Sampling of Stochastic Input Parameters for Rockfall Calculations and for Structural Response Calculations Under Vibratory Ground Motion Rev 01, ICN 00
ANL-EBS-PA-000009
September 2004
1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this scientific analysis is to define the sampled values of stochastic (random) 
input parameters for (1) rockfall calculations in the lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones under 
vibratory ground motions, and (2) structural response calculations for the drip shield and waste 
package under vibratory ground motions. This analysis supplies: 
 Sampled values of ground motion time history and synthetic fracture pattern for 
analysis of rockfall in emplacement drifts in nonlithophysal rock (Section 6.3 of Drift 
Degradation Analysis, BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]) 
 Sampled values of ground motion time history and rock mechanical properties 
category for analysis of rockfall in emplacement drifts in lithophysal rock 
(Section 6.4 of Drift Degradation Analysis, BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]) 
 Sampled values of ground motion time history and metal to metal and metal to rock 
friction coefficient for analysis of waste package and drip shield damage to vibratory 
motion in Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) and in Structural Calculations of Drip Shield 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]). 
The sampled values are indices representing the number of ground motion time histories, number 
of fracture patterns and rock mass properties categories. These indices are translated into actual 
values within the respective analysis and model reports or calculations. 
This report identifies the uncertain parameters and documents the sampled values for these 
parameters. The sampled values are determined by GoldSim V6.04.007 [DIRS 151202] 
calculations using appropriate distribution types and parameter ranges. No software 
development or model development was required for these calculations. 
The calculation of the sampled values allows parameter uncertainty to be incorporated into the 
rockfall and structural response calculations that support development of the seismic scenario for 
the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application (TSPA-LA). The results 
from this scientific analysis also address project requirements related to parameter uncertainty, as 
specified in the acceptance criteria in Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]). 
This document was prepared under the direction of Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory 
Integration Modeling of Drift Degradation, Waste Package and Drip Shield Vibratory Motion 
and Seismic Consequences (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170528]) which directed the work identified in 
work package ARTM05. This document was prepared under procedure AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific 
Analyses. There are no specific known limitations to this analysis. 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
The Quality Assurance program applies to the development of this document because this 
scientific analysis develops data that support performance assessment. Applicability of the 
Quality Assurance requirements for this document is found in Section 8 of Technical Work Plan 
for: Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift Degradation, Waste Package and Drip Shield 
Vibratory Motion and Seismic Consequences (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170528]). This document has 
no variances from the Technical Work Plan, and was prepared in accordance with AP-SIII.9Q, 
Scientific Analyses and reviewed in accordance with AP-2.14Q, Document Review. The input 
data for this report are identified and tracked in accordance with AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical 
Product Inputs. The qualified software for this scientific analysis was obtained and used in 
accordance with LP-SI-11Q-BSC, Software Management. The calculations in this scientific 
analysis do not provide direct investigation or analysis of structures, systems, or components 
important to safety as defined by the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361], Table A-2). Methods 
used to control the electronic management of data, as required by AP-SV.1Q, Control of the 
Electronic Management of Information, are identified in Section 8 of the technical work plan 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170528]). No variances from the methods to control management of data as 
required in AP-SV.1Q were performed. 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
3.1 QUALIFIED SOFTWARE 
GoldSim was used for these calculations. GoldSim is a qualified code that is appropriate for the 
intended use and has been used only within its range of validation. GoldSim (GoldSim 
V6.04.007, STN: 10344-6.04.007-00 [DIRS 151202]) was obtained from Software Configuration 
Management (SCM) in accordance with LP-SI-11Q-BSC, Software Management. The software 
was used in the operating environment for which it was baselined by SCM and within the range 
for which it was validated. Version V6.04.007 of GoldSim was the baseline version of this 
program at the time analyses presented in previous version (Rev 00) of this report was 
conducted. The operating environment of the GoldSim software is Windows NT used on an 
Intel processor-based workstation. GoldSim was selected for use as it provided the capability to 
perform random sampling of a population of data, because it was in current use and therefore 
readily available on the Yucca Mountain Project, and because it has undergone quality assurance 
testing and documentation. The analyses reported in this document, which involve random 
sampling of populations using a Latin Hypercube sampling method, are within the range of use 
of this software1. 
3.2 EXEMPT SOFTWARE 
Microsoft Excel for Windows, Version 97 SR-2, is used to view the results from the GoldSim 
calculations. Excel is convenient for presentation of GoldSim output because GoldSim has the 
ability to write an output file that is compatible with Excel and because Excel is readily available 
on personal computers throughout the project. No added formulas or algorithms of any kind 
were executed by Excel and it is not used as a software routine. GoldSim file names resulting 
from these analyses are identified in Section 6.0. The tabulated data from the Excel files 
are presented as Microsoft Word tables in the output DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004. 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 is an exempt software product in accordance with Section 2.1.1 of 
LP-SI-11Q-BSC, Software Management. 
1 GoldSim is used to perform a random sampling of parameters in this document. Monte Carlo random sampling 
methods are typically used for this purpose. Latin Hypercube is a sampling methodology that requires fewer model 
iterations to approximate the desired variable distribution than the simple Monte Carlo method. The Latin 
Hypercube technique ensures that the entire range of each variable is sampled. 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
Direct input data to this analysis include the following: 
 Input values for the number of ground motion time histories (15) to describe potential 
variability of frequency content and amplitude. The technical basis for this input is given 
below. 
 Input values for number of lithophysal rock strength categories (5) that cover the 
expected strength range in situ. The technical basis for this input is given below. 
The number of ground motion time histories (15) for post-closure performance assessment is 
derived from the Development of Earthquake Ground Motion Input for Preclosure Seismic 
Design and Postclosure Performance Assessment of a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 
NV (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168780], Section 6.3.2.4). In that document, 17 sets of three-component 
time histories were developed for each annual probability of exceedance considered for 
post-closure analyses. The time histories selected were based on strong motion records chosen 
to represent the range of earthquake magnitudes and distances indicated by the peak ground 
velocity hazard analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168780], Table 6.3-9). As explained in that 
document, 15 sets of input ground motions are recommended by NUREG/CR-6728 (McGuire et 
al. 2001 [DIRS 157510], p. 3-3) when using a suite of time histories to perform soil-structure 
interaction analysis that is consistent with a probabilistically-defined seismic hazard. Two extra 
sets were developed to allow for substitutions if any of the 17 sets were found to be 
inappropriate. In this case, the response spectrum for the vertical component of set #15 is an 
outlier when plotted with the first 16 spectra. It exhibits anomalously low values at high 
frequencies (greater than about 2 Hz) and anomalously high values at low frequencies (less than 
about 0.2 Hz). Because of the anomalous character of set #15, set #16 was substituted for it in 
postclosure analyses. The use of set #17 as a substitute was not required. The ground motion 
sets are used in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Table 6-8 and 
Table 6-36), in the Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Table 1), and in the Structural Calculations of Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1-1). 
The number of lithophysal rock compressive strength categories (5) is derived from the Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Table 6-33 and Table E-10). The five 
categories of the lithophysal rock mass strength selected for analyses in that document represent 
the variability of rock mass quality of lithophysal rock throughout the repository. The categories 
include base case unconfined compressive strengths of 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 MPa, with 
associated Youngs modulus of 1.9, 6.4, 10.8, 15.3 and 19.7 GPa, respectively, which correspond 
to lithophysal porosities of approximately 35, 28, 21, 13 and 7 percent, and bounding 
unconfined compressive strengths of 10 to 11, 10 to 23, 10 to 32, 13 to 40, and 16 to 47 MPa, 
respectively. These property categories are based upon laboratory testing of large diameter rock 
core supplemented by numerical modeling, as described in the Drift Degradation Analysis 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Appendix E, Section E4.1). 
This scientific analysis does not use any previously developed or validated models to perform the 
analyses described in Section 6. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
General programmatic requirements for this document are listed in Technical Work Plan for: 
Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift Degradation, Waste Package and Drip Shield 
Vibratory Motion and Seismic Consequences (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170528]). The technical work 
plan specifies that this document must adhere to the requirements of AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific 
Analyses and that the acceptance criteria in Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) must be addressed. 
Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) contains the 
technical requirements that provide a basis for criteria relevant to this scientific analysis. The 
one requirement that is directly relevant to this scientific analysis and its link to 10 CFR Part 63 
[DIRS 156605], is defined in Section 3.4 of Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 
2003 [DIRS 166275]) as follows: 
 PRD-002/T-015: Requirements for Performance Assessment. 
Regulation 10 CFR 63.114 specifies technical requirements to be used in a 
performance assessment to demonstrate compliance to 10 CFR 63.113. It 
includes requirements for calculations, including data related to site geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry; the need to account for uncertainties and 
variabilities in model parameters, the need to consider alternative conceptual 
models, and technical bases for inclusion or exclusion of specific FEPs 
[features, events, and processes], deterioration or degradation processes of 
engineered barriers, and all the models used in performance assessment. 
The acceptance criteria that is relevant to requirement PRD-002/T-015 is found in 
Section 2.2.1.3.2 of Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). 
Two subcriteria of the third acceptance criterion in Section 2.2.1.3.2.3 are applicable to this 
scientific analysis: 
 Acceptance Criterion 3: Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through the 
Model Abstraction. 
(1) 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. 
(2) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for conceptual 
models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models considered in 
developing the assessment abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered 
barriers. This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or use of conservative 
limits. 
Section 6.5 provides a discussion of how this scientific analysis supports the characterization and 
propagation of uncertainty in the seismic scenario. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
The relevant codes and standards that are applicable to the development of this scientific analysis 
are 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605], specifically 10 CFR 63.114. 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
Section 6, Scientific Analysis Discussion, includes a series of decisions that are categorized as 
engineering judgments. Those engineering judgments are cited here as assumptions. 
5.1 MAJOR UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR ROCKFALL MODELING 
Assumption: The analyses in this report assume that the major uncertain parameters in the 
analysis of drift degradation in response to seismic loading are: 
 Ground motion and rock mass fracture geometry (nonlithophysal rock) 
 Ground motion and rock compressive strength (lithophysal rock). 
Basis: This assumption is required to provide an evaluation of those model input parameters that 
have greatest level of uncertainty and require stochastic variation of input for rockfall analysis. 
The basis for this assumption is engineering judgment. The nonlithophysal rock blocks are 
strong and elastic, and failure response controlled by the natural fracture sets. The lithophysal 
rock has lower strength and ubiquitous, small scale fracturing, and the failure mechanism is 
controlled by the overall rock mass strength. Therefore, the applied stress (via the ground 
motion) and the features that control yield (fractures in the nonlithophysal rock and rock mass 
strength in the lithophysal rock) are the major uncertain parameters. 
Confirmation Status: This assumption was confirmed in Drift Degradation Analyses 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). Parametric analyses of rockfall presented in this document 
confirmed that fracture geometry and ground motion time history are the critical parameters that 
control rockfall in the nonlithophysal rock mass (Section 6.3) and that rock mass strength and 
ground motion time history are the most important parameters controlling drift degradation in 
lithophysal rocks (Section 6.5). Confirmation was achieved via a parametric sensitivity study 
that was performed in which input data to the rockfall models was varied to examine their impact 
on rockfall. The input varied included: a) in situ stress state (to represent depth of emplacement 
drift), b) rock mechanical properties (strength and moduli), c) rock thermal properties (thermal 
conductivity, heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient) as well as the ground motion, rock 
fracture geometry and properties (nonlithophysal rock) and rock mass strength (lithophysal 
rock). Section 6.5 of BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107] identifies ground motion time history, rock 
fracture geometry and rock mass strength category as the most important uncertain parameters in 
control of drift degradation response. 
Use in the Analysis/Model: This assumption is used in Sections 6.1.1 and 6.3.1. 
5.2 NUMBER OF REALIZATIONS FOR ROCKFALL ANALYSES 
Assumption: The seismic-induced rockfall analyses in nonlithophysal rock are deterministic in 
nature  i.e., an analysis of an emplacement drift located within a given fracture geometry, 
subjected to a given ground motion time history is performed. To obtain a statistically relevant 
representation of the mean rockfall result and its variability, the number of deterministic 
simulations need to be defined. In Section 4.1, the number of time histories required to represent 
the ground motion variability (15) was described. The number of distinct fracture patterns that 
must be defined to capture the stochastic variability of the rockfall is also required. A sampling 
of 30 fracture geometries was originally chosen to describe the stochastic variability of rockfall. 
It was found that 30 samples were insufficient to describe the variability (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Appendix K), so an additional sampling was performed to provide additional 
fracture geometries. To this end, an additional sampling of 105 different possible fracture 
geometries is assumed to be sufficient to describe the impact of fracture network geometry 
variability in the nonlithophysal rock on rockfall due to seismic loading. 
In the lithophysal rock, a total 30 samples of ground motion and rock strength category were 
chosen as sufficient to examine the sensitivity of emplacement drift damage level (in terms of 
mass or volume) to the peak ground velocity associated with the ground motion. The numerical 
analyses conducted to estimate drift damage in lithophysal rock is deterministic in nature and is 
aimed at examining the bounding ranges of damage associated with the ground motion 
amplitudes and rock mass strength categories. Therefore, the sampling simply needs to provide 
an adequate pairing of ground motion time histories and rock mass strength categories that span 
their range. 
Basis: .The sampling of 105 fracture geometries is based on engineering judgment as a 
sufficient number of realizations for representation of the variability in fracture patterns in the 
nonlithophysal rock mass. The sampling of 30 ground motion time histories and rock mass 
strength categories is based on engineering judgment. 
Confirmation Status: The assumption of 105 fracture patterns was confirmed in Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Appendix K). Analyses showed that 
50 realizations of fracture geometries were sufficient to represent the variability of fracture 
pattern based on determination of the mean and standard deviation of rockfall mass and total 
volume as a function of the number of realizations. Therefore, the 105 samplings provided were 
sufficient to describe rock fracture pattern variability. The assumption of 30 pairings of ground 
motion time histories with rock strength categories was confirmed in Drift Degradation Analysis 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4). Analyses with postclosure ground motions with 
probability of annual exceedance of 1x10-5 and 1x10-6 were conducted. The emplacement drifts 
collapse for all of the 1x10-6 and some of the 1x10-5 time histories. Therefore, the 1x10-7 
analyses proved unnecessary since the ground motions are of greater amplitude and will also 
result in complete collapse. In order to more accurately describe the damage at the 1x10-5 annual 
exceedance probability, it was determined to perform analyses for all of the 15 time histories for 
strength categories 1, 3 and 5, thus covering the entire range of rock mass strength. Therefore, 
the sampling strategy was ultimately unimportant in the analyses. 
Use in the Analysis/Model: This assumption is used in Sections 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 6.3.1 and 6.3.2. 
5.3 MAJOR UNCERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR VIBRATORY STRUCTURAL 
ANALYSIS 
Assumption: The major uncertain parameters for structural response of the waste package and 
drip shield to vibratory motion are: the ground motion time history, metal-to-metal friction 
coefficient, and metal-to-rock friction coefficient. 
Basis: The ground motion time histories (accelerograms) are the major source of damage to the 
drip shield and waste package in the seismic scenario. The metal-to-metal and metal-to-rock 
friction coefficients determine the ease of sliding between EBS components during an 
earthquake, and has potential to affect the coupling of energy from the ground motions to the 
drip shield and waste package. The identification of these parameters is based on engineering 
judgment presented in the Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Section 3) and Structural Calculations of Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 3). 
Confirmation Status: This assumption does not require further confirmation. As stated in the 
Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 163425], Section 3) and Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory 
Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 3), the appropriate coefficients of friction 
for the repository components have high uncertainty. Therefore, it is appropriate to pick a 
distribution of values for the coefficients of friction that encompass a range of materials and a 
range of mechanical responses from little or no sliding between components to substantial 
sliding between components. No other parameters were indicated in those documents to have a 
high uncertainty. 
Use in the Analysis/Model: This assumption is used in Sections 6.4.1. 
5.4 FRICTION COEFFICIENTS AS INPUT TO VIBRATORY STRUCTURAL 
ANALYSIS 
Assumption: The range of values for the rock-to-metal friction coefficient and for the 
metal-to-metal friction coefficient is 0.2 to 0.8. 
Basis: The range of values for the metal-to-metal friction coefficient and for the rock-to-metal 
friction coefficient are based on handbook data for static and sliding friction coefficients in 
Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 
[DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1) and in American Institute of Physics Handbook (Gray 1972 
[DIRS 138541], pp. 2-42 to 2-46). The above referenced handbooks provide coefficients of 
static and sliding friction for various metallic and non-metallic materials. However, coefficients 
of friction for Alloy 22 (outer shell of the waste package and the emplacement pallet), for 
Titanium Grade 7 (for the drip shield), and for rock (crushed tuff in the invert) are not 
specifically mentioned in these handbooks. When defining the friction coefficient, it is 
important to consider the potential for long-term corrosion to modify the sliding friction of 
Alloy 22 and Titanium Grade 7. In this situation, the appropriate coefficients of friction for the 
metal-to-metal contact between the waste package and emplacement pallet, and for the 
metal-to-rock contact between the invert and the emplacement pallet and/or drip shield have high 
uncertainty. It is appropriate to pick a distribution of values for the coefficients of friction that 
encompass a range of materials, thereby providing a range of mechanical response, from little or 
no sliding between components to substantial sliding between components. The range of values 
chosen, 0.2 to 0.8, is a conservative range of friction coefficient that covers a range from low 
friction sliding to little or no sliding. The range of friction coefficient from 0.2 to 
0.8 encompasses the values for steel sheet pile to rock contact of 0.30 (single size hard rock 
fill) and 0.40 (clean gravel and well-graded rock fill with spalls) cited in USN 1986 
[DIRS 102312], Chapter 3, Table 1). 
Confirmation Status: This assumption does not require further confirmation. In this situation, 
the appropriate coefficients of friction for the metal-to-metal contact between the waste package 
and emplacement pallet, and for the metal-to-rock contact between the invert and the 
emplacement pallet and/or drip shield have high uncertainty. It is appropriate to pick a 
distribution of values for the coefficients of friction that encompass a range of materials, thereby 
providing a range of mechanical response, from little or no sliding between components to 
substantial sliding between components. 
Use in the Analysis/Model: This assumption is used in Section 6.4.2. 
5.5 USE OF UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION FOR FRICTION COEFFICIENTS FOR 
VIBRATORY STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 
Assumption: Use of uniform distribution for description of the variability of the friction 
coefficients. 
Basis: A uniform distribution of values between 0.2 and 0.8 (from a full range of values of 
0.15 to 1.4) was selected as the appropriate range of friction coefficients for these calculations. 
First, this distribution is broad enough to encompass typical values of the dry sliding friction 
coefficients for a wide variety of materials (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 [DIRS 103508], 
Table 3.2.1; Gray 1972 [DIRS 138541], Section 2d). This distribution is also broad enough to 
represent a range of mechanical response for the emplacement pallet, waste package, and drip 
shield. A friction coefficient near 0.2 allows substantial sliding of the waste package on the 
emplacement pallet, of the emplacement pallet on the invert, and of the drip shield on the invert. 
Similarly, a friction coefficient near 0.8 does not allow substantial sliding among the engineered 
barrier system components and the invert. 
Confirmation Status: This assumption does not require further confirmation. The range of 
friction coefficient of 0.2 to 0.8 assuming a uniform distribution is conservative and bounding 
because (1) the upper and lower bounds represent a wide range, (2) a uniform distribution was 
selected instead of a normal or log normal distribution, thereby giving equal weight to low 
friction coefficients, and (3) reasonable values for unlubricated steel and iron are in the range of 
0.4 or even 0.5, and values for rock-to-metal are in the range of 0.3 or 0.4, based on the cited 
references in Section 5.4. 
Use in the Analysis/Model: This assumption is used in Section 6.4.2. 
6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION 
This section presents the results of four GoldSim calculations that define sampled values of 
stochastic (random) input parameters for rockfall calculations and for structural response 
calculations under vibratory ground motions. GoldSim is a qualified code that is appropriate for 
sampling stochastic parameters. No changes to the GoldSim software are required for these 
calculations because parameter sampling is a basic capability of the GoldSim software. These 
calculations only require definition of the distribution types and ranges for the stochastic 
parameters; no model is necessary for these calculations. The four calculations are as follows: 
 Rockfall_NonLith_Stoch_Input.gsm. This calculation produced the initial sampling of 
stochastic input parameters for rockfall calculations in the nonlithophysal zone. The 
sampled input parameters used as input to this scientific analysis are ground motion time 
history number and synthetic fracture pattern number. Thirty realizations are 
performed. A printout of the Excel file with the results from this calculation is in 
DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System Performance 
Assessment Data Set File: Sampling.Description.Doc/Attachment 1 /Table titled: 
Rockfall_NonLith_Stoch_Input.xls . 
 Rockfall_NonLith2_Stoch_Input.gsm. This calculation produced the second sampling of 
stochastic input parameters for rockfall calculations in the nonlithophysal zone. The 
stochastic input parameters used as input to this scientific analysis are ground motion 
time history number and synthetic fracture pattern number. One hundred and five 
realizations are performed. A second sampling has been performed for rockfall in the 
nonlithophysal zone because the initial rockfall calculations demonstrated that more 
realizations are required to properly capture the variability of rockfall to the synthetic 
fracture pattern number and its geometry. A printout of the Excel file with the results 
from this calculation is in DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System 
Performance Assessment Data Set File: Sampling.Description.Doc/Attachment 
1/Table titled: Rockfall_NonLith2_Stoch_Input.xls . 
 Rockfall_Lith_Stoch_Input.gsm. This calculation produced the sampling of stochastic 
input parameters for rockfall calculations in the lithophysal zone. The stochastic input 
parameters used as input to this scientific analysis are ground motion time history number 
and the rock compressive strength index (also denoted as the rock quality number in 
Table I-3 DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004). Thirty realizations are performed. A printout 
of the Excel file with the results from this calculation is in DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 
in the files under System Performance Assessment Data Set File: 
Sampling.Description.Doc/Attachment 1/Table titled: Rockfall_Lith_Stoch_Input.xls. 
 WP_Stoch_Input.gsm. This calculation produced the sampling of stochastic input 
parameters for structural response calculations for vibratory ground motions. The 
stochastic input parameters used as input to this scientific analysis are ground motion 
time history number, metal-to-metal friction coefficient, and metal-to-rock friction 
coefficient. Fifteen realizations are performed. A printout of the Excel file with the 
results from this calculation is in DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System 
Performance Assessment Data Set File: Sampling.Description.Doc, Attachment 1, Table 
titled: WP_Stoch_Input.xls. 
After the GoldSim calculations were completed, ground motion time history #16 was substituted 
for history #15. As described in Section 4.1, time history #15 has an unusual spectral 
acceleration curve, and time history #16 was therefore substituted for #15 in the rockfall and 
structural response calculations. The change from time history #15 to #16 does not invalidate the 
original GoldSim sampling calculations. This change is directly incorporated into 
Tables 6-1 through 6-4 that presents the computational results in this section. The original 
GoldSim outputs, without adjustment, are documented in DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004, 
Attachment 1. 
6.1 INITIAL SAMPLING FOR ROCKFALL CALCULATIONS IN THE 
NONLITHOPHYSAL ZONE 
6.1.1 Identification of Uncertain Parameters 
The major uncertain parameters for rockfall calculations in the nonlithophysal zone are the 
ground motion and the synthetic fracture pattern. The ground motion time histories 
(accelerograms) are the major source for damage to the host rock in the seismic scenario. The 
synthetic fracture pattern (fracture geometry) determines the geometry of rock blocks in the 
emplacement drift periphery and the potential for rockfall occurring as a result of the ground 
motion. The identification of these parameters as important to drift stability is based on 
engineering judgment, as presented in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.5) and summarized in Section 4.1. The importance of fracture 
geometry and ground motion time history in controlling rockfall in nonlithophysal units was 
confirmed in Section 6.3.1.2 of the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). 
Uncertainty in the ground motion is represented by 15 time histories. The use of 15 ground 
motion time histories follows the recommendation in NUREG/CR-6728 (McGuire, et. al. 2001 
[DIRS 157510], p. 3-3) for performing soil-structure interaction analyses that are consistent with 
a probabilistically defined seismic hazard, as discussed in Section 4.1. Uncertainty in the 
synthetic fracture pattern is initially represented by 30 fracture geometries. However, as noted in 
Section 4.1, the number of fracture geometries finally selected was 105, as explained in the Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.3.1.2.2 and Appendix J).2 
6.1.2 Computational Results 
This calculation produced the initial sampling of stochastic input parameters for rockfall 
calculations in the nonlithophysal zone. There are 30 realizations for this GoldSim analysis, 
2 Verification of the number of fracture geometries required to provide a representative prediction of the variability 
of rockfall for a given set of 15 ground motions is described in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Appendix K). Summary statistics (mean, median, maximum and standard deviation) of the rockfall 
parameters (i.e., block size, impact velocity and impact energy) were determined for the cumulative rockfall as a 
function of the number of analyses (i.e., fracture geometries) conducted. It was found that these parameters 
approached asymptotic values after approximately 30 to 35 analyses. Thus, this verification indicated that the 
impact of the variability of fracture pattern on rockfall parameters is represented with less than 50 analyses. 
using a Monte Carlo approach with Latin Hypercube sampling. The two stochastic parameters 
for this analysis are: 
Ground Motion Time History Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 14 
and 15; each value is equally probable. 
Synthetic Fracture Pattern Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 29 
and 30; each value is equally probable. 
The GoldSim results, with time history #15 replaced by #16, are shown in Table 6-1. 
Table 6-1. First Sampling of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Nonlithophysal Zone as a 
Result of the GoldSim Calculations 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Synthetic Fracture 
Pattern Number 
1 
4 
15 
2 
8 
29 
3 
16 
24 
4 
12 
4 
5 
2 
16 
6 
8 
28 
7 
14 
8 
8 
4 
20 
9 
10 
11 
10 
6 
18 
11 
9 
1 
12 
1 
2 
13 
1 
13 
14 
7 
22 
15 
11 
21 
16 
11 
30 
17 
16 
27 
18 
14 
26 
19 
13 
10 
20 
5 
19 
21 
10 
9 
22 
5 
23 
23 
12 
5 
24 
3 
6 
25 
3 
17 
26 
9 
12 
27 
6 
14 
Table 6-1. First Sampling of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Nonlithophysal Zone as a 
Result of the GoldSim Calculations (Continued) 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Synthetic Fracture 
Pattern Number 
28 
7 
25 
29 
13 
3 
30 
2 
7 
Source: DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System 
Performance Assessment Data Set File: 
Sampling.Description.Doc, Table I-1. First Sampling of Input 
Values for the 3DEC Calculations for Rockfall Calculations in 
the Nonlithophysal Zone. 
6.2 SECOND SAMPLING FOR ROCKFALL CALCULATIONS IN THE 
NONLITHOPHYSAL ZONE 
6.2.1 Identification of Uncertain Parameters 
The major uncertain parameters for rockfall calculations in the nonlithophysal zone are the 
ground motion and the synthetic fracture pattern. The ground motion time histories 
(accelerograms) are the major source for damage to the host rock in the seismic scenario. The 
synthetic fracture pattern (fracture geometry) determines the geometry of key blocks and whether 
or not blocks are ejected during the ground motion. Uncertainty in the ground motion is 
represented by 15 time histories. Uncertainty in the synthetic fracture pattern is represented by 
105 fracture geometries. The use of 105 fracture geometries is based on the results from rockfall 
calculations with 30 fracture geometries, where it was observed that fracture geometry was a 
dominant parameter and additional variability was required to accurately represent the range of 
rock blocks that have the potential to be ejected during a seismic event. 
6.2.2 Computational Results 
This calculation produced the second sampling of stochastic input parameters for rockfall 
calculations in the nonlithophysal zone. There are 105 realizations for this GoldSim analysis, 
using a Monte Carlo approach with Latin Hypercube sampling. This second sampling is 
designed to more carefully evaluate the effect of synthetic fracture pattern on rockfall. The two 
stochastic parameters for this analysis are: 
Ground Motion Time History Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 14 
and 15; each value is equally probable. 
Synthetic Fracture Pattern Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 104 
and 105; each value is equally probable. 
The GoldSim results, with time history #15 replaced by #16, are shown in Table 6-2. 
Table 6-2. Second Sampling of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Nonlithophysal Zone as a 
Result of the GoldSim Calculations 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Synthetic Fracture 
Pattern Number 
1 
16 
79 
2 
12 
7 
3 
1 
102 
4 
16 
75 
5 
11 
33 
6 
5 
78 
7 
12 
15 
8 
3 
29 
9 
5 
37 
10 
6 
99 
11 
16 
42 
12 
6 
24 
13 
4 
59 
14 
9 
65 
15 
10 
39 
16 
6 
50 
17 
8 
103 
18 
16 
35 
19 
5 
57 
20 
9 
67 
21 
10 
63 
22 
9 
82 
23 
12 
4 
24 
1 
83 
25 
12 
16 
26 
3 
98 
27 
14 
28 
28 
4 
8 
29 
2 
74 
30 
11 
80 
31 
12 
81 
32 
12 
71 
33 
11 
96 
34 
14 
49 
35 
7 
20 
36 
3 
62 
37 
9 
41 
38 
6 
69 
39 
10 
11 
40 
2 
54 
41 
8 
104 
42 
16 
36 
Table 6-2. Second Sampling of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Nonlithophysal Zone as a 
Result of the GoldSim Calculations (Continued) 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Synthetic Fracture 
Pattern Number 
43 
6 
53 
44 
8 
94 
45 
14 
92 
46 
14 
68 
47 
10 
48 
48 
7 
18 
49 
3 
1 
50 
1 
93 
51 
14 
84 
52 
12 
91 
53 
13 
90 
54 
13 
2 
55 
1 
100 
56 
16 
13 
57 
2 
73 
58 
11 
43 
59 
7 
72 
60 
11 
105 
61 
16 
22 
62 
4 
21 
63 
3 
30 
64 
5 
27 
65 
4 
26 
66 
4 
10 
67 
2 
88 
68 
13 
52 
69 
8 
86 
70 
13 
85 
71 
13 
19 
72 
3 
77 
73 
11 
56 
74 
8 
45 
75 
7 
40 
76 
6 
89 
77 
13 
9 
78 
2 
23 
79 
4 
47 
80 
7 
5 
81 
1 
44 
82 
7 
55 
83 
8 
6 
84 
1 
34 
Table 6-2. Second Sampling of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Nonlithophysal Zone as a 
Result of the GoldSim Calculations (Continued) 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Synthetic Fracture 
Pattern Number 
85 
5 
17 
86 
3 
97 
87 
14 
46 
88 
7 
95 
89 
14 
38 
90 
6 
31 
91 
5 
64 
92 
10 
76 
93 
11 
12 
94 
2 
14 
95 
2 
25 
96 
4 
70 
97 
10 
51 
98 
8 
61 
99 
9 
60 
100 
9 
87 
101 
13 
3 
102 
1 
32 
103 
5 
58 
104 
9 
66 
105 
10 
101 
Source: DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System 
Performance Assessment Data Set File: 
Sampling.Description.Doc, Table I-2. Second Sampling 
of Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the 
Nonlithophysal Zone . 
6.3 SAMPLING FOR ROCKFALL CALCULATIONS IN THE LITHOPHYSAL ZONE 
6.3.1 Identification of Uncertain Parameters 
The major uncertain parameters for rockfall calculations in the lithophysal zone are the ground 
motion and the rock mechanical properties that include Youngs modulus and compressive 
strength. The ground motion time histories (accelerograms) are the major source of damage to 
the host rock in the seismic scenario. The rock mechanical properties determine the 
elastic-plastic response of the lithophysal rock, particularly if and when failure occurs during the 
ground motions. The identification of these parameters is based on engineering judgment, as 
presented in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.5) and 
summarized in Section 4.1. 
The uncertainty in the ground motion is adequately represented by 15 time histories. The use of 
15 ground motion time histories follows the recommendation in NUREG/CR-6728 (McGuire et 
al. 2001 [DIRS 157510], p. 3-3) for performing soil-structure interaction analyses that are 
consistent with a probabilistically defined seismic hazard, as discussed in Section 4.1. 
Uncertainty in the rock compressive strength is represented by 5 levels, as noted in Section 4.1, 
and as explained in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.1.2 
and Appendix E, Section E4.1). The use of 5 rock strength categories provides a high value, and 
low value, and three levels in between these extremes. The use of 5 levels was shown to be an 
acceptable method for determining sensitivity of rockfall in the lithophysal zone to variations in 
rock compressive strength, as explained in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Appendix E). A deterministic sensitivity study, rather than a stochastic based 
uncertainty analysis, is used to determined rockfall in the lithophysal rock in the Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). The objective of this sensitivity study is to 
define the relationship of damage in the form of the mass or volume of displaced rock from the 
tunnel periphery as a function of the peak ground velocity of a given ground motion time history. 
As a result of this approach, it is important that the sampling strategy select rock compressive 
strength categories that cover the entire range of strength categories from 1 (lowest strength) to 5 
(highest strength). 
6.3.2 Computational Results 
This calculation produced the sampling of stochastic input parameters for rockfall calculations in 
the lithophysal zone. There are 30 realizations for this GoldSim analysis, using a Monte Carlo 
approach with Latin Hypercube sampling. The two stochastic parameters for this analysis are: 
Ground Motion Time History Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 14 
and 15; each value is equally probable. 
Rock Compressive Strength Index 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; 
each value is equally probable. 
The GoldSim results, with time history #15 replaced by #16 (as explained in Section 4.1) and 
modified to eliminate duplications are shown in Table 6-3. 
The GoldSim calculations produced identical sampling for time histories 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12. 
These duplicates have been eliminated by changing the second occurrence of each sampled pair 
as follows: (5,4) was changed to (5,2), (6,3) was changed to (6,1), (8,5) was changed to (8,1), 
(10,2) was changed to (10,4), and (12,1) was changed to (12,5). The general pattern was to 
change a high value of the compressive strength index to a corresponding lower value relative to 
the median compressive strength index (value = 3), and vice versa. In other words, a value of 
4 or 5 for the index was changed to 2 or 1, respectively, and vice versa. If the middle value of 
compressive strength (value of 3) was duplicated, it was replaced with the lowest compressive 
strength (value of 1). The resulting sampling is judged adequate because it maintains reasonable 
variability in the input values for rock compressive strength. 
An alternative to modifying the duplicate samples is to entirely resample the parameter space in 
such a manner as to eliminate any duplication. This approach was determined to be unnecessary 
because the rock in the lithophysal zone generally has relatively low compressive strength, even 
for the highest strength index (index = 5). In this situation, the results from the rockfall 
calculations in the lithophysal zone were anticipated to be more sensitive to variability in ground 
motion time histories rather than rock compressive strength. Therefore, the approach used was 
determined to be adequate as the initial sampling strategy, rather than resampling the parameter 
space. 
Table 6-3. Input Values for Rockfall Calculations in the Lithophysal Zone as a Result of the GoldSim 
Calculations 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Rock Compressive 
Strength Index 
1 
4 
3 
2 
8 
5 
3 
16 
4 
4 
12 
1 
5 
2 
3 
6 
8 
1 
7 
14 
2 
8 
4 
4 
9 
10 
2 
10 
6 
3 
11 
9 
1 
12 
1 
1 
13 
1 
3 
14 
7 
4 
15 
11 
4 
16 
11 
5 
17 
16 
5 
18 
14 
5 
19 
13 
2 
20 
5 
4 
21 
10 
4 
22 
5 
2 
23 
12 
5 
24 
3 
1 
25 
3 
3 
26 
9 
2 
27 
6 
1 
28 
7 
5 
29 
13 
1 
30 
2 
2 
Source: DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under 
System Performance Assessment Data Set File: 
Sampling.Description.Doc, Table I-3. Input Values for 
Rockfall Calculations in the Lithophysal Zone. 
6.4 SAMPLING FOR STRUCTURAL RESPONSE CALCULATIONS 
6.4.1 Identification of Uncertain Parameters 
The major uncertain parameters for the structural response calculations are the ground motion, 
the metal-to-metal friction coefficient, and the metal-to-rock friction coefficient. The ground 
motion time histories (accelerograms) are the major source of damage to the drip shield and 
waste package in the seismic scenario. The metal-to-metal and metal-to-rock friction 
coefficients determine the ease of sliding between EBS components during an earthquake, and 
have the potential to affect the coupling of energy from the ground motions to the drip shield and 
waste package. The identification of these parameters is based on engineering judgment 
presented in the Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Section 3) and Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 3). 
The uncertainty in the ground motion is represented by 15 time histories. The use of 15 ground 
motion time histories follows the recommendation in NUREG/CR-6728 (McGuire et al. 2001 
[DIRS 157510], p.3-3) for performing soil-structure interaction analyses that are consistent with 
a probabilistically defined seismic hazard, as discussed in Section 4.1. The rationale for the 
range of values for the rock-to-metal friction coefficient and for the metal-to-metal friction 
coefficient, defined as 0.2 to 0.8, is explained in Section 4.1. 
6.4.2 Computational Results 
This calculation produced the sampling of stochastic input parameters for structural response 
calculations for vibratory ground motions. There are 15 realizations for this GoldSim analysis, 
using a Monte Carlo approach with Latin Hypercube sampling. The three stochastic parameters 
for this analysis are: 
Ground Motion Time History Number 
Discrete distribution with the values 1, 2, 3, , 14 
and 15; each value is equally probable. 
Friction Coefficient - Metal-to-Metal 
Uniform distribution from 0.2 to 0.8 
Friction Coefficient - Metal-to-Rock 
Uniform distribution from 0.2 to 0.8 
The GoldSim results, with time history #15 replaced by #16, are shown in Table 6-4. 
Table 6-4. Input Values for Structural Response Calculations as a Result of the GoldSim Calculations 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion Time 
History Number 
Friction Coefficient  
Metal-to-Metal Contact 
Friction Coefficient - 
Metal-to-Rock Contact 
1 
7 
0.79752 
0.34489 
2 
16 
0.33145 
0.49001 
3 
4 
0.49638 
0.61575 
4 
8 
0.60222 
0.21821 
5 
11 
0.20064 
0.24159 
6 
1 
0.2684 
0.69338 
7 
2 
0.71214 
0.59525 
8 
13 
0.56125 
0.54137 
9 
10 
0.5487 
0.36358 
10 
9 
0.36065 
0.41037 
11 
5 
0.42112 
0.66615 
12 
6 
0.65 
0.73241 
13 
12 
0.74749 
0.31276 
14 
14 
0.28943 
0.45373 
15 
3 
0.45695 
0.77581 
Source: DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 in the files under System Performance Assessment Data 
Set File: Sampling.Description.Doc, Table I-4. Input values for Structural Response 
Calculations for Vibratory Ground Motion. 
6.5 DISCUSSION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN ACCEPTANCE 
CRITERIA 
As noted in Section 4.2, there are two subcriteria of Acceptance Criterion 3 of Yucca Mountain 
Review Plan Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) that are directly relevant to this analysis: 
(1) Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding 
assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties and 
variability, and do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate. 
(2) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for conceptual 
models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models considered in 
developing the assessment abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. 
This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or use of conservative limits. 
The results of this scientific analysis are specifically designed to represent uncertainty and 
variability in the values of key input parameters for the rockfall calculations and structural 
response calculations that support the seismic scenario. The selection of stochastic or uncertain 
parameters is based primarily on engineering judgment, as noted in Section 5, and supported by 
the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]), Structural Calculations of Drip 
Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]), and Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]). Sampling was performed using a Monte Carlo approach with Latin Hypercube 
sampling to provide a robust statistical sampling. The results of this scientific analysis directly 
support the Yucca Mountain Projects response to the acceptance criterion and two of its 
subcriteria cited above. 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
This scientific analysis defines the sampled values of stochastic (random) input parameters for 
(1) rockfall calculations in the lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones under vibratory ground 
motions, and (2) structural response calculations for the drip shield and waste package under 
vibratory ground motions. The ranges of the stochastic parameters are specifically designed to 
represent the uncertainty in input variables for the rockfall calculations and the structural 
response calculations that support the seismic scenario. The sampled values are determined by 
GoldSim calculations using a Monte Carlo approach with Latin Hypercube sampling of the 
appropriate distribution types and parameter ranges. 
Tables 6-1 through 6-4 present the sampled values of the stochastic parameters that have been 
used for rockfall calculations and for structural response calculations in support of the seismic 
scenario for the TSPA-LA. The information in Tables 6-1 through 6-4 is referenced through 
DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004. 
Two subcriteria of Acceptance Criterion 3 of Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) that are directly relevant to this analysis were addressed in Section 
6.5 of this document. These criteria are: 
(1) Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding 
assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties and 
variability, and do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate. 
(2) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for conceptual 
models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models considered in 
developing the assessment abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. 
This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or use of conservative limits. 
The major uncertainty in this work relates to the identification of the sampled parameters. For 
example, the calculations include the ground motion time history as an uncertain (stochastic) 
parameter and the variability in the ground motion is represented through 15 time histories. 
Uncertainty in the number of samplings of fracture patterns is verified through calculations of the 
statistics of rockfall parameters as documented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107]). Uncertainty in the range of friction parameters for metal-to-metal and 
metal-to-rock contact is addressed by selection of a large range of friction coefficients that 
reasonably covers the range of these parameters. The range of friction coefficient is used in 
structural analyses presented in Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory 
Ground Motion. (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) and Structural Calculations of Drip Shield 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]). The stochastic samplings of 
the parameters presented in this analysis report are specifically developed for the analysis of drift 
degradation and for analysis of structural response of the waste package and drip shield to 
vibratory motion. 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 1987. Marks Standard Handbook for 
Mechanical Engineers. 9th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 206891. 
103508 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed 
to Vibratory Ground Motion. 000-00C-PEC0-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20030618.0009. 
163425 
BSC 2004. Development of Earthquake Ground Motion Input for Preclosure Seismic 
Design and Postclosure Performance Assessment of a Geologic Repository at Yucca 
Mountain, NV. MDL-MGR-GS-000003 REV 00, with errata. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040401.0004. 
168780 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 03. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
166107 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
168361 
BSC 2004. Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion. 000-00C-WIS0-01400-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040217.0008. 
167083 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift 
Degradation, Waste Package and Drip Shield Vibratory Motion and Seismic 
Consequences. TWP-MGR-GS-000003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040709.0005. 
170528 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
166275 
Gray, D.E., ed. 1972. American Institute of Physics Handbook. 3rd Edition. New 
York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. TIC: 247425. 
138541 
McGuire, R.K.; Silva, W.J.; and Costantino, C.J. 2001. Technical Basis for Revision of 
Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent 
Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines. NUREG/CR-6728. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 251294. 
157510 
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. 
163274 
USN (U.S. Department of the Navy) 1986. Foundations and Earth Structures. Design 
Manual 7.02. NAVFAC 0525-LP-300-7070. Alexandria, Virginia: U.S. Department 
of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. TIC: 207993. 
102312 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR Part 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156605 
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-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 5. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040812.0004. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 001, ICN 006. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040805.0003. 
AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Control of the Electronic Management of Information. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040308.0001. 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0 ICN 0. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040225.0007. 
8.3 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0301SPASIP27.004. Sampling of Stochastic Input Parameters for Rockfall 
Calculations and for Structural Response Calculations Under Vibratory Ground 
Motions. Submittal date: 01/15/2003. 
161869 
8.4 SOFTWARE CODES 
Golder Associates. 2000. Software Code: GoldSim. V6.04.007. PC, Windows NT. 
STN: 10344-6.04.007-00. 
151202