Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading Rev 00A, ICN 00

CAL-WIS-AC-000002

October 2004 

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of the drip shield (DS) is to divert water that may seep into emplacement drifts from 
contacting the waste packages, and to protect the waste packages from impact or static loading 
from rockfall. The objective of this document is to summarize, into one location, the results of a 
series of supporting engineering calculations1 that were developed to study the effect of static 
and dynamic loads on the mechanical performance of the DS. The potential DS loads are a result 
of: 
 Potential earthquake vibratory ground motion, and resulting interaction of the DS, waste 
package and pallet, and drift invert 
 Dynamic impacts of rockfall resulting from emplacement drift damage as a result of 
earthquake vibratory motion 
 Static load of the caved rock rubble that may come to rest on the DS as a result of 
vibratory motion or from time-dependent yielding of the rock mass surrounding the 
emplacement drift. 
The potential mechanical failure mechanisms that may result from these loads include: 
 Overturning and/or separation of the interlocking DS segments 
 Loss of structural integrity and stability of the DS, including excessive deformation or 
buckling 
 Localized damage2 to the top and side-wall plates of the DS. 
The scope of this document is limited to summarizing results presented in the supporting 
calculations in the areas of analysis of the potential for DS collapse, and determination of the 
damaged surface area of the DS plates. New calculations are presented to determine whether or 
not separation of DSs occur under vibratory motion. 
The results of the supporting calculations, in terms of damaged surface area of DS plates for a 
given value of peak ground velocity (PGV) are reported in D&E /PA/C IED Interlocking Drip 
Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). These data are used as input to the 
Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]), which utilizes this information to 
address the potential for advective flux of seepage water through the DS. Additionally, the new 
calculations presented in this document provide the technical basis for exclusion of separation of 
1 Most of the results reported here were previously reported in the following calculations: Structural Calculations of 
Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2003, [DIRS 163425]); Drip Shield Structural Response to 
Rock Fall (BSC 2004, [DIRS 168993]); and, Structural Stability of a Drip Shield Under Quasi-Static Pressure 
(BSC 2004, [DIRS 170791]). This calculation provides new information on analysis of the potential for 
DS separation. 
2 The damaged area is defined in this document as the area where the residual first (major) principal stress exceeds 
a certain limit. The stress limit used throughout this document is defined as 50 percent of yield strength of the DS 
plate material, Titanium Grade 7 (Ti-7) (SB-265 R52400), at temperature of 150C (see Assumptions 3.12 and 3.18 
and Section 5.2.3.1.4). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 1-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
DSs under vibratory ground motion from consideration in the Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application (TSPA-LA). The exclusion arguments for DS separation are 
summarized in Features, Events, and Processes: Disruptive Events (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170017], 
Sections 6.2.1.5 and 6.2.1.3) (FEP 1.2.03.02.0A  Seismic Ground Motion Damages EBS 
Components) and the Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). The 
Seismic Consequence Abstraction subsequently provides the abstraction for the seismic scenario 
class used in support of the Total System Performance AssessmentLicense Application 
(TSPA-LA). 
This document is prepared in accordance with the applicable technical work plan: Technical 
Work Plan For: Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift Degradation, Waste Package and 
Drip Shield Vibratory Motion and Seismic Consequences (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171520]), which 
directs the work identified in work package ARTM05. The technical work plan was prepared in 
accordance with AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities. This calculation was performed 
under the Repository Integration Project, in cooperation with the Waste Package and 
Components group of Design and Engineering. This document was developed in conformance 
with procedure AP-3.12Q, Design Calculations and Analyses. The DS is classified as a Safety 
Category item (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361], p. A-5). Therefore, this calculation is subject to the 
Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]). 
The DS design considered in the calculations summarized in this document is not presented in 
detail. Design drawings and material specifications can be found in D&E / PA/C IED 
Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]) as well as in the 
calculations that support this summary document (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]; BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168993] and BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791]). The dimensions and materials for the design of 
the 21-PWR (pressurized water reactor) waste package and emplacement pallet (pallet, for 
brevity, throughout the document) used in this calculation are also provided in Emplacement 
Pallet (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161520]) and D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components 
Assembly (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472]). The 21-PWR waste package was used as a basis for the 
calculations summarized in this document since it is the most commonly-occurring of the various 
waste package designs. More than 38 percent of all waste packages are 21-PWR waste 
packages, and the second most frequent design, the 44-boiling water reactor waste package 
(approximately 26 percent), has similar dimensions and mass as the 21-PWR waste package 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472], Table 11). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 1-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
2. METHOD 
The DS calculations presented in this summary are conducted using commercial finite element 
(FE) and distinct element (DE) software. The FE method is a numerical technique in common 
use for analysis of engineering problems in structural dynamics. The method requires 
discretization of the structure (the DS in this case) into a number of elements (the FE mesh) that 
are interconnected by nodal points. The governing equations of motion, subject to imposed 
boundary and initial conditions, are solved to provide the solution of the transient mechanical 
response of the DS. The boundary and initial conditions are a result of the constraints supplied 
by the emplacement drift, waste package and pallet and from the applied static and dynamic 
loading conditions. The FE analysis is used primarily to examine damage to the DS surface 
plates and structure in response to vibratory motion, rockfall and quasi-static pressure from rock 
rubble resulting from possible drift collapse. Results of the FE analysis are given in terms of the 
transient induced stresses, strains and displacements of the finite element mesh. 
Three-dimensional graphical representation of the motion of the structure as well as the stress 
and strain states are used to aid in interpretation of the analysis results. The stability of the 
structure and damage to the surface plates can be inferred from this information. The DE 
method is a numerical technique used for analysis of mechanical interaction of a large number of 
solid (deformable or rigid) bodies, which can undergo large displacements and interact with each 
other in arbitrary ways. If the bodies are deformable, they are discretized into elements, which 
are interconnected by nodal (grid) points. The equations of motion are solved for each grid point 
using an explicit numerical integration scheme, and are subject to the applied initial and 
boundary conditions. The DE method is used to examine the potential for DS separation when 
subjected to vibratory motion. The time history of relative vertical offset of the DSs as well as 
axial forces generated in interlocking portions of the DSs are used to determine whether DSs 
separate. 
The DS FE mesh is created by using either the commercially available software ANSYS V5.6.2 
(STN: 10364-5.6.2-01, [DIRS 159357]) or TrueGrid V2.1.5 and TrueGrid V2.2. The FE 
calculations were then performed by using the commercially available LS-DYNA V960.1106 
(STN: 10300-960.1106-00, [DIRS 158898]) and LS-DYNA V970 D MPP-00 
(STN: 10300-970.3858 D MPP-00, [DIRS 166918]) FE codes. The LS-DYNA explicit solver 
uses the central difference method (Belytschko et. al. 2000 [DIRS 153664], Section 6.2.1 and 
Hallquist 1998 [DIRS 155373], Section 21.2) for time integration of the governing equations. 
The DE calculations were performed using the commercially available software UDEC V3.1 
(STN: 10173-3.1-00, [DIRS 160331]). This software has integral mesh development and post 
processing graphical display capability. 
After the FE and DE calculations are completed, results of the analyses are presented in terms of 
separation of the DSs, collapse of the DS and damage to the surface plates and support beams 
and bulkheads. Separation of the DSs is determined by comparison of the time history of 
relative vertical separation of adjacent DSs and by comparison of axial forces generated in the 
interlocking mechanism of adjacent DSs to their estimated load limit. Damage results are 
provided in terms of the damaged area of the DS plates or maximum vertical deflection of the 
DS apex node at the vertical symmetry plane (for comparison with clearance of DS to waste 
package separation). The damaged area is estimated based on the residual first principal stress 
plot for the DS plates. It is important to acknowledge the conservatism of the criterion used to 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 2-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
define the damaged area (conservatism independent of the choice of the residual stress 
threshold). Namely, the failure criterion (see Section 1 and Assumption 3.18) does not account 
for the possibility of crack arrest once the crack is nucleated (i.e., the area fails regardless of 
the residual stress distribution across the thickness of the DS plates). Damage to the structural 
bulkheads and supporting columns is defined in terms of the plastic yield of the structural 
element cross section which may lead to formation of a plastic hinge, and thus loss of 
load-bearing capacity. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 2-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
3. ASSUMPTIONS 
In the course of developing this document, the following assumptions are made regarding the 
structural calculation. 
3.1 The density and Poissons ratio are not available for Titanium Grade 7 (Ti-7 
[SB-65 R52400]), Titanium Grade 24 (Ti-24 [SB-265 R56405]), and Alloy 22 
(SB-575 N06022), except at room temperature (RT) (20 C). (Note: In regard 
to Unified Numbering System designation for Ti-24, notice that Ti-24 has the 
same mechanical properties as Ti-5 since the compositions are almost 
identical; see ASME 2001 [DIRS 158115], Section II, Part B, SB-265, 
Table 2.) The RT density and RT Poissons ratio are assumed for these 
materials. The impact of using RT density and RT Poissons ratio is 
anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this assumption is that the 
material properties in question do not have dominant impact on the calculation 
results. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.3 and corresponds to 
paragraph 5.2.8.6 of Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.2 The temperature-dependent material properties are not available for TSw2 
(Topopah Spring Welded welded, lithophysal-poor) rock except at RT. The 
TSw2 is used to represent the essentially unyielding invert, drift walls and 
rock blocks impacting the DS (Section 5.2) and the material properties are 
necessary only for the contact definitions. The corresponding RT material 
properties are assumed for this material. The impact of using RT material 
properties is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this assumption is 
that the material properties of the rock do not have a significant impact on the 
calculation results. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.3 and corresponds 
to paragraph 5.2.16.1 of Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.3 The rate-dependent material properties are not available for Ti-7, Ti-24, 
Alloy 22, and TSw2 rock mass at any strain rate. The material properties 
obtained under the static loading conditions are assumed for these materials. 
The impact of using material properties obtained under static loading 
conditions is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this assumption is 
that the change of mechanical properties of subject materials (Nicholas 1980 
[DIRS 154072], Figure 28) at the peak strain rates that typically occur during 
the earthquake simulation and rockfall does not have significant effect on the 
results presented in this calculation. The maximum plastic-strain rate in the 
DS plates observed in the calculation of vibratory ground motion is 185 s-1 
(as indicated by maximum slopes of the effective-plastic-strain time histories 
presented in Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory 
Ground Motion, BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure IV-9). It is important to 
recognize that this strain rate is the maximum among all 110-6 realizations 
among all DS-plate elements; the typical strain rate is significantly lower. 
The average strain rate is approximately 85 s-1 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], 
Figure IV-10b). It should be noted that realization 9 is conspicuous among 
the 110-6 realizations for a large number of high-intensity waste 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
package-pallet impacts (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.3-3) resulting in 
exceptionally large damaged area of the DS (Table 5-18). More typically, the 
next two largest strain rates among 110-6 realizations appear to be the strain 
rates in realizations 6 and 11, and they do not exceed 15 s-1 (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 163425], Figures IV-11 and IV-12). The maximum strain rate during 
rockfall is approximately 40 s-1 as indicated by maximum slope (0.2/0.005 s) 
in Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], 
Figure II-3). This assumption is used in Section 5.2.3 and corresponds to 
paragraph 5.2.5 in Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.4 The Poissons ratio of Alloy 22 is not available in the literature. The 
Poissons ratio of Alloy 625 (SB-443 N06625) is assumed for Alloy 22. The 
impact of this assumption is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this 
assumption is that the chemical compositions of Alloy 22 and Alloy 625 are 
similar (ASME 2001 [DIRS 158115], Section II, Part B, SB-575, Table 1 and 
ASM 1980 [DIRS 104317], p. 143, respectively). This assumption is used in 
Section 5.2.3 and corresponds to paragraph 5.2.8.2 of Mecham 
(2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.5 The uniform strains (the strains corresponding to the uniaxial tensile 
strengths) of Ti-7 and Ti-24 are not available in literature. Therefore, it is 
assumed that the uniform strain is equal to the elongation. The rationale for 
this assumption is that a small change in tangent modulus does not 
significantly affect the results of this calculation. This assumption is used in 
Section 5.2.3.1.2 and corresponds to Section 5.2.6.5 of Mecham 
(2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.6 The modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio of the TSw2 are characterized 
by significant scatter of data. For the purpose of the present calculation 
modulus of elasticity is assumed to be 33 GPa, and Poissons ratio 0.21. The 
rationale for this assumption is that these values represent the mean values of 
the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) the uppermost interval of the TSw2 
unit (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170583]), Tables 6 and 5, respectively, 
DTN: MO402DQRIRPPR.003 [DIRS 168901]). This assumption is used in 
Section 5.2.3.3 and corresponds to paragraph 5.2.16.3 of Mecham 
(2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.7 The density of the TSw2 is assumed to be 2,370 kg/m. The rationale for this 
assumption is that this value represents the mean saturated bulk density value 
for the TSw2 unit determined from mechanical property measurements on 
core samples (DTN: SNL 02030193001.027 [DIRS 108410], 
Table S98487 007, Data for Tptpmn, Rows 82-89 and 128-132). It should be 
noted that this assumption has no effect on the calculation results since density 
of the rock affects only masses of the essentially rigid invert and the rigid drift 
walls. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.3.3 and corresponds to 
paragraph 5.2.16.4 of Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
3.8 The friction coefficients for metal-to-metal contact and metal-to-rock contact 
are considered random parameters in the calculation of vibratory motion 
because these parameters have a profound effect on calculation results. The 
range of values for both of these friction coefficients is 0.2 to 0.8. The 
following is the rationale for this assumption. 
Avallone and Baumeister (1987 [DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, p. 3-26), provide 
coefficients of static and sliding friction for various metals and other 
materials. However, coefficients of friction for the materials used in this 
calculation are not specifically mentioned in this or other handbooks. The 
potential for long-term corrosion to modify the sliding friction must also be 
considered in defining the friction coefficient. In this situation, the 
appropriate coefficients of friction for the repository components have high 
uncertainty. It is then 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. 
A distribution of values for the friction coefficient between 0.2 and 0.8 will 
achieve these goals (see Table 5-17 and DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 
[DIRS 161869], Table I-4). First, this distribution is broad enough to 
encompass typical values of the dry sliding friction coefficients for a wide 
variety of metals and other materials (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 
[DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, p. 3-26). Second, the appropriateness of this 
range is independently confirmed by seismic analyses for spent fuel storage 
racks (DeGrassi 1992 [DIRS 161539]). This distribution is also broad enough 
to represent a range of mechanical response for the DS. A friction coefficient 
near 0.2 maximizes sliding of the DS on the invert. Similarly, a friction 
coefficient near 0.8 minimizes that sliding. This assumption is used in 
Section 5.2.3.2. 
3.9 The friction coefficient for contact between Alloy 22 (DS base plate material, 
which is excluded from FE representation, see Assumption 3.17) and stainless 
steel is not available in literature. It is, therefore, assumed (in calculations of 
impact by the rockfall) that the dynamic (sliding) friction coefficient for this 
contact is 0.5. The rationale for this conservative assumption is that this 
friction coefficient represents a mean value for most dry nickel-on-steel 
contacts (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 [DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, 
p. 3-26), nickel being the dominant component in Alloy 22 (ASME 2001 
[DIRS 158115], Section II, Part B, SB-575, Table 1). The sensitivity analysis 
of the impact of friction coefficient on the calculation results is not necessary 
(in calculation of impact by the rockfall), because the calculation results due 
to impact are not expected to be significantly affected by the friction 
coefficient between the rock and drip shield. This assumption is used in 
Section 5.2.3.2. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-3 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
3.10 The friction coefficient for contacts occurring between the rock and Ti-7 or 
invert and Alloy 22 is not available in literature. It is, therefore, assumed 
(in all calculations except vibratory ground motion) that the dynamic (sliding) 
friction coefficient for this contact is between 0.4 and 0.5. The rationale for 
this assumption is that this friction coefficient represents a reasonable estimate 
based on available information for metal-on-stone contacts which is between 
0.3 and 0.7 (Beer and Johnston 1977 [DIRS 145138], Table 8.1, p. 306). This 
parameter does not have a significant effect on the results since the relative 
surface-to-surface movement of these components is not a significant 
determining factor in the amount of deformation during impact or static load 
of caved rock mass. The sensitivity analysis of the impact of friction 
coefficient on the calculation results is not necessary (for different loading 
cases than the vibratory ground motion), because the calculation results are 
not expected to be significantly affected by the friction coefficient. In the case 
of vibratory ground motion, the friction coefficient between the invert and the 
DS is the major factor in transfer of the load from the invert to the DS. In 
cases of vertical rockfall impact or static load by the caved rock, which are 
critical for estimate of damage, the friction coefficient between the DS and the 
invert, or between the rock and the DS during the impact has no effect on 
results. This assumption is used in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.2. 
3.11 The variation of functional friction coefficient between the static and dynamic 
value as a function of relative velocity of the surfaces in contact is not 
available in literature for the materials used in the calculations 
(Section 5.2.3.2). Therefore, the effect of relative velocity of the surfaces in 
contact is neglected in these calculations by assuming that the functional 
friction coefficient and static friction coefficient are both equal to the dynamic 
friction coefficient. The impact of this assumption on results presented in this 
document is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this conservative 
assumption is that it maximizes the relative motion of unanchored repository 
components by minimizing the friction coefficient within the given 
FE analysis framework. This assumption is used in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.2 
and corresponds to paragraph 5.2.14.2 of Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.12 The temperature of the DS is assumed to be 150C for temperature-dependent 
material properties. The rationale for this assumption is that this temperature 
is conservative for most of the regulatory period for high-temperature 
operating modes and strictly conservative for low-temperature operating 
modes. The waste package temperature in an open drift remains below 150C 
for approximately 97 percent of the regulatory time period of 10,000 years 
(BSC 2001 [DIRS 156276], Figure 6-3) and the DS temperature is less than 
the waste package temperature. The drip shield temperature of 150C is also 
considered appropriate for the case of potential drift collapse that could 
accompany a low-probability seismic event or from time-dependent strength 
loss of the surrounding rock mass. In either case, the drip shield could be 
partially or completely surrounded by rock rubble. The Multiscale 
Thermohydrologic Model was used to conduct a parameter study of the 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-4 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
impact of thermohydrologic parameters on the in-drift environment (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 169565], Section 6.3.7 and Table 6.3-8). The results show that 
the peak waste package temperature in a collapsed drift for the base case 
thermal conductivity of the rubble is greater than 200C for a very brief period 
of time  less than 100 years  and the waste package temperature drops 
below 150C within approximately 350 years after collapse, even for the 
hottest waste package considered in the parameter study. These results are 
for the case of a collapse occurring coincident with the closure of the 
repository. It follows that 150C is a reasonable and conservative value for 
evaluation of material properties in a collapsed drift over 96.5 percent of the 
regulatory period. This assumption is used in Sections 1 and 5.2.3. 
3.13 The thickness of the Ti-7 and Ti-24 plates are reduced by 2 mm. For Ti-7, 
this thickness reduction results from using the 95th percentile general 
corrosion rate values used in TSPA-LA for both sides of the titanium plate 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169845], Section 6.5.5; DTN: MO0408MWDGLCDS.002 
[DIRS 171486]). For the outside and inside plates, the 95th percentile general 
corrosion rate values (a reasonably conservative estimate) are 1.12E-4 mm/yr 
and 8.59E-5 mm/yr, respectively. Therefore in 10,000 years, about 1.12 mm 
is removed from the outer surface by general corrosion and about 0.86 mm are 
removed from the inner surface (i.e., a total loss of about 2 mm of thickness). 
Alternatively, the highest measured general corrosion rate from the 5-year 
exposed Ti samples used for validation of the TSPA-LA general corrosion 
distributions is 77 mm/yr (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169845], Table 23; DTN: 
MO0408MWDGLCDS.002 [DIRS 171486]). Using this value for both sides 
of the drip shield, a total loss of about 1.54 mm of thickness can be calculated 
over an exposure period of 10,000 years. Therefore, a thickness reduction of 
2 mm is a reasonable estimate of the total thickness loss for Ti-7 due to 
general corrosion in 10,000 years. For Ti-24, the thickness reduction over a 
10,000 year period was determined to be about 0.75 mm per exposed surface 
in the Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials report (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 169982], Section 6.5.2). Therefore, a thickness reduction of 2 
mm is a reasonable estimate of the total thickness loss for Ti-24 due to general 
corrosion in 10,000 years. 
3.14 The rock shape is assumed to be a rectangular prism. The rationale for this 
assumption is that the rock block data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550]) show that 
some of the rock blocks are essentially rectangular prism. An FE 
representation of the rock with an inclined rectangular prism provides a 
conservative approach from the perspective that the rock center of gravity and 
the point of impact are on the line parallel with direction of the impact, 
transferring the maximum linear momentum to the DS. Impact by the sharp 
edge of the prism also results in maximum strain on the DS plate. The vertex 
coordinates of the prism are obtained from DTN: MO0301MWD3DE27.003 
(Block Geometry Information.doc) in order to calculate the enveloping 
dimensions (DTN: MO0301MWD3DE27.003 provides details). This 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-5 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
assumption is used in Section 5.4.2.1 and corresponds to paragraph 5.2.16.6 of 
Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673]). 
3.15 A value of rock compressive strength of 290 MPa is assumed in the 
calculation. The mean value determined from uniaxial compression tests on 
small, 25.4 mm diameter cores of the Tptpmn is 207.2 MPa; however, the 
range of the data is 38.4 to 326 MPa with a standard deviation 
of 61.2 MPa (Cikanek, et. al 2004 [DIRS 169642], Table 5; 
DTN: MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 [DIRS 166073]). The compressive strength 
of rock blocks in nonlithophysal rock mass is a function of block size 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Figure E-22). The asymptotic value of about 
70 MPa for large block sizes is representative of the block sizes predicted in 
the rockfall analysis. However, since the damage induced by rock block 
impact to the drip shield will be a partial function of the strength of the rock 
block, a conservative value of 290 MPa for rock compressive strength, which 
is near the high end of the measured data, is assumed. The rationale for this 
assumption is that it leads to bounding set of results. This assumption is used 
in Section 5.2.3.3. 
3.16 The DS side-walls are assumed to be unconstrained in the lateral direction 
during the 10,000 year regulatory period in the calculation of static and 
dynamic loading by the rockfall (with the exception of the lateral constraint 
provided by the pallet used in the calculation of the static load in lithophysal 
rock mass). The rationale for this assumption is that the gantry rail is made of 
steel sets (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169776]), which are not anticipated to remain 
intact (eventually corrode away) during the 10,000-year regulatory period. 
This assumption is used in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. 
3.17 The Alloy 22 base is excluded from the FE representation in the rockfall 
calculation for simplicity. The rationale for this assumption is that the effect 
of a thin plate at the bottom of the long side wall on the calculation results is 
negligibly small during rockfall. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.2. 
3.18 The residual stress threshold for the DS damaged area evaluation is assumed 
to be a constant value, equal to 50 percent of the yield strength of Ti-7. The 
rationale for this assumption is the data provided in 
DTN: MO0303SPARESST.000 [DIRS 162030] and Section 5.2.3.1.4. This 
assumption is used in Sections 1, 2, 5.3.3.2, and 5.2.3.1.4. 
3.19 The lifting feature, and DS connector assembly are excluded from the FE 
representations for simplicity (The DS connector assembly and base were 
included in the analysis of vibratory ground motion.). The rationale for this 
assumption is that the effect of these DS components on the calculation results 
is negligibly small. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.2. 
3.20 The kinematic calculation of DS separation is two-dimensional in the vertical 
plane that is oriented along the axis of the DS. Consequently, only the vertical 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-6 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
component and one component of horizontal ground motion were considered. 
The kinematic calculation was used for assessment of the potential of DS 
separation. The main mechanism that causes DS separation is unlocking of 
the DSs by vertical shear displacements of the connection. The horizontal 
component of the ground motion perpendicular to the chain of the DSs (i.e., 
the out-of-plane component) is not expected to cause vertical shear 
deformation of the connections between the DSs. The other possible 
mechanism of DS separation is by excessive deformation of the structural 
components in the connection or by shearing off of the welds in the 
connection interlocking mechanism. The out-of-plane component of the 
ground motion will contribute to deformation and strain of the chain of the 
DS, and consequently to the loads taken by the structural components and 
welds in the connection. The axial loading on the welds is assumed to be 
uniformly distributed along the entire length of the weld which is represented 
as two contact locations between adjacent DSs  one upper and one lower 
contact. One half the weld strength is assumed to be lumped at each of the 
two contacts. The ground motions that can cause separation of the DSs 
(110-5, 110-6 and 110-7 probability of annual occurrence) result in at least 
some level of rockfall and rubble accumulation on the invert between the DSs 
and the drift walls. Even the limited amount of rubble on the sides of the DS 
will constrain the motion of the DS relative to the emplacement drift in the 
plane of the drift cross-section (i.e., the DS will move together with the 
emplacement drift). The out-of-plane deformation of the chain of the DSs 
will thus be small and the resulting bending deformation that will cause 
straining of the DS connections can be neglected. This assumption is used in 
Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3.2 and 5.3.1.1. 
3.21 The DS is represented in the kinematic DE calculations as a rectangular, 
deformable solid body with mass and outline dimensions (i.e., the length and 
height) equal to those of the actual DS. The mass is assumed to be uniformly 
distributed over the area of the geometrical representation of the DS. The 
separation of the DSs (which is analyzed by the kinematic calculation) is 
mainly affected by the differential rigid-body motion of adjacent DSs. The 
parameters that govern the rigid-body motion of the bodies are their mass and 
dimensions. This assumption is used in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.1.1.1. 
3.22 Density of the rubble created by rockfall in the emplacement drift is assumed 
to be 2,000 kg/m3. The density of the rubble is a function of the volume of 
the caved rock, which includes the porosity between rock particles. The 
bulking factor, B, defined as the percentage increase in volume of the rock in 
going from an in situ rock mass to a granular rubble, is used to determine the 
rubble density. If the density of the in situ rock mass is assumed to be 
2,370 kg/m3 (Assumption 3.7), the density of the rubble of 2,000 kg/m3 
corresponds to bulking factor of 18.5 percent (using the 
relation .=. 1/( + B) , where . is the rubble density, . is the in situ rock
rr 
mass density, and B is the bulking factor), which is approximately equal to 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-7 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
the lower bound of the bulking factor usually observed in the mining 
operations (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.5.2). This assumption is 
used in Section 5.2.3.5. 
3.23 The analyses summarized and conducted in this document assume that there is 
no ground support present in the emplacement drifts that would prevent 
rockfall or drift degradation from occurring. The rock support, consisting of 
stainless steel rock bolts and thin, perforated stainless steel sheeting, will 
continue to provide support for some indeterminate time after repository 
closure (BSC 2004 [DIRS 165425]). This assumption applies to most of the 
postclosure period and the calculations are run with and without rockfall 
effects. This assumption is used in Sections 5.2.3.5. 
3.24 In the kinematic analyses of the vibratory motion of a chain of interlinked drip 
shields (Section 5.2.3.2.2.1), the drip shields are represented as deformable 
blocks that rest on a rigid invert. It is necessary to estimate the stiffness of the 
contact between the drip shield and invert for normal and shear loading. The 
normal and shear stiffnesses of the interface between the DS and the invert are 
considered to be 3 MPa/m as a base condition in the majority of the kinematic 
simulations for drip shield vibratory motion in an open drift. The tangent 
modulus (E) of the crushed rock at low confinement is on the order of 
10,000 psi, or approximately 70 MPa, according to Marachi et al. (1972 
[DIRS 157883])3. Considering the width of the DS base (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166897], l = 2  75mm = 150 mm) and the thickness of the crushed tuff 
in the invert (d = 86 cm; see Figure 5-6), the normal stiffness of the contact is 
calculated as 
El 70  0.15
k == = 12.2 MPa/m (Eq. 3-1)
n 
1.0  d 1.0 0.86 
In the majority of the calculations, a lower stiffness of 3 MPa/m was used to 
account for the effect of localized pressure at the base of the DS and nonlinear 
deformation of the invert during strong impacts. The value of 3 MPa/m was 
selected because it results in relatively small overlap of the simplified 
kinematic blocks that represent the DS and the invert, considering the load 
due to the weight of the DS only. This assumption is used in Section 
5.2.3.2.2.1. 
The data supporting the value of tangent modulus (E) of tuff rock rubble is derived from laboratory triaxial 
compression testing of large (36 inch diameter by 7.5 feet in height) samples of crushed basalt at the Rockfill 
Testing Facility at the University of California at Berkeley. This data is reported in the Journal of the Soil 
Mechanics and Foundation Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, a peer-reviewed 
journal. The reliability of this data source is considered high. The size-gradation curves for the crushed basalt 
tested are similar to the small rock fragments expected from lithophysal rock rubble, and the strength of the 
constituent grains from tuff and basalt are of similar magnitude as both are high strength volcanic rocks. For these 
reasons, this data source, used as direct input, is considered to be suitable for its intended use, which is to provide an 
approximate value for the Youngs modulus of rock rubble. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-8 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
3.25 In the simplified kinematic model of DS synchronous motion, the DSs are 
represented as deformable blocks that interact with one another via shear and 
normal contacts at their ends. Two contacts are used between these DS 
blocks  one at the top and one at the bottom of the block. The maximum 
axial force that can be taken by the welded interlocking DS connection is 
assumed to be half of the maximum value given in Equation 5-9, or 
7.05 megaNewtons (MN) (Assumption 3.20). This estimate of the maximum 
axial force in the contact between the DSs is approximate, since the complex 
processes of nonlinear and inelastic deformation of different components of 
the DS structural connection are ignored. To take these effects into account, 
engineering judgment is used to reduce the maximum axial force used in the 
calculations by 50 percent, to 3.5 MN. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-9 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 3-10 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
4. USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE 
This document provides a summary of several calculations, as described in Section 1, in which 
software was utilized to derive the results summarized here. In this present calculation, only the 
UDEC software was used to develop new results not previously reported in supporting 
calculations. The computer software used to develop results summarized in this calculation, but 
developed in the supporting calculations is also reviewed in this section for completeness. The 
computer software cited in Section 4 of the supporting structural calculations (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 167083]; BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993]; and BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791]) is also listed in 
Table 4-1. 
Table 4-1. Computer Software Used in Structural Calculations 
Software STN Operating system Computer Type 
Computer 
Numbera 
ANSYS V5.6.2 (BSC 
2002 [DIRS 159357]) 
10364-5.6.2-01 HP-UX 11.00 Hewlett-Packard 
(HP) 9000 series 
UNIX workstations 
117162, 151324, 
151325, 151664, 
and 151665 
LS-DYNA V960.1106 10300-960.1106-00 HP-UX 11.00 HP 9000 series UNIX 117162, 151324, 
(BSC 2002 workstation 151325, 151665, 
[DIRS 158898]) 151664, 150691, 
150689, 150690, 
150688 
LS-DYNA V970.3858 10300-970.3858 D HP-UX 11.22 HP Itanium2 (IA64) 501711 
D MPP-00 (BSC 2003 MPP-00 series UNIX 
[DIRS 166918]) workstations 
UDEC V3.1 (BSC 2002 10173-3.1-00 Windows 2000 PC NA 
[DIRS 161949]) 
TrueGrid V2.1.5 exempt of the HP-UX 11.00 HP 9000 series UNIX 150689 
requirements defined workstation 
in LP-SI.11Q-BSC 
(Section 2.1.2) 
TrueGrid V2.2 exempt of the 
requirements defined 
in LP-SI.11Q-BSC 
HP-UX 11.00 HP 9000 series UNIX 
workstation 
150689 
(Section 2.1.2) 
LSPOST V2 exempt of the 
requirements defined 
in LP-SI.11Q-BSC 
HP-UX 11.00 HP 9000 series UNIX 
workstation 
117162, 151324, 
151325, 151665, 
151664, 150691, 
(Section 2.1.2) 150689, 150690, 
150688 
LS-PREPOST V1.0 exempt of the 
requirements defined 
in LP-SI.11Q-BSC 
HP-UX 11.22 HP Itanium2 (IA64) 
series UNIX 
workstations 
501711 
(Section 2.1.2) 
LS-PREPOST V2.0 exempt of the 
requirements defined 
in LP-SI.11Q-BSC 
HP-UX 11.22 HP Itanium2 (IA64) 
series UNIX 
workstations 
501711 
(Section 2.1.2) 
a Yucca Mountain Project property tag numbers for computers located in Las Vegas, Nevada. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 4-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The FE meshes of the DS developed in the supporting calculations were constructed using either 
ANSYS V5.6.2 (BSC 2002 [DIRS 159357]) or TrueGrid V2.1.5 and TrueGrid V2.2 
(XYZ Scientific Applications, Inc.). These software programs were used solely to mesh 
geometric representations of the domain (i.e., for the development of FE mesh), and are therefore 
exempt from the requirements defined in procedure LP-SI.11Q-BSC, which defines software 
qualification requirements. 
The qualified FE analysis computer codes used for this calculation are Livermore Software 
Technology Corporation LS-DYNA V960.1106 (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158898]) and LS-DYNA 
V970.3858 D MPP-00 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166918]) (LS-DYNA V960 and LS-DYNA V970, 
respectively4). Both LS-DYNA codes are obtained from Software Configuration Management in 
accordance with the appropriate procedure (LP-SI.11Q-BSC). The FE calculations performed 
herein are fully within the range of the validation performed for LS-DYNA V960 code 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 168545], Sections 4 and 5) and LS-DYNA V970 code (DOE 2003 
[DIRS 168558], Sections 4 and 5). LSPOST V2, LS-PREPOST V1.0 and LS-PREPOST V2.0 
(Livermore Software Technology Corporation) are postprocessors5 used for visual display and 
graphical representation of results. 
The qualified DE analysis computer code used for this calculation is UDEC (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 161949]). UDEC is obtained from Software Configuration Management in accordance 
with the appropriate procedure (LP-SI.11Q-BSC). The DE calculations performed herein are 
fully within the range of the validation performed (BSC 2002 [DIRS 171617]). 
The data files and saved file states to recreate the parametric kinematic analyses conducted with 
UDEC V3.1 are provided in Attachment A. Files for each case listed in Table 5-19 are listed in 
Section 7 of this document and provided in Attachment A. The file extensions have the 
following meaning: *.dat are primary input data files, *.fis and *.fin are macro files called by 
*.dat in setting up and running the problems, *.vel are input velocity ground motion time history 
records (H signifies horizontal and up signifies vertical velocity components), *.sav are the saved 
files used for the initial model geometry (before application of the ground motion time histories) 
and at the end of the analysis, *.lnk are shortcut files for execution of the UDEC program, and 
*.pcx are bit map graphics files of the model geometry and results. 
4 LS-DYNA V960 and LS-DYNA V970 are referred to as LS-DYNA when it is unnecessary to make a specific 
distinction. 
5 Note that LS-PREPOST V1.0 and LS-PREPOST V2.0 also have preprocessing capabilities, which were not used 
in the calculations documented in the supporting calculations. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 4-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5. CALCULATION 
5.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
Figure 5-1 illustrates the major components of the engineered barrier system (EBS) in a typical 
emplacement drift. The major EBS components are the waste package, the DS, and the fuel rod 
cladding (the cladding is not shown in Figure 5-1). These components provide barriers to the 
release of radionuclides from the EBS into the unsaturated zone. The effectiveness of these 
barriers is potentially compromised by the direct effects from an earthquake, including vibratory 
ground motion, fault displacement, and rockfall induced by ground motion or some other effects. 
Other, non-seismic mechanical effects could include rockfall resulting from time-dependent 
degradation of the emplacement drift. The effectiveness of these barriers is also potentially 
compromised by indirect effects after an earthquake, including changes in seepage, temperature, 
and relative humidity if an emplacement drift collapses completely during a very low probability 
earthquake. 
Figure 5-1. Schematic Diagram of the EBS Components in a Typical Emplacement Drift 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The DS is a free-standing structure, constructed of titanium bulkheads and overlying sheets, 
whose legs rest on the invert of the tunnel. The invert is constructed of carbon steel beams with 
crushed tuff compacted between them. Initially the weight of the DS is borne by the steel 
beams. As corrosion of these beams occurs over time, the weight will be transferred to the 
compacted, crushed tuff invert. The purpose of the DS is to prevent direct seepage of water on 
the waste packages, and to protect the waste packages from direct impacts by rockfall (illustrated 
in Figure 5-1). Specifically, effectiveness of the DS could be affected by the following 
mechanical processes: 
 Relatively large rigid-body displacements of the DSs that would overturn the DS or 
create a gap between the neighboring DSs (The DSs are designed to overlap each other 
creating a continuous shielded area underneath them. This potential separation is an 
important consideration because it impacts the function of the DS as a flow and rockfall 
barrier.) 
 Loss of structural integrity due to mechanical collapse or buckling of the main structural 
elements (e.g., the support beam and the bulkhead) 
 Puncture, tearing or damage that would accelerate the stress corrosion rate of the DS 
plates (other corrosion mechanisms are accounted for in the calculation by a uniform 
thickness reduction of the DS as discussed in Assumption 3.13 and Section 5.2.3.1.5). 
The DS could be subjected to static and dynamic loads during the postclosure period. Static load 
that could potentially have an effect on structural integrity of the DS is due to the weight of 
caved rock rubble that may rest on the top of the DS or between the DS and the walls of the 
emplacement drift. Emplacement drift failure, and resulting caving and expansion of the tunnel 
profile can occur as a result of thermally induced stresses, seismic loading, time-dependent 
strength degradation, or different combinations of these factors. The dynamic loads on the DS, 
which are primarily due to the seismic ground motion, include inertial forces and impacts of the 
falling rock blocks. The inertial forces can result in motion of the DSs relative to each other, and 
relative to the drift walls and other objects inside the drift (e.g., the waste packages and pallet). 
Consequently, inertial forces can cause separation of the DSs and impact to other DSs and 
objects inside the emplacement drifts. The impacts of the falling blocks can take place during 
seismic ground motion and as a result of drift degradation due to time-dependent strength loss. 
The calculations summarized in this document determine potential for separation of the DSs and 
loss of the structural integrity and stability, but also the damaged areas on the DS (i.e., those 
areas that exceed the residual stress threshold for Ti-7) from impacts between the DS and the 
waste package, pallet, invert, drift wall, and by rockfall. The damaged area estimates to the DS 
surface plates as a function of peak ground velocity (PGV) are used as input to the Seismic 
Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]), which provides damage abstractions to 
the TSPA-LA. In the Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]), the 
physical interpretation of the damaged areas is a resulting network of stress corrosion cracks 
through which seepage water could potentially pass to the waste package. A discussion of the 
physical morphology of the stress corrosion cracks, and the potential for advective flux through 
the DS is provided in the Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.1.1 Scope of Calculation 
Integrity and stability of the DS were analyzed for the following loads, which are expected to be 
the bounding loading cases during the operation of the DS during the postclosure period: 
 Static pressure of the rock rubble that covers the DS following collapse or partial 
collapse from seismic effects or from time-dependent degradation 
 Vibratory motion of the DS induced by the seismic ground motion 
 Impacts by the falling rock from rockfall due to seismic effects. 
5.1.1.1 Loading from Static Pressure of Rock Rubble 
Static pressure of rock rubble resting on the DS is derived from two basic sources as described in 
Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4). These are: 1) low 
probability seismic events with large peak ground velocity and 2) the combined effects of 
thermal stresses, time-dependent strength degradation and repeated higher probability seismic 
events. 
Complete or Partial Drift Collapse from Low Probability Seismic Events  Low probability 
postclosure seismic events are predicted to result in extensive collapse of emplacement drifts in 
lithophysal rock and partial collapse of nonlithophysal rock, with resulting rubble either 
completely or partially covering the DS. Drifts located in lithophysal rock are expected to 
undergo collapse sufficient to cover the DS for seismic events characterized by a PGV of 
approximately 2 m/s or higher. Approximately 25 percent of the ground motions associated with 
the 110-5, and all of the 110-6 and lower annual frequency of occurrence show complete 
collapse in lithophysal rocks. Ground motions associated with 110-6 and lower annual 
frequency of occurrence show extensive damage that either covers the DS or fills the area 
between the DS and drift walls in the nonlithophysal rocks (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). 
Dynamic discontinuum analyses presented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107]) show that the collapse of the drifts in response to the ground motion occurs 
simultaneous with the arrival of the strong ground motion. Thus, within a few seconds after 
beginning of seismic ground motion, the drift collapses and restrains the DS with broken rubble. 
Rockfall from Thermal Stress, Time-Dependent Effects and Higher Probability Seismic 
Events  In the absence of low probability seismic events, the emplacement drifts are expected 
to be largely stable over the postclosure period. For the assumed base case scenario (i.e., rock 
mass loading resulting from thermally induced stresses and higher probability, preclosure ground 
motions [i.e., those with 510-4 or 110-4 annual frequency of occurrence]) some lesser amount 
of rockfall is expected. This rockfall, derived from the drift sidewalls, will occur primarily in the 
lithophysal rocks and will vary along the drifts depending on the local quality of the rock mass. 
The lithophysal rock comprises approximately 85 percent of the total length of the emplacement 
drifts, while approximately 15 percent occurs within the stronger nonlithophysal rocks. Within 
the lithophysal rocks and in the absence of low probability seismic events, it is expected that at 
most, approximately 3 percent of the total length of the emplacement drifts can completely 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-3 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
collapse covering the DS with broken rock6. The rockfall along the remaining length of the 
emplacement drifts will be limited with some accumulation of the broken rock on the sides or on 
the top (less than 1 m height of the broken rock) of the DS. 
5.1.1.2 Loading from Vibratory Motion 
The effect of seismic ground motion on damage from vibratory motion of the DS was analyzed 
for ground motions with 510-4, 110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence. The effect 
of seismic ground motion on potential for separation of the DSs was analyzed for ground 
motions with 110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence. Although the caved rock mass 
inside the emplacements drifts (surrounding the DS) could potentially restrict motion of the 
DS as a rigid body, it was assumed conservatively in a number of the calculations that the drifts 
were stable during the entire simulation (as stated in Section 5.1.1.1, collapse of the drifts in 
lithophysal rock and nonlithophysal rock masses is expected for seismic ground motions with 
110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence). The seismic motion is transmitted from the 
invert (which has the identical motion of the far-field rock mass in these calculations  see 
Section 5.2.3.4) to the DS through the frictional interface in the contacts between the invert and 
the DS. 
5.1.1.3 Loading from Rockfall Impacts 
Rockfall, which can occur as gradual drift degradation or can be seismically induced, may 
impact the DS. The seismically induced impacts of the rockfall, which will have greater energy 
(because of larger impact velocity) than the impacts resulted from slow, quasi-static drift 
degradation, are considered in the analysis. The size distribution of the unstable blocks will be 
different in the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock masses. Spacing of the rock mass fractures 
and lithophysae is expected to control the size of the blocks in general, and the size of those 
blocks that are detached under seismic load. The nonlithophysal rock mass is characterized by 
four sets of naturally-occurring fractures, with spacings that average, in general, between 0.5 m 
and 3 m (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.1). The ubiquitous fracture fabric of relatively 
short fractures in the lithophysal rock mass have average spacing of less than 0.1 m. The median 
and maximum block sizes produced in the nonlithophysal rock mass are larger as a result of the 
wider fracture spacing. The rockfall in lithophysal rock mass is estimated to consist of blocks 
with edge length of, on average, a few tens of centimeters, in contrast to the largest blocks 
destabilized by the strong ground motions (110-6 and 110-7) in nonlithophysal rock mass with 
mass in excess of 25 metric tons. Impact of blocks in nonlithophysal rock mass is analyzed as a 
bounding scenario in Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993]) 
and summarized in Section 5.4.2. 
6 The lithophysal rock mass has been subdivided into 5 rock strength categories, with category 1 being of the lowest 
quality or strength. This category, representative of lithophysal rock with lithophysal porosity greater than about 
25 percent comprises roughly 3 percent of the repository host horizon (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Appendix E). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-4 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2 DRIP SHIELD GEOMETRY 
5.2.1 Description of the Drip Shield Design 
The geometry of the DS is shown in perspective views in Figures 5-2 and 5-3. All details and 
dimensions of the geometry of the DS can be found in D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield 
and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]) as well as in the calculations that support 
this summary document (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993] and BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170791]). The components of the DS structure are indicated in these figures. The main 
structural (load bearing) elements of the DS, the bulkheads and the support beams, will be 
manufactured of Ti-24. They form 4 typical frames spaced at 1,072 mm along the DS. Two 
peripheral frames (at the ends of the DS) have a different geometry than the bulkhead and 
support beams. The DS plates 1 (on the top) and 2 (on the sides), which are placed continuously 
over the bulkheads and the support beams, will be manufactured of Ti-7, as well as the external 
and internal support plates that strengthen the DS plates 1 and 2 in the region of their junction. 
The plates provide the ultimate functionality of the structurei.e., to prevent: a) dripping of 
water from the drift roof and walls onto the waste packages, and b) impacts of loose blocks from 
the drift roof and the walls directly onto the waste packages. Each DS is 5,805 mm in length, 
and 2,886 mm in height, and its total mass is 5,000 kg (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). The DSs 
will be installed, prior to closure of the repository, over the waste packages and pallets. 
Adjacent DSs partially overlap one another using the drip shield connector (DSC) assembly on 
one DS, which is placed over and interlocks the DSC Guide of the next DS to provide 
continuous shielding of the waste packages. In order to separate (unlock) two DSs (or to lock 
them together) without significantly deforming the support beams, bulkheads or plates, or 
shearing off the welds, it is necessary to lift one DS relative to another by at least 40 inches 
(approximately 1 m; shown in Figure 5-4). This is because the DS side plates are inclined 
2 degrees with respect to the invert surface normal (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). 
The DS and other structures inside the emplacement drift after its installation are shown in the 
cross-section in Figure 5-5. The details of the invert structural support for the DS and its 
relationship to the emplacement drift are shown in Figure 5-6. The DS will be placed between 
the edge of the pallet (inside) and the gantry crane rail and the associated structures (outside). 
However, in the calculations, it is assumed (Assumption 3.16) that the gantry crane rail and the 
associated structure do not existi.e., that in the postclosure period they have corroded in such a 
way that they do not provide any mechanical resistance or obstacle to motion of the DS. The DS 
will be resting on the invert by its own weight. Initially, the weight of the DS, waste package 
and pallet is borne by a framework of structural steel that is bolted to the floor of the 
emplacement drift. Compacted, crushed tuff is placed between the structural steel members 
during the construction process and prior to emplacement. In the postclosure period, as the steel 
framework corrodes and looses its load bearing capacity, the weight of the DS, waste package 
and pallet will be borne by the compacted crushed tuff invert. As shown in Figure 5-6, the 
maximum thickness of the crushed tuff is approximately 86 mm (2 ft 10 in) beneath the waste 
package. There is no additional resistance to lifting the DS off the invert than the weight of the 
DS. The only resistance to lateral movement of the DS (before it hits the pallet or the drift wall) 
is friction between the DS and the invert. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-5 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168275]. 
Figure 5-2. Geometry of the Drip Shield  Side View 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168275]. 
Figure 5-3. Geometry of the Drip Shield  View from Below 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-6 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
NOTE: The indicated dimension is in inches. 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 165038]. 
Figure 5-4. Interlocking of the Drip Shields 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170074]. 
NOTE: Dimensions: inches [millimeters]; Dimensions are utilized as references only. 
Figure 5-5. Configuration Inside the Emplacement Drift During the Postclosure Period 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-7 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169776]. 
NOTE: Dimensions in feet and inches are utilized as references only. 
Figure 5-6. Detail of the Steel Invert Structure and Crushed Tuff Ballast at the Bottom of the 
Emplacement Drift 
5.2.2 Drip Shield Numerical Representation 
Different numerical representations of the DS are used for the various loading conditions and 
analysis requirements. Because these calculations are computationally intensive (in terms of 
computer memory requirements and computer simulation run-time), it is necessary that the 
numerical representation be optimized for the particular loading case and objectives of the 
calculation. 
Assumptions 3.16, 3.17 and 3.19 are used in development of FE representations of the DS. 
Assumptions 3.20 and 3.21 are used in development of DE representation. The invert is 
represented in all calculations as rigid. The DS is designed to be free standing on the invert, and 
is represented in the calculations as freely resting on the invert with a coefficient of friction 
between the DS footing and the invert specified as appropriate (Assumptions 3.8, 3.10 and 3.11). 
As illustrated in Figures 5-5 and 5-6, the only constraints to the DS motion are the drift walls, 
pallet and gantry rail. It is assumed (Assumption 3.16) that the gantry rail, manufactured of 
carbon steel, will corrode away and present no restrain to motion of the DS. Because it is 
assumed that the life of standard carbon steel rail is on the order of hundreds of years, this 
assumption is adequate for most of the duration of the regulatory period. The accumulated 
rockfall (due to seismic shaking or time-dependent drift degradation), if present, provides a 
lateral constraint to motion of the DS. Sensitivity of the calculation as a result of the presence of 
the lateral constraint provided by rockfall is examined in the DE kinematic analyses. The impact 
of lateral constraints on damage to drip shield plates under vibratory motion subsequent to the 
rockfall is not assessed. The largest damaged area of surface plates is predicted (Tables 5-26 and 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-8 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5-27) for the vertical impact by rockfall, in which case the lateral constraints are inconsequential. 
It is not expected that the lateral constrain would affect significantly the results of calculations 
for the side impacts. 
The DSC assembly, lifting feature, and base were excluded from the FE representation 
(Assumption 3.19) (the DSC assembly and base were included in the analysis of damage from 
vibratory ground motion). The benefit of this simplification is to reduce the computer execution 
time while preserving the features of the problem most relevant to the structural response of the 
DS. 
5.2.2.1 Representations for Vibratory Ground Motion 
An objective of this calculation was to investigate the effect of vibratory ground motion on the 
potential for separation of the DS and to determine the areas of residual first principal stress that 
exceed 50 percent of the Ti-7 yield strength (Section 5.2.3.1.4). For analysis of DS separation, it 
is necessary to consider motion and interaction of a large number of DSs. To conduct such an 
analysis using a detailed representation of the DS geometry (required for proper analysis of 
impact-induced damage) would be demanding computationally. Instead, two different 
approaches were used: 
 Simplified DE kinematic calculations of motion of a large number of DSs to investigate 
the potential for DS separation 
 FE calculation of interaction of 3 DSs (with detailed representation of the DS geometry) 
to analyze impact damage. 
Two-dimensional DE kinematic calculations using the UDEC software (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 161949]) were conducted to investigate the effect of vibratory ground motion on potential 
for DS separation only. Because the dominant mode of deformation of the DSs that affects their 
separation and interaction during seismic ground motions is their rigid body motion, the DS is 
represented as a rectangular (in two dimensions), deformable body with the overall DS 
dimensions (i.e., length, height and mass [Section 5.2.1]). Normal and shear contact relations 
are used to represent interaction of the DSs (Section 5.2.3.2.2.2). The DSs may become 
separated when limiting shear (relative vertical) displacement or limiting axial force is exceeded. 
If the limiting shear displacement is exceeded, the DSs become unlocked, and if the limiting 
axial force between two interlocked DSs is exceeded, welds of the interlocking feature are 
sheared and the connection is broken. The DSs will not separate as long as they move 
synchronously. The loss of synchronicity in DS motion is primarily a result of the following 
factors: 
 Differential motion of the invert along the drift resulting in variable normal and shear 
impulse transferred to the DSs along the interconnected chain of DSs. If the incoming 
seismic wave propagates as a plane wave traveling vertically upward, all points with the 
same elevation move synchronously. If the incoming wave is not propagating vertically 
upward, there is an effect of the traveling wave along the emplacement drift that will 
cause a differential motion of the DSs, resulting in strain in the chain of the DSs and 
potential separation. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-9 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
 Variability in friction coefficient (between the DS and the invert) along the chain, 
resulting in variable shear impulse transferred to the DSs. 
 Variability of the conditions of interaction with the neighboring DSs. The DSs at the 
ends of the chain are always the source of the perturbation because of the asymmetric 
conditions of interactioni.e., the end DS interacts with a DS on one side and is free on 
the other side. 
The DE kinematic analysis employs a simplified representation of the DS. This analysis is 
supplemented by analysis of an extreme case regarding the potential for DS separation and 
damage due to vibratory motion impacts using a detailed FE representation of three adjacent DSs 
(only the central DS of those three is deformable). In this case, a rigid longitudinal boundary is 
assumed on both sides of the chain of three DSs. The main objective of the FE calculations is to 
estimate damage due to interacting impacts of adjacent DSs. 
5.2.2.1.1 Representation for Kinematic Analysis 
The kinematic analysis was carried out using the two-dimensional DE code UDEC. Only two 
components of ground motion were considered: one horizontal (along the axis of the drift) and 
one vertical (Assumption 3.20) applied to a longitudinal section of the drift. The lateral motion 
of the DSs in the plane perpendicular to the emplacement drift axis was not considered 
(Assumption 3.21). 
Each DS is represented as a rectangular deformable body defined by 5 grid points (and 
4 elements) representing the DS. Rigid-body motion is the dominant mechanism for motion and 
separation of the DSs within the framework of this analysis. The entire geometry of the 
numerical representation is discretized into elements, but the portions of the domain that 
represent the invert and the roof of the drift are rigid because their motion is controlled to be 
coincident with the input ground motion time history during the simulation. The dimensions and 
weight of the DS listed in Section 5.2.1 are used in the calculations. Because the DSs overlap in 
reality, the length of the DS in this simplified representation is reduced for the length of the 
overlap (i.e., BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 320 mm). The geometry of the DS representation in the 
UDEC calculation, for the case of an open emplacement drift is shown in Figure 5-7. 
Numerical simulations indicate that the drifts in the lithophysal rock mass collapse completely 
for a PGV larger than approximately 2 m/s (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.2.2). In 
the nonlithophysal rock mass, the amount of rockfall predicted in the drifts at this level of PGV 
approximately fill the region between the DS and the drift wall (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], 
Section 6.4.2.2.2). Some ground motions from the set of 110-5 ground motions and all 110-6 
and 110-7 ground motions have a PGV larger than 2 m/s. It is shown in the Drift Degradation 
Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.2.2) that most of the predicted rockfall takes 
place within about two seconds after strong ground motion begins. Different levels of rockfall 
(but not complete drift collapse) are predicted for ground motions with a PGV less than 2 m/s. If 
the drift completely collapses, the DS will be covered with at least 5 m of rubble. The rubble 
will also fill the space between the DS and the drift walls. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-10 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Figure 5-7. UDEC Representation of a Chain of 20 Drip Shields Linked Together at Their End Contacts 
Two different approaches were used to account for the effect of the rockfall on the rigid body 
movement of the DS and the potential for DS separation. Sensitivity cases in which rubble 
covers the DS were analyzed using the geometrical representation illustrated in Figures 5-8 and 
5-9. The collapsed rock that accumulates on top of the DS is represented as a layer of material 
of a given thickness (Youngs modulus and density, see Section 5.2.3.5 on discussion of rubble 
properties). Different combinations of rubble properties and dimensions are analyzed 
(Table 5-19). In the first step of a simulation, the layer of the collapsed rock is completely 
unrestrained and rests on the DSs. Simulation of seismic shaking is carried out after the 
equilibrium stresses caused by the weight of the rubble and the DSs are generated. During the 
seismic shaking, the top boundary of the rubble layer is moved rigidly in synchronous motion 
with the far-field ground motion. In the two-dimensional analysis, the calculation is conducted 
for a unit thickness, i.e., 1 m in the out-of-plane direction. Although the mass of the DS 
representation in the UDEC calculation is 5,000 kg, which is the total mass of the DS, the 
pressure and reactive stresses of the caved rock are accounted for in only 1 m of the model 
out-of-plane thickness (the width of the DS is approximately 2.5 m). Because this approach also 
does not account for the frictional forces between the DS and the rubble accumulated between 
the DS and the drift walls, the calculations are conservative in nature. 
NOTE: The analysis depicted above has a simplified representation of the rubble as a coherent block of elastic 
material that rests on the drip shields. No rubble is represented at the ends of the DS chain. 
Figure 5-8. UDEC Representation of Chain of 20 Drip Shields Covered with Rubble 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-11 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Figure 5-9. Detail of UDEC Representation of Drip Shields Covered with Rubble 
The effect of the friction between the DS and the rubble on the sides of the DS (when a limited 
amount of rockfall does not cover the top of the DS, but rests between the DS and tunnel wall) is 
simulated using the geometrical representation shown in Figure 5-7. The frictional forces, 
applied at the 4 corners of each of the blocks that represent the DS, are calculated using the 
following relation: 
l hds p , (Eq. 5-1) 
-
F
fric = 0.25 fm r ds av 
where lds and hds are DS length and height (Section 5.2.1), f is the metal-to-rubble friction 
mr
-
coefficient, and pav is the average horizontal static pressure of the broken rubble. The pressure 
of the rubble can be estimated using the formula for the active ground pressure in cohesionless 
materials (e.g., Sowers 1979 [DIRS 107479], page 385, equation 9:3b): 
ph 2
() =.gh tan (45 o -f / 2) , (Eq. 5-2) 
rr 
where . is the density of the rubble, h is the height, g is gravitational acceleration, and f is
rrthe angle of internal friction of the rubble. If the rubble height, h , is equal to the height of the 
DS (2,886 mm), the maximum horizontal pressure is 12,551 Pa for a typical angle of internal 
friction of 40 degrees (Section 5.2.3.5). The pressure varies linearly from a maximum value at 
the invert to zero at the top of the DS. Because the pressure is acting on both sides of the DS, 
the average horizontal pressure is 12,551 Pa. The force Ffric acts always in the direction 
opposite to the relative velocity between the DS and the far-field. 
The parts of the calculation domain and the boundaries indicated as rigid in Figures 5-7, 5-8, and 
5-9 are subjected to prescribed velocities throughout the simulations. The velocity histories are 
functions of the prescribed far-field velocity histories and the angle of incidence of the incoming 
seismic waves. The seismic waves are considered to propagate as plane (normal and shear) body 
waves. The effect of interactions between the seismic waves and the emplacement drifts, or any 
other excavations in the vicinity, is neglected. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-12 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The velocity of point xi can be derived in the coordinate system aligned with the direction of the 
incident seismic wave, taking into account the phase change as a function of distance 
(Figure 5-10): 
. d 
. 0, fort -= 0
C
p
.
%(, t) =. . 
(Eq. 5-3) 
vxi
1 
. vt d .
. , otherwise 
n .
. 
. ..
- 
Cp .
. 
. d 
%
2(, t) = ..
. 0, fort - 
C 
= 0 
s 
vxi (Eq. 5-4) 
. d .
. vt 
. Cs .
. s ..
- . , otherwise 
((
where vt) and vt) are prescribed vertical and horizontal velocity histories; and Cp and C
nss 
are P- and S-wave velocities, respectively. A simple coordinate transformation was used to 
calculate the velocity components in the original coordinate system: 
~~ 
v1( x , t) =v1( x , t)sin(a ) - v2( x , t)cos(a )
i iinci inc 
(Eq. 5-5) 
~~ 
v2( x , t) = v1( x , t)sin(a ) + v2( x ,t)cos(ainc )
i iinci 
Figure 5-10. Nomenclature for Far-Field Velocity Calculation 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-13 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.2.1.2 Detailed Finite Element Representation 
The three-dimensional FE representation, used for the vibratory ground-motion simulations, is 
developed in ANSYS V5.6.2, by using the DS dimensions provided in Attachment I of 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]). The FE representation is shown in Figure 5-11. A corresponding 
cutaway view (portions of various parts are removed for viewing inside the outer model 
boundary) is presented in Figure 5-12. As seen in these figures, the FE representation consists of 
three interlocking DSs, the waste package-pallet assembly, the invert surface, and the lateral and 
longitudinal boundaries. 
Three interlocking DSs have identical geometry. However, the purpose of three interlocking 
DSs in the calculation is different, based on the detail to which yield mechanisms are to be 
represented. The finely meshed middle DS is analyzed using a bilinear elastoplastic constitutive 
representation for the Ti-7 and Ti-24 (Section 5.2.3.1.4). All results presented in this document 
are evaluated exclusively for the DS plates of the middle DS. The other two, more coarsely 
meshed DSs (called peripheral DSs), are represented as rigid (with exception of their DSC 
plates). The purpose of the peripheral DSs is to ensure realistic boundary conditions for the 
middle DS. 
The boundary conditions for the DS representation used for surface plate damage are shown in 
Figure 5-11. The longitudinal fixed, rigid end boundary, representing the neighboring waste 
package pallet assemblies and DSs (which are moving synchronously with the far-field), 
provides constraints for the unanchored repository components in the longitudinal direction. The 
lateral boundary (perpendicular to the drift axis) represents the walls of the emplacement drift. 
The lateral and longitudinal boundaries are both rigid and fixed to the invert by tied-interface 
contacts (for the tied-interface contacts, LS-DYNA V960.1106, Livermore Software Technology 
Corporation 2001 [DIRS 159166], p. 6.29). Thus, the motion of the boundaries and the invert is 
completely synchronous. 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure 1. 
Figure 5-11. Setup for DS Vibratory Simulations 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-14 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure 2. 
Figure 5-12. Cutaway View of Setup for DS Vibratory Simulations Showing Drip Shields and Internal 
Waste PackagePallet Assembly 
The waste package pallet assembly is a structure developed to represent the physical size, shape 
and mass of the waste package and pallet, but represented crudely for computational 
convenience. The main purpose of waste package pallet assemblies is to impose proper 
boundary conditions on the DSs (most importantly, the middle DS) in both a conservative (from 
the standpoint of the DS damaged area) and time-efficient manner. Thus, the structure of the 
21-PWR waste package7 and pallet is simplified by reducing their FE representation to a rigid 
thick-wall structure of uniform density (waste package pallet assembly). The geometry of the 
waste package pallet assembly is defined based on the contour of the waste package mounted on 
the pallet (Figure 5-13). The most relevant outside dimensions of the waste package mounted on 
the pallet are matched by FE representation and kept unchanged during the vibratory simulation 
(since the waste package in this FE representation cannot move relative to the pallet [see 
Section 5.3.2.2 for detailed discussion]). The thickness of the waste package pallet assembly is 
determined by using the material properties (including density) of Alloy 22, and matching the 
total masses of the waste package and pallet as presented in D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste 
Package Components Assembly (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472]) and Emplacement Pallet 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 161520]). The initial longitudinal distance between the neighboring waste 
package pallet assemblies, 0.1 m, is based on the initial longitudinal distance between the 
neighboring waste packages (Williams 2002 [DIRS 159916], Table 2). The benefit of using this 
approach is to reduce the computer execution time while preserving the features of the problem 
most relevant to the structural response of the middle DS. (for further discussion of the waste 
package pallet assembly see Section 5.3.2.2.). 
7 The 21-PWR assembly is used here as it is the most common type of waste package assembly to be emplaced in 
the repository (roughly 38 percent  BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472], Table 11). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-15 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
iSource: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Fgure 3. 
Figure 5-13. Contours of Waste Package Pallet Assembly and Waste Package Mounted on Pallet 
Three components of the ground-motion acceleration time history are simultaneously applied on 
the platform representing the invert surface, which is unyielding (elastic)8. Externally applied 
momentum is transferred to all freestanding (unanchored) objects solely by friction and impact. 
The DSC support beams, the DSC connector guides, the DSC guides, the support 
beam-connectors, the peripheral bulkheads, and the boundary walls are represented by 
eight-node solid (brick) elements. All other parts are represented by four-node shell elements. In 
general, the shell elements are adequate for representation of structural components as long as 
their dominant mode of deformation is bending. It is important to note that this analysis is 
focused on the DS plates; the stress state in other DS parts is of interest only to the extent it 
affects the DS plates results. The damage in other structural elements is not essential for overall 
performance of the DS as long as the structure remains stable. Time-dependent stress corrosion 
of the structural elements other than the DS plates will not significantly affect potential for water 
seeping through the DS on the waste packages. A possible effect of time-dependent stress 
corrosion would be weakening of the structure for any subsequent seismic events, but this is felt 
to be a second-order effect and is not analyzed here. The shell element used for representation 
of the DS plates is fully integrated four-node shell element with Gauss integration and five 
integration points through the shell thickness (Livermore Software Technology Corporation 
2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.22). The use of shell elements in the FE representation of DS is 
further discussed in Section 5.3.2.1. 
The FE representation is used in LS-DYNA to perform a transient dynamic analysis of the 
interlocking DSs exposed to vibratory ground motion. The simulation is performed in two steps. 
The first step is simulation of vibratory motion. During this computational phase the three 
components of ground-motion acceleration time history are simultaneously applied to all invert 
nodes. In the course of this vibratory simulation, neither system damping nor contact damping 
(between the unanchored objects) is applied. This conservative approach is used in order to 
prevent unwanted interference of the damping with the rigid-body motion of unanchored 
structures that could affect the results. The second step of the simulation is the post-vibratory 
8 This is a formal LS-DYNA requirement; the same acceleration time history applied to all platform nodes result in 
zero deformation by definition, thus, the invert is essentially rigid. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-16 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
relaxation. During this computational phase the motion of the invert nodes is constrained in all 
three directions, and the only load applied to freestanding objects is the acceleration of gravity. 
In the course of this phase, the system damping is applied globally (to all objects). The goal of 
this step is to obtain steady-state results (and residual stresses in the DS plates) in a reasonable 
time, while the purpose of the global system damping is to reduce the convergence time (see 
Section 5.2.6 for details). The specified duration (0.5 s) of this post-vibratory relaxation part of 
the simulation is to allow for the steady-state stresses to equilibrate, which can be verified by 
visual inspection of the residual stress distributions by the post-processing graphical software 
program, LS-POST V2. 
The mesh of the FE representation is appropriately generated and refined in appropriate regions 
according to standard engineering practice. This practice calls for use of finer meshing in areas 
of potential contact and/or stress concentration. Thus, the accuracy and representativeness of the 
results of this calculation are acceptable (see Section 5.2.2.4.1 for discussion of results). The 
uncertainties are taken into account by random sampling (from appropriate probability 
distributions) of the calculation inputs that are inherently stochastic (uncertain) and characterized 
by a large scatter of data (namely, ground-motion time histories and friction coefficients as 
discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.1.2). 
5.2.2.2 Finite Element Representation for Rock Impact in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
The objective of this calculation is to determine the DS damaged areas after impact by rockfall 
in nonlithophysal rock mass (Section 1). These areas are calculated using the postprocessor 
LS-PREPOST V1.0, and verified by visual inspection and measurement of the FE 
representation. 
The three-dimensional FE mesh representations of the DS and the impacting rock blocks are 
developed in ANSYS V5.6.2 for six different rock sizes. Based on the nonlithophysal rockfall 
estimates presented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Section 6.3), 
three different rockfall-DS impact orientations have been considered: vertical, DS corner, and 
DS side-wall (described in Section 5.4.2.1). The FE representations of the DS are developed by 
using the dimensions provided in Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168993], Attachment I). 
All of the DS components are represented by constant stress eight-node solid (brick) elements 
(Livermore Software technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.30). One-point 
Gaussian quadrature is used for the solid element (Hallquist 1998 [DIRS 155373], Section 3). 
Because the DS top plate and the side-walls are the most important DS components in this 
calculation, all damaged areas are reported exclusively for these parts. To capture the details of 
stress concentration at the rock block impact location, the FE representation of the DS consists 
of one finely-meshed region where rock impact takes place, and coarsely-meshed regions 
elsewhere. The FE representation of the DS top plate has five layers of brick elements through 
the thickness. Furthermore, the FE mesh is refined in the impact regions in both axial and 
circumferential directions. The geometry of the FE representations used in this calculation is 
illustrated in Figures 5-14 and 5-15. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-17 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: Derived from BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Table 8-1, c1mesh4. 
Figure 5-14. View of the Finite Element Representation Used for Analysis of Rock Impact 
Source: Derived from BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Table 8-1, c1mesh4. 
Figure 5-15. Detailed View of the Finite Element Representation Used for Analysis of Rock Impact 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-18 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The DS corner and side-wall rockfall FE representations include an idealized waste package 
positioned next to the DS side-wall inside surface. The waste package is represented by rigid 
shells, which is used to provide a rigid boundary condition and bounding stress results for the 
DS. 
The full-length of the DS is represented in the FE solutions. The rockfall is imposed at the 
mid-length of the DS, which receives no additional support from the connector plates; and 
hence, provides bounding stress results. Furthermore, the Alloy 22 base plate is excluded from 
the FE representation (Assumption 3.17). The benefit of using this assumption is to reduce the 
computer execution time while keeping the essential parts of the structure. 
The FE representation of the impacting rock block is divided into two regions: a small, finely 
meshed impact region and coarsely meshed region representing the remaining part of the rock 
block. The continuity of deformation between these two differently meshed regions of the rock 
is ensured by a tied-interface contact. The fine mesh in the impact region is essential for 
accurate representation of the rock deformation. The elastic-ideally-plastic constitutive 
representation (Section 5.2.3.3) in the finely meshed region ensures realistic rock deformation 
and yield in the impact zone compared to the elastic rock defining the remainder of the rock 
block. This approach attempts to capture the localized crushing of the rock in the contact region 
and the consequent load distribution over the larger DS top plate area (Section 5.2.3.3). 
The specified termination times of rock-fall simulation are such to allow the rock to bounce off 
of the DS top plate after the impact, and for steady state to establish. 
The mesh of the FE representation was appropriately generated and refined in the contact 
regions according to standard engineering practice. Thus, the accuracy and representativeness of 
the results of this calculation are deemed acceptable (Section 5.2.2.4.2). 
5.2.2.3 Finite Element Representation for Static Load by the Caved Rock Mass 
The objective of this calculation is to investigate stability of the DS under static load of the 
caved rock mass, and to determine an approximate value for the factor of safety of the DS for the 
applied vertical and lateral static load. The three-dimensional FE representation that is used to 
perform the structural stability calculations is developed in TrueGrid V2.2 (Figures 5-16 through 
5-18). This FE representation is limited to one segment of the DS (Figure 5-17); thus, it is 
referred to as the one-segment FE representation. Appropriate boundary conditions are specified 
at the end-sections A-A and B-B of the one-segment representation (Figure 5-17) to account for 
the removed part of the DS. One calculation was also performed by using the full FE 
representation of the DS (Figure 5-16) to verify the results obtained by using the one-segment 
FE representation (Section 5.4.3.2). 
In the FE representations, the DS is free to move laterally with the exception of the constraint 
provided by the pallet (Figure 5-17) (Assumption 3.16). Note that this calculation is concerned 
with the quasi-static pressure induced by rock rubble. The rock rubble pressure distribution on 
the DS is calculated in a separate model (which couples rock mass deformation and rockfall with 
elastic deformation of the DS) for the DS that is in static equilibrium. The details of the 
modeling of emplacement drift collapse, rubblization of the rock mass and loading of the DS is 
presented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4), and reviewed 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-19 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
in Section 5.2.5.1 of this document. The final deformed DS configuration, corresponding to 
static equilibrium under the specific rubble pressure distribution, is different from the DS 
configuration before the pressure application. The DS equilibrium configuration could be 
affected by the pallet lateral constraint depending on the pressure distribution. 
All DS nodes belonging to end-sections A-A and B-B (Figure 5-12) are constrained from 
translating in the longitudinal (z-) direction and from rotating about the x-axis and y-axis. The 
following are reasons for these boundary conditions: (1) the DS (as represented in Figure 5-11) 
has a plane of longitudinal symmetry and its geometry for the most part consists of the repeating 
segments, and (2) the pressure distribution is independent of the longitudinal (z-) coordinate. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure 1. 
Figure 5-16. Full Finite Element Representation of the Drip Shield
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-20 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure 2. 
Figure 5-17. One-Segment Finite Element Representation of the Drip Shield 
The FE representations are developed by using shell elements for the DS plates (specifically, DS 
plate-1, DS plate-2, and support plates), and solid (brick) elements for the rest of the structure 
(i.e., the support beams, bulkheads, bulkhead longitudinal stiffeners, etc.; see BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170791], Attachment I). The details of the FE representation are illustrated in 
Figure 5-18. The fully-integrated four-node shell element (Livermore Software Technology 
Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.22) and the constant-stress eight-node solid element 
(Livermore Software Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.30) are used for all 
calculations. Gauss integration and five through-thickness integration points (Livermore 
Software Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.23) are specified for the shell 
element. One-point Gaussian quadrature is used for the solid element (Hallquist 1998 
[DIRS 155373], Section 3). 
5.2.2.4 Mesh Objectivity 
The objectivity (mesh insensitivity of the calculations) of the meshes used for the calculations is 
verified in this section. The approach used is presented in detail in Mecham (2004 
[DIRS 170673], Section 6.2.3). Two different meshes of the DS are generated and used in the 
FE simulation. The first mesh is obtained by following the standard engineering practice and 
guidance in Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673], Section 6.2.3). The second mesh is a refined 
version of the first mesh. The results obtained by the first mesh are considered mesh-objective 
(i.e., mesh-insensitive) if the relative difference of results (e.g., damaged area) between the first 
and the second mesh are much smaller (approximately an order of magnitude smaller) than the 
relative difference of areas (or volumes) of their representative (average, typical) elements. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-21 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
(a) 
(b) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure 3. 
NOTE: Some DS parts are partially removed from Figure 5-13 to improve visibility; (a) top (inside view) and (b) side 
(outside view). 
Figure 5-18. Details of Finite Element Representation of the Drip Shield 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-22 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.2.4.1 Vibratory Ground Motion 
The typical DS shell element area of the first mesh is 300 percent (four times) larger than the 
area of the corresponding element in the second mesh. Element number 6442 of the first mesh 
and element number 9617 of the second (refined) mesh can be compared as typical elements for 
the two FE representations. 
The mesh sensitivity of the DS damaged area is studied for realization 10 (Table 5-17) at 110-6 
annual frequency of occurrence. The results are presented in Table 5-1. 
Table 5-1. Damaged DS Area for Two Different FE Meshes for Realization Number 10 (110-6 Annual 
Frequency of Occurrence) 
Mesh 
Damaged Area 
( 
2m ; % of DS plate area) 
First Mesh 
04A A= 0.192; 0.502 
Second Mesh 
0AA = 0.169; 0.441 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Table III-1. 
According to results presented in Table 5-1 the reduction of typical element size by 300 percent 
for realization 10 results in decrease of the damaged area by 12.0 percent. 
The decrease of the damaged area in the case of the refined mesh can be explained by more 
localized DS deformation (following the impacts between DS and waste package pallet 
assembly) for the refined mesh compared to the one for the coarser mesh. Thus, the results 
obtained by using the first mesh meet the mesh-objectivity criterion from Mecham (2004 
[DIRS 170673], Section 6.2.3). Namely, a coarse mesh is inherently less capable of 
accommodating localized deformation (it is less flexible to do so). Consequently, the impact 
energy delivered to the DS plate is smeared over a larger area. In other words, the redistribution 
of the impact energy over a larger area is caused by the inherent inability of the (less flexible) 
coarse mesh to capture the localized deformation. In the case of a relatively low damage 
threshold, the results of fine mesh calculations leads to overestimation of the damaged area by 
the coarse mesh model. The stress averaging within a relatively coarse constant-stress element 
is, consequently, likely to overestimate the damaged area. 
5.2.2.4.2 Rock Impact in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
The values of two stress invariants (stress intensity and the maximum first principal stress) are 
presented for two different meshes in Table 5-2. The DS top plate element volume at the point 
of impact in the first mesh is 67 percent larger than the corresponding element in the second 
mesh (5.14810-8/3.08910-8 = 1.67). Specifically, the numbers of divisions in the axial, 
tangential, and thickness directions are increased from 14 to 16, from 4 to 5, and from 5 to 6, 
respectively. The calculation results presented in Table 5-2 indicate that the reduction of the 
element volume by 67 percent in the contact region results in negligible effect on the stress 
intensity. The difference in the first principal stress values between the two meshes is a little bit 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-23 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
more pronounced, but still meets the mesh-objectivity requirements in Mecham (2004 
[DIRS 170673], Section 6.2.3). The original FE mesh is, therefore, deemed acceptable and all 
remaining calculations are performed with the coarser mesh. 
Table 5-2. Stress Intensity and First Principal Stress for Two Different FE-Representation Meshes 
(14.5 MT Vertical Rockfall) 
Stress Intensity 
(MPa) 
First Principal Stress 
(MPa) 
First Mesh 
V = 1.67 V0 346 340 
Second Mesh 
V = V0 352 363 
Difference (%) 1.7 6.3 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Table 6-1. 
MT: metric tons (1 MT = 1000 kg) 
5.2.2.4.3 Static Load by the Caved Rock Mass 
The volumes of the typical elements for the support beam and bulkhead for two different meshes 
are presented in Table 5-3. The numbers presented in Table 5-3 in parentheses represent the 
number of the element that is considered typical. 
As described in Section 5.2.5.1, the rock rubble loads derived from 6 realizations of drift 
collapse provided in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.5), 
are applied to the outer surface of the DS to investigate structural stability and damage. As a 
part of this study, the ultimate load-bearing capacity of the DS is examined by artificially 
increasing the density of the rubble to force increasing loads until failure of the DS occurs. The 
rubble density was increased in a number of steps from 1 to 4 times, with 6 realizations 
conducted at each density step. The mesh sensitivity was studied in particular for the case in 
which the average loads from all 6 realizations with a density multiplication factor of 2.5 was 
used (discussed in Section 5.4.3.1). The choice of this realization is arbitrary: the 
mesh-objectivity results should not depend on the particular pressure distribution. The 
calculation with the density of the surrounding rock multiplied by 2.5 is interesting because it 
illustrates an approximate stability safety margin for the DS for that pressure distribution 
(Section 5.4.3.2). The results are presented in Table 5-4. 
According to results presented in Tables 5-3 and 5-4, the calculation results are not 
mesh-sensitive. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-24 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-3. Volume of Typical Element for Two Different Finite Element Meshes 
DS 
Component 
Volume of Typical Element 
(110-6 m3) 
First Mesh Second Mesh 
Relative 
Difference (%) 
Bulkhead 1.38 
(e# 6453) 
0.85 
(e# 15798) 
62 
Support 
Beam 
2.47 
(e# 4800) 
5.21 
(e# 4888) 
1.46 
(e# 12614) 
1.92 
(e# 12854) 
69 
171 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Table V-1. 
Table 5-4. Maximum Vertical Displacement of Drip Shield Top for Two Different Finite Element Meshes 
Maximum Vertical Displacement 
(110-3 m) 
First Mesh Second Mesh Relative Difference (%) 
19.08 18.92 0.8 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Table V-2. 
5.2.2 Material Properties 
Material properties used in these calculations are discussed in this section. The basic material 
properties required as input to these analyses include the mechanical properties of Ti-7 and 
Ti-24, as well as the mechanical properties of the rock blocks (termed TSw2). The DS 
temperature is assumed to be 150C (Assumption 3.12). Some of the temperature-dependent and 
rate-dependent material properties are not available for Ti-7, Ti-24 and TSw2 rock. Therefore, 
RT Poissons ratio, elongation, and modulus of elasticity obtained under the static loading 
conditions are used for these materials (Assumptions 3.1 through 3.3). 
5.2.3.1 Titanium 
Typical stress-strain curves for Ti-7, Ti-24 and Alloy 22, and their idealizations used in 
numerical analyses are shown in Figure 5-19. Material properties of Ti-7 (SB-265 R52400) are 
given in Table 5-5. 
Material properties of Ti-24 (SB-265 R56405) are similar to those of Ti-5 because the 
compositions are almost identical (ASME 2001 [DIRS 158115]), Section II, Part B, SB-265, 
Table 2). These material properties, given in Table 5-6, are specified using the nominal 
composition, 6Al-4V. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-25 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Figure 5-19. Typical and Idealized Stress-Strain Curves for Titanium Grades 7 and 24 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-26 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-5. Material Properties of Ti-7 (SB-265 R52400) 
Property 
Temperature 
[C]/[F] Range Value Source 
Youngs Modulus E 
[GPa]* 
149/300  101 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 3 
204/400  97 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 3 
Density . [kg/m3]* RT 4500-4540 4520 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 1 
Poissons Ratio . RT  0.32 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 3 
Yield Strength ys [MPa]* 
RT 275-450 363 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
204/400 138-152 145 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
Tensile Strength us 
[MPa]* 
RT  345 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
204/400 207-228 218 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
Elongation ue 
RT  0.2 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
204/400 0.38-0.45 0.42 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926], page 2 
NOTE: An average value is used in the calculations described in this document, as the number of data 
points available does not justify the assumption of a distribution of values. 
*
Values rounded to nearest whole number. 
RT = room temperature 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-27 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-6. Material Properties of Ti-24 (SB-265 R56405) 
Property 
Temperature 
[C]/[F] Range Value Source 
Youngs Modulus E 
[GPa]* 
RT 107-122 115 
TIMET 2000 [DIRS 160688], 
table 2 
230/450 95-111 103 
TIMET 2000 [DIRS 160688], 
table 2 
Density . [kg/m3]* RT  4430 
ASM 1990 [DIRS 141615], 
page 620 
Poissons Ratio . RT  0.34 
ASM 1990 [DIRS 141615], 
page 621 
Yield Strength y s [MPa]* 
RT  910 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
204/400  683 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
Tensile Strength u s 
[MPa]* 
RT  1000 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
204/400  772 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
Elongation u e 
RT  0.18 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
204/400  0.17 
TIMET 1993 [DIRS 157726], 
page 11 
NOTE: An average value is used in the calculations described in this document, as the number of data 
points available does not justify the assumption of a distribution of values. 
*
Values rounded to nearest whole number. 
RT = room temperature 
5.2.3.1.1 Calculation for Material Properties at Elevated Temperature 
Some of the material properties of Ti-7 and Ti-24 are not available at T = 150 oC
max 
(Section 5.2.3.1). They are, therefore, obtained (Table 5-7) by linear interpolation using the 
following relation: 
()= P +
..
. T - Tl .
P = T P l 
. Tu - Tl ...
( Pu - Pl ) , (Eq. 5-6) 
where subscripts u and l denote the bounding values of the property (P ) at the corresponding 
bounding temperatures (T ). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-28 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-7. Interpolated Mechanical Properties for Titanium 
Property Temperature [C] Ti-7 Ti-24 
20  115 
Youngs Modulus E [GPa] 
150 101 108 
204 97  
150* 101 108 
20 363 910 
Yield Strength ys [MPa] 204 145 683 
150* 209 750 
20 345 1000 
Tensile Strength us [MPa] 204 218 772 
150* 255 839 
20 0.2 0.18 
Elongation ue 204 0.42 0.17 
150* 0.36 0.17 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Section 5.1.1. 
NOTE: All input parameters listed in Section 5.2.3.1. The calculated values 
are for 150C, marked with *. 
5.2.3.1.2 Calculations for True Measures of Ductility 
The material properties in Section 5.2.3.1 were derived from static tensile strength tests and refer 
to quantities of engineering stress, s , and strain, e , defined as: s =
0A P 
and e =L L 0 - 1 
(Dieter 1976 [DIRS 118647], Chapter 9), where P stands for the force applied during a static 
tensile test, L is the length of the deformed specimen, and L0 and A0 are the original length and 
cross-sectional area of the specimen, respectively. The engineering stress-strain curve does not 
give a true indication of the deformation characteristics of a material during plastic deformation 
since it is based entirely on the original dimensions of the specimen. In addition, ductile metal 
that is pulled in tension becomes unstable and necks down during the course of the test. Hence, 
LS-DYNA code requires input in terms of true stress, s, and strain, e, definitions, 
i.e.: s= A P and e= ln(L L ) (Dieter 1976 [DIRS 118647], Chapter 9).
0 
The relations between the true stress and strain and the engineering stress and strain, 
(
s= s (1 + e) and e= 1 ln + e) , can be readily derived based on constancy of volume (i.e., 

A0  L0 = L A ) and strain homogeneity during plastic deformation (Dieter 1976 [DIRS 118647], 
Chapter 9). These expressions are applicable only in the hardening region of the stress-strain 
curve that is limited by the onset of necking. 
In absence of data on the uniform strain in the available literature, it is estimated based on the 
material elongation (strain corresponding to rupture of the tensile specimen, see 
Assumption 3.5). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-29 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-8. True Tensile Strength and Elongation for Titanium 
Property Ti-7 Ti-24 
Engineering Elongation ue 0.36 0.17 
Engineering Tensile Strength us [MPa] 255 839 
True Elongation ue 0.31 0.16 
True Tensile Strength us [MPa] 347 982 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Section 5.1.2. 
NOTE: All properties are estimated for 150C (Section 5.2.3.1.1). 
The calculated true measures of ductility are given in Table 5-8. Note that there is no practical 
difference between the true and engineering yield strength, sy s , or between the true and
y 
engineering strain corresponding to yield strength, ey e , because e  1.
yy 
5.2.3.1.3 Calculations for Tangent Moduli 
As previously discussed, the results of the simulations described in this report are required to 
include elastic and plastic deformations for Ti-7 and Ti-24. When the materials deform 
plastically, the slope of the stress-strain curve continuously changes as shown in Figure 5-14. A 
ductile failure is preceded by a protracted regime of hardening and substantial accumulation of 
inelastic strains. Thus, a simplification for stress-strain curve is needed to incorporate plasticity 
into the FE analysis. A standard approximation commonly used in engineering is to use a 
straight line that connects the yield point and the tensile strength point of the material as 
indicated in Figure 5-19. The parameters used in the subsequent calculations in addition to those 
defined in Section 5.2.3.1.2 are modulus of elasticity (E) and tangent (hardening) modulus ( E ). 
The tangent modulus, which represents the slope of the stress-strain curve in the plastic region, is 
calculated using the following relation. 
E1 = (s -s y ) 
(e u -s 
E ) (Eq. 5-7) 
u 
y 
The calculated values of the tangent moduli are listed in Table 5-9. 
Table 5-9. Titanium Tangent Moduli 
Property Ti-7 Ti-24 
Yield Stress ys [GPa] 0.209 0.750 
Youngs Modulus E [GPa] 101 108 
Ultimate Stress us [GPa] 0.347 0.982 
Elongation ue 0.31 0.16 
Tangent Modulus E1 [GPa] 0.448 1.516 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Section 5.1.3. 
NOTE: All properties are for 150C (Sections 5.2.3.1.1 and 5.2.3.1.2). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-30 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.3.1.4 Failure Criteria 
Mechanical processes that occur during a seismic event may compromise the functionality of the 
DSs as barriers to seepage of water and rockfall on the waste package. These mechanical 
processes include impacts caused directly by vibratory ground motion during an earthquake, 
impacts caused by rock blocks and rockfall induced by vibratory ground motions, and 
mechanical loading from rockfall rubble. 
Under vibratory ground motions, impacts can occur between the DS and the waste package, the 
pallet, the invert, and even the drift wall. Rockfall induced by vibratory ground motions can 
result in impacts on the DS in the postclosure period. Rockfall induced by vibratory ground 
motion in the lithophysal zones may collapse the drifts, resulting in static loads from the mass of 
rubblized rock surrounding the DS. 
These mechanical processes are associated with a number of potential failure mechanisms: 
 Mechanism 1Dynamic loads have the potential to result in immediate puncture 
(breach) or tearing of the DS plates if the localized strain exceeds the tearing failure 
threshold. A puncture provides a potential pathway for flow through the DS. 
 Mechanism 2Impact-related dynamic loads may dent the DS, resulting in permanent 
structural deformation with residual tensile stress. High levels of residual tensile stress 
may lead to local degradation from accelerated corrosion processes. Areas that are 
breached from corrosion processes provide a potential pathway for flow. 
 Mechanism 3Static loads from rockfall lead to (plastic) structural deformation and may 
collapse or buckle the DSs. Buckling or collapse represents a change in the physical 
shape of the DS, potentially compromising its ability to deflect seepage and rockfall 
away from the waste package. 
The potential for immediate puncture (breach) or tearing of the DS plates (Mechanism 1) 
through tensile or shear failure is not excluded in the constitutive representation for the structural 
response calculations. Note however, that for the vibratory ground motion simulations, the 
computational meshes used for the damaged area calculations may be too coarse to realistically 
simulate a small, localized puncture. The maximum stresses during this event may, therefore, be 
mesh-sensitive and underestimated; and, consequently, unreliable for the immediate breach 
evaluation (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165497]). Nonetheless, the immediate breach or tearing of the DS 
plates (Mechanism 1) is unlikely because Ti-7 is a ductile metal that requires very high dynamic 
loads to reach the tearing failure threshold. Additionally, the tearing failure of ductile materials 
is, in general, accompanied by large distortion and significant expenditure of energy. 
Consequently, a small tear (through-wall macrocrack) is likely to be encompassed by a much 
larger highly-distorted region that is preferable site for stress corrosion cracking. Therefore, the 
small tear would likely be encompassed, if not covered, by the deformed area; and thus, 
accounted for indirectly by Mechanism 2. 
The presence of high residual tensile stress (Mechanism 2) has the potential to result in 
accelerated stress corrosion cracking. This combined mechanical-corrosion failure mechanism is 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-31 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
expected to be the most likely cause of failure for the DS from impact processes caused by 
vibratory ground motions and by rockfall induced by vibratory ground motions. The areas that 
exceed the residual tensile stress threshold are referred to as the damaged area. 
Figure 5-20 is a simplified illustration of how residual stress is generated by permanent (plastic) 
deformation in a simple uniaxial strain model. The loading path in Figure 5-20 has three 
phases: (1) elastic loading until reaching the elastic yield limit, (2) plastic loading above the 
elastic yield limit, and (3) elastic unloading when the external load reduces the local stress. 
Figure 5-20 shows that plastic deformation does not always generate a damaged area because the 
final residual stress state may be compressive or, if tensile, may be below the tensile threshold to 
initiate accelerated stress corrosion cracking. 
The static loads from rockfall (Mechanism 3) have the potential to produce plastic deformation 
of the DS, possibly initiating the buckling or collapse of the DS. The appropriate failure 
criterion for plastic structural deformation is the elastic yield strength (the point at the end of the 
elastic loading path in Figure 5-20). The physical configuration of the DS can change when 
local stresses exceed the elastic yield strength, resulting in plastic deformation of the structure. 
It is important to differentiate between the two failure criteria for the DS. For impact loading on 
the DS, an area is damaged when it exceeds the residual stress threshold of Ti-7. This failure is a 
combined mechanical-corrosion response of a cold-worked material to dynamic impacts. For 
static loading, the failure of the DS is determined by the elastic yield strength when plastic 
yielding begins. These criteria are applied separately and independently because the appropriate 
failure mechanisms are distinct physical responses to different loading conditions and failure 
modes (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.6.2). 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Figure 6.3-1. 
Figure 5-20. Permanent Deformation from Plastic Yielding Generates Residual Stress 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-32 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
In summary, accelerated stress corrosion cracking from high residual stress is expected to be the 
most likely cause of failure for the DS from impact. Since a residual stress threshold is the main 
failure criterion for vibratory ground motion and rockfall impact, this failure mechanism is 
described in detail. 
For the DS, the residual stress threshold for failure is represented by a fixed lower bound of 
50 percent of the yield strength of the DS plate material (Ti-7) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169042], 
Section 6.2.1). There is a significant experimental database for Ti-7 that justifies the use of 
50 percent of yield strength as a stress corrosion cracking initiation criterion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169042]). These data include long-term constant load tests in a concentrated 
groundwater environment at 105C (221F), with specimens loaded to stresses of 110 percent to 
140 percent of the yield strength. A second source of information comes from U-bend tests. 
Initiation of stress corrosion cracking is not observed in fixed deflection U-bend tests on Ti-7, 
exposed for 1 year, and Titanium Grade 16 (an analogous titaniumpalladium alloy), exposed for 
5 years, to a range of relevant aqueous environments at 60C (140F) and 90C (194F). These 
U-bend tests are more representative of secondary residual stress loading that might result from 
deformation following seismic loadings. A conservative value of 50 percent of yield strength is 
selected (Assumption 3.18) as a threshold criterion for Ti-7, even though the initiation of stress 
corrosion cracking is not observed for residual stresses greater than yield strength. 
5.2.3.1.5 Effect of Corrosion 
To account for the effect of corrosion during the postclosure period (other than stress corrosion) 
the thickness of Ti-7 and Ti-24 components is reduced by 2 mm (Assumption 3.13). It must be 
emphasized, though, that the objective of this calculation is not to rigorously evaluate the 
thickness reduction of the DS components due to corrosion or the corrosion-acceleration effects. 
A depth of corroded layer of 2 mm is, therefore, conservative within the stated objective of this 
calculation (Section 1). It should also be noted that the overall thickness of the parts of the DS 
plates covered by the internal and external support plates is conservatively reduced by 4 mm, 
implying the thickness reduction of 2 mm per plate at each location. The rationale for this 
conservative thickness reduction is that the welds connecting the DS support plates and the DS 
plates cannot guarantee hermiticity. Consequently, the general corrosion on the interface 
between the two plates cannot be excluded. 
5.2.3.2 Frictional Contacts 
5.2.3.2.1 Finite Element Calculations 
Contacts are specified, in FE representations, between all DS, waste package pallet, drift walls 
and invert surfaces that can interact. In all calculations, except analysis of vibratory ground 
motion, it is assumed that the friction coefficient between interacting surfaces is 0.4 or 0.5 
(Assumptions 3.9 and 3.10). In the analysis of vibratory ground motion, in which friction is 
essential for transfer of seismic ground motion from the invert to the DS, in absence of more 
specific data, the dynamic friction coefficients for all contacts are randomly sampled from a 
uniform distribution between 0.2 and 0.8 (Assumption 3.8). Different values for metal-to-metal 
friction coefficient and metal-to-rock friction coefficient are randomly sampled for each 
realization, and applied to all metal-to-metal and metal-to-rock contacts. Fifteen realizations 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-33 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
combine friction coefficients with 15 ground motions (Section 5.3.1.2). The friction coefficients 
of all metal-to-metal contacts have the same friction coefficient in a specific realization 
regardless of the contact pair; the same applies to metal-to-rock contacts. 
The functional friction coefficient used by LS-DYNA code is defined in terms of static and 
dynamic friction coefficients, and relative velocity of the surfaces in contact (Livermore 
Software Technology Corporation 2001 [DIRS 159166], p. 6.9). The effect of the relative 
velocity of the surfaces in contact is introduced by way of a fitting parameterexponential 
decay coefficient. The variation of friction coefficient between the static and dynamic value as a 
function of relative velocity of the surfaces in contact is not available in literature for the 
materials used in this calculation. Therefore, it is not possible to objectively evaluate the 
exponential decay coefficient. Hence, the effect of the relative velocity of the surfaces in contact 
is neglected in these calculations by assuming that the functional friction coefficient and the 
static friction coefficient are equal to the dynamic friction coefficient. This approach provides 
the bounding set of results by minimizing the friction coefficient within the given FE-analysis 
framework (Assumption 3.11). In case of quasi-static calculations the effect of the variation of 
friction coefficient between the static and dynamic value as a function of relative velocity of the 
surfaces in contact is not as important as in transient analysis. 
5.2.3.2.2 Kinematic Model 
5.2.3.2.2.1 Interaction Between the Drip Shield and the Invert 
Two contacts (shown in Figure 5-21 as two vertical lines crossing the interface between the DS 
and the invert) represent the interaction between the DS and the invert in the kinematic 
calculations. The contacts in UDEC are characterized by both elastic and inelastic behavior. 
The elastic deformation (prior to yield) is controlled by the normal and shear stiffnesses. 
Inelastic deformation occurs if the stress along the contacts exceeds the tensile and shear 
strengths. The Coulomb slip condition, a function of cohesion and friction angle, defines the 
conditions when the interacting bodies slip relative to each other along the contact. The contact 
between the DS and the invert is considered to be frictional only (i.e., cohesion and tensile 
strength are considered to be zero). In all kinematic calculations, the friction coefficient between 
the DS and the invert is selected from a uniform distribution between 0.2 and 0.8 
(Assumption 3.8). However, unlike the FE calculations (Section 5.2.3.2.1), each DS is assigned 
a different friction coefficient along the interface with the invert based on a random sampling of 
the uniform distribution. The variable friction coefficient is illustrated in Figure 5-22 as 
different colors of the DS blocks at the interface between the block and invert. The drift invert 
will be constructed from crushed tuff. Although there will be an effect of local conditions, the 
friction coefficient between the DS and the invert will likely be less variable than assigned here 
(i.e., between 0.2 and 0.8 corresponding to variation in friction angle between 11 degrees and 
39 degrees.). This range of friction coefficient (0.2 to 0.8) represents a very wide range from 
ease of sliding to a high friction angle of contact. The friction coefficient between the DS and 
the invert is an important factor controlling relative horizontal motion of the DSs. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-34 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Figure 5-21. Detail of the Drip Shield and its Interaction with Neighboring Drip Shields and the Invert 
NOTE: Each drip shield boundary color signifies a different contact friction coefficient that varies via a uniform 
distribution between 0.2 and 0.8. 
Figure 5-22. Contact Friction Coefficient Varies from DS to DS in UDEC Representation 
The normal and shear contact stiffnesses of the interface between the DS and the invert are 
considered to be 3 MPa/m based on Assumption 3.24. The sensitivity of the calculation results 
of the invert contact stiffness is investigated here by considering cases in which the contact 
stiffness is assumed to be up to 10 times larger (i.e. 30 MPa/m) than in the base case 
(Table 5-19). All contacts are linearly elastic in the normal direction if the normal force is 
compressive. Consequently, the coefficient of restitution for all normal impacts is equal to unity. 
Energy dissipation during impacts takes place as a result of frictional sliding only. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-35 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.3.2.2.2 Interaction Between the Drip Shields 
Because of the adopted discretization, the kinematic simulation considers the interaction 
between the DSs to occur along two contacts (shown in Figure 5-21 as two horizontal lines 
crossing the interface between the DSs). A numerical idealization of the contact between the 
DSs, shown in Figure 5-23, deforms elastically, followed by plastic deformation after the peak 
shear and normal strengths are exceeded. 
The contact normal (axial) and shear force-displacement relations have the form illustrated in 
Figures 5-24 and 5-25, respectively. Results indicate that the normal and shear stiffnesses ( k
n 
and k as illustrated in Figures 5-23, 5-24 and 5-25) of the contact between the DSs do not 
s 
significantly affect interaction and separation of the DSs. This is particularly the case for the 
shear stiffness. The majority of the analyses were carried out assuming the normal and shear 
stiffnesses of the contacts are equal to 100 MPa/m. This value was selected because it results in 
a small overlap or separation (compared to the size of the DS) of neighboring DSs before the 
contact breaks. In the simulations for 110-6 and 110-7 ground motions, the selected stiffness 
results in an axial elastic deformation of the contact of approximately a few centimeters only 
(Table 5-21). The sensitivity of results to the contact stiffness is examined through a parameter 
study in which the normal contact stiffness is increased by an order of magnitude to 
1,000 MPa/m (Table 5-19). 
Figure 5-23. Mechanical Idealization of the Shear and Normal Contact between the Drip Shields 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-36 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
NOTE: kn=Normal strengthen of the contact; Fn=axial force, Un=axial displacement; Fn,max=Maximum axial force. 
Figure 5-24. Axial Force-Displacement Relation of the Contact between the Drip Shields 
NOTE: ks=Shear stiffness of drip shield contact; Fs=Maximum axial force; Us=shear displacement; Fs,max=Maximum 
shear force of contact. 
Figure 5-25. Shear Force-Displacement Relation of the Contact between the Drip Shields 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-37 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
If the axial force exceeds the limit in tension or compression, F (illustrated in Figure 5-24),
n,max 
the contact is broken. The axial strength of the contact in tension and compression is considered 
the same. It is equal to the force required to shear off the welds on the DSC guide and connector 
support beams, or on the DSC guide and DSC support beams. The total length of the welds 
(both on the sides and the top) is approximately 7.5 m (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168275]). The area, 
A, of a 12.7 mm (shown Figures 5-26 and 5-27) angle weld is: 
o
A= 7.512.7 10 -3  sin 45 = 0.0674 m2. (Eq. 5-8) 
Only one weld per structural component is accounted for in the analysis. The strength of the 
welds is taken to be equal to the yield strength of Titanium Grade 7 (Ti-7) at 150C, 
s= 209 MPa (Table 5-7), resulting in the maximum axial force taken by the entire connection 
Y
between two DSs to be: 
F
n,max =sYA= 14.1 MN. (Eq. 5-9) 
Each connection is represented by two contacts between the DS blocks (shown in Figure 5-21) 
and thus the total strength of the welded connection is lumped at these two locations. The 
maximum force that can be taken by either contact is half of the maximum value given in 
Equation 5-9 or 7.05 MN (Assumption 3.20). To take into account the uncertainty in the 
strength of the welded connections, engineering judgment is used to reduce the maximum axial 
force used in the calculations by 50 percent, to 3.5 MN (Assumption 3.25). 
The relative shear deformation of the DSs in the connection is controlled completely by 
metal-to-metal friction, f- . The friction is activated when the connection is either in 
mm 
compression or in tension. Usually, friction is activated when contact is in compression only; 
however, in this case, even large-scale tension in the connection is carried by compression 
between the elements of the DS structure. The DSs can shear relative to each other while their 
connection still exists and can transmit an axial force until the shear deformation reaches the 
limiting value. In order to interlock adjacent DSs, it is necessary to lift one DS relative to 
another by at least 40 inches (~102 cm) as illustrated in Figure 5-4. Consequently, to unlock the 
DSs, it is necessary that shear deformation of the contact be approximately equal to 40 inches 
(~102 cm). 
The reduction factor used for limiting axial force (50 percent) is not rigorously derived. 
However, the time histories of both the axial force and relative shear displacement are recorded 
during the dynamic simulations, and the extreme values of the histories can be used to assess the 
safety margin with respect to the nominal limiting values (i.e., 7.05 MN and 40 inches [~102 cm] 
for force and displacement, respectively). Therefore, the conservatism inherent in the selection 
of limiting values can be evaluated directly by the analysis. 
If the connection is broken (by exceeding the maximum axial force) or unlocked, the DSs no 
longer interact with each other. They can separate or overlap without generation of interaction 
forces. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-38 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds that require shearing off in 
order to break the connection 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168275]. 
Figure 5-26. Vertical Cross-Section Through the Connector Assembly 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds 
Welds that require shearing off in order to break 
the connection 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168275]. 
Figure 5-27. Horizontal Cross-Section Through the Connector Assembly 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-39 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.3.3 Rock Mass 
Rock mass properties used in these calculations are listed in Table 5-10. The selected stiffness 
and strength are representative of the laboratory-determined properties of intact rock blocks of 
the middle nonlithophysal unit of the Topopah Spring tuff rock mass at the repository level. 
From the perspective of the DS calculations, these results will yield the upper bound results for 
damage in the structure. 
Table 5-10. Material Properties of TSW2 Rock 
Property Value Source 
Density . [kg/m3] 2370 Assumption 3.7 
Youngs Modulus E [GPa] 33 Assumption 3.6 
Poissons Ratio . 0.21 Assumption 3.6 
Unconfined Compressive Strength [MPa] 290 Assumption 3.15 
Only the elastic rock properties were used for representing the emplacement drift walls and 
definition of corresponding contacts. Plastic deformation (fracturing) of the blocks impacting 
the DS in nonlithophysal rock mass is taken into account in the calculations. Neglecting 
inelastic deformation of rock during the impact leads to a conservative estimate of impact loads. 
In general, the constitutive representation of rock behavior (i.e., stress-strain relation) needs to 
address various complexities of rock deformation. The brittle materials in general, when 
subjected to compression, exhibit a wide range of nonlinear stress-strain behaviors due to the 
nucleation, propagation, and coalescence of microcracks under different boundary conditions 
(Jaeger and Cook 1979 [DIRS 106219], Sections 4.2 through 4.5). Moreover, the compressive 
strength of brittle materials (including rock) is significantly higher than their tensile strength. 
Finally, unlike engineering metals, the rocks may exhibit nonlinear behavior even under 
moderate hydrostatic compression, and significant effect of size on strength (Jaeger and Cook 
1979 [DIRS 106219], Sections 4, 6, and 7 for detailed discussion). A variety of constitutive 
representations are developed to address the most prominent features of the behavior of brittle 
materials (Chen 1982 [DIRS 159153], pages 362 and 363). These complex constitutive 
representations require many input parameters. A reasonable simplification of rock constitutive 
behavior is deemed necessary for the analysis of the rock impact to the DS. As a first 
approximation, the constitutive representation of rock behavior should appropriately capture 
local crushing of the rock at the point of impact, resulting in dissipation of impact energy and 
distribution of impact energy over the larger contact area. It is considered appropriate to 
represent the rock behavior as elastic-ideally-plastic (Figure 5-28 and Jaeger and Cook 1979 
[DIRS 106219], Section 9). This representation of nonlinear behavior offers obvious advantages 
compared to the elastic representation, while remaining relatively simple and conservative under 
the given loading conditions. The unconfined compressive strength of rock, used as the yield 
strength in the constitutive representation, is one of the parameters in this study that affects the 
results. The rock properties provided in Table 5-10 are derived from small-core laboratory tests. 
These strength and moduli are considered to be conservative, upper bound estimates, since it is 
well-known that the mechanical properties of rock decrease with increasing size of the specimen 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Figure E-22). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-40 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
NOTE: sy and ey are the yield strength and strain, respectively. 
Figure 5-28. Idealized Stress-Strain Behavior Defining Elastic-Ideally-Plastic Constitutive Representation 
for Rock 
5.2.3.4 Invert Crushed Tuff 
The structural response calculations use an idealized representation of the dynamic response of 
the invert to the ground motion. The invert is represented as an elastic body whose surface 
responds instantaneously and uniformly to the given ground motion. In other words, the ground 
motion time histories for the three components of motion are applied directly to the surface of 
the invert. This is a reasonable approach for small amplitude ground motions because the invert 
thickness is small and it is compacted under the weight of the waste package and DS and 
because any remaining steel framework in the invert will tend to provide some integrity. These 
effects will result in an invert that tends to move as a single unit. For high amplitude ground 
motions, the invert ballast is likely to be thrown up and redistributed, allowing the heavy EBS 
components to settle on the bottom of the drift, directly in contact with the rock floor. In this 
case, applying the ground motions directly to the surface of the invert is again a reasonable 
approach. 
5.2.3.5 Collapsed Rubble Around the Drip Shield 
The mechanical properties of the rubble created by the rockfall were used in the kinematic 
calculations of the rigid body motion of the DSs and assessment of the potential for separation of 
the DSs. It is assumed that the ground support used for drift support in the preclosure will have 
lost its supporting function as a result of corrosion early in the postclosure time frame 
(Assumption 3.23). The collapsed rock mass will accumulate on the invert between the DS and 
the drift walls and, in case of a large volume of rockfall, cover the DS. The density and stiffness 
(i.e., Youngs modulus) of the rubble resulting from the rockfall are always smaller than the 
properties of the original rock mass. The rubble is a cohesionless, granular material with large 
porosity. The increase in porosity is a result of bulking of the rock mass as it collapses. The 
most important factor (besides the properties of the intact rock), which affects the mechanical 
properties of the rubble is the bulking factor or increase in porosity. The bulking will be smaller 
if the average block size is smaller and if the block size distribution is more uniform. It is 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-41 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
expected that the rubble in the lithophysal rock mass will have a smaller bulking factor than the 
rubble in the nonlithophysal rock mass, which will be composed of the blocks of relatively large 
size. A detailed discussion of bulking factor for collapsed rock in the repository host horizon 
can be found in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.5). The 
pressure that the rubble exerts on the DS restrains the lateral motion of the DS, but also, due to 
friction between the DS and the rubble, it restrains the motion of the DS in the axial direction 
along the emplacement drift. The pressure of the rubble on the DS can act in an active mode, 
due to weight of the rubble (both vertical, on the top of the DS, and horizontal, on the sides of 
the DS), or reactive, due to elastic deformation of the rubble during interaction with the DS and 
the walls of the emplacement drift. The active pressure is controlled by the height, density and, 
in case of horizontal pressure, the angle of internal friction of the rubble (e.g., Equation 5-2 in 
Section 5.2.2.1.1). The reactive pressure is controlled by stiffness and thickness of the rubble. 
The material properties of the rubble used for the base-case calculations are listed in Table 5-11. 
To investigate the sensitivity of the calculation results to these parameters, a series of 
calculations were also carried out in which the rubble parameters were assumed to have 
conservative (and unlikely) values of modulus and density. Youngs modulus was considered to 
be as low as 1 MPa, and rubble density as low as 20 kg/m3 (Table 5-19). 
Table 5-11. Base-Case Material Properties of Rock Rubble 
Property Value Source 
Density r. [kg/m3] 2000 Assumption 3.22 
Youngs Modulus rE [MPa] 100 Assumption 3.24 
Friction Angle rf [] 40 Fruchtbaum J. 1988 [DIRS 161774] 
5.2.4 Ground Motions 
5.2.4.1 General Description 
Site-specific ground motions for three levels of annual frequency of occurrence, 510-4, 110-6, 
and 110-7, are included in this study9. The 510-4 ground motion is for preclosure 
consideration, while the 110-6 and 110-7 ground motions are for postclosure. The 510-4 
preclosure level is provided only for comparison to the postclosure levels. For higher-frequency 
spectral accelerations (5 to 10 Hz) and an annual frequency of occurrence of 510-4, results of 
the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Yucca Mountain indicate the ground motion hazard 
derives primarily from earthquakes in the magnitude range of 5.0 to 6.5 occurring at distances 
less than 15 km from the site. For lower-frequency spectral accelerations (1 to 2 Hz) at the same 
annual frequency of occurrence, the hazard shows, in addition to nearby sources, a significant 
9 The ground motions 110-6 were revised during the course of the project (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Appendix 
X). The discussion in this section is for the original set of 110-6 ground motions in which all three components of 
the motion were scaled to a single value of PGV. The detailed FE calculation of the vibratory ground motion was 
conducted for the original set of 110-6 ground motions. The kinematic calculation to assess potential for DS 
separation ground motion was conducted for the revised set of 110-6 ground motions in which one component of 
the ground motion was scaled to a target value of PGV while the amplitudes of the other two components were 
allowed to vary, thus providing ground motions with intercomponent variability. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-42 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
contribution from earthquakes in the magnitude range of 7.0 to 8.0 occurring at an epicentral 
distance of about 50 km. For annual frequency of occurrence of 110-6 and 110-7, nearby 
earthquakes in the magnitude range 5.5 to 7.0 are the dominant sources contributing to ground 
motion hazard at both higher and lower spectral accelerations. 
A total of 15 sets of Point B ground motions (i.e., ground motions developed at repository 
horizon) were selected for each annual postclosure hazard level. The multiple sets ensure a 
reasonable distribution of spectral shapes and time history durations, as described in Sampling of 
Stochastic Input Parameters for Rockfall and Structural Response Calculations Under Vibratory 
Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169999], Section 4.1). For each set of ground motions, two 
horizontal components (H1 and H2) and one vertical component (V) of acceleration, velocity, 
and displacement are supplied. Figure 5-29 shows the H1 velocity time history for all three 
annual hazard levels. Only one ground motion was provided for the preclosure hazard level 
because of the deterministic-based approach for preclosure consideration. The amplitudes of the 
peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement for one of the ground motion sets from 
each hazard level are provided in Table 5-12. This table is used to demonstrate the typical 
ground motion parameters for the three hazard levels considered. It is apparent that the 
preclosure ground motions have lower amplitude vibrations compared with the postclosure 
ground motions. The peak values for each ground motion set provided for postclosure hazard 
level varies. For example, the peak ground velocity in the vertical component for 110-7 hazard 
level ground motion set #3 reaches 1,634 cm/s. 
Arias Intensity (An estimate of energy delivered to structuresfor a definition see Kramer 1996 
[DIRS 103337], Section 3.3.4) for each set of ground motions is listed in Table 5-13. A large 
variation of energy within the same hazard level is observed. All 15 sets of ground motions (for 
110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence) were randomly combined with friction 
coefficients of the contacts between different materials in the model for probabilistic analysis. 
The combining of ground motions and friction coefficients is described in Section 5.3.1.2. 
Table 5-12. Peak Ground Motion Parameters 
Annual 
Hazard Level 
Ground Motion 
Component 
Peak 
Acceleration (g) 
Peak Velocity 
(cm/s) 
Peak 
Displacement 
(cm) 
H1 0.19 19.00 12.86 
510-4 H2 0.18 17.72 12.37 
V 0.16 12.37 7.83 
110-6 Ground 
Motion Set 1 
H1 6.86 243.74 28.19 
H2 7.31 243.35 17.44 
V 10.46 229.79 14.26 
110-7 Ground 
Motion Set 1 
H1 16.28 535.26 58.68 
H2 14.79 428.42 58.72 
V 13.15 298.44 36.86 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Table 9. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-43 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
In running the seismic simulation, the duration of the seismic time histories is commonly 
truncated to that portion of the records displaying the majority of the energy (discussed in 
Section 5.2.4.2). The strong ground motion is usually defined as duration bracketed by the 
5 percent and 95 percent points in the energy buildup as measured by the Arias Intensity. For 
each three-component set of ground motions, these points were determined for each component 
(H1, H2, and V) and then the earliest 5 percent point and the latest 95 percent point were used to 
define the duration of strong ground motion for that set of ground motions. 
-600 
-400 
-200 
0 
0 5 15 20 25 30 40 
-600 
-400 
-200 
0 
duration 
duration 
ity (cm/) 
5E-4 annual probability of exceedance 
200 
400 
600 
10 35 45 
1E-6 annual probability of exceedance 
200 
400 
600 
Velocsecond
0 5 10152025 
600 
400 
200 
0
-200
-400
-600
0 5 10152025 
1E-7 annual probability of exceedance 
duration 
Time (seconds) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Figure 42. 
Figure 5-29. Examples of Ground Velocity Time Histories (H1) with Truncated Duration for Analysis 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-44 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-13. Arias Intensity (m/s) for Each Ground Motion Set 
Annual Hazard Level Ground Motion Seta H1 H2 V Total Sum 
110 -6 annual frequency of occurrence 
1 246 304 482 1032 
2 229 229 471 928 
3 139 23 33 195 
4 179 176 282 638 
5 58 81 150 288 
6 42 160 71 272 
7 65 58 217 339 
8 65 35 213 312 
9 174 39 91 303 
10 94 186 615 894 
11 63 74 146 283 
12 97 40 117 254 
13 82 131 56 269 
14 43 386 206 636 
16 24 42 86 151 
110 -7 annual frequency of occurrence 
1 1128 1215 820 3163 
2 989 1202 2972 5163 
3 577 735 971 2283 
4 856 1052 1013 2921 
5 373 568 205 1146 
6 331 271 566 1168 
7 303 291 3357 3951 
8 343 524 437 1304 
9 813 1691 3340 5844 
10 282 125 409 816 
11 272 214 321 808 
12 277 284 332 893 
13 469 815 881 2165 
14 302 351 854 1507 
16 112 72 244 428 
510-4 annual frequency of occurrence 0.59 0.67 0.46 1.72 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Table 10. 
a 
A total of 17 sets of ground motions was developed for each postclosure level. Ground motion sets #15 and 
#17 were not used. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-45 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.4.2 Ground Motion Time History Cutoff Used in FE Simulations 
The FE simulations of the DS under vibratory motion are conducted to specifically examine 
damage to the DS surface plates and supporting structure resulting from vibration. These 
calculations are extremely computationally intensive because of the following reasons 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]): 
 Complex FE representation (Section 5.2.2.1.2) 
 Highly nonlinear nature of the problem (large deformation plasticity, friction, impacts, 
etc.) 
 Small computational time step necessary to ensure convergence (  1  s or less) 
 Long durations of the ground motion time histories (  30  40 s). 
In order to obtain credible results in a reasonable time, it is necessary to reduce the duration of 
seismic excitation used in the simulation. 
Therefore, most realizations at the 110-6 annual frequency of occurrence are terminated at a 
time corresponding to 95 percent of ground motion energy (For brevity, the maximum time 
corresponding to 95 percent of ground motion energy is, in the remainder of this document, 
called 95 percent time. Similarly the maximum time corresponding to 90 percent of energy of 
ground motion is called 90 percent time, and the minimum time corresponding to 5 percent of 
energy of ground motion is called 5 percent time. Note that all three time instances are 
determined by taking into account all three components of ground motion.). In two 110-6 
realizations (11 and 15, see Table 5-20 in Section 5.3.1), the termination time is extended 
beyond this 95 percent energy cutoff to examine the effect of the cutoff (i.e., the ending time is 
larger than the 95 percent time). 
The simulation for 510-4 annual frequency of occurrence was conducted from 3 s to 15 s of 
ground motion time history (i.e., from 5 percent to 65 percent of total energy). This approach 
was justified by the calculation results for this ground motion level (Section 5.3.3.1). 
In Table 5-14, the duration of each simulation and characteristic times used to define the 
duration are listed for 110-6 realizations. The time in the fifth column is the starting time of the 
simulation. The starting time, for most realizations, corresponds to the beginning of the ground 
motion. The simulation is typically terminated at the time corresponding to 95 percent of the 
ground motion energy. 
The duration that is actually run during simulation is, in a few cases, different from the duration 
presented in Table 5-14. Specifically, realizations 11 and 15 (see Table 5-20 in Section 5.3.1.2) 
are extended beyond the 95 percent time for the purpose of examining the damage-evolution 
trend as a function of time-history cutoff (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Attachment II). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-46 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-14. Duration and Characteristic Times Corresponding to Ground Motions at 110-6 Annual 
Frequency of Occurrence 
Ground 5%- 90%-95%-Starting Ending Duration of 
Motion Time Time Time Time Time Simulation Realization 
Number (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) Number 
1 0.85 5.21 7.05 0 7.1 7.1 6 
2 0.58 6.05 8.13 0 8.2 8.2 7 
3 1.7 3.64 5.04 0 7.0 7.0 15 
4 1.3 10.2 15.0 0 15.0 15.0 3 
5 2.0 7.46 10.3 0 20.0 20.0 11 
6 2.3 9.20 9.96 0 10.0 10.0 12 
7 4.0 11.1 11.6 4.0 11.6 7.6 1 
8 1.1 5.12 5.99 0 6.0 6.0 4 
9 0.79 6.98 8.18 0 8.2 8.2 10 
10 1.6 7.66 10.8 0 10.8 10.8 9 
11 2.1 8.30 10.3 0 10.3 10.3 5 
12 1.4 12.2 13.6 0 13.6 13.6 13 
13 1.9 12.7 17.0 1.9 12.7 10.8 8 
14 7.2 19.8 21.5 7.2 21.5 14.3 14 
16 3.8 9.57 11.8 3.8 11.8 8.0 2 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Table 2. 
In Table 5-15, the duration and characteristic times are listed for five 110-7 realizations 
performed in this study. The most pronounced difference between 110-6 and 110-7 
realizations is that the latter are run only up to the time in which DS separation is unambiguously 
indicated. 
The duration of simulations presented in the seventh column of Table 5-15 represents the 
termination time for the FE analyses reached prior to numerical instability. Continuation of the 
simulation beyond this time (i.e., extension of the duration of simulation) results in the numerical 
instability for all realizations presented in Table 5-15, with exception of realization 5. All other 
110-7 realizations, not presented in Table 5-15, also failed due to the numerical instability but 
without the DS separation prior to failure (Section 5.3.3.2.3). Therefore, no DS damage 
conclusions can be based on these runs and they are not presented in this document. The 
kinematic analyses, conducted specifically to examine DS separation potential, do not result in 
numerical instabilities. 
Table 5-15. Duration and Characteristic Times Corresponding to Ground Motions at 110-7 Annual 
Frequency of Occurrence 
Ground 
Motion 
Number 
5%- 
Time 
(s) 
90%-
Time 
(s) 
95%-
Time 
(s) 
Starting 
Time 
(s) 
Ending 
Time 
(s) 
Duration of 
Simulation 
(s) 
Realization 
Number 
1 1.3 6.5 7.5 0 3.9 3.9 6 
2 0.80 5.8 7.4 0 3.1 3.1 7 
9 0.70 6.7 8.0 0 3.6 3.6 10 
11 2.1 8.5 10.3 2.1 10.3 8.2 5 
13 1.9 15.2 19.5 1.9 5.0 3.1 8 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Table 3. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-47 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.2.5 Static and Dynamic Rockfall Loading Parameters 
5.2.5.1 Quasi-Static Load of Caved Rock Rubble 
Stability analysis of the DS for static pressure of the caved rock is carried out for the extreme 
conditions of complete collapse of the emplacement drift. The bounding estimate of the extent 
of the rock mass caving around the emplacement drifts is calculated by adjusting the rock mass 
cohesive strength to zero, thus forcing collapse. A description of this analysis of the degradation 
of the emplacement drift and the resulting static loads of the caved rock mass on the DS using a 
variety of different analytical and numerical methods can be found in Section 6.4.2.5 of Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). The analysis was done for the lithophysal 
rock mass only, because extensive drift collapse is not likely in the nonlithophysal rock mass. 
The summary of the average vertical pressure on the DS as a function of the average bulking 
factor (i.e., a measure of the volume increase of the rubblized rock mass after the collapse) in the 
caved rock mass is shown in Figure 5-30 for different cases analyzed (A description of different 
models and discussion of the results can be found in Section 6.4.2.5 of Drift Degradation 
Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). The results are obtained using analytical (given by the 
continuous lines in Figure 5-30) and numerical methods, including both continuum and 
discontinuum10 representations of the rock mass. The discontinuum numerical software code 
(UDEC, Itasca 2002 [DIRS 160331]) simulates the process of rock mass fracture, drift yield and 
deformation, and gravity-fall of rock particles in response to seismic or static (combined with 
time-dependent strength degradation) loading. This approach provides the most realistic 
representations (as opposed to analytical estimates) of the caving process and the subsequent 
load transfer through the collapsed rubble to the DS and drift invert. The calculation of the DS 
structural response to the static loads of the caved rock mass presented in Structural Stability of 
a Drip Shield Under Quasi-Static Pressure (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791]), were performed using 
these discontinuum model predictions. An example of the UDEC emplacement drift model 
geometry after drift collapse is shown in Figure 5-31. The model represents the rock mass as an 
assembly of polygonal elastic blocks, which are created by a number of incipient fractures 
within the rock mass. As described in detail in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.5), these fractures are bonded creating a synthetic material with 
the strength and stiffness properties of the rock mass. Thus, the fractures are invisible 
initially, and the rock mass behaves as an isotropic equivalent continuum material until the either 
the tensile or shear strength of the fractures is reached. Once the strength of the incipient 
fractures is reached, the fractures may break, propagating in any direction that the forces dictate. 
As the fractures propagate, blocks may form and fall by gravity to accumulate as rubble as on 
the drift invert and DS. The geometry of the blocks, which are used to represent the rock mass 
that can form upon fracture is random. The block size for quasi-static calculations is 
approximately 0.2 m, which is relatively small compared to the diameter of the emplacement 
drift, and thus the bock geometry does not have a large impact on the mode or extent of drift 
failure. 
10 
As described in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]), the lithophysal rock mass was 
represented as a continuum material in which the yield response is given by a Mohr-Coulomb material model, and 
by a discontinuum mode in which the material is free to fracture into particles based on the stress conditions around 
the emplacement drifts. In the discontinuum method, the failure of the rock mass due to seismic or static (combined 
with time-dependent strength degradation) loading results in fracture and rubbilization of the tunnel periphery, 
leading to gravity fall of particles and filling of the drift. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-48 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Since the drift collapse mode and resulting pressures applied to the DS will vary somewhat as a 
function of the particular realization of block geometry, six simulations were carried out for 
different realizations of block geometry to provide a range of potential DS pressure distributions. 
The deformability of the DS will impact the predicted load distribution as deformation of the DS 
will allow a greater degree of stress to be carried by the rubble. To provide a realistic effect of 
load sharing between the rubble and DS, the two-dimensional representation of the DS is 
assumed to be linearly elastic. The representation is two-dimensional, but the geometry and 
elastic properties of the DS are calculated to have the correct stiffness, accounting for actual 
three-dimensional geometry of the structure (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Appendix Y shows 
calibration of the UDEC DS model). The equilibrium rubble loads on the DS are calculated for 
30 segments (i.e., 10 per each side and per top of the DS) shown in Figure 5-32. The 
distributions of the load on 30 segments of the DS for 6 realizations are summarized in 
Figure 5-33. The average pressures for these 6 cases are also shown in Figure 5-30, denoted in 
the legend as Discontinuum 0.2 m block size, deformable DS. The predicted distribution of 
loading the rubble on the DS varies significantly due to the discrete nature of the caved rock 
mass and the resulting point loading. Although the average pressure on top of the DS of the six 
realizations, shown in Figure 5-33, varies between the 100 kN/m2 and 200 kN/m2, the localized 
pressures are in excess of 650 kN/m2. Representation of the load of the caved rock mass on the 
DS as uniformly distributed would not be either realistic or conservative. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Figure 6-179. 
NOTE: Two different sizes of the randomly-shaped blocks used in the discontinuum analyses were used to produce 
a range of bulking factors. 
Figure 5-30. Summary of Vertical Load on the Drip Shield as a Function of Bulking Factor 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-49 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Figure 6-173. 
Figure 5-31. Configuration of the UDEC Model After Complete Drift Collapse (Realization 1) 
1 
10 
1120 
21 
30 Segment 1 
Segment 10 
Seg men t 11 Segment 20 
Se gm ent 30 
Se gm ent 21 
Figure 5-32. Numbering of the Segments on the Drip Shield 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-50 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: DTN MO0407MWDDSLCR.000 [DIRS 170873]. 
Figure 5-33. Distribution of Drip Shield Loads for 6 Realizations of the UDEC Block Geometry 
5.2.5.2 Dynamic Impact Load of Discrete Rock Blocks 
Block impacts on the DS were calculated for rockfall in the nonlithophysal rock mass only since 
the predicted block masses are significantly larger than those expected in the lithophysal rock. 
Drift degradation in the nonlithophysal rock mass was analyzed using the 3DEC (Itasca 2002 
[DIRS 160331]) three-dimensional discontinuum model to define the distribution of block 
masses and impact energies as a function of seismic loading (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], 
Section 6.3). 
The rock mass surrounding an emplacement drift is subdivided into a large number of elastic 
blocks based on field-mapped distributions of natural rock fracturing. A large number of 
dynamic analyses of rockfall were conducted with this model for both preclosure and postclosure 
ground motions. From these analyses, a distribution of rockfall particle masses and impact 
energies that impact the DS were determined. Figure 5-34 shows an example state of the 3DEC 
model during the simulation of 110-6 annual frequency of occurrence, ground motion # 2, at 
t =6.6 s. The rockfall from 3 different probabilities of annual recurrence (discussed in 
Section 5.2.4) is calculated. Approximately 50 simulations are carried out for each level of 
probability of annual recurrence, combining different ground motions (when more that one 
ground motion is provided for particular probability of annual recurrence) with different 
realizations of natural fracturing of the rock mass. In the 3DEC model, the DS is represented 
simplistically as a rigid parallelepiped with dimensions approximately corresponding to 
dimensions of the DS (Figure 5-34). 
The mass of the blocks impacting the DS, relative velocity between the block and the DS at the 
moment of impact, location, and energy are recorded for each impact to the DS during the 3DEC 
simulations. Histograms and relevant statistical parameters (e.g., mean and standard deviation) 
of those variables are generated for each level of probability of annual recurrence (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168550], Sections 6.3.1.2.3 and 6.3.1.2.4). The summary statistics for these analyses are 
presented in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 for 110-6 and 110-7 ground motions, respectively.) The 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-51 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
typical cases of impact for 110-6 and 110-7 ground motions are selected (Section 5.4.2.1) and 
used as input for analysis of structural integrity of the DS during the rockfall in the 
nonlithophysal rock mass. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Figure 44. 
NOTE: 3DEC Simulation #55, 110-6 Ground Motion #12, at t = 6.6 seconds. 
Figure 5-34. Illustration of the Simulation of Rockfall Impact to the Drip Shield 
Table 5-16. Statistical Summary of the Rockfall Impact Parameters, 110-6 Annual Probability of 
Exceedance Hazard 
Block Mass 
(tons) 
Relative Impact 
Velocity (m/s) 
Impact Angle 
(degree) 
Impact Momentum 
(kg*m/s) 
Impact Energy 
(Joules) 
Mean 0.87 3.39 132 2747 5267 
Median 0.23 3.49 120 663 902 
Standard Deviation 1.97 1.61 81 6209 12941 
Skewness 6.04 0.04 1.12 6.23 7.52 
Range 21.39 7.54 355 68836 163083 
Minimum 0.02 0.02 5 4 0 
Maximum 21.42 7.56 360 68840 163083 
Sum 245.55 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Table 14.
NOTE: The impact angle is measured from the horizontal. N/A = Not Applicable. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-52 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-17. Statistical Summary of the Rockfall Impact Parameters, 1x10-7 Annual Probability of 
Exceedance Hazard 
Block Mass 
(tons) 
Relative Impact 
Velocity (m/s) 
Impact Angle 
(degree) 
Impact 
Momentum 
(kg*m/s) 
Impact Energy 
(Joules) 
Mean 0.96 5.03 139 4169 11459 
Median 0.23 4.63 127 980 2440 
Standard Deviation 2.04 2.78 87 8489 27461 
Skewness 5.01 1.00 1.06 4.64 6.73 
Range 21.39 17.67 356 89485 348170 
Minimum 0.02 0.07 1 18 4 
Maximum 21.42 17.74 357 89502 348174 
Sum 364.58 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Table 16.
NOTE: The impact angle is measured from the horizontal. N/A = Not Applicable. 
5.2.6 System Damping for FE Analyses 
In the calculation of the rockfall impact to the DS, no structural damping was used. This 
approach was conservative, and acceptable considering relatively short duration of impact 
(particularly compared to duration of seismic ground motions). 
In order to obtain steady-state results after the simulation of vibratory motion or to conduct the 
quasi-static analysis, it is necessary to apply system damping. The mass-proportional system 
damping is applied globally. 
As discussed in (Hallquist 1998 [DIRS 155373], Section 28.2), the most appropriate damping 
constant for the system is usually the critical damping constant. Therefore, 
DC = 2 .min = 2 58 =116 rad/s
 
2where .min =p 9.3  58 rad/s is the minimum circular non-zero frequency of the DS 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Section 8, Table 511, for the minimum non-zero frequency of 
9.3 Hz). 
Because in the simulations of the vibratory motion the objects inside the emplacement drift (e.g., 
the DS and the waste package pallet) are unanchored, the damping constant is conservatively 
reduced to DC = 50 rad/s, to avoid over-damping of the system. This damping constant results 
in a slightly under-damped system, which is more appropriate since the numerical model will 
more accurately follow the dynamic response of the system without undue influence of damping 
on deformations and stress concentrations in the structure. The drawback of slight 
under-damping is that the numerical model may require longer time periods to reach quasi-static 
equilibrium. 
11Table 5 refers to Attachment V, which are compact discs with input and output files from analyses. Damping 
parameters found in directory: Modal Analysis, file: drip2MOD.out, line #7792. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-53 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The damping constant DC = 100 rad/s is used in quasi-static calculations. The damping 
coefficient and the pressure ramp time of 0.1 s (i.e., the time over which the load is increased as 
a linear function of time from zero to the prescribed loading magnitude) are verified by 
inspection of the vertical deflection time history presented in Figure 5-35. The amplitude of the 
oscillations of the vertical deflection time history around the steady-state solution decays quickly 
for selected parameters. Note that the quasi-static solution by definition corresponds to the 
stationary value obtained at the end of the simulation. The evolution of the solution is, thus, 
purely numerical. 
DC=50 
NO DAMPING DC=100 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure 6. 
Figure 5-35. Vertical (Y-) Displacement Evolution of the Apex Drip Shield Node for Realization 5 for 
Various Damping Levels 
5.3 ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL EFFECTS OF VIBRATORY MOTION 
5.3.1 Description of Calculations 
The effects of vibratory ground motions on the DSs take place on different scales depending on 
the problem to be examined. These can be summarized as follows: 
 Examination of DS Separation During Vibratory Motion - Rigid-body motion of the 
interlocked chain of the DSs and strains in the chain will affect connections between 
the DSs and the potential for their separation. To simulate this effect it is necessary to 
include a large number of the DSs in the numerical representation (i.e., to represent 
hundreds of meters of the emplacement drift). As a result of the large problem size, the 
numerical approach used must necessarily represent the DSs in a simple fashion in 
which the interaction of the DSs is approximately accounted for. 
 Examination of Damage from Localized Impact During Vibratory Motion - Impacts 
to the DS during the vibratory ground motion and the resulting damage occur on the 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-54 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
length scale of decimeters or centimeters. To properly analyze the impact damage, it is 
necessary to use a sufficiently fine grid to represent details of the structural geometry of 
the DS components, but also to represent variation of the strain in the region of impact. 
Dealing with such different length scales in these two types of problems (centimeters and 
hundred meters) in one numerical representation is a difficult and computationally demanding (if 
at all possible) task. Instead, the problem is addressed by using two numerical approaches. A 
kinematic calculation based on the DE code UDEC (BSC 2002 [DIRS 161949]) is used to 
analyze the response of the DSs change and potential for separation of a large number of 
interlocked DSs (e.g., 20 or 50) to vibratory ground motion. As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1.1, a 
two-dimensional numerical representation was used. The DS is represented as a rectangular 
body with mass and outline dimensions the same as the DS. For examination of the damage 
from vibratory motion and interaction of DSs, the detailed FE representation described in 
Section 5.2.2.1.2 is employed. The FE representation included three DSs with a sufficiently fine 
grid to define geometric details of the structural components. The middle DS of the three is 
deformable, allowing nonlinear material model representation using an elastic-plastic strain 
hardening constitutive mechanical behavior. A discussion is given in the following sections on 
the details of the problem approach to the kinematic and FE analyses, followed by a discussion 
of the results of the analyses in terms of potential for DS separation and damage. 
5.3.1.1 Kinematic (DE) Calculations 
5.3.1.1.1 Verification of the Approach 
The kinematic calculation involves simplification of the geometry and mechanical behavior of 
the DS (Assumptions 3.20 and 3.21 and Section 5.2.2.1.1), and simplification of the mechanics 
of interaction between the DSs (Section 5.2.3.2.2.2). It is necessary to demonstrate that the 
simplifications used in the calculations are reasonable and do not affect the primary results of the 
calculation. The DS separation and overlap results obtained using the detailed FE calculations of 
three DSs for 1x10-6 and 1x10-7 ground motions (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Sections 6.2 and 
6.3) were used as a means for verification of the ability of the kinematic calculation to represent 
vibratory motion response of the DS. 
Analysis of the structural response of the DS to vibratory ground motion is carried out using a 
detailed three-dimensional FE representation of the DS geometry that takes into account elastic 
and inelastic deformation of the structural components of the DS, and DS interaction with the 
waste package and the emplacement pallet (the FE representation is described in 
Section 5.2.2.1.2 and the results are discussed in Section 5.3.3.2.). Three interlocked DSs are 
included in the analysis with rigid longitudinal boundaries (moving synchronously with the 
far-field) on each end of the DS chain. The analyses have demonstrated that, for these 
conditions, the DSs do not separate for 110-6 ground motions (Section 5.3.3.2.2). However, for 
110-7 ground motions, there is DS overlap and separation (Section 5.3.3.2.3) due to impact of 
the outer DSs with the rigid end boundaries. 
The same problems have been analyzed using the simple kinematic model as a means of 
verification of the approach. The geometry of the numerical representation is shown in 
Figure 5-36. FE realization 6 from Table 5-20 was used for comparison to the kinematic 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-55 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
analysis. This case utilizes ground motion number 1 (from either 1x10-6 or 1x10-7 annual 
exceedance frequencies) and a uniform friction coefficient between the DS and the invert of 
0.69; and uniform friction coefficient between the DSs of 0.27. Three simulated DSs were 
considered as in the equivalent FE calculation, and an initial gap between the DSs and the 
vertical end boundaries was 0.1 m. All other kinematic simulation parameters correspond to 
case 1 from Table 5-19. The final configurations of the DSs at the end of the dynamic 
simulations, are shown in Figures 5-37 and 5-38, for 110-6 and 110-7 ground motions, 
respectively. The results of the kinematic analyses are qualitatively in agreement with the 
predictions of the detailed LS-DYNA calculations (Section 5.3.3.2). The DSs remained 
interlocked at the end of the simulation for the 110-6 ground motion (Figure 5-37). The same 
result, as reported in Section 5.3.3.2.2, in terms of DS separation, is observed at the end of 
simulation for 110-6 ground motion using the detailed FE representation. In all FE cases 
simulated for 110-7 ground motion (discussed in Section 5.3.3.2.3), the DSs separate or overlap 
due to impact of the outer DSs with the rigid end boundary condition. Qualitatively, the same 
outcome is predicted in the kinematic calculations (shown in Figure 5-38). Although the details 
of the dominant mechanisms of DS separation taking place within the LS-DYNA simulations for 
110-7 ground motions are not certain, the kinematic representation, illustrated in Figure 5-38, 
separates via chaotic motions induced by impact to the rigid end boundaries, resulting in 
breaking of the DS weld connections as the limiting axial force is exceeded. This verification 
shows that the simple kinematic model is able to qualitatively capture the basic separation and 
overlap response indicated by the detailed FE representation for a specific case of three DSs with 
fixed rigid boundary constraints. 
NOTE: Equivalent to the FE Representation Described in Section 5.2.2.1.2. 
Figure 5-36. Geometry of Representation of 3 Drip Shields in the Kinematic Calculation 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-56 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Drift Invert 
Drift Roof 
Chain of 3 Drip Shields 
Rigid 
Boundary 
NOTE The presented state is at the end of dynamic simulation and the blocks are not in equilibrium. Further 
simulation until the blocks reach equilibrium will not cause their separation because the strong ground 
motion has already passed. 
Figure 5-37. Configuration at the End of Simulation of 3 Drip Shields in the Kinematic Calculation for 
Application of 1x10-6 Ground Motion 
NOTE: The presented state is at the end of dynamic simulation and the model is not in equilibrium. The blocks that 
represent the DSs were allowed in the calculations to overlap freely after their connection was broken. The 
overlap is not prevented in the calculations (although the blocks are solid) because the DSs have the 
geometry that allows their overlap. For 110-7 ground motion equivalent to the calculation results are 
presented in Section 5.3.3.2.3. 
Figure 5-38 Configuration at the End of Simulation of 3 Drip Shields in the Kinematic Calculation for 
Application of 1x10-7 Ground Motion 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-57 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.3.1.1.2 Description of the Kinematic Simulations 
A sensitivity study was conducted to investigate the effects of various parameters on the 
potential for DS separation under vibratory motion. These parameters include: 
 The number of DSs 
 Friction coefficients 
 Contact stiffnesses 
 Ground motions 
 Parameters that characterize interaction with the collapsed rock mass rubble. 
A review of the parameters used in the sensitivity study is given in Table 5-19. Two ground 
motions, numbers 1 and 10, were considered from the ground motion sets for the 110-6 and 
110-7 probabilities of annual occurrence. The PGVs and rankings of Arias Intensity for the sets 
number 1 and 10 among 15 ground motions of a given probability level are shown in Table 5-18. 
Ground motions 1 and 10 from the set of 110-6 have a PGV of approximately 2.44 m/s; ground 
motions 1 and 10 from the set of 110-7 have a PGV of approximately 5.35 m/s. These 
particular sets were chosen from among the 15 total sets of ground motions as they represent 
conditions among the highest amplitude ground motions (sets 1) and conditions of lowest 
amplitude ground motion (sets 10). The ground motions are bounded at a PGV of 5 m/s in the 
Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.4.4) as described in 
Section 5.3.2. Because set number 1 is a stronger ground motion (among highest level of Arias 
Intensity), most of the calculations were carried out for set number 1 to examine the conservative 
case of high energy intensity. 
Table 5-18. Comparison of Ground Motion Parameters for Sets Number 1 and 10 
Annual 
Hazard Level 
Ground Motion 
Component 
PGV Set #1 
(cm/s) 
Ranking of 
Arias Intensity 
Set #1 
PGV Set #10 
(cm/s) 
Ranking of Arias 
Intensity Set #10 
110-6 
(revised) 
H1 244.14 
3 
244.02 
14H2 195.41 78.24 
V 111.29 84.58 
H1 535.26 535.24 
13110-7 H2 428.42 4 171.62 
V 298.44 226.79 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Tables 6-5, 6-6 and X-3. 
There are approximately 100 DSs in a typical 600-m long emplacement drift. A representative 
chain of 20 interlocked DSs is used in the analyses as a reasonable number to represent the 
vibratory response. Case 9, for 50 DSs (Table 5-19) was run to examine the effect of an 
increased number of DSs in the chain on potential for DS separation. The simulation has shown 
that the effect of increasing a number of the DSs to more than 20 is not significant, so the 
remaining simulations were conducted for 20 DSs. In all calculations, the friction coefficient 
between the DS and the invert is a random parameter from a uniform distribution between 
0.2 and 0.8. The metal-to-metal, f - , and rubble-to-metal, f - , coefficients are varied 
mm rm 
between 0.2 and 0.8, as indicated in Table 5-19, but they are the same for all metal-to-metal or 
rubble-to-metal contacts in each calculation. A vertically-propagating incoming seismic wave 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-58 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
(i.e.,
=
a
inc
0 - see Figure 5-10) was considered in most calculations. In case 10, the effect of 
=
15 o ) was investigated. The effect of the wave inclination was 
different angle of incidence ( 
not large, and remaining calculations were carried out for vertically propagating incoming waves 
only. Although rockfall is predicted to occur within seconds after strong ground motion begins, 
most calculations were carried out for conservative (regarding DS separation) conditions that the 
emplacement drift is completely open. The effect of rubble covering the DS is investigated in 
cases 11 through 14 and cases 22 through 24 (all for 110-7 ground motion). The effect of 
rubble filling the space between the DS and the drift walls (but not covering the top of the DS) is 
investigated in case 28, using a rubble-to-metal friction coefficient, f - , equal to 0.5.
rm 
5.3.1.2 FE Calculations 
In the FE calculations, the ground motion time histories and the friction coefficient values are 
independent stochastic parameters sampled for 15 realizations. The stochastic (uncertain) input 
parameters for the 15 simulations are the 15 sets of three-component ground motion time 
histories, the metal-to-metal friction coefficient, and the metal-to-rock friction coefficient. A 
Monte Carlo sampling scheme defines the appropriate combinations of ground motion and 
friction coefficients (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169999], Section 6.4) for each PGV level. 
The stochastic (uncertain) input parameters provided for 15 realizations are listed in Table 5-20. 
The values of the friction coefficients presented in Table 5-20, for the purpose of this 
calculation, are presented (and used) with two significant digits. The ground motion 
a
incDrift Degradation(acceleration, velocity, and displacement) time histories are reviewed in 
Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Section 6.3.1.2.1). The time histories presented in these 
references are truncated for the purpose of this study. The time history cutoff and the simulation 
duration used in these calculations are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.4.2 (Tables 5-14 and 
5-15). 
Table 5-19. Summary of Kinematic Calculations 
Case 
No. 
of 
DS 
Ground 
motion 
Rockfall 
on 
topaincmmf-rE 
(MPa) 
Rubble 
height 
(m) 
.r(kg/ 
m3) 
Invert 
contact 
stiffness 
(MPa/m) 
DS 
contact 
stiffness 
(MPa/m) 
rmf - 
20 10-6 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-6 # 10 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-6 # 10 no 0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-6 # 10 no 0 0.8 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-7 # 10 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-7 # 10 no 0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-7 # 10 no 0 0.8 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
50 10-6 # 10 no 0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-6 # 10 no 15 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 100 5.5 2000 10 100 0 
20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 100 5.5 200 10 100 0 
20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 36 2.0 2000 10 100 0 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-59 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-19. Summary of Kinematic Calculations (Continued) 
Case 
No. 
of 
DS 
Ground 
motion 
Rockfall 
on 
topaincmmf-rE 
(MPa) 
Rubble 
height 
(m) 
.r(kg/ 
m3) 
Invert 
contact 
stiffness 
(MPa/m) 
DS 
contact 
stiffness 
(MPa/m) 
rmf - 
14 20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 36 10 200 10 100 0 
15 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
16 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.8 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
17 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 10 100 0 
18 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 1000 0 
19 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 20 100 0 
20 20 10-6 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 1000 0 
21 20 10-6 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 30 100 0 
22 20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.2 10 5.5 2000 10 100 0 
23 20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 10 5.5 200 10 100 0 
24 20 10-7 # 1 yes 0 0.5 1 5.5 20 10 100 0 
25 20 10-6 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
26a 20 10-6 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
27a 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.5 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0 
28 20 10-7 # 1 no 0 0.2 N/A N/A N/A 3 100 0.5 
a 
All calculations except cases 26 and 27 were conducted using a rounding length of 0.4 m. The rounding length is 
the radius of curvature at the corners of the blocks in UDEC, which, instead of being sharp, are rounded. 
Rounding reduces the stochastic nature of the UDEC results. The physical justification for rounding is the fact 
that, in real materials with finite material strength, the corners are rounded as a result of material damage in 
regions of high stress concentrations or penetrate into other softer bodies, effectively behaving as if they are 
rounded. In cases 26 and 27, the rounding length was reduced to 0.05 m, compared to the otherwise equivalent 
cases 1 and 5, for which the rounding length was 0.4 m. 
Table 5-20. Combinations of Ground Motion Numbers and Friction Coefficients Obtained by Random 
Sampling 
Realization 
Number 
Ground 
Motion 
Number 
Friction Coefficient (-) 
Metal 
to metal 
Metal 
to rock 
1 7 0.80 0.34 
2 16 0.33 0.49 
3 4 0.50 0.62 
4 8 0.60 0.22 
5 11 0.20 0.24 
6 1 0.27 0.69 
7 2 0.71 0.60 
8 13 0.56 0.54 
9 10 0.55 0.36 
10 9 0.36 0.41 
11 5 0.42 0.67 
12 6 0.65 0.73 
13 12 0.75 0.31 
14 14 0.29 0.45 
15 3 0.46 0.78 
Source: DTN MO0301SPASIP27.004 [DIRS 161869], Table I-4. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-60 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The results described in Section 5.3.3.2 were obtained for open drifts (i.e., no rockfall has 
occurred) and, except for the waste package pallet assembly, there is no other obstacle to motion 
of the DS inside the emplacement drift. This assumption is proper for 510-4 ground motion for 
which rockfall is not expected in most of the repository (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). However, 
the results presented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]) show for strong 
ground motions (i.e., 110-6 and 110-7) that the drifts (both in the lithophysal and 
non-lithophysal rock mass) either collapse or partially collapse, resulting in a significant volume 
of rockfall within seconds after the strong ground motion begins. The caved rock mass fills the 
space between the DS and the emplacement drift walls for partial collapse (in the nonlithophysal 
rock) or covers the DS for complete collapse in the lithophysal rock, thus restraining the motion 
of the DS (Figure 5-31). Under such circumstances, the possibility for separation of the DSs is 
very much reduced, and the simulations conducted assuming open drifts yield extreme 
outcomes. The other important simplification (due to reduction of model size) in the FE 
calculations that affects the predictions of DS separation are the use of rigid longitudinal 
boundaries (on two ends of the string of 3 DSs), which move synchronously with free-field 
motion of the rock mass. When displacements of the DSs are sufficiently large (i.e., > 0.1 m 
axial displacement), high energy impacts of the DSs into the longitudinal rigid boundary can 
occur. This impact can then result in chaotic movement of the DSs, and apparent separation. 
Therefore, estimation of damage to the DSs from the FE calculations is limited to those cases of 
1x10-6 or higher annual exceedance probability. Analysis of DS separation relies on the DE 
kinematic analyses and not on the FE analyses. 
5.3.2 Discussion of Simplifications in FE Calculations 
The complexities inherent to the problem of simulation of DS response to vibratory motion 
render a detailed FE representation of the DS as prohibitively time-consuming. Consequently, it 
is necessary to simplify the FE representation without adversely affecting the results. All 
simplifications introduced in the course of development of the FE representation are generally 
conservative from the perspective of the estimate of the damaged area. 
The criterion used to define the damaged area (independently of the conservatism related to the 
choice of the residual stress threshold) is also conservative. Specifically, the method used to 
evaluate the damaged area neglects the residual stress distribution across the thickness of the DS 
plates (i.e., it does not account for the possibility of crack arrest once the crack is nucleated). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-61 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The structural calculations of the interlocking DSs exposed to the vibratory ground motion have 
many complexities inherent in the nature of the problem, including the following: 
 The externally applied loads (i.e., the ground motion time histories) are extremely 
intense. This causes a variety of numerical issues at 110-6 level and particularly at 
110-7 level12. 
 The phenomena are highly nonlinear. Momentum is transferred among the repository 
emplacement drift and unanchored repository components (DS and waste package pallet 
assembly) solely by friction and impact. Geometrical nonlinearity (large deformations) 
is coupled with nonlinear constitutive behavior of the materials (elastoplastic behavior 
with kinematic hardening). 
 Capturing both the large-scale kinematics and the occasional small-scale deformations 
(i.e., localized impacts) imposes extremely difficult FE meshing requirements. 
 The extraordinary meshing requirements are, together with the intensity of ground 
motion, responsible for the very small time step required for numerical stability 
(approximately a microsecond, depending on annual frequency of occurrence and 
particular ground-motion time history). The very small time step is, in turn, necessary 
for simulation of a long-duration event (~30-40 s). 
These complexities impose extreme computational requirements. Consequently, it is necessary 
to simplify the representation, but retain important features of the problem. The two most 
important simplifications are: 1) use of shell elements for representation of not only the DS 
plates but also some of the support structure, and 2) representation of the waste package and 
pallet as a single entity (waste package pallet assembly). These are discussed in the following 
sections. 
It is noted that the ground motion time histories used in this calculation were determined from a Probabilistic 
Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) expert elicitation in which the aleatory variability in ground motion was 
described using unbounded lognormal distributions. As the PSHA calculations are extended to lower and lower 
annual probabilities of exceedence, the mean ground motions increase without bound, eventually reaching levels 
that are not credible. These levels of ground motion are not credible in that they eventually result in seismic strains 
that would cause the rock mass (in absence of any excavation) to fail through formation of fractures, an effect that is 
not observed at Yucca Mountain. An analysis analysis, presented in Peak Ground Velocities for Seismic Events at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170137]) estimates an upper bound to the ground motions at the Yucca 
Mountain site based on the shear strain increments (relative to the in situ stress state) required to damage (fracture) 
the repository rock mass. Such seismic-induced fractures are not observed in excavations at the Yucca Mountain 
site in repository host rocks that were erupted and cooled some 12.8 million years ago (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170137]). 
The upper bound for horizontal PGV developed from this analysis is in the range of 4.51 to 5 m/s, which is less than 
the 5.35 m/s PGV used in the present calculations for the 1x10-7 annual exceedance probability seismic event. Even 
though bounding peak ground velocities have been estimated, they have not been used explicitly in the calculations 
of seismic damage performed in the supporting calculations and summarized in this document. In other words, 
damage has been assessed for time histories with PGVs in excess of the bounding values defined in Peak Ground 
Velocities for Seismic Events at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170137]. Instead, the damage to EBS 
components is bounded within the Seismic Consequence Abstraction  i.e., damage associated with PGVs in excess 
of 5 m/s is bounded at the 5 m/s level (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.4.4). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-62 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.3.2.1 Use of Shell Elements in FE Representation 
As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1.2, the time-efficient shell elements are used in the FE 
representation of the DS not only to represent the DS plates but also some of their support 
structure (most notably the bulkheads and support beams). The representation of the DS plate 
support structure by shell elements is discussed below in more detail. 
This representation underestimates bending stiffness of the support structure, which may result 
in somewhat exaggerated deformation of the DS plates and, consequently, in a conservative 
estimate of the DS damaged area. 
The connections between the DS parts represented by shell elements (for example, bulkheads 
and DS plates) are established by sharing the nodes on the intersection lines (or planes). These 
common nodes between the connected DS parts somewhat exaggerate the role of the shell 
reference (middle) surface compared to the actual physical situation when the connection is 
established by way of the surfaces of the connected parts. In other words, the middle shell 
surface close to the connections may take over, in some degree, the role of the actual physical 
surface of the connected parts. The effect of this aspect of shell elements use is conservatively 
bounded as long as the shell reference (middle) surface is taken into account in the damaged area 
evaluation. 
The connections between the DS plate support structure and the DS plates are discontinuities 
that serve as preferential sites for development of the damaged area (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], 
Figures II-6 and II-7 as an example). The underestimated bending stiffness of the DS support 
structure is not, in this case, necessarily conservative. It must be recognized, though, that this 
effect is not pronounced when the DS loading is more uniform (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], 
Figures II-6 and II-7, referring to the rockfall on DS, are examples of extremely localized type of 
deformation). For 110-6 ground motions, the DS kinematics are such that the distribution of the 
impact load from the DS-invert interaction is relatively uniform. In cases when the DS impacts 
the invert with some angle of inclination, the effect of more localized loading is captured by the 
DSC support beams and the support beam-connectors that are represented by solid elements. 
Similarly, in the case of the interaction between DS and waste package pallet assembly, if their 
kinematics is such as to cause the inclined (i.e., localized) impact, the impact location is 
necessarily close to the DS end, and the effect of discontinuity is again captured by the DSC 
support beams and the support beam-connectors. 
It is important to recognize that this discussion applies to simulations at annual frequencies of 
occurrence of 510-4 and 110-6. For 110-7 realizations, only the kinematics of the DSs is of 
interest, primarily for use as a method of verification of the kinematic analyses. 
5.3.2.2 Representation of Waste Package and Pallet by Waste Package Pallet Assembly 
As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1.2, the structures of the 21-PWR waste package and pallet are, for 
the purpose of these calculations, simplified by reducing their FE representation to a rigid 
thick-wall structure of uniform density (waste package pallet assembly). The main purpose of 
waste package pallet assemblies is to ensure boundary conditions for the DSs (most importantly 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-63 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
the middle DS) that are conservative (from the standpoint of the DS damaged area) and 
time-efficient. 
In adopting this approach it is important to acknowledge the results presented in Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]). These results indicate that there is no waste package-DS interaction at the 
annual frequency of occurrence of 510-4 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.3), and that this 
interaction at the annual frequency of occurrence of 110-6 occurs rarely and is characterized by 
relatively modest impact speeds (mostly between 1 m/s and 2 m/s) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Section 6.1.3). On the other hand, the interaction between the pallet and the DS takes place 
more frequently than the interaction between the waste package and the DS due to the much 
smaller clearance between the former two repository components compared to the one between 
the latter two components. The pallet is much lighter and more flexible than the waste package. 
When the waste package and the pallet are merged into the rigid waste package pallet assembly 
(that has total mass uniformly distributed over the outside surface), each waste package 
pallet-DS impact would occur with a larger energy than in reality. That is particularly the case 
for the impacts in the region of the pallet. The waste package pallet assembly can be envisioned 
as a distorted waste package. The major consequence of this idealization is conservatism in 
estimating the impact energy between the DS and pallet. 
Thus, the representation of the waste package and the pallet as a single entity with mass equal 
the cumulative mass of both repository components is conservative from the standpoint of the 
damaged area resulting from the waste package-DS and pallet-DS interactions for simulations at 
annual frequencies of occurrence of 510-4 and 110-6. 
In the case of realizations at annual frequency of occurrence of 110-7, the kinematics of 
unanchored repository components is more complex due to the more intense ground motion. 
Thus, the representation of the waste package and the pallet as a single structural entity (waste 
package pallet assembly) may not capture with sufficient accuracy the damaged area of the DS 
plates. It is noted that the waste package pallet assembly is a likely cause of the contact 
instabilities that cause termination of simulations for the 110-7 ground motions. As discussed 
previously, this assembly is represented as a thick-walled structure with total mass of the waste 
package and the pallet being uniformly distributed over all waste package pallet-assembly nodes. 
Since waste package pallet assembly is relatively coarsely meshed and it does not have any 
interior structure, each waste package pallet-assembly node has very large nodal mass. 
Consequently, in the case of a high-speed impact between the waste package pallet assembly and 
the DS, instability may occur as a result of the large momentum being transferred from the waste 
package assembly to a very small portion of the DS (the localized nature of the transfer is 
promoted by the fact that the waste package pallet assembly is represented as rigid.). As a result 
of the numerical instabilities, damage assessment of the DS surface plates are not determined for 
the 1x10-7 ground motions. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-64 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.3.3 Results 
5.3.3.1 Kinematic Analysis of Drip Shield Separation 
The results of the kinematic calculations can be summarized as follows: 
 The DSs do not separate in any of the analyzed cases (listed in Table 5-19), even 
assuming strong ground motion (i.e., 1x10-7 probability of annual recurrence), open 
emplacement-drifts, and small friction coefficients for the DS-invert contact. 
 Some of the cases for 1x10-7 ground motions that include completely open drifts (e.g., 5, 
16, 17, 18, and 20 in Table 5-19) result in one of the two contacts in the connections 
breaking as a result of exceeding the axial force limit of the connector weld. However, 
in all of those cases, the second contact remained intact preventing separation of the 
DSs. 
 Adding the effect of the rubble, either on the top of the DS (cases 11 through 14) or as 
friction acting on the sides of the DS (case 28), results in stabilization of the DS chain, 
reducing the magnitudes of displacements and forces in the contacts between the DS. In 
all of these cases, there is no interlocking connector weld breakage and no DS 
separation occurs. 
 In all of the cases considered, the safety margin with respect to unlocking of the DSs is 
large. The largest transient shear deformation in the connection, recorded during 
seismic shaking, is 53 cm (case 5), while it is necessary to lift one DS relative to another 
approximately 102 cm in order to interlock them. 
 In all cases listed in Table 5-19, the DSs remain connected during the entire simulation. 
There are two contacts between each DS connection, as shown in Figure 5-21. Time 
histories of the contact shear displacement, normal displacement and axial force for the 
upper contacts of each DS are shown in Figures 5-39 through 5-41 for case 1. The 
contact shear displacement in case 1 (for 110-6 ground motion) is less than 0.16 m 
(Figure 5-39), significantly less than the ~102 cm required to emplace and lock the DSs 
in place. A similar trend is observed for the axial force time history (Figure 5-41). The 
maximum axial force in case 1 reaches the 1.42 MN, much less than the 
conservatively-estimated limit of 3.5 MN. The maximum normal deformation of the 
contacts is approximately one centimeter (Figure 5-40). 
It is observed by inspection of the calculation results that the asymmetrical conditions at the end 
of the DS chain (connected on one side and free on the other) introduce a velocity and 
displacement perturbation in the otherwise synchronous motion of the DSs. This perturbation is 
larger than that introduced due to the variability of the friction coefficient between the DS and 
the invert. This perturbation decays considerably within a distance of approximately five DSs 
from the ends (an example is shown in Figure 5-42). Therefore, although the results of the 
analyses show no separations, any possible separation for larger perturbations beyond the scope 
of this calculation would be expected near the interlocked DSs ends of the chain. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-65 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The summary of the maximum absolute displacements (shear and normal) and the maximum 
absolute forces (shear and normal) in the contacts between the DSs is listed in Table 5-21 for all 
of the sensitivity analyses. The maximums were determined from all 19 upper DS contacts. The 
summary illustrates that the largest shear displacement in the contacts are observed in case 5 (the 
maximum shear displacement of 53 cm), case 7 (45.6 cm) and case 15 (39.2 cm). These three 
cases are for 110-7 ground motions of completely open drifts (i.e., no rubble on the sides or on 
the top of the DS). Cases 7 and 15 apply to a low metal-to-metal friction coefficient of 0.2. 
Case 5 is for the metal-to-metal friction coefficient of 0.5. The results of cases 5 and 15 appear 
contradictory because the case with larger friction coefficient (0.5 for case 5) results in a larger 
maximum shear displacement than the case with smaller friction coefficient (0.2 for case 15). 
The reason for this apparent discrepancy is that the realization of friction coefficients between 
the DSs and the invert in the two cases is not the same (although they are selected from the same 
distributions). In addition, the maximum shear displacement is representative of extreme 
deformation of one contact and does not necessarily represent the general trend. 
us (m) 
~ 102 cm 
Time (s) 
NOTE: The assumed maximum shear displacement when DSs separate is ~ 102 cm. 
Figure 5-39 Case 1, 1x10-6 Ground Motion Shear Displacement (m) in DS Contacts as a Function of 
Time (s) 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-66 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
u)n (mTime (s) 
Figure 5-40. Case 1, 1x10-6 Normal Displacement (m) in DS Contacts as a Function of Time (s) 
FTime (s) 
n (Mn) 
Figure 5-41. Case 1, 1x10-6 Ground Motion Normal Force (Mn) in DS Contacts as a Function of Time (s) 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-67 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
NOTE: Wave transmission down the chain of DSs can be seen in this figure. The amplification of the velocity at 
the face end of the DS chain is clearly visible. 
Figure 5-42. Case 7, 1x10-7 Ground Motion Velocity (m/s) Vector Field at 4.47 s Showing Perturbation 
from Synchronous Motion Near the Ends of the Chain of Drip Shields 
The maximum axial force in some cases (e.g., 5, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23) reaches the limit of 
3.5 MN, resulting in breakage of the upper contact (recall that 3.5 MN was conservatively 
chosen as 50 percent of the estimated strength). However, the forces shown are for the upper 
contacts only. The lower contact in those particular connections between DSs remained intact 
(as shown in Figure 5-43), preventing DS separation. The large normal displacements, as much 
as 104 cm in case 5, are transient and occurring during seismic ground motion. When the strong 
ground motions cease, the contacts return to their original position (before the vibratory motion) 
with the result that no separation occurs at simulation completion. 
5.3.3.2 Results of FE Calculations 
5.3.3.2.1 Results for Preclosure Ground Motion 
Analysis of DS damage was conducted using the single 5x10-4 preclosure ground motion time 
history. The simulation was started at 3.0 s of the ground motion time history (corresponding to 
5 percent of energy of ground motion), and the ending time was 15 s (corresponding to 
65 percent of energy of ground motion) (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Section 5.2.1). This 
duration covered the most intense strong motion period of ground motion time history. Further 
extension of the simulation is considered unnecessary due to the lack of damage observed in this 
analysis. 
The ground motion with 510-4 annual frequency of occurrence is much less intense then 110-6 
or 110-7 (as illustrated in Figure 5-29 and Table 5-14). Consequently, the extent of rigid-body 
motion during the 510-4 vibratory simulation is very limited and the maximum residual first 
principal stress is less than 3 MPa. The history of the first principal stress at a point on the DS 
plate during 510-4 vibratory simulation is shown in Figure 5-44. 
The singular behavior at the onset of the simulation is nonphysical (unrelated to the nature of the 
problem). It is a consequence of a small initial gap between the DS and the invert in the FE 
representation, which is a side effect of the meshing technique. Specifically, it was necessary, in 
ANSYS V5.6.2, to create an artificial initial gap (0.2 mm) between the DS base and invert to 
prevent merging of neighboring nodes. Thus, the stress peak at the beginning of the simulation 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-68 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
results from the settling of the DS on the invert and should be disregarded (Note that, 
disregarded or not, this singular behavior at the onset of simulation does not affect the following 
conclusion.). 
In summary, it can be concluded that the DS plates remain undamaged throughout the 510-4 
event (i.e., the DS-plate area exceeding the established stress threshold is zero). 
Table 5-21 Summary of Maximum Displacements and Forces at the Upper Kinematic DS Contact 
Case 
Maximum 
Shear 
Displacement 
(cm) 
Maximum 
Normal 
Displacement 
(cm) 
Maximum 
Shear Force 
(MN) 
Maximum 
Normal Force 
(MN) 
1 15.9 1.42 0.339 1.39 
2 4.83 1.05 0.279 1.05 
3 11.5 0.963 0.138 0.962 
4 6.42 1.96 0.422 1.96 
5 53.0 104.0a 1.04 >3.5b 
6 6.80 2.32 0.486 2.33 
7 45.6 2.22 0.261 2.22 
8 6.32 2.28 0.583 2.28 
9 18.5 1.28 0.229 1.28 
10 27.1 1.83 0.322 1.84 
11 3.11 1.84 0.573 1.84 
12 1.72 0.495 0.153 0.495 
13 1.39 0.518 0.205 0.517 
14 2.22 1.14 0.324 1.14 
15 39.2 3.40 0.681 3.44 
16 23.4 58.6a 1.01 >3.5b 
17 19.6 30.2a 1.07 >3.5b 
18 37.7 121a 1.15 >3.5b 
19 18.1 3.14 0.985 3.01 
20 11.0 21.6a 1.12 >3.5b 
21 6.81 1.43 0.378 1.44 
22 17.2 1.68 0.297 1.67 
23 18.8 19.2a 1.39 >3.5b 
24 13.1 3.29 1.24 3.26 
25 7.56 2.45 0.478 2.45 
26 7.90 2.98 0.685 2.97 
27 19.65 2.28 0.713 2.28 
28 13.7 0.271 ~0 0.271 
NOTE: The shear displacements at separation is assumed at 102 cm and the maximum axial 
force at a contact is assumed at 3.5 MN. These results are for the upper contact only. 
a These cases show failure at the upper contact only as shown in Figure 5-43. 
b Axial maximum force exceeded at upper drip shield contact only.
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-69 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
NOTE: Upper contact broken while lower contact remains intact. 
Figure 5-43. Illustration of Partially Broken Connection 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure 4. 
Figure 5-44. Maximum First Principal Stress Time History for DS Plates
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-70 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.3.3.2.2 Results for 110-6 Ground Motions 
No DS separation was observed from the FE simulations of 110-6 ground motions with the 
exception of realization 6, which is discussed in greater detail below. According to the final 
configuration of DSs presented in Figure 5-45, one of the peripheral DSs is skewed with respect 
to the middle DS to the extent that there is an overlap on one side (of that end) that exceeds the 
ordinary overlap in the connector region. This effect may be partially a function of interactions 
with the end boundary and the waste package pallet assembly in which motion has occurred 
beneath the left hand side DS. It is reasonable to neglect this small DS overlap because: 1) the 
overlap is small and, thus, inconsequential from the standpoint of waste package protection 
(from direct seepage of water and rock impact); 2) the longitudinal wall does not give full credit 
to the DS connector assembly when it comes to the prevention of DS separation; and 3) the 
DS-separation effect is significantly amplified by the representation of the two outside DSs as 
rigid (recall only the center of the three DSs is deformable). 
The damaged area (as defined in Assumption 3.18) is evaluated only in the DS plates of the 
middle DS. It is also presented as a fraction of the total area of the DS plates (the total area is 
equal to 38.2667 m2, as calculated in Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall, BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168993], Section 5.6). 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure IV-8. 
NOTE: Time is given in seconds. 
Figure 5-45. Detail of Bottom View at Final Configuration in Realization 6 at 110-6 Annual Frequency 
Occurrence (t = 7.60 s) 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-71 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-22 presents the damaged area resulting from 14 realizations at the 110-6 annual 
frequency of occurrence that were completed without any numerical problems. Realization 13 
failed due to numerical instability. The damaged area is evaluated based on the residual first 
principal stress plot by using postprocessor LSPOST V2. 
According to results presented in Table 5-22, the damaged area for 110-6 realizations vary 
within a wide range. The maximum and minimum damaged area correspond to 2.13 percent 
(realization 9) and 0.12 percent (realization 14) of the DS plates total area, respectively. The 
average damaged area is 0.70 percent of the total area of the DS plates. Note that realization 9, 
characterized by the largest damaged area, is conspicuous not only for the large number of waste 
package-DS impacts but also for their intensity (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.1.3). 
Table 5-22 Damaged Area at Annual Frequency of Occurrence of 1x10-6 
Realization 
Number 
Ground Motion 
Number 
Damaged Area 
( 2m ; % of total area) 
1 7 0.113; 0.30% 
2 16 0.055; 0.14% 
3 4 0.248; 0.65% 
4 8 0.105; 0.27% 
5 11 0.257; 0.67% 
6 1 0.427; 1.12% 
7 2 0.479; 1.25% 
8 13 0.100; 0.26% 
9 10 0.814; 2.13% 
10 9 0.192; 0.50% 
11 5 0.456; 1.19% 
12 6 0.376; 0.98% 
14 14 0.0456; 0.12% 
15 3 0.0989; 0.26% 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Table 4. 
5.3.3.2.3 Results of FE Calculation for 110-7 Ground Motions 
The ground motions at 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence are much more intense than at 
110-6 annual frequency of occurrence. As an example, the maximum peak ground acceleration 
reached in ground motion 9 is approximately 34 g (where g = 9.81m/s2 is the acceleration of 
gravity), while the maximum peak ground velocity in ground motion 3 is approximately 16 m/s 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Section 6.2.1). Hence, the kinematics of the unanchored repository 
components is characterized by a large rigid-body motion and numerous high-speed impacts. 
The impacts that have particular effect on DS separation and overlap involve impact of the DS to 
the rigid longitudinal boundaries, which are conservatively included in the calculation because of 
small model size. As a consequence of this high-intensity loading, only one 110-7 realization 
(number 5) terminated without numerical instability. The objective of 110-7 realizations is 
limited, therefore, only to reporting the separation of DS segments in the course of simulation 
before the numerical instability occurs, and for use in qualitative verification of the kinematic 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-72 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
model as presented in Section 5.3.1.1.1. The DS separation reported here is not used as input to 
the Seismic Consequence Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). 
All five 110-7 realizations indicate the DS separation, again, primarily resulting from impacts 
with the rigid end boundaries. None of these simulations, with exception of realization 5, 
reached 95 percent of the time history. Figure 5-46 shows a typical result from the 1x10-7 
realizations, indicating overriding DSs resulting from chaotic motion due to impact of the DS 
with the rigid end boundary conditions. These results are used only for verification of the 
kinematic modeling as described in Section 5.3.1.1.1. 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425], Figure IV-3. 
NOTE: Time in seconds. 
Figure 5-46. Detail of Side View at Component Locations in Realization 5 at 110-7 Annual Frequency 
of Occurrence (t = 8.70 s) 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-73 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.4 ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL EFFECTS OF ROCKFALL AND DRIFT 
DEGRADATION 
5.4.1 Description of Calculations 
Some level of drift degradation is expected during the regulatory period. Although the rockfall 
can occur under static loads (e.g., in situ and thermal stresses), the major factors that can cause 
instability of the drift walls and roof are strong ground motions (with small annual frequency of 
occurrence). The effect of the rockfall on DS functionality is investigated for two bounding 
conditions. 
The impact of destabilized, flying blocks onto the DS, caused by seismic ground motions with 
110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence, was analyzed for rockfall in the 
nonlithophysal rock mass. These impact loads are bounding because: (a) the impact energy 
during the seismic ground motions is greater than during the rockfall that resulted from gradual 
drift deterioration due to time-dependent strength degradation; and (b) the block size in the 
nonlithophysal rock mass is greater than in the lithophysal rock mass, resulting in greater impact 
energy. 
The loose, caved rock mass will accumulate at the bottom of the emplacement drift, initially 
filling the space between the DS and the drift walls but eventually (depending on the magnitude 
of the rockfall) completely covering the DS. As described in Section 5.2.5.1, the static loads on 
the DS are calculated for the case of total collapse of the drift due to the extreme condition of 
complete loss of cohesive strength of the rock mass. The DS is analyzed for the static loads due 
to the weight of the broken rock covering the DS after collapse of the emplacement drift. 
5.4.2 Drip Shield Impact by Large Blocks in Nonlithophysal Rock 
The analyzed cases of rock impact on the DS were selected based on results of rockfall analysis 
in nonlithophysal rock mass presented in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168550]). These rockfall analyses were subsequently updated (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.3) using revised estimates of rock mass fracture density and revised 
ground motions. This revised fracture density is greater, with the resultant effect that the median 
predicted rock block masses are smaller, but the maximum impact energy is approximately the 
same. Some statistical parameters (i.e., mean and maximum of block size and impact energy) 
that characterize block impact in the DS, as obtained in the original (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], 
Section 6.3) and revised (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]) rockfall models, are shown in Table 5-23. 
The mean block size and impact energy predicted by original simulations (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168550]) are at least two times greater than the updated predictions (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107]). Predictions of the maximum impact energies are practically the same. The 
impact conditions selected based on prediction of the original model are conservative 
considering the predictions of the updated model. Therefore, the calculations of the impact of 
blocks in the DS in the nonlithophysal rock mass are not updated as a result of predictions of 
rockfall for new 110-6 ground motions and synthetic model of jointing in nonlithophysal rock 
mass. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-74 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-23. Statistical Characterization of Impacts for 110-6 Ground Motion in Nonlithophysal Rock 
Mass 
REV 02 REV 03 
Mean Block Mass (MT) 0.87 0.43 
Maximum Block Mass (MT) 21.42 28.22 
Mean Impact Energy (J) 5267 2350 
Maximum Impact Energy (J) 163,083 163,657 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168550], Table 14 for REV 02; BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Table 6-14 for REV 03. 
MT = metric tons, J = Joules; Obtained using different revisions of Drift Degradation 
Analysis. 
5.4.2.1 Conditions of Impact 
Impacts by five different rock blocks from 110-6 ground motion and one rock block from 
110-7 ground motion data have been analyzed in these calculations. These cases cover the 
entire range of impact energies observed in the drift degradation analysis (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168550], Section 6.3). The impact cases are summarized in Table 5-24 
(MO0305MWDNLRKF.001 [DIRS 163438], file: 1e-6 3DEC non-lith analysis summary.xls, 
sheet: impact information for 110-6 ground motions; and MO0301MWD3DE27.003 
[DIRS 161536], file: post-closure 1e-7 gm analysis summary.xls, sheet: block info for 110-7 
ground motions). 
Table 5-24. Rockfall Impact Data in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
Ground Line # in Vertical Lateral 
Motion 
[1/yr] Mass [MT] 
source file 
and sheet 
Kinetic 
Energy [J] 
Velocity 
[m/s] 
Velocity 
[m/s] 
10-6 14.5 196 163,083 4.74 0.656 
10-6 3.3 13 24,712 3.86 0.0824 
10-6 0.15 95 902 3.49 0.955 
10-6 0.11 272 42 0.86 0.383 
10-6 0.25 235 ~0 0.02 0.0103 
10-7 11.5 298 348,174 7.77 0.295 
Source: DTNs MO0305MWDNLRKF.001 file: 1e-6 3DEC non-lith analysis 
summary.xls, sheet: impact information, MO0301MWD3DE27.003, file: 
post-closure 1e-7 gm analysis summary.xls, sheet: block info. 
MT = metric tons; J = Joules. 
For each of six blocks, the analysis was conducted for three different impact points and impact 
directions at angles of 40, 60o, and 90o. The angles are measured counterclockwise about the 
intersection of the plane of symmetry and the top of the invert, and beginning with 0 for the top 
of the invert. The idealized configurations of impact are shown in Figure 5-47. 
The rock blocks considered in the calculations to impact the DS have the shape of a rectangular 
prism (Assumption 3.14) as shown in Figure 5-48. The enveloping dimensions (indicated in 
Figure 5-48) are listed in Table 5-25. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-75 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Figure 5-47. Schematic of Analyzed Configurations of Impact in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
Table 5-25. Dimensions of Blocks Impacting the Drip Shield in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
mass (MT) a (m) b (m) c (m) 
14.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 
3.3 1.5 1.5 0.6 
0.15 0.5 0.5 0.26 
0.11 0.5 0.5 0.19 
0.25 0.7 0.7 0.22 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Section 5.3. 
MT = metric tons (1 MT = 1000 kg) 
Figure 5-48. Idealized Geometry of Blocks in Nonlithophysal Rock Mass 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-76 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Figure II-6. 
NOTE: MT = metric tons. 
Figure 5-49. Typical First Principal Residual Stress (Pa) Distribution on DS Plates (14.5 MT Vertical 
Rockfall) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Figure II-7. 
NOTE: MT = metric tons. 
Figure 5-50. Typical First Principal Residual Stress (Pa) Distribution on DS Plates (3.3 MT Vertical 
Rockfall) 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-77 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.4.2.2 Results 
The objective of this calculation is to determine the areas of residual stress (damaged areas) that 
exceed 50 percent of the Ti-7 yield strength (Section 1). Distributions of the typical first 
principal stresses on the DS plates are shown in Figures 5-49 and 5-50. In the postprocessor, the 
first principal stress contours were used to select all-rectangular areas of the FE mesh that exceed 
the critical value. 
Table 5-26 shows the results of LS-DYNA FE evaluations for the 110-6 ground motion rockfall 
on the DS. The damaged areas have been calculated using the regions of residual first principal 
stress, which exceed 50 percent of the Ti-7 yield strength at 150C. 
Table 5-27 shows the results of LS-DYNA FE evaluations for the 110-7 ground motion rockfall 
on DS. This additional look-up table can be used in conjunction with Table 5-26 to determine 
the structural response of the DS to rockfall in terms of the rock blocks (mass and velocity, i.e., 
kinetic energy) and the damaged areas. 
All of the results indicate that increasing kinetic energy of the rock impact causes an increase in 
the damaged area, as expected. There is one notably large damaged area increase in the case of 
the 110-7 ground motion rockfall onto the DS corner (Table 5-27) relative to other cases. The 
reason for this is a localized deformation of the DS side-wall subjected to the substantially large 
vertical load from the rock block. This phenomenon is, however, observed mildly in the case of 
the 110-6 ground motion simulations (Table 5-26). 
Table 5-26. LS-DYNA Finite Element Analysis Results for Seismic Rockfall on Drip Shield (10-6 Ground 
Motion) 
Damaged Area (m2) and Ratio of Damaged Area to Total DS Surface Area 
Rockfall onto Rockfall onto 
Rock Mass Vertical Rockfall DS Corner DS Side-wall 
and Kinetic Energy (90 from horizontal) (60 from horizontal) (40 from horizontal) 
14.5 MT Rock 3.508 0.612 0.079 
(163083 J) (9.17%) (1.60%) (0.21%) 
3.3 MT Rock 0.548 0.416 0.0 
(24712 J) (1.43%) (1.09%) (0.00%) 
0.15 MT Rock 0.0015 0.0091 0.0 
(902 J) (0.00%) (0.02%) (0.00%) 
0.11 MT Rock 0.0 0.0 0.0 
(42 J) (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) 
0.25 MT Rock 0.0 0.0 0.0 
(~0 J) (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Table 6-2. 
MT = metric tons (1 MT = 1000 kg); J = Joules 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-78 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-27. LS-DYNA Finite Element Analysis Results for Seismic Rockfall on Drip Shield 
(10-7 Ground Motion) 
Damaged Area (m2) and Ratio of Damaged Area to Total DS Surface Area 
Rockfall onto Rockfall onto 
Rock Mass Vertical Rockfall DS Corner DS Side-wall 
and Kinetic Energy (90 from horizontal) (60 from horizontal) (40 from horizontal) 
11.5 MT Rock 4.304 2.835 1.126 
(348,174 J) (11.25%) (7.41%) (2.94%) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Table 6-3. 
MT = metric tons (1 MT = 1000 kg); J = Joules 
The maximum vertical displacement in the DS components takes place in the longitudinal 
stiffener during the 11.5 MT vertical rockfall on DS. The reason for this result is because the 
kinetic energy of this rock block is the largest. Figure 5-51 shows that the maximum 
displacement is 25.4 cm. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168993], Figure II-5. 
NOTE: MT = metric tons (1 MT = 1000 kg). 
Figure 5-51. Vertical Displacement for Element #71737 Maximum Peak Value in DS Longitudinal 
Stiffener 11.5 MT Vertical Rockfall for 110-7 Ground Motion 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-79 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.4.3 Static Load on Drip Shield 
5.4.3.1 Loads From Caved Rubble 
The rock block shapes in the lithophysal rock mass and the manner in which they fall and 
compact around the DS is a random process. The caved rock mass will consist of blocks of 
irregular shapes and size distribution with mean block size of approximately 0.2 m (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.4). The static load of the caved rock mass will be transferred to the 
DS through Hertzian contacts among the rocks and between the rocks and the DS (a large 
number of localized contacts that are nearly point loads). 
The distribution of the point loads in the cross-section and along the DS and their magnitude will 
vary significantly. This is illustrated by the distribution of the loads shown in Figure 5-33, 
obtained from 6 realizations calculated using a two-dimensional model. There is also almost 
50 percent variability of the average pressures calculated for different realizations (Table 5-28). 
The pressure variability is due to the stochastic nature of the drift degradation (i.e., formation of 
the rock blocks of irregular shapes and different sizes and their fall and compaction). The 
average pressures on the top and the sides of the DS for 6 realizations are listed in Table 5-28. 
Although obtained from a two-dimensional model, pressure distribution for each realization is 
representative of the load on the DS for a finite length along the DS. The exact correlation 
between results of the two-dimensional model and actual three-dimensional load distribution 
cannot be established. However, it is reasonable to apply the pressure distribution from a 
particular realization over a drip shield axial length approximately equal to the average block 
size (i.e., 0.2 m). Considering the entire length of one DS (5.81 m), or even spacing of the 
bulkheads and support beams (1.07 m), compared to the length over which loads of one 
realization are representative (~0.2 m), the average load (represented as a continuous line load in 
Figure 5-33) of a number of different realizations controls the overall stability of each structural 
frame and the DS. 
Table 5-28. Average Pressure Values on the Drip Shield for Quasi-Static Drift Degradation 
(0.2 m Rock Size) 
Realization 
Pressure (kPa) 
Left Top Right 
1 41.54 108.92 58.76 
2 19.15 147.07 19.33 
3 31.35 154.80 6.69 
4 57.23 129.76 128.82 
5 69.69 112.73 105.43 
6 32.97 113.87 52.19 
Average 41.99 127.86 61.87 
Source: DTN MO0407MWDDSLCR.000 [DIRS 170873]. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-80 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
To account in a conservative way for variability in the loads (in one cross-section and between 
different cross-sections) the DS stability analysis was conducted for all six realizations in which 
the pressure in a particular segment (Figure 5-32) is obtained from a two-dimensional model and 
acts along entire length of the DS that is analyzed in the three-dimensional model. If stability of 
the DS is demonstrated for all 6 realizations using this conservative line-loading application, 
then it is also certain that the DS would be stable for the combined or average load resulting 
from those 6 realizations. 
The factor-of-safety of the DS for static load of the caved rock mass is determined by increasing 
the load on the structure until the structure collapses. In this case, the problem of the 
factor-of-safety is ambiguous because the loads by the caved rock mass acting on the DS are 
both active and passive. Therefore, it is not justified to simply increase all loads (for 
6 realizations or for the average pressure distribution) and apply them on the DS. The horizontal 
loads, which are predominantly passive loads, should increase during consideration of increased 
loading factor but not in the same proportion as the active loads. Instead, the passive loads are 
result of interaction between the structure and the caved rock mass, and should be determined 
from the coupled rock particle-DS interaction calculation. The loads on the DS are calculated 
using the UDEC coupled model of the drift degradation and the DS (discussed in 
Section 5.2.5.1). To calculate the factor-of-safety of the DS to static load of the caved rock 
mass, the density of the rock blocks inside the region that has caved is gradually increased and 
for each density increase the distribution of load on the structure is calculated after the 
equilibrium state is achieved. All six discontinuum UDEC block realizations are simulated for 
each level of density increase. For example, the average pressures on the DS calculated for 
2.5 times density increase are listed in Table 5-29. The increase in the actual vertical load is 
roughly proportional to (slightly less than) the increase in density. For example, for 2.5 times 
increase in the density (shown in Table 5-29), the increase in the average vertical pressure is 
approximately 2 (compare Tables 5-28 and 5-29). The reason for this difference is the arching 
of the additional weight inside the caved rock mass. For factor-of-safety calculations the 
average pressures of six realizations were considered only. The DS was analyzed for increasing 
loads using the finite increments. The largest load analyzed for which the structure does not 
collapse is used as an approximation of the limit load for the DS. 
Table 5-29. Average Pressure Values on the Drip Shield for Quasi-Static Drift Degradation (0.2 m Rock 
Size) Assuming 2.5 Times Increased Density of the Caved Rock Mass 
Realization 
Pressure (kPa) 
Left Top Right 
1 93.12 232.78 91.11 
2 42.46 305.34 34.49 
3 49.33 319.89 16.91 
4 82.09 264.88 147.11 
5 103.10 221.82 128.54 
6 49.06 237.68 67.74 
Average 69.86 263.73 80.98 
Source: DTN MO0407MWDDSLCR.000 [DIRS 170873]. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-81 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
For the purpose of this calculation, the pressure distribution along the DS surface is discretized 
over 30 segments of approximately equal length as indicated in Figures 5-32 and 5-52. Note that 
the even-number segments are omitted from Figure 5-52 to improve visibility. The pressure 
distribution does not vary in the longitudinal (z) direction in this calculation. In order to capture 
the quasi-static nature of the loading and minimize the oscillations of results, the applied loads 
(the pressure and gravitational acceleration) are ramped from 0 to 0.1 s and than held constant. 
Thus, the loads are applied in full intensity at 0.1 s. 
The simulations are terminated either when the static equilibrium of the DS is reached (based on 
the kinetic energy decreasing to very small values), or when the loss of the DS structural stability 
occurs. Thus, the termination times are different for different realizations due to the stochastic 
nature of the pressure distribution. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure 5. 
Figure 5-52. Application of the Static Pressure of Caved Rock Mass on the Drip Shield 
5.4.3.2 Results 
All six realizations indicate that the DS reaches static equilibrium without the loss of structural 
stability for the given non-uniform quasi-static pressure distributions. Figure 5-53a illustrates 
the final DS configuration for realization 3, which imposes the largest vertical load on the DS. 
The kinetic energy history plot presented in Figure 5-53b demonstrates that the final 
configuration corresponds to the DS static equilibrium. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-82 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
(a) 
(b) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure II-3. 
NOTE: The constraints provided by the pallet are shown as vertical bars in (a) final drip shield configuration and (b) 
kinetic energy of the drip shield; J=Joules. 
Figure 5-53. Typical Results for Realization 3 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-83 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
The vertical deflections of the DS top plate (DS plate 1), along the vertical symmetry plane are 
presented in Table 5-30. The deflections are recorded at the node located on the outside surface 
of the top plate above the bulkhead. Note that the positive value in Table 5-30 indicates the 
upward displacement. 
As seen in Figure 5-54, the plot shows the damaged areas (i.e., where first principal stress 
exceeds 50 percent of the yield strength of Ti-7 as discussed in Section 5.2.3.1.4) in the Ti-7 
plates for realization 1 of the load by caved rock. The red color in the figure indicates the 
damaged area. Structural Stability of a Drip Shield Under Quasi-Static Pressure (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170791], Attachment IV) contains the damage plots for all 6 realizations and the damaged 
areas are summarized in Table 5-31. 
Table 5-30. Vertical Deflections of the Top Plate Along the Vertical Symmetry Plane 
Vertical 
Realization 
Displacement 
(10-3 m) 
1 4.4 
2 -9.3 
3 -8.2 
4 23.1 
5 13.1 
6 3.9 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Table 2. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure IV-1. 
Figure 5-54. Damage Area of the Ti-7 Plates for Realization 1 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-84 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 5-31. Damaged Area of the Drip Shield Top and Side Plates 
Realization Damaged Area (m2) % of Total area 
1 0.64 9% 
2 0.90 12% 
3 0.21 3% 
4 2.42 32% 
5 1.51 20% 
6 1.10 15% 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Table 5. 
Three additional simulations are performed for an average of all six realizations to examine the 
ultimate load-bearing capacity of the DS. As described previously, the loads for these 
simulations were derived from simulations in which the density of the caved rubble is increased 
to provide additional load application. Each segment of the quasi-static pressure distribution is 
averaged for the six realizations with the density of the surrounding rock multiplied by 2.5, 3.0, 
and 4.0. The pressure as a result of the density multiplication by 2.5 times does not result in the 
loss of the DS structural stability. On the other hand, the increase of the pressure values 
corresponding to the density multiplication by 4 times results in a severe deformation of the DS 
as illustrated by Figure 5-55. The average pressure on the top of the DS in the case of density 
multiplication by 4 times is 415.97 kPa (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Table 3). Consequently, the 
average vertical load increased 3.25 times relative to the nominal case (i.e. the average pressure 
on the top of the drip shield of 127.86 kPa in Table 5-28). The shear stress contours (shown in 
Figure 5-56) and stress histories in 5 equally spaced points across the thickness of the section 
(shown in Figure 5-57) illustrate that most of the cross-section is deforming plastically (Ti-24 
yields when the maximum shear stress exceeds 0.5 sy, which is 375 MPa), but there is still a 
portion of the cross-section deforming elastically (The stress histories show that material in 
4 points in the cross-section yield; only at the point on the inner surface the stress is still elastic.). 
Even in this case the plastic hinge is not formed in the critically loaded section of the structure. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-85 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure III-16. 
NOTE: The indicated detail shown in Figure 5-37; Pa = Pascal. 
Figure 5-55. Maximum Shear Stress Plot (Pa) for the Average of all Realizations with Density of 
Surrounding Rock Multiplied by 4.0 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure III-17. 
NOTE: Pa = Pascal 
Figure 5-56. Maximum Shear Stress Plot (Pa) of the Large Support Beam for the Average of All 
Realizations Density of Surrounding Rock Multiplied by 4.0 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-86 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
(a) 
(b) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791], Figure III-18. 
NOTE: (a) Maximum shear stress at points through the cross-section and (b) average of the shear stress through 
the cross-section; Pa = Pascal 
Figure 5-57. Maximum Shear Stress History Plots of the Large Support Beam for the Average of All 
Realizations with Density of Surrounding Rock Multiplied by 4.0 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-87 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.4.4 Use of Drip Shield Structural Analysis in the Seismic Scenario 
5.4.4.1 Feeds of Drip Shield Structural Analysis to the Seismic Consequence 
Abstraction 
The results of the DS calculations, in terms of damage from rockfall and vibratory motion, are 
used as direct input or corroborating data to the Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169183]). The damage values, in terms of surface area of DS plates for a given value of 
PGV are supplied via the interface exchange drawing format used to communicate data from the 
Design and Engineering group to other functions. All DS damage data is presented in 
D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). 
The Seismic Consequence Abstraction provides the algorithms necessary for calculation of the 
mean dose consequence for the seismic scenario class of TSPA-LA. The primary output data 
supplied from the DS structural and damage analysis for direct and indirect input to the Seismic 
Consequence Abstraction is given in Table 5-32. 
Table 5-32. References to Data for Structural Response of Drip Shield Used in Seismic Consequence 
Input Information Source 
Damage to the Drip Shield from Vibratory Ground Motion: 
Damage to the drip shield due to impact by single rock blocks 
from the 2.44 m/s (10-6 per year) PGV level 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 
Table 2 
Damage to the drip shield due to impact by maximum rock 
block from the 5.35 m/s (10-7 per year) PGV level 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 
Table 3 
Damage to the drip shield for the single vibratory ground 
motion at the 0.190 m/s PGV level, corresponding to an 
annual exceedance frequency of 510-4 per year 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 
Calculation Results I 
Damage statistics for the area of the drip shield exceeding 
the residual stress threshold at 10-6 per year 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 
Table 4 
Damage statistics for the drip shield, based on a sampling of 
vibratory ground motions at the 5.35 m/s PGV level, 
corresponding to the 10-7 per year exceedance frequency 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220], 
Calculation Results III 
5.4.4.2 Review of Seismic Consequence Abstraction Feeds to TSPA-LA 
The following discussion provides a summary of the ultimate feeds of DS damage from the 
Seismic Consequence Abstraction report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]) to the TSPA-LA. 
Damage from Rockfall Impact - In general, rockfall-related damage to the DS is considered to 
result in a network of stress corrosion cracks in those areas where the residual tensile stress 
exceeds the stress threshold for Titanium Grade 7. However, the resulting network of stress 
corrosion cracks are not considered to be a pathway for advective flow due to; a) infilling of 
narrow apertures with corrosion products, b) high surface tension when a narrow aperture is 
bridged by a single droplet, c) minimal head gradient or pressure gradient driving flow through 
narrow apertures with high tortuosity and surface roughness, and d) cracks on the DS are 
predicted to plug from evaporation-induced precipitation of calcite and other minerals over a few 
hundred years. In this situation, the DS remains intact as a long-term flow barrier after rockfall 
related damage. Rockfall related damage to the DS is therefore not included in the abstractions 
for the TSPA-LA in the seismic scenario class. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-88 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Stability from Static Load - Consideration is also given to potential DS failure due to buckling 
and collapse under static loads from rockfall induced by ground motion or time-dependent 
degradation of the emplacement drift. Structural response calculations provided in this 
document have demonstrated that the DS does not buckle or collapse under impact from the 
largest rock blocks and under the static rock load after catastrophic drift collapse. In this 
situation, damage to the DS from rockfall is again not included in the abstractions for the 
TSPA-LA. 
Drip Shield Separation - Drip shield separation is excluded from TSPA-LA based on the 
results of the kinematic analysis presented in Section 5.3.3.1 of this document. To summarize: 
 Analyses indicate that DS separation is highly unlikely, even in the case of an open drift 
subjected to low probability (1x10-6 and 1x10-7) ground motions and reasonable 
assumptions of DS to DS and DS to invert friction coefficients. 
 Ground motion amplitudes that are sufficient to cause drip shield separation are also 
large enough to partially or completely collapse drifts in the repository. 
 Rockfall occurs within the first second or two of the arrival of these large amplitude 
ground motion. In this situation, rockfall provides restraints on the motion of the drip 
shields, preventing differential motion that could lead to separation. 
Even though the analyses indicate DS separation is highly unlikely in an open drift, the 
occurrence of drift degradation ensures that separation does not occur. Ground motion 
amplitudes near and above the 2.44 m/s PGV level are large enough to cause rockfall in both the 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones. In the lithophysal zones, drift collapse is observed at and 
above the 2 m/s PGV level (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.2.2), and significant, but 
partial collapse occurs in nonlithophysal units (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.3.1.6.4). 
The collapse in the lithophysal rock is coincident with the arrival of the first strong ground 
motion  i.e., collapse occurs within seconds of the arrival of the first pulse of the accelerogram 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.2.2). Large blocks also start to fall from the drift walls 
in the nonlithophysal zones shortly after the arrival of the ground motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.3.1.6.1). 
In either the lithophysal or nonlithophysal zones, rockfall occurs at PGV levels substantially 
lower than the 5.35 m/s PGV level characteristic of the 1x10-7 annual exceedance frequency. It 
follows that the drip shield is partly surrounded by rockfall whenever separation could 
potentially occur, and this rockfall can occur near the start of the ground motion. The larger rock 
blocks or the smaller rock fragments provide normal and shear confinement to the sidewalls and 
possibly the crown of the drip shield. The horizontal acceleration imparted to the drip shield by 
the ground motion will be resisted by the frictional forces between the rock and the drip shield 
plates and between the footings and the invert. Thus, the presence of rockfall around the drip 
shields will restrict the relative displacements that are required to separate adjacent drip shields, 
making separation very unlikely even for extreme ground motions. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-89 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
It is important to note that smaller, more frequent seismic events will also provide rockfall 
around the drip shield. Smaller events are much more probable during a 10,000 year period. For 
a Poisson process, smaller seismic events with a rate of 10-5 per year are about 100 times more 
probable than extreme events with a rate of 10-7 per year. These smaller events can contribute to 
the buildup of rockfall around the drip shield before an extreme event occurs. For example, 
ground motions at the 1.5 m/s PGV level (near a 10-5 per year annual exceedance frequency) 
generate rockfall from partial collapse of the drifts in the lithophysal zones (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 166107], Section 6.4.2.2.2). Since higher probability (e.g., 10-5) events are much more 
likely than lower probability (e.g., 10-7) events, it is reasonable to expect that significant rubble 
would exist in the drift and provide some confinement for the drip shield prior to the high 
amplitude, low probability ground motion that could result in drip shield separation. 
5.5 CONCLUSIONS 
The DS is a structure constructed of titanium designed to be placed over the waste package and 
the pallet when the repository is closed. The purpose of the DS is to protect the waste packages 
from: (a) water dripping directly from the drift crown and walls, and (b) direct impacts of loose, 
falling rock blocks. The adjacent DSs will partially overlap each other to provide continuous 
shielding of the waste packages. The functionality of the DS can be affected adversely if: 
 The relative rigid body motion of the DSs creates a gap between them, exposing the 
waste package to direct water seepage or impacts from loose blocks. 
 The DS loses structural integrity as a result of mechanical collapse or buckling. 
 Impact damages the DS plates and provides necessary conditions for stress corrosion 
(the damaged area was defined conservatively in Section 5.2.3.1.4, as the area of the 
DS plate where the residual stress induced by impact exceeds 50 percent of the yield 
stress). 
The mechanical loadings expected during the regulatory period that can affect the functionality 
of the DS are (a) seismic ground motion and (b) dynamic and static loads of loose blocks 
dislodged from the roof and walls of the emplacement drift. The causes for rockfall in the 
emplacement drifts can be both strong seismic ground motion and quasi-static stresses (due to in 
situ and thermal loads) combined with time-dependent strength degradation. 
This report summarizes the results of calculations on the effects of these different loads on DS 
functionality as reported in Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163425]); Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168993]); and Structural Stability of a Drip Shield Under Quasi-Static Pressure 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170791]), and the results of the kinematic calculations which are reported in 
this document. The following bounding loading conditions were analyzed: 
 Effect of vibratory ground motion (510-4, 110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of 
occurrence) on rigid body motion and damage of the DS, assuming that the 
emplacement drifts are open or filled with caved rock blocks inside the drifts 
(Section 5.3). 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-90 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
 Impact of the rock blocks shaken down in the nonlithophysal rock mass by seismic 
ground motions with 110-6 and 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence (Section 5.4.2). 
 Static load on the DS by the rubble created by complete collapse of the emplacement 
drift (Section 5.4.3). 
The results of the calculations indicate the following: 
 The DS does not lose structural integrity or stability for any of the considered loads. 
 The estimated factor-of-safety for DS under quasi-static load by the caved rock mass is 
approximately 3.2 (Section 5.4.3.2). 
 Separation of the DS does not occur even for the strongest considered ground motion 
(110-7 annual frequency of occurrence) and for the conservative assumption that the 
drifts are not filled with caved rock blocks that act as obstacles to motion of the DSs 
(Section 5.3.3.1). The addition of the weight of caved rock resting on the DS or the 
frictional forces from caved rock in contact with the sides of the DS further resist 
separation during vibratory motion. All analyzed loads, except vibratory ground motion 
with 510-4 annual frequency of occurrence (Section 5.3.3.1), cause some degree of DS 
plates damage. Damage in the sense used here refers to denting of the surface and 
increased potential for development of regions of stress corrosion cracking. Tearing or 
piercing of the DS plates is not indicated. The maximum damaged area for vibratory 
ground motions with 110-6 annual frequency is 2.13 percent of the area of the DS plate 
for realization 9 (Table 5-22)13. The Seismic Consequence Abstraction, as discussed in 
Section 5.4.4.2, assumes that the DS damage occurs as stress corrosion cracks, which 
are not considered a pathway for advective flow and are thus screened out for 
consideration in the TSPA-LA. 
 The maximum damaged area for the impact by loose rock blocks is 11.25 percent of the 
DS plate area for impact by an 11.5 MT block (the block with the greatest impact energy 
in Table 5-27). 
 The maximum damaged area for the static load of the rock rubble is 32 percent of the 
DS plate area for realization 4 (Table 5-31). 
The results are reasonable compared to the inputs and are suitable for the intended use. 
13The damaged area is not reported for ground motions with 110-7 annual frequency of occurrence because only 
one of the numerical analyses converged without numerical instability. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-91 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
5.6 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 
The work described in this calculation addresses the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.2)  Mechanical Disruption of Engineered Barriers. The 
following Acceptance Criteria were addressed: 
Acceptance Criteria 1  System Description and Model Integration 
Subparts (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)  The analyses incorporate important physical 
phenomena and couplings, including the effects of vibratory motion, rockfall and 
drift collapse on damage and structural stability of the drip shields. 
Environmental conditions including thermal and humidity effects are included in 
the analyses. The potential temperature impacts of rock rubble from drift collapse 
on drip shield material properties are included. The potential corrosion effects of 
drift humidity and the thinning of the drip shield structural components is 
accounted for in the analyses. Boundary and initial conditions to these analyses 
are consistent with the design of repository engineered barrier components and 
applied ground motion time histories. The input data and assumptions used in 
these analyses are consistent with other models and calculations. The 
assumptions and source documents are described in Section 3  Assumptions as 
well as Section 5 - Calculation. 
Acceptance Criteria 2  Data are Sufficient for Model Justification 
Subparts (1, 2, 3 and 4)  Input data and data assumptions are described in 
Section 3  Assumptions. Justification of material properties of drip shield 
components and geologic data such as rockfall masses and rock rubble density are 
provided in Section 3. Failure models and material properties of the drip shield 
are described in 5.2.3 of this document. 
Acceptance Criteria 3  Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated 
Through the Model Abstraction 
Subparts (1, 2 and 3)  Data uncertainty is taken into account in these analyses in 
the following manner: 
1) Input data in terms of ground motion time histories and contact friction angles are 
defined stochastically (Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4) 
2) Rockfall dynamic loading parameters have been defined from three-dimensional 
discontinuum analyses in which rock mass fracture geometries are 
stochastically-defined (Sections 5.2.5.2 and 5.4.2) 
3) Rockfall static rubble loading is defined from a series of stochastic drift 
degradation models as described in Section 5.2.5.1 and 5.4.3. 
Acceptance Criteria 4  Model Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated 
Through the Model Abstraction 
Subparts (1, 2 and 3)  The analyses of drip shield structural response are consistent with 
available data and scientific understanding and limitations of the analyses are stated within 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-92 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
the document. Appropriate alternative models are used for analyses, including the use of 
discontinuum, kinematic approach as well as more sophisticated three-dimensional finite 
element analysis are used for examination of vibratory motion. Model uncertainties are 
propagated through damage estimates and structural stability calculations that provide input 
to the Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]), which eventually 
provides input to the TSPA-LA. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-93 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 5-94 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
6. REFERENCES 
The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 2 represents the unique 
six digit numerical identifier (the Document Input Reference System number), which is placed in 
the text following the reference callout. The purpose of these numbers is to assist in locating a 
specific reference. Within the reference list, multiple sources by the same author are sorted 
alphabetically by title. 
6.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 1987. Marks Standard Handbook for 103508
Mechanical Engineers. 9th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 206891. 
Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., Jr. 1977. Vector Mechanics for Engineers, Statics. 145138
3rd Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. TIC: 247391. 
Belytschko, T.; Liu, W.K.; and Moran, B. 2000. Nonlinear Finite Elements for 153664
Continua and Structures. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 248840. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Repository Multiple Waste Package Thermal 156276
Calculation. CAL-WIS-TH-000010 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20010814.0330. 
BSC 2003. Drop of Waste Package on Emplacement Pallet - A Mesh Study. 165497
000-00C-DSU0-02200-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030915.0001. 
BSC 2003. Emplacement Pallet. 000-MW0-TEP0-00101-000-00A, and 161520
-00102-000-00A. 2 Sheets. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030205.0007; ENG.20030205.0008. 
BSC 2003. Longevity of Emplacement Drift Ground Support Materials for LA. 165425
800-K0C-TEG0-01200-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030922.0004. 
BSC 2003. Structural Calculations of Drip Shield Exposed to Vibratory Ground 163425
Motion. 000-00C-PEC0-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20030618.0009. 
BSC 2003. Repository Design, Drip Shield Envelope Dimensions. 165038
000-M00-PEC0-00102-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030618.0002. 
BSC 2003. Design and Engineering, Interlocking Drip Shield Configuration. 166897
000-M00-SSE0-00103-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20031028.0004. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
BSC 2004. Aqueous Corrosion Rates for Waste Package Materials. ANL-DSD-MD-169982
000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20041012.0003. 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet. 169220
800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040503.0018. 
BSC 2004. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties 170583
Data on Poissons Ratio and Youngs Modulus. TDR-MGR-GE-000004 REV 01 
Errata 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040225.0001; DOC.20040419.0001. 
BSC 2004. D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly. 169472
800-IED-WIS0-00202-000-00C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040517.0008. 
BSC 2004. Design and Engineering, Interlocking Drip Shield Configuration. 168275
000-M00-SSE0-00101-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040305.0020. 
BSC 2004. Drift Cross Section Showing Emplaced Waste Package and Drip Shield. 170074
800-M00-WIS0-00101-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040420.0013. 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 02 with 168550
Errata 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040325.0002; DOC.20030709.0003. 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 03. 166107
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040915.0010. 
BSC 2004. Drip Shield Structural Response to Rock Fall. 168993
000-00C-SSE0-00300-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040405.0019. 
BSC 2004. Features, Events, and Processes: Disruptive Events. 170017
ANL-WIS-MD-000005, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
TBV: 6542.
BSC 2004. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of the Drip Shield. ANL-169845
EBS-MD-000004 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20040921.0002. 
BSC 2004. Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000049, Rev. 02. 169565
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. TBV: 6552 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
BSC 2004. Peak Ground Velocities for Seismic Events at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 170137
ANL-MGR-GS-000004 REV 000A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: TBV: 6278. 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 168361
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
BSC 2004. Repository Subsurface Emplacement Drifts Steel Invert Structure Sect. & 169776
Committed Materials. 800-SS0-SSE0-00102-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040520.0005. 
BSC 2004. Sampling of Stochastic Input Parameters for Rockfall Calculations and 169999 
for Structural Response Calculations Under Vibratory Ground Motion. 
ANL-EBS-PA-000009 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040901.0004. 
BSC 2004. Seismic Consequence Abstraction. MDL-WIS-PA-000003 REV 01. 169183 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041025.0004. 
BSC 2004. Stress Corrosion Cracking of the Drip Shield, the Waste Package Outer 169042 
Barrier, and the Stainless Steel Structural Material. ANL-EBS-MD-000005 REV 01 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040318.0010. 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift 171520 
Degradation, Waste Package and Drip Shield Vibratory Motion and Seismic 
Consequences. TWP-MGR-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040810.0003. 
BSC 2004. Structural Stability of a Drip Shield under Quasi-Static Pressure. 170791
000-00C-SSE0-00500-000-00Aa. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040830.0032. 
Chen, W.F. 1982. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete. New York, New York: 159153
McGraw-Hill Book Company. TIC: 240453. 
Cikanek, E.M.; Grant, T.A.; and Blakely, R.J. 2004. Data Qualification and Data 169642
Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, 
Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion, with Errata. 
TDR-MGR-GE-000003 REV 00 Errata 4. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030214.0007; DOC.20031007.0004; DOC.20031105.0007; 
DOC.20040506.0003; DOC.20040514.0003. 
DeGrassi, G. 1992. Review of the Technical Basis and Verification of Current 161539 
Analysis Methods Used to Predict Seismic Response of Spent Nuclear Fuel Racks. 
NUREG/CR-5912. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
TIC: 253724. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-3 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Dieter, G.E. 1976. Mechanical Metallurgy. 2nd Edition. Materials Science and 118647
Engineering Series. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 
TIC: 247879. 
Fruchtbaum, J. 1988. Handling Special Materials. Bulk Materials Handling 161774
Handbook. Pages 327-375. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 
TIC: 253872. 
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 3rd Edition. 106219
New York, New York: Chapman and Hall. TIC: 218325. 
Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall 103337
International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. Hall, W.J., ed. 
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. TIC: 243891 
Marachi, N.D., C.K. Chan and H.B. Seed (1972) Evaluation of properties of 157883
rockfill materials, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 98, (SM1), 95-114. 
New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. TIC: 252235. 
Mecham, D.C., ed. 2004. Waste Package Component Design Methodology Report. 170673
000-30R-WIS0-00100-000-002. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040713.0003. 
Nicholas, T. 1980. Dynamic Tensile Testing of Structural Materials Using A Split 154072
Hopkinson Bar Apparatus. AFWAL-TR-80-4053. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 
Ohio: Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories. TIC: 249469. 
Sowers, G.F. 1979. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical 107479
Engineering. Fourth Edition. MacMillan: New York. TIC: 245527. 
TIMET. 1993. First in Titanium Worldwide, Quality Products and Services. 157726
Denver, Colorado: [Titanium Metals Corporation]. TIC: 242692. 
TIMET. 2000. Timetal 6-4, 6-4 ELI, 6-4-.1Ru Medium to High Strength 160688
General-Purpose Alloys. Denver, Colorado: Titanium Metals Corporation. 
Accessed August 26, 2002. TIC: 253102. http://www.timet.com/pdfs/6-4.pdf 
Williams, N.H. 2002. Thermal Inputs for Evaluations Supporting TSPA-LA. 159916
Interoffice memorandum from N.H. Williams (BSC) to Distribution, September 16, 
2002, 0911024159, with enclosures. ACC: MOL.20021008.0141. 
6.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
ASM (American Society for Metals) 1980. Properties and Selection: Stainless 104317
Steels, Tool Materials and Special-Purpose Metals. Volume 3 of Metals Handbook.
9th Edition. Benjamin, D., ed. Metals Park, Ohio: ASMs. TIC: 2 09801. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-4 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
ASM International. 1990. Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special141615 
Purpose Materials. Volume 2 of ASM Handbook. Formerly Tenth Edition, Metals 
Handbook. 5th Printing 1998. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. 
TIC: 241059. 
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) 2001. 2001 ASME Boiler and 158115 
Pressure Vessel Code (includes 2002 addenda). New York, New York: American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 251425. 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and 171539 
Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040907.0002. 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 163274 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
AP-3.12Q, Rev. 2, ICN 2. Design Calculations and Analyses. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040318.0002. 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0 ICN1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. 
6.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0003RIB00073.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of TI Grades 7 and 152926 
16. Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
MO0301MWD3DE27.003. Results from 3DEC Nonlithophysal Rockfall Analyses 
with 10-7 Ground Motion Level. Submittal date: 01/23/2003. 
161536 
MO0301SPASIP27.004. Sampling of Stochastic Input Parameters for Rockfall 161869 
Calculations and for Structural Response Calculations Under Vibratory Ground 
Motions. Submittal date: 01/15/2003. 
MO0303SPARESST.000. Residual Stress Failure Criteria for Seismic Damage 162030 
Models of the Drip Shield and Waste Package. Submittal date: 03/04/2003. 
MO0305MWDNLRKF.001. Results from 3DEC Nonlithophysal Rockfall Analyses 163438 
with 10-6 Ground Motion Level. Submittal date: 05/27/2003. 
MO0311RCKPRPCS.003. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial 166073 
Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 11/04/2003. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-5 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
MO402DQRIRPPR.003. Intact Rock Properties Data on Poissons Ratio and 168901
Youngs Modulus. Submittal date: 02/19/2004. 
MO0407MWDDDDSLCR.000. Drip Shield Load in Collapsed Lithophysal Rock. 170873
Submittal date: 07/21/2004. 
MO0408MWDGLCDS.002. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of the Drip 171486
Shield for LA. Submittal date: 08/27/2004. 
SNL02030193001.027. Summary of Bulk Property Measurements Including 108410
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. 
6.4 SOFTWARE CODES 
BSC 2002. Software Code: ANSYS. V5.6.2. HP-UX 11.00. 10364-5.6.2-01. 159357
BSC 2002. Software Code: LS-DYNA. V960.1106. HP9000. 10300-960.1106-00. 158898
BSC 2002. Software Code: UDEC. V3.1. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. 161949
10173-3.1-00. 
BSC 2002. Software Definition Report for UDEC V3.1. Document 171617
Number: 10173-SDR-3.1-00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20021105.0244. 
BSC 2002. LS-DYNA Version 960.1106 Validation Test Report. Software Baseline 168545
Documentation Number: 10300-VTR-960.1106-00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020515.1915. 
BSC 2003. Software Code: LS-DYNA. V.970.3858 D MPP. HP Itanium2, HP-UX 166918
11.22. 10300-970.3858 D MPP-00. 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2003. Validation Test Report for LS-DYNA 168558 
Version 970.3858 D MPP. 10300-VTR-970.3858 D MPP-00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Repository Development. 
ACC: MOL.20031218.0337. 
Hallquist, J.O. 1998. LS-DYNA, Theoretical Manual. Livermore, California: 155373
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. TIC: 238997. 
Itasca Consulting Group. 2002. Itasca SoftwareCutting Edge Tools for 160331
Computational Mechanics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca Consulting Group. 
TIC: 252592. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-6 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 2001. LS-DYNA Keyword Users 159166 
Manual. Version 960. Two volumes. Livermore, California: Livermore Software 
Technology Corporation. TIC: 252119. 
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. 2003. LS-DYNA Keyword Users 166841 
Manual. Version 970. Livermore, California: Livermore Software Technology 
Corporation. TIC: 254203. 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-7 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 6-8 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
7. DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHMENT A 
The following Attachment A consists of 1 compact disc of UDEC V3.1 electronic files of the 
kinematic analyses summarized in Table 5-19. The naming convention used for the files is given 
in Section 4. Table 7-1 provides a list of the files submitted on the compact disc as the 
Attachment. 
Table 7-1. List of Electronic Files in Attachment 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
Folder Case 1-4 
1e-6h1_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 34,000 
1e-6h1_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 68,000 
1e-6h1_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 271,692 
1e-6h1_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h1_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h1_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 88,808 
1e-6h1_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 110,602 
1e-6h1_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 203,864 
1e-6h2_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 34,000 
1e-6h2_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h2_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 271,692 
1e-6h2_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h2_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h2_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,812 
1e-6h2_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 110,602 
1e-6h2_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 203,862 
1e-6up_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 34,000 
1e-6up_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-6up_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 271,694 
1e-6up_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 272,000 
1e-6up_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 108,800 
1e-6up_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,806 
1e-6up_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 110,602 
1e-6up_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 140,080 
1e-6up_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 203,862 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case1property1motion1step7.sav 8/30/2004 01:16p 15,318,919 
Case2property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 04:18p 19,355,043 
Case3property1motion10step8.sav 8/31/2004 12:20a 19,355,043 
Case4property1motion10step8.sav 8/31/2004 03:21a 19,355,823 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
geom.sav 10/5/2004 06:55a 389,555 
hist1.pcx 10/5/2004 06:50a 47,301 
hist2.pcx 10/5/2004 06:50a 56,427 
hist3.pcx 10/5/2004 06:50a 52,448 
hist4.pcx 10/5/2004 06:50a 56,940 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
matnumb.pcx 9/2/2004 08:56a 22,821 
model.dat 8/30/2004 10:36a 5,555 
model1.dat 9/2/2004 08:51a 5,560 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:34a 10,870 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 2/16/2004 09:48a 1,053 
udec.lnk 8/30/2004 10:35a 411 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 11-14 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-2 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-3 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case11property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 02:10p 19,350,915 
Case12property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 12:22p 19,349,347 
Case13property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 03:29p 19,347,299 
Case14property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 11:53p 19,360,175 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
geom.sav 10/5/2004 07:28a 271,979 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/20/2004 12:37p 6,810 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:49a 11,507 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 8/30/2004 10:57a 615 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 15, 16, 18 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-4 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case15property1motion1step7.sav 8/30/2004 04:00p 15,321,071 
Case16property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 07:16a 15,320,183 
Case18property1motion1step7.sav 9/1/2004 04:48a 16,986,219 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 10/5/2004 07:33a 4,169 
model1.dat 10/5/2004 07:26a 6,815 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-5 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:24a 10,872 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 9/2/2004 12:25p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 17 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-6 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case17property1motion1step7.sav 9/10/2004 01:32p 15,323,823 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 10/5/2004 07:37a 2,788 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:24a 10,872 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 9/2/2004 12:25p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 19 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-7 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-8 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case19property1motion1step7.sav 9/10/2004 02:05p 15,324,347 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 10/5/2004 07:46a 1,395 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:24a 10,872 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 9/10/2004 05:47a 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 20-22 
1e-6h1_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 34,000 
1e-6h1_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 68,000 
1e-6h1_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 271,692 
1e-6h1_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h1_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h1_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 88,808 
1e-6h1_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 110,602 
1e-6h1_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 203,864 
1e-6h2_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 34,000 
1e-6h2_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h2_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 271,692 
1e-6h2_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h2_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h2_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,812 
1e-6h2_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-9 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-6h2_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 110,602 
1e-6h2_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 203,862 
1e-6up_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 34,000 
1e-6up_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 271,694 
1e-6up_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 272,000 
1e-6up_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 108,800 
1e-6up_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,806 
1e-6up_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 110,602 
1e-6up_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 140,080 
1e-6up_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 203,862 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case20property1motion1step7.sav 8/30/2004 10:26p 16,982,535 
Case21property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 08:44a 15,321,191 
Case22property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 02:02p 15,321,191 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/30/2004 10:35a 4,176 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:37a 10,870 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 2/16/2004 09:48a 1,053 
udec.lnk 9/8/2004 12:10p 411 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 23-25 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-10 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-11 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case23property1motion1step7.sav 8/30/2004 02:03p 15,324,951 
Case24property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 03:05a 15,321,707 
Case25property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 11:08a 15,321,763 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/20/2004 02:32p 5,106 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:49a 11,507 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 9/8/2004 11:06a 615 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 26 
1e-6h1_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 34,000 
1e-6h1_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 68,000 
1e-6h1_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 271,692 
1e-6h1_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h1_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h1_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 88,808 
1e-6h1_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 110,602 
1e-6h1_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 203,864 
1e-6h2_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 34,000 
1e-6h2_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h2_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 271,692 
1e-6h2_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-12 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-6h2_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h2_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,812 
1e-6h2_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 110,602 
1e-6h2_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 203,862 
1e-6up_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 34,000 
1e-6up_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 271,694 
1e-6up_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 272,000 
1e-6up_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 108,800 
1e-6up_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,806 
1e-6up_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 110,602 
1e-6up_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 140,080 
1e-6up_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 203,862 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case26property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 03:40p 15,322,087 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/31/2004 08:00a 1,401 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:34a 10,870 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 2/16/2004 09:48a 1,053 
udec.lnk 8/30/2004 10:35a 411 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 27 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-13 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-14 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case27property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 03:30p 15,325,331 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 10/5/2004 07:55a 1,394 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:24a 10,872 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 8/19/2004 01:58p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 28 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-15 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case28property1motion1step7.sav 9/1/2004 03:51p 15,332,199 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 9/1/2004 06:38a 4,541 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-16 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
setup.fis 9/1/2004 06:14a 12,677 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 8/31/2004 02:22p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 5-8 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-17 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case5property1motion1step7.sav 8/30/2004 01:07p 15,323,267 
Case6property1motion10step8.sav 8/30/2004 04:12p 19,355,927 
Case7property1motion10step8.sav 8/31/2004 12:18a 19,356,027 
Case8property1motion10step8.sav 8/31/2004 03:23a 19,355,879 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/19/2004 01:55p 5,549 
Case7property1motion10movie1_056.pcx 8/30/2004 10:16p 119,088 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:24a 10,872 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 01:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 8/19/2004 01:58p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder Case 9-10 
1e-6h1_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 34,000 
1e-6h1_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 68,000 
1e-6h1_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 271,692 
1e-6h1_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h1_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-18 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-6h1_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h1_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 88,808 
1e-6h1_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 110,602 
1e-6h1_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 203,864 
1e-6h2_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 34,000 
1e-6h2_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h2_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 271,692 
1e-6h2_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h2_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h2_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,812 
1e-6h2_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 110,602 
1e-6h2_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 203,862 
1e-6up_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 34,000 
1e-6up_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 271,694 
1e-6up_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 272,000 
1e-6up_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 108,800 
1e-6up_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,806 
1e-6up_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 110,602 
1e-6up_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 140,080 
1e-6up_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 203,862 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case10property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 09:52a 15,321,191 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-19 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
Case9property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 01:34a 38,658,855 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/19/2004 02:00p 2,805 
plot.dat 9/2/2004 12:39p 437 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 10:22a 10,869 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 2/16/2004 09:48a 1,053 
udec.lnk 8/19/2004 01:57p 711 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
Folder three DS 1e-6 
1e-6h1_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 34,000 
1e-6h1_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 68,000 
1e-6h1_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 271,692 
1e-6h1_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:45a 140,080 
1e-6h1_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h1_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h1_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 88,808 
1e-6h1_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h1_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 110,602 
1e-6h1_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h1_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 203,864 
1e-6h2_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 34,000 
1e-6h2_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 140,080 
1e-6h2_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 68,000 
1e-6h2_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 271,692 
1e-6h2_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 272,000 
1e-6h2_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:46a 108,800 
1e-6h2_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6h2_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,812 
1e-6h2_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6h2_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 110,602 
1e-6h2_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-20 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-6h2_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 203,862 
1e-6up_1.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_10.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 34,000 
1e-6up_11.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_12.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_13.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 271,694 
1e-6up_14.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 272,000 
1e-6up_16.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 108,800 
1e-6up_2.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 140,080 
1e-6up_3.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_4.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 88,806 
1e-6up_5.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_6.vel 2/16/2004 09:47a 68,000 
1e-6up_7.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 110,602 
1e-6up_8.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 140,080 
1e-6up_9.vel 2/16/2004 09:48a 203,862 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-21 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 01:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 198,000 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 03:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 08:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 06:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 05:54a 2,323 
Case5property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 09:18a 2,080,523 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 05:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 05:28a 1,756 
geom.sav 10/5/2004 08:03a 298,683 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/31/2004 07:22a 1,580 
model1.dat 10/5/2004 08:01a 1,585 
plot.dat 8/29/2004 08:35a 318 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 05:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 01:45p 11,276 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 09:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 05:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 2/16/2004 09:48a 1,053 
udec.lnk 8/30/2004 10:35a 411 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 06:12a 3,971 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-22 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
Folder three DS 1e-7 
1e-7h1_10.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 33,000 
1e-7h1_1.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_11.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_12.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_13.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 263,703 
1e-7h1_14.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 264,000 
1e-7h1_15.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 198,033 
1e-7h1_16.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 105,600 
1e-7h1_17.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 198,000 
1e-7h1_2.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_3.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_4.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 86,196 
1e-7h1_5.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_6.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 66,000 
1e-7h1_7.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 107,349 
1e-7h1_8.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 135,960 
1e-7h1_9.vel 11/7/2002 02:44p 197,868 
1e-7h2_1.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_10.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 33,000 
1e-7h2_11.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_12.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_13.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 263,703 
1e-7h2_14.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 264,000 
1e-7h2_15.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 198,033 
1e-7h2_16.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 105,600 
1e-7h2_17.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 198,000 
1e-7h2_2.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_3.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_4.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 86,196 
1e-7h2_5.vel 3/25/2004 12:34p 68,000 
1e-7h2_6.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7h2_7.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 107,349 
1e-7h2_8.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7h2_9.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 197,868 
1e-7up_1.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_10.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 33,000 
1e-7up_11.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_12.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_13.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 263,703 
1e-7up_14.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 264,000 
1e-7up_15.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 198,033 
1e-7up_16.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 105,600 
1e-7up_17.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 198,000 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-23 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
Table 7-1 List of Electronic Files in Attachment (Continued) 
Name Date Time Size (Byte) 
1e-7up_2.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_3.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_4.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 86,196 
1e-7up_5.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_6.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 66,000 
1e-7up_7.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 107,349 
1e-7up_8.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 135,960 
1e-7up_9.vel 11/7/2002 02:50p 197,868 
Bb.fin 10/11/1996 09:50a 2,142 
Block.fin 1/24/2000 07:59a 5,768 
Boucnr.fin 11/3/1999 05:01a 2,292 
Cable.fin 11/3/1999 04:54a 2,323 
Case5property1motion1step7.sav 8/31/2004 09:01a 2,083,023 
Contact.fin 11/23/1999 04:27a 3,622 
Domain.fin 11/23/1999 04:28a 1,756 
Jmat.fin 11/3/1999 05:22a 4,334 
model.dat 8/31/2004 07:12a 1,582 
plot.dat 8/29/2004 08:35a 318 
Reinf.fin 11/3/1999 04:58a 1,612 
setup.fis 8/30/2004 01:29p 11,278 
Str.fin 1/24/2000 08:08a 4,290 
Support.fin 11/23/1999 04:29a 1,674 
test.dat 8/9/2004 02:07p 330 
times.fis 3/25/2004 12:46p 1,004 
udec.lnk 8/30/2004 01:26p 777 
Zmat.fin 11/3/1999 05:12a 3,971 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A 7-24 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
ATTACHMENT A 
COMPACT DISK 1 0F 1 OF FILES FROM UDEC KINEMATIC ANALYSIS 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
ATTACHMENT A 
COMPACT DISK 1 0F 1 OF FILES FROM UDEC KINEMATIC ANALYSIS 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A A-1 October 2004 

Mechanical Assessment of the Drip Shield Subject to Vibratory Motion and Dynamic and Static Rock Loading 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
CAL-WIS-AC-000002 REV 00A A-2 October 2004