along planes parallel to the one that contains the A-C axes, and the crown and invert approximate cuts along planes parallel to the one that contain the A-B axes. Cross sections that contain the primary axes and transect the center of the ellipsoid have the maximum area (for example, a and c in Figure VII-22). However, any plane cut parallel to the primary plane (for example A-C) that does not transect the center of the ellipsoid has the same cross sectional shape, but the axes are shorter (a2 and c2) and the area is smaller. If a 1-dimensional linear traverse transects an object, then the maximum length of the intercept occurs only if the transect is along the primary axis (for example, c in Figure VII-22). However, if the transect is parallel to the C axis, but does not intersect the center of the ellipsoid, then the length of the intercept is less than the length of the axis (for example, c’ and c’2 in Figure VII-22). These relations are the basis of the observation in the YMP-USGS Technical Procedure GP-20 R1 (Estimating Abundance of Features in Core and in Outcorp, Including Lithophysae, Spots, Clasts, and Fractures) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-43 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report that 2- and 1-dimensional measurements typically result in under estimates of the true measurements of a feature. This review of geometric relations of measurements indicates that even with all the methods used and documentation of measurements and correlations of values between the various techniques, the actual values at a specific location or the descriptive statistics probably represent minimum values. NOTES: The A axis is the longest axis, the B axis is the intermediate length, and the C axis is the shortest. Figure VII-22. Geometric Relations of Three-Dimensional Ellipsoid with Two-Dimensional Cross Sections and One-Dimensional Transects 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-44 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VIII ELECTRONIC COMPUTER FILES SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT VIII ELECTRONIC COMPUTER FILES SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS The computer files developed for this report can be accessed from the Compact Discs (CDs) attached to this report, and include the following: • Calculation support files (CD Disc 1) • PFC Inputs & Outputs (PFC Files, CD Disc 2 through Disc 19) • UDEC Inputs & Outputs (UDEC Files, CD Disc 20 through Disc 24) Calculation files were developed in this model report to perform support calculation activities as described in Section 8, Section 9, and associated attachments. These calculations use the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software, including both Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 and Mathcad 2001i Professional. Table VIII-1 provides a listing of all calculation files, including the location in this report where the calculation is used. All calculation files listed in Table VIII-1 can be accessed from CD#1 attached to this report. The “Drift Deg AMR” files (first 6 files listed in Table VIII-1 can also be accessed through the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001, directory “Drift_Deg_Model_in_out/ Calculation Files/readme2.txt”). Table VIII-1. List of Electronic Calculation Files File Name File Type Brief Description Drift Deg AMR AA PMap.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.1). Drift Deg AMR AB A-Trav.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.2). Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.3, VII.6.6). Drift Deg AMR AD L-Litho.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.4). Drift Deg AMR AE Mongano.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.5). Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P Fit.xls Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross- Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.6). Compressive and Porosity Data.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core compressive strength, both unconfined and confined, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and porosity. The sheet also includes sample test conditions including temperature, strain rate, size, and length-to-diameter ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Sections 8.2.3.4, 8.4.2.1, 8.4.2.2, 8.4.4.2, and 8.4.4.3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VIII-1 (continued). List of Electronic Calculation Files Dynamic Elastic Master Sheet.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core dynamic Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s ratio. The sheet also includes sample test conditions including temperature, strain rate, size, and length-to-diameter ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Sections 8.4.3.2 and 8.4.3.3) ITS Master Sheet.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core indirect tensile strength and sample porosity. The sheet also includes sample test conditions including temperature, size, and length-to-diameter ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Section 8.4.4.4) Correct Tptpln.mcd MathCAD 2001i MathCAD calculation file that fits a Hoek-Brown failure curve to intact rock compressive and indirect tensile data for the Tptpln lithostratigraphic rock unit. (Section 8.4.4.5) Correct Tptpln.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Excel file that houses the discrete selections of data selected by the GoldSim file Tptpln.gsm. This file feeds the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting file Correct Tptpln.mcd. (Section 8.4.4.5) Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln Data.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Results of the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting routine. These results develop the input distributions for the GoldSim file Tptpln Final Model.gsm. (Section 8.4.4.5) Tptpln Final Model.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that calculates rock mass parameters including rock mass compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, friction angle, and cohesion. (Section 8.5.2) Tptpln.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that selects discrete sets of intact rock strength values from correlated laboratory rock test result distributions for the Tptpln lithostratigraphic rock unit. This file produces results saved in the file Correct Tptpln.xls. (Section 8.4.4.5) Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.mcd MathCAD 2001i MathCAD calculation file that fits a Hoek-Brown failure curve to intact rock compressive and indirect tensile data for the Tptpmn lithostratigraphic rock unit. (Section 8.4.4.5) Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Excel file that houses the discrete selections of data selected by the GoldSim file Tptpmn Hot.gsm. This file feeds the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting file Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.mcd. (Section 8.4.4.5) Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn Hot Data.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 The results of the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting routine. These results develop the input distributions for the GoldSim file Tptpmn Hot All Data Final Model.gsm. (Section 8.4.4.5) Tptpmn Hot All Data Final Model.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that calculates rock mass parameters including rock mass compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, friction angle, and cohesion. (Section 8.5.2) Tptpmn Hot.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that selects discrete sets of intact rock strength values from correlated laboratory rock test result distributions for the Tptpmn lithostratigraphic rock unit. This file produces results saved in the file Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls. (Section 8.4.4.5) 65A-642- specimen.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory direct shear test on specimen number 65A-642 (Section 8.6.5.2) 65A-643- specimen.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory direct shear test on specimen number 65A-643 (Section 8.6.5.2) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Table VIII-1 (continued). List of Electronic Calculation Files 65A-646- specimen.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory direct shear test on specimen number 65A-646 (Section 8.6.5.2) 65A-647- specimen.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory direct shear test on specimen number 65A-647 (Section 8.6.5.2) 65A-657- specimen.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory direct shear test on specimen number 65A-657 (Section 8.6.5.2) DirectShearRockJo intData_SGPR00A. xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for descriptive statistics of fracture mechanical properties from direct shear testing (Sections 8.6.4.2 and 8.6.5.2) RotaryRockJointDa ta_SGPR00A.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for descriptive statistics of fracture mechanical properties from rotary shear testing (Sections 8.6.4.1 and 8.6.5.1) PanelUnitPercenta ge_SGPR.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for the determination of the percentage of lithostratigraphic units for all emplacement drifts (Section 5.4) Lithophysal projection to vertical plane.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Input data, intermediate calculations, and results of the assessment of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity (Section 9.4.3) 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT IX INTACT ROCK MECHANICAL DATA 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-1 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report ATTACHMENT IX INTACT ROCK MECHANICAL DATA AND SOURCE CORRECTIONS IX.1 INTRODUCTION The Project’s intact rock mechanical data originated from testing that began in the late 1970’s and is ongoing. Test data was submitted to the Project incrementally as work was completed, and each submission came in different form. The results of the various testing were submitted to the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) in the form of multiple data tracking numbers (DTNs). The data was collected over a long period of time, and therefore, was collected under several evolving quality programs having various requirements and purposes. A recent qualification effort described in procedure AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data, has located and researched the appropriateness of data documents under our current quality expectations. This work looked only at the documentation supporting the collection and movement of data, not at the data itself. The result of this recent qualification effort produced three data qualification reports related to intact rock mechanical data: 1. “Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion” by E.M. Cikanek, T.A. Grant, and R.J. Blakely. The output data appears in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. 2. “Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Poisson’s Ratio and Young’s Modulus” by E.M. Cikanek, L.E. Safley, and T.A. Grant. The output data appears in MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. 3. “Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness, and Rock Triaxial Creep” by E.M Cikanek, R.J. Blakely, T.A. Grant, and L.E. Safley. The output data appears in DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. IX.2 CORRECTIONS TO SOURCE DATA While these reports located and organized data for use, many errors have been found in data source reports and TDMS data summaries that must be corrected. Corrections have been submitted to the Corrective Action Program (CAP) program and the next revision of this report will produce output DTNs with these corrections. The corrections needed for static strength testing (DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002) and associated elastic parameters 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-2 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report (MO0304DQRIRPPR.002) are presented in Table IX-1. Each group of errors is associated with a CR identifier in the CAP system. Table IX-2 presents the differential strength, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and porosity for all currently known data. The data in Table IX-2 contains both qualified and unqualified data. At times, strength values were qualified, but corresponding elastic modulus values of the same sample were not located in the elastic parameters data search. The effort of locating, qualifying, and summarizing the strength values was performed separately from the locating, qualifying, and summarizing of the related elastic parameters. The locating, qualifying, and summarizing of porosity for the samples discussed in this report has not yet occurred, and is expected to begin in November of 2003. The data presented in the tables highlighted in yellow indicates that the data is different than that presented in the appropriate data qualification summary report, but the changed data exists as qualified and verified in the originating DTN or data report. Results with a indigo background are different than the data presented in the appropriate data qualification report, but the results in the originating DTN are not qualified and/or verified. The data included as part of this report or changed from the data qualification reports were thoroughly investigated and believed to be correct and appropriate and qualified for use. These data will be tracked and updated, if necessary, to reflect the final results from the technical reviews of the data and the continuing qualification efforts. Comments are shown providing more information about the highlighted cells in the electronic file, Compressive and Porosity Data.xls (Attachment VIII). Sources for the indirect tensile data summary, DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002, were all qualified at the start of the qualification and summary effort. Changes in listed lithostratigraphic unit and an incorrect sample depth were found and changes are being initiated. Details of the specific differences between the data presented in this report and the data in the data qualification summary DTN, MO0306DQRIRPTS.002, are presented in Table IX-3. The indirect tensile data currently used in presented in full in Table IX-4. Additional comments are shown providing more information in the electronic file, ITS Master Sheet.xls (Attachment VIII). Dynamic Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio data came primarily from the qualification effort’s summary DTN, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Several corrections to this source were needed to allow the data to be properly summarized, and are presented in Table IX-5. These issues have been corrected in the data provided in this report, and source data is expected to be corrected for the next revision of this report. The actual dynamic Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio data supporting summary Tables 8-30 and 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-3 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 8-31 appears in Table IX-6 of this attachment. The data is appended electronically to this report as Dynamic Elastic Master Sheet.xls (Attachment VIII). IX.3 CONCLUSIONS Several data corrections with attached Condition/Issue Identification and Reporting/ Resolution System (CIRS) or Condition Reports (CRs) are proposed in Tables IX-1, IX3, and IX-5. These issues are currently being resolved and source data will be corrected as soon as the associated error has been corrected. Corrective Action Report 107 will address many of the failures that occurred that allowed these errors to occur. The Geotechnical Engineering Group of Design and Engineering within the Repository Development group will be making a thorough technical evaluation of the geotechnical data in the spring of 2004, and will likely find other necessary corrections as the data is examined. After this work is completed, it is intended to produce a relational database of geotechnical parameters that will become the basis for data used for detailed design of engineered geotechnical components and for geotechnical analysis. As with all engineering work, input data should be analyzed by the user to determine its correctness, appropriateness of use, and quality prior to using it for design activities. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-4 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1: Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 1 R ock com pre ssive strength values from D T N SN L02030193001.001 values were used in the sum m ary and not included in the M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002. T he elastic values for this DT N were used in M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002. SN L02030193001.001 Lines 74-75, 101104, 125-126, 135, 144-145, 157-158, 165167, 211-216 T he qualification report for intact rock com pressive strength did not include DT N SN L02030193001.001 strength data, but the m odulus and Poisson's ratio value s fro m this D T N were used in M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002. The DTN is currently qualified and verified. 865 DT N G S 921283114220.008 is AQ V and 2 V alues of Young's M odulus and Poisson's ratio included, were not included in M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 G S921283114220.008, Accession NN A.19930614.0024 Lines 26-28, 36, 45-47, 70, 72-73 values of strength were used in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002. The associated qualified verified elastic values have been added 870 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 164 to 167 of 3 C orrect units of T pcpm n are used instead of the reported T pk. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 917-920 Lines 63-66 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 92-94 and 478 in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpm n 872 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 113-126 of 4 C orrect units of T pcpll are used instead of the reported T pc. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 828-829, 834-845 Lines 74-87 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 12-19 and 296-299 in M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpll 873 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 130-131 of 5 C orrect units of T pcpln are used instead of the reported T pk . M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 914 and 915 Lines 91-92 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 76-77 in M O 0308R C KPRPC S.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln 875 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 136 of M O 0304D Q R IR P P R.002 6 C orrect units of T pcplnc are used instead of the reported T pk and T pcln. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 916 Line 123 re ports it as T pcpln, line 916 of the sam e DT N reports it as Tpk, and line 78 in M O 0308R C K PR PCS.002 reporting strength state the correct 876 lithostratigraphic unit is T pcplnc. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-5 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 109-112 of 7 Correct units of T pcpln are used instead of the reported T pk and T pc. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 909-913 and 109-112 Lines 93-97 M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as T pc and lines 415 and 421-423 in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The Youngs m odulus values in lines 909-913 of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the specim ens as originating from the T pk. 877 8 M issing Poisson's ratio of 0.20. D ata added. SN L02030193001.016 SEP S99112_003 Line 97 T he data from SN L02030193001.016 from sam ple N R G -7/7A-55.4-SN L-A is qualified and verified. All other values used. This value was also used. It appears as if though it was just left out. 879 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 137-145 of 9 Correct lithostratigraphic unit from Strength M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002 M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 921 to 929 Lines 98-100 and 113-118 M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as T pcpln and lines 86-91 and 475-477 in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The Youngs m odulus values in lines 921-929 of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the specim ens as originating from the T pk. 880 T he corresponding Poisson's values in lines 132-135 of 10 Correct lithostratigraphic unit of Tpcpln used instead of T pc M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 830-833 Lines 101-104 M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as T pcpln. T he Youngs m odulus values in lines 830-833 of 882 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 reports the specim ens as originating from the T pc. T he Poisson's values in lines 101-108 of 11 Correct lithostratigraphic unit of Tpcpln used instead of T pc and Tpk M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 101-108 and 894-901 Lines 105-112 M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as T pc and lines 309-316 in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting strength state the correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The Youngs m odulus values in lines 894-901 of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the specim ens as originating from the T pk. 883 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-6 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 12 Correct units of T pcpv2 used instead of Tpcpv M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 line 95 and M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 185 and 875 Line 124 T he lithostratigraphic unit for Poisson's ratio and Young's m odulus in DTN M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 is T pcpv2 and is m ore specific than the unit of T pcpv used in M O 0308R CKPR PC S.002 for 884 strength. 13 T he unit of T pbt4 for sam ple SD -12-267.1- SNL-A in DT N M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 is corrected to T pbt3 M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 line 474, M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 98 and 824 Line 142 T he lithostratigraphic unit for Poisson's ratio and Young's m odulus in DTN M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002 is T pbt3. T he unit unit of T pbt4 used in M O 0308R C K PR PC S .002 for strength. T he correct unit is T pbt3. 885 14 T he unit of T pp for sam ple N R G -6-222.0- S NL-A in DT N M O 0304DQ R IRPPR.002 is corrected to T pbt2 from T pp M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 86 and 932 Line 165 T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is T pbt2. Line 932 of M O 0304D R Q IR PPR .002 incorrectly reports the unit to be T pp. Line 86 of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports Poisson's ratio values for the sam e 886 specim en and reports the specim ens originate from T pbt2 unit. T he differentiation to finer units is 15 T he unit of T pcpv and T pcpv3 are corrected to T pcpv2 M O 0308R C KPR PC S .002 Lines 424-425 M O 0304D Q RIR PR .002 Lines 874 and 876, and lines 183 and 184 Lines 127, 128 necessary for proper sum m ary. T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is T pcpv2 for lines 874, 183, and 184 in DT N M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002. This unit is correct. T he incorrect unit of T pcpv3 for line 876 needs to be changed to T pcpv2. Lines 424 and 425 of D T N 887 M O 0308R C K PR PC S .002 also need bo be correct to unit T p cpv2 from T p cpv. T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is T pcpm n. Lines 917:920 of M O 0304D R Q IR PPR .002 incorrectly report this. Lines 164 through 167 of S am ples reporting Young's m odulus M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports values from the T pk lithostratigraphic unit Poisson's ratio values for the sam e 16 were actually collected in the T pcpm n unit. M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 917 to 920 Lines 63 to 66 specim ens and reports the specim ens 890 T he correct unit is reported in the sum m ary table. originate from T pcpm n. Lines 274, 279, 280, and 385 of M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002 reports strength and that the specim ens originated from the T pcpm n unit. The hole SD -12 never sam pled T pk rock. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-7 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR T he differentiation to finer units is necessary for proper sum m ary. T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpv1 for lines 177-178 and 869-870 as 17 T he unit of T pcpv is corrected to T pcpv1 from T pcpv and M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 426-427 M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 177-178, and 869 -870 Lines 130, 131 suggested in DT N M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002. This unit is correct. T he unit of T pcpv for line 426427 of DT N M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002 894 needs to be changed to T pcpv2. T he unit with grater differentiation is now included. T he differentiation to finer units is 18 T he unit of T pcpv is corrected to T pcpv1 from T pcpv and T pbt4 M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 416, 501 M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 826, 871, 179-180 Lines 129,132 necessary for proper sum m ary. T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpv1 for lines 871, 179, and 180 in DT N M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002. This unit is correct. T he incorrect unit of T pbt4 for line 826 needs to be changed to T pcpv1. Lines 416 and 501 of DT N 895 M O 0308RCKPRPC S.002 need to be changed to T pcpv1. 19 Elastic properties from D T N LL990205304243.032 included. T hey were excluded from M O 0304D Q RIRPPR.002 LL990205304243.032 Lines 334-363 Elastic properties were m issed in elastic qualification report. They need to be qualified and verified before inclusion in the SG PR . 896 20 Value of Poisson's R atio excluded (-0.01) is not a possible value M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 388 Line 571 T he value of -0.01 for Poisson's Ratio is physically im possible. The value is removed for summary 897 21 E lastic properties from accession NNA.19890825.0178 Table 5 were excluded from DT N M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 but strength values were included in M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002. T he elastic values will be included in the SG PR. NNA.19890825.0178 T able 5 Specim ens: BB-10-AE-19Y, BB-10-AE-44Y, BB-10-AE- 13Y, BB-10-AE-43X, BB-10-AE-49Y, BB-10- A E-13W , BB-10-AE-34X, BB-10-AE-41X , B B -10-AE-45Y. M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 206-206 and 893-898 Lines 477-478, 482-484, 489492 Strength values frot hese sam ples are given in rows 206-208 and 893-898 in DT N M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 but were not included in the elastic sum m ary. T hey will be included in the SG PR . 898 22 T he incorrect lithostratigraphic unit of T ptpln is corrected to T ptpll M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 239 and 997. M O 0308RCKPRPC S.002 line 317 Line 695 T he correct unit is T ptpll for line 997 of M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 899 23 P oisson's ratio included for sam ple G U-3 1195.1/1 SNSAND83164600.000 Line 858 Poisson's ratio of 0.18 included for sam ple G U -3 1195.1/1 900 24 Duplicate data rem oved M O 0304D Q RIRPPR.002 Lines 360-362, 364-368 Lines 580, 586, 593, 591, 581, 585, and 592 Lines 360-362 and 364-368 of M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 are duplicates of 345-347 and 348-352 of the sam e sheet 901 25 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from Tptpv to Tptpv3 M O 0308R C KPR P CS.002 Lines 185-188 Lines 850-853 T he further differntiation is necessary to properly sum m arize test results 905 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-8 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 26 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from Tptpv to Tptpv3 M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 582-585 and 1344-1348 M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 Lines 483, 101, 102, 294, and 282 Lines 854-858 T he further differntiation is necessary to properly sum m arize test results. Lines from M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 are labled T ptpv. T he specim ens were determ ined to be from T ptpv3 and this is supported from lines from M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 906 27 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from Tptpv to Tptpv2 M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1341-1343 and 579-581. M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 Lines 293, 292, and 295. Lines 859-861 T he further differntiation is necessary to properly sum m arize test results. Lines from M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 are labled T ptpv. T he specim ens were determ ined to be from T ptpv2 and this is supported from lines from M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 907 Lines 880-895, 941-942, 947948, 955-969, 28 Elastic data included from DT N SNSAND82131500.000 included SNSAND82131500.000 SEP S99007_002 977-980, 985991, 996-1009, 1015-1016, 1019-1022, Report says that DT N SNSAND82131500.000 repeats or sum m arizies data, so will not be used. T here is no ther location found in the 908 1028-1029, 1032-1033, report that provides inform ation from this DTN. T he data is included in the SG PR. 1036-1047, 1065-1066, 1069-1072 29 Young's M odulus values included from DTN SNSAND81166400.000 SNSAND81166400.000 SEP S96149_001 M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 Lines 152-158 Lines 951-954 and 972-974 Since the strength values were qualified, there is no reason the Young's m odulus values should not be qualified and used in the sum m ary. T hey are used in the SG PR. 912 30 Added m issed Poisson's ratio for specim en G 12996.9 SLB from DT N SNSAND82105500.000 R ow 7 M 00308RCKPRPC S.002 Line 608 Line 1034 T he data point for Poisson's ratio was not included in D T N M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 but is included 913 SNSAND82105500.000 M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 781 as the Young's m odulus value and strength w ere 31 Strength and elastic data not included in qualification reports. R esults from sam ple 108 from DTN SNL02030180001.001 NNA.19930316.0044 shows strength and elastic values for specim en 108 Line 1077 Data was not included, but the rest of the D TN was. Data was m issed. 914 No data from original D T N (Accession 32 Data m islabled and dulplicated M O 0304DQ R IR PPR .002 Line 1480 Line 1081 NN A.19930316.0045) for specim en 104. 915 104 is duplicate of 105 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-9 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR T he addition of the elastic test results need to be included with the strength results of M O 0308RC KPR PC S.002 Lines Elastic data included from D T N SNSAND84110100.000 R ows 43-57 181-18 and 797-806. The 33 SNSAND84110100.000 and further differentiation of units needed M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 181-184 and 797-806 Lines 862 to 875 lithostratigraphic unit should also be differentiated to T ptpv1 as this is the unit which the specim ens were sam ples. Som e of the data from the originating DTN was included and som e was not. 916 34 Duplicate data rem oved M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1190-1191, 1031-1032, 463-464, and 304-305 Lines 619 and 622 Lines 1190-1191 are duplicate lines of 1031-1032 and 463-464 are duplicated of 304-305. T he duplicate data needs to be rem oved 919 35 P oisson's ratio rem oved in sum m ary M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 line 151 Line 62 Unrealistic Poisson's R atio (1.13) 920 36 P oisson's ratio rem oved in sum m ary M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 line 98 Line 142 Unrealistic Poisson's R atio (1.06) 920 37 T ensile strength elastic m odulus rem oved from com pressive stre ngth sum m ary sheet M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 1030 Not in Sum m ary Line 1030 of M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 lis an elastic m odulus of a tensile test and should not be included in the sum m ary report. 551 38 Dynam ic inappropriately used in static sum m ary sheet M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1292-1317 Not in Sum m ary Dynam ic data treated as static data. T his data is inappropirate and was not used in the static sum m ary report 551 39 Additional elastic data from DT N SNSAND85070300.000 which was excluded from DT N M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 is included. SNSAND85070300.000 SEP S97290_005 and SEP S97290_006. Lines 170-172, 200-201, 282289, 623-631, 637, 647-648, 850-853, 10931096, 1100-1102 V alues o f Yo ung's M odulus an d Poisson's ratio were not included in the sum m ary DT N. CIRS 4671 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-10 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR A ll other data from originating DT N were 40 Elastic values from DTN SNSAND85070300.000 included M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 807-813 Lines 1093-1096 and 1100-1102 included, so data from rows 30-63 of DT N S NSAND85070300.000 SEP T ables S97290_005 and S97290_005 CIRS 4671 were included in the SG PR 41 Sam ple nam e boobus corrected to G 12996.9 SLB M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 62 Line 1034 S am ple nam e was corrected as presented in originating D TN S NSAND82105500.000 590 42 Young's M odulus value added for sam ple G 4-686.6-B S NSAND84110100.000 SEP T able S 98225_003 Row 2 Line 401 A ll other data from originating DT N were included, so data from row 2 of D TN S NSAND84110100.000 SEP Table S 98225_003 were included in the SG PR. 923 43 Incorrect confining pressures listed with specim en results S NL02072983001.001 Lines 555-560 Correct C onfining Pressures were used instead of incorrect confining pressures reported in the TDM S 166 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-11 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2: Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-12 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-13 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-14 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-15 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-16 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-17 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-18 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-19 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-20 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-21 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-22 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-23 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-24 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-25 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-26 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-27 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-28 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-29 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-30 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-31 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-32 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-33 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-34 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-35 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-36 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-37 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, and Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-38 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-3: Corrections to Source DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 for Indirect Tensile Data Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 1 Sample depth corrected to reflect proper depth of sample recovery. MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 Line 105 Line 203 The sample is reported in originating DTN to have been recovered from DTN SNL02030193001.009 (row 19) from a depth of 762.1, not 828.4 as reported in MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. CIRS 4722 Data in rows 43-48 of DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are currently labeled Tpc un. Rows 43-44 of DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 should be 2 Appropriate lithostratigraphic units used instead of incorrect or insufficiently differentiated units provided in DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 Lines 43-48, 66-74, 90-95, 182-185 Lines 12-13, 1821, 34-40, 43-43, 102-107, 194197 labeled Tpcpll and rows 45-48 should be labeled Tpcplnc. Rows 66-74 of DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are also labeled Tpc un. They should be labeled Tpcplnh. Lines 90-95 of DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 should be labeled Tpk or Tpki; they are currently labeled Tpkbt1, which does not exist. Lines 182-185 of DTN 985 MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are currently labeled Tptrf. The Vulcan model shows that they should be labeled Tptprl for this borehole at the specified depth. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-39 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-4: Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-40 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-41 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-42 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-43 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-44 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-5: Corrections to Source DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 for Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Difference Source DTN(s) Location in Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR Data from specimens 9.5-16.2FT,-0, 16.2- 21.8FT,-03, and 21.8-30.6FT,-01-03 from report with accession NNA.19930614.0016 were incorrectly entered into the DTN 1 Data provided as GPa, the appropriate unit for Dynamic Young's Modulus MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 1483-1488 Lines 169-174 MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Values given in the originating document (NNA.19930614.0016 ) are in psi and not converted into GPa for the summary qaulification DTN. This affects 6 samples. The data needs to be correctly converted fromEnglish (psi) to SI units (Gpa) to be properly reported in the table. 605 Data is duplicated in the DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Lines 1509 2 Duplicate data is removed from summary sheet MO034DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 1509-1510, 1515-1516, 1667-1668, and 1673-1674 Not used and 1510 are repeated as lines 1515 and 1516. Lines 1667 and 1668 are repeated as lines 1673 and 1674. Half of the data 606 needs to be removed. 3 Duplicate data is removed from summary sheet MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 3871-3872 and 3877-3878, 3706-3707 and 3700-3701 Lines 155, 162 Data in rows 3877-3878 are duplicates of rows 3871-3872. Data in rows 37063707 are duplicated of 3700-3701. Duplicate data is removed from the summary. 1004 4 Impossible Poisson's values excluded from SGPR MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 - All Poisson's ratios less than 0, specifically rows 388 and 1803-1805 for the SGPR. Other rows include 2035-2038, 2907, 3036, 3163, 3173, 3176, 3180, 3181, 3826, 3831-3833, 3840, 3842, 3950, 5068. Lines 47-49, 117-118, 279, 282, 285 The values of Poisson's ratio less than zero are impossible and should not be included in summary data. 1005 5 Appropriate data included in the SGPR that was not included in qualification summary DTN. GS940408312232.010 Lines 2-135, 164-168, 302-341 Appropriate and qualified data from DTN GS940408312232.010 was not included in qualification and summary DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Only select data from the originating DTN was included, when all was appropriate. 1006 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-45 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6: Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-46 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-47 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-48 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-49 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-50 December 2003 Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio Data 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-51 December 2003