Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report Rev 00A, ICN 00

800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A

December 2003

1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 PURPOSE 
The Yucca Mountain Project is entering a the license application (LA) stage in its mission to 
develop the nations first underground nuclear waste repository. After a number of years of 
gathering data related to site characterization, including activities ranging from laboratory and 
site investigations, to numerical modeling of processes associated with conditions to be 
encountered in the future repository, the Project is realigning its activities towards the License 
Application preparation. 
At the current stage, the major efforts are directed at translating the results of scientific 
investigations into sets of data needed to support the design, and to fulfill the licensing 
requirements and the repository design activities. 
This document addresses the program need to address specific technical questions so that an 
assessment can be made about the suitability and adequacy of data to license and construct a 
repository at the Yucca Mountain Site. In July 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) published an Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report (NRC 2002). Included in this 
report were the Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) Key Technical 
Issues (KTI). Geotechnical agreements were formulated to resolve a number of KTI subissues, 
in particular, RDTME KTIs 3.04, 3.05, 3.07, and 3.19 relate to the physical, thermal and 
mechanical properties of the host rock (NRC 2002, pp. 2.1.1-28, 2.1.7-10 to 2.1.7-21, A-17, A18, 
and A-20). The purpose of the Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report is to present an 
accounting of current geotechnical information that will help resolve KTI subissues and some 
other project needs. 
The report analyzes and summarizes available qualified geotechnical data. It evaluates the 
sufficiency and quality of existing data to support engineering design and performance 
assessment. In addition, the corroborative data obtained from tests performed by a number of 
research organizations is presented to reinforce conclusions derived from the pool of data 
gathered within a full QA-controlled domain. An evaluation of the completeness of the current 
data is provided with respect to the requirements for geotechnical data to support design and 
performance assessment. 
1.2 BACKGROUND 
In 1997, the DOE issued the Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report (SGR), Rev. 01 
(CRWMS M&O 1997d). The purpose of this report was to integrate the available qualified 
geotechnical data and nonqualified (corroborative) data gathered to support engineering design, 
safety analysis and performance assessment. Included in the SGR are the data resulting from 
field and laboratory testing that were available through June 1996. Most of the data in the SGR 
were derived from surface-based testing activities, primarily surface mapping and borehole 
exploration. In addition the SGR included some subsurface data references and a limited amount 
of the actual Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) geologic mapping data from the North Ramp 
and Main Drift that were available through mid-March of 1997. The SGR, Section 2.5 
(CRWMS M&O 1997d), also evaluated the sufficiency of the existing geotechnical data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
available in the geoengineering database for a viability assessment (mostly adequate) of 
constructing a repository at Yucca Mountain and for license application (not adequate). 
The SGR constituted the most comprehensive summary of geotechnical information available up 
to the early 1997 time period. Subsequent reviews and use of SGR information revealed the 
need for additional rock testing and updating the data, such as the need to better characterize 
lithophysae-rich lithostratigraphic units. 
Subsequent activities have focused on acquiring the additional data considered necessary to 
support the license application. These characterization activities include field measurements, 
laboratory testing, in situ testing, numerical modeling and analytical assessment. The current 
version of the SGPR incorporates data available as of July 2003. 
Some geotechnical data are qualified based on its adherence to the Project-approved set of QA 
procedures. Other data are undergoing a qualification process or are being corrected within the 
Technical Data Management System (TDMS). Where available, additional (corroborative) data 
are also presented, regardless of their QA status. This inclusion is intended to make information 
about the properties of any lithostratigraphic unit as complete as possible. The SGPR is 
conceptualized to be a living document that will continue to be updated by newly acquired and 
developed information through the preclosure life of the repository. 
1.3 OBJECTIVES 
The specific objectives of this Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report are to: 
 Provide an up-to-date summary of site-specific subsurface geotechnical parameters on 
the Yucca Mountain project, 
 Assess the quality of the source technical data, 
 Summarize all important contextual information associated with particular parameters 
in order to ensure appropriate use of the parameters by users, 
 Systematically identify and quantify the uncertainties and spatial and temporal
variability of the geotechnical parameters,
 Evaluate the adequacy of data for LA activities, and 
 Propose any additional work required to ensure the adequacy of data or to reduce
uncertainties related to the geotechnical parameters.
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1.4 SCOPE 
Activities documented in this report involve developing rock property data, using analytical 
methods, and performing calculations and statistical analyses to determine the ranges and 
magnitude distributions of the existing laboratory and field data. This report provides a 
summary of geotechnical data developed to support engineering design and performance 
assessment. Site geology, stratigraphy, stratigraphic nomenclature, and lithostratigraphic 
structural features, are included to provide a framework for presentation of the rock and rock 
mass property data. 
This report focuses on physical rock property data; intact rock physical, mechanical and thermal 
parameters; rock mass quality estimates; and estimated rock mass physical, thermal, and 
mechanical properties. Data for each parameter are summarized, and implications of the 
geotechnical data impact on engineering design and performance assessment are reviewed. This 
report presents an initial attempt to evaluate the data variability and the level of completeness to 
support repository design and performance assessment. Revision 00A of this report contains 
data available through July 2003. 
The scope of work involved in developing the SGPR includes: 
 Compile all relevant subsurface geotechnical data from the Technical Data Management 
System (TDMS) needed to develop the identified rock parameters; 
 Evaluate and sort the above TDMS data according to significant rock material conditions 
(e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, fracture set, etc.) and method of testing; 
 Perform computations and analyses of the compiled data to determine the developed rock 
parameters supporting the LA; 
 Perform the appropriate statistical data analyses of the acquired and developed parameter 
database; 
 Provide comprehensive reference tables of intact rock mechanical parameters by 
combining all the qualified and analyzed test data in one central location; 
 Describe and demonstrate the range of applicability of the novel use of numerical 
modeling techniques, which when used in combination with limited data, enhance 
engineers understanding of rock behavior, processes, and descriptions; 
 Developing a combined statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data 
uncertainty, variability, and representativeness that will be used to produce recommended 
statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. 
 Provide a preliminary definition and assessment of data adequacy for the license 
application; and 
 Propose additional characterization work needed for the LA submittal. 
Revision 00A of this report presents the first attempt at providing a common source of parameter 
data to be used by various engineering disciplines in the process of designing underground 
components of the future repository. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1.5 ANALYSIS/MODEL APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS 
While the data presented in this report focuses primarily on the lithophysal and nonlithophysal 
rock units of the repository host horizon, additional data characterizing other lithostratigraphic 
units located above and below the repository host horizon are also provided. All the existing 
subsurface geotechnical data will be summarized in the next revision of this report. It will also 
include enhancements to the existing database, as proposed in Section 11.3 of this report. 
The lithostratigraphic data summaries presented in this report are believed to be valid and 
applicable for LA design activities. Some data in this report are qualified, however, due to errors 
discovered in some data, on-going data qualification efforts, and incomplete analyses and 
modeling activities, many of the parameters are currently based on unqualified data, and should 
be used for reference only or with a to be verified (TBV) status. The quality status of the 
parameters is clearly indicated in each section of the report where data are reported. 
The next revision of this report will include comprehensive parameter uncertainty information 
and qualified rock parameters for all LA products that require it. Prior to the release of the next 
revision of the SGPR, a statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data 
uncertainty, variability, and representativeness will be developed that will be used to produce 
recommended statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 1-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE
This document has been prepared with a QA:QA status and all technical tasks supporting this 
report are subject to the requirements of the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description 
(QARD) (DOE 2003). The subsurface rock descriptions and parameters developed and 
presented in this report will be used as inputs in a number of analysis and modeling activities that 
support performance assessment (PA), and to design ground support systems in emplacement 
drifts and all other underground openings. Some of these activities are associated with the Waste 
Package Emplacement and Waste Retrieval System subsystems, which are classified as Safety 
Category (SC) in the Q-List (BSC 2003g, p. A-4) in accordance with procedure AP-2.22Q, 
Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. The SC classification requires 
compliance with the QARD requirements. 
This report and its supporting technical analyses and calculations have been prepared in 
accordance with the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)-approved 
quality assurance (QA) program. The report was developed in accordance with procedures AP-
3.12Q, Design Calculations and Analyses, AP-SI.1Q, Software Management, AP-3.15Q, 
Managing Technical Product Inputs, and reviewed following AP-2.14Q, Document Review. 
Problems with data that were discovered in the process of producing this report were reported in 
compliance with AP-16.1Q, Condition Reporting and Resolution, and the resolution of these data 
conditions will be incorporated in the next revision of this report. 
All electronic data used as inputs in the preparation of this document were obtained from the 
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project (YMP) Technical Data Management System 
(TDMS), as appropriate, in accordance with AP-SV.1Q, Control of the Electronic Management 
of Information. AP-SV.1Q was also used to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the 
information generated by this report by: (1) controlling access to the information stored on 
personal computers with password protection, and (2) employing authorized process controls to 
ensure error-free data transfers. These process controls included verification of data by 
examining file check sums, file size and date, and/or making a thorough visual check of file 
contents or printouts. The personal computer files used in preparation of this report were stored 
on a network drive that is backed up daily per YMP standards. During the checking process, the 
accuracy and completeness of the data retrieved from the TDMS, developed during report 
activities, and reported in this document were verified, as applicable. 
Upon completion of this work, all files (including the information residing in DTNs created 
while preparing this report) were transferred to DVDs/CD-ROMs, appropriately labeled, and 
verified by using the above process controls. The DVDs/CD-ROMs were then transmitted to 
Document Control for transfer to the Records Processing Center, according to AP-17.1Q, 
Records Management, which is the primary repository for all OCRWM records. Also, the output 
data/results developed in this report have been submitted to the TDMS in accordance with AP-
SIII.3Q, Submittal and Incorporation of Data/Technical Information to the Technical Data 
Management System. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
It is recognized that the Quality Assurance program currently in place at the Yucca Mountain 
Project has undergone evolution. An initial simple adherence to the common testing and 
reporting standards has subsequently been modified a number of times to satisfy increasingly 
stringent quality standards adopted by the Project. In this context, the initial studies to determine 
mechanical properties of rock were performed under the existing guidelines and standards in 
effect at the time, and, therefore, not all of the data were gathered under what is today referred to 
as a fully qualified QA program. 
The data used in the development of this report were obtained and developed during one of three 
time periods: 1) prior to the existence of an approved QA program, 2) under an approved QA 
program in effect prior to June 30, 1999, and 3) under an approved QA program in effect on or 
after June 30, 1999. Data developed during the first period were initially classified as 
unqualified or non-Q. Much of these data, including their documentation, has subsequently been 
examined in accordance with AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data and it was found 
that most could be reclassified as qualified or Q. However, it was found that some could not be 
reclassified and they will remain as unqualified. Such unqualified data are used for 
corroborative purposes only. The data developed during the second period were initially 
classified as qualified. At some time after June 30, 1999, all data developed during this period 
were reclassified as qualified  needs verification and/or qualification. As the need arose, such 
data sets, including their documentation, were examined in accordance with AP-3.15Q, 
Managing Technical Product Inputs to determine if they could be verified and reclassified as 
qualified. Most of the data sets so examined, were verified and thus reclassified as qualified. 
Those data that could not be verified generally were then examined in accordance with AP-
SIII.2Q, and some of them were then reclassified as qualified. See Cikanek et. al 2003a, 2003b, 
and 2003c for results of the verification and qualification efforts. Data developed during the 
third period are classified as qualified once their source documents are approved. If these data 
are used prior to such approval, they are classified as qualified  to be verified (TBV). Their 
classification is changed to qualified upon approval of the source document. 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) position on data qualification for data not 
initially collected under a 10 CFR 60, Subpart G Quality Assurance (QA) program at Yucca 
Mountain is identified in NUREG-1298 Qualification of Existing Data for High-Level Waste 
Repositories. This NUREG was issued in 1988 (Altman et al. 1988) in recognition of the then-
existing data that might be needed or used to support a DOE license for a repository but that had 
not been generated (or collected) under the auspices of a 10 CFR 60, Subpart G compliant QA 
program. 
NUREG-1298 consists primarily of four pages of descriptive text, although the complete 
document includes a substantial amount of additional information on comment resolution. 
NUREG-1298 establishes the position that data are in one of the following categories: 
 Qualified DataData initially collected under a compliant QA program 
 Existing DataData collected prior to establishment of or outside of the auspices of a 
compliant QA program 
 Corroborating DataExisting data used to support or substantiate other existing data. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Information accepted by the scientific and engineering community as established facts (such as 
engineering handbooks, density tables, gravitational laws, etc.) are recognized by NUREG-1298 
as not falling into the category of existing data. 
NUREG-1298 establishes that data that is important to safety and waste isolation must be 
qualified and provides four approaches to qualifying existing data: 
 Peer review 
 Use of corroborating data 
 Use of confirmatory testing 
 Demonstration that data were collected under an equivalent QA program. 
The projects data confirmation effort is ongoing and continues to identify and correct 
transparency and traceability issues. Some aspects of this are discussed in the Root Cause 
Determination for Corrective Action Report BSC(B)-03-B-107 Repeating Deficiencies in the 
Management and Utilization of Data (Williams 2003). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 2-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
3.1 GENERAL 
All software documented in this section is appropriate for applications used in this calculation. 
The software is managed under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management and was obtained from 
Software Configuration Management (SCM) in accordance with AP-SI.1Q. Software used for 
data processing and presentation in this calculation is described in the following subsections. 
3.2 EXCEL 
Microsoft Excel was used to perform data manipulation and some arithmetic and statistical 
calculations. Only standard functions of Excel were used, and the results are not dependent on 
the use of Excel. Spreadsheet software, such as Excel, is controlled under the Software 
Configuration Management System, and it is not required that this reports use of Excel software 
be qualified or documented under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management, Section 2.1. Results 
obtained using Excel were checked independently of the Excel software. 
3.3 GOLDSIM 
GoldSim 7.50.1 (GoldSim Technical Group 2002) is a simulation program that allows stochastic 
calculations to occur, allowing a probabilistic answer to be determined. Properties may have a 
stochastic distribution, not a standard discrete input such as a mean value, and therefore when 
used as an input for a calculation will have a distribution of probabilistic results. Allowing the 
input distributions of data to interact allows the entire range of results to be explored and gives 
insight on the probability of the occurrence of the combination of inputs. 
GoldSim randomly selects a probabilistic value for each input of a calculation and carries the 
selected set of values through to final values and repeats the process a specified number of times. 
Each occurrence of data selection and calculation is referred to as a realization. After many 
realizations have occurred, a distribution of results is developed. This distribution can be 
analyzed to select the appropriate frequency of occurrence for reporting or design. 
For example, rock mass strength and elastic properties were determined using laboratory 
measured values analyzed for mean and distribution that allowed input distributions to be 
developed for subsequent calculations. Result distributions were developed after 10,000 
realizations, and results were selected at specific cumulative frequencies of occurrence. These 
specific selections reflect rock mass categories presented within this report. 
3.4 MATHCAD 
MathCAD is a standard technical calculation tool used worldwide. MathCAD 2001i 
Professional was used to generate a best-fit general relationship among sets of data for 
determining intact rock Hoek-Brown failure criteria. Only standard functions of MathCAD were 
used, and the results are not dependent on the use of MathCAD. Software, such as MathCAD, is 
controlled under the Software Configuration Management System, and it is not required that this 
reports use of MathCAD software be qualified or documented under AP-SI.1Q, Software 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 3-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Management, Section 2.1 Results obtained using MathCAD were checked independently of the 
MathCAD application. 
MathCAD was specifically used to fit a general best-fit curve to several points of data. The 
MathCAD sheets are presented in Attachment II in their entirety. The genfit function is 
discussed in the MathCAD 2001 manual (MathSoft 2001 p. 350). A calculation loop was 
developed to perform this fitting routine over approximately 500 sets of data. Other components 
of interest used in MathCAD were reading a data file into a matrix (MathSoft 2001 p. 205), 
and programming operators (MathSoft 2001 pp. 469-471). 
3.5 PFC 
Two PFC (Particle Flow Code) software codes were used in this analysis: PFC in 2 Dimensions 
(PFC2D) Version 2.0 (BSC 2002d) and PFC in 3 Dimensions (PFC3D) Version 2.0 (BSC 
2002e). The PFC modeling approach is to represent rock as a number of small, rigid, spherical 
grains that are bonded together at their contacts by tensile and shear strengths, as well as a grain-
to-grain friction if the contact bond is broken due to loading. Details on the mechanics of the 
PFC programs are provided in Itasca Software  Cutting Edge Tools for Computational 
Mechanics (Itasca Consulting Group 2002). 
Both PFC2D Version 2.0 and PFC3D Version 2.0 were obtained from SCM in according with 
the AP-SI.1Q procedure, and are the qualified software codes. The software codes are 
appropriate for the applications used in this analysis, and were used only within the range of 
validation, as specified in the software qualification documentation. 
3.6 UDEC 
UDEC (Universal Distinct Element Code) Version 3.1 (BSC 2002f) is a two-dimensional 
numerical program based on the distinct element method for use in a discontinuum modeling 
approach (Itasca Consulting Group 2002). The program simulates the response of discontinuous 
media subjected to thermal, static, or dynamic loading. In UDEC, a discontinuous medium is 
numerically represented as an assemblage of discrete blocks. The discontinuities such as joints 
and fractures between blocks are treated as boundaries that are governed by force-displacement 
relations. Both normal and shear displacements take place at these boundaries. UDEC was used 
to help examine the behavior of the lithophysal rock within the repository host horizon. 
UDEC Version 3.1 was obtained from SCM in according with the AP-SI.1Q procedure, and is a 
qualified software code. The software was appropriate for the applications used in this analysis, 
and used only within the range of validation, as specified in the software qualification 
documentation. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 3-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4. INPUT, CRITERIA, AND REQUIREMENTS 
4.1 INPUT 
This Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report presents a summary of numerous rock 
parameter data along with their supporting modeling, analyses, and calculations. The direct 
inputs for these parameter summaries, and for any related calculations, are presented in the 
various individual sections of the report that follow. The geotechnical parameters summarized 
here include data and information collected by field mapping, field testing, and laboratory 
testing. In addition, the directly measured rock dataset is supplemented by results using 
numerical and empirical approaches, which are individually presented and documented in the 
appropriate sections of this report. 
In general, the primary source of input data presented in this report consists of acquired and 
developed data that have been previously submitted to the YMP Technical Data Management 
System. Data Tracking Numbers (DTNs) are cited to reference this information. Newly 
acquired and developed data that are pertinent to this data summary continues to be submitted to 
the TDMS. However, the most recent DTN parameter data incorporated into this report is from 
mid-summer of 2003. 
Additional inputs referenced in this report are derived from various sources. One source of this 
input data is the YMP Record Information System (RIS), for example, scientific notebooks or 
analysis-modeling reports. Other input data are preliminary in nature and are referenced either 
by attachments provided in this report or as references in the Record Information System. The 
rock parameter data or approaches that are preliminary in nature are clearly indicated as such in 
the appropriate sections of this report. 
The final means of documenting inputs and their use in this report occurs through file 
attachments. For example, Excel and MathCAD files are attached that document how some data 
inputs are further developed or displayed. The data inputs included in these supporting files are 
clearly referenced in the appropriate sections of this report where the individual calculations are 
described. 
Limited uncertainty information relating to parameters summarized in this report are addressed 
in individual sections of this report and in Section 10. The next revision of the SGPR will 
include comprehensive parameter uncertainty information. Section 10 also provides a 
preliminary discussion regarding the overall adequacy of the described parameter data. 
4.2 REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE 
A number of statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as guidance from regulatory agencies 
involved with the Yucca Mountain Project, were consulted as part of this effort to update the 
projects summary of subsurface geotechnical parameters. This section presents the requirements 
and guidance that are considered relevant at this time. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4.2.1 Statutory Background 
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended in 1987 (Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act, 1987), directed the DOE to investigate Yucca Mountain, Nevada exclusively 
to determine whether it is a suitable site for locating the Nations first geologic repository for 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The NWPA established the framework for 
evaluating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site, and designated the following 
responsibilities to federal agencies: The DOE will site, construct, operate, and close the 
repository; The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will set public health and safety 
standards for releases of radioactive materials from the repository; and the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) will promulgate regulations governing the construction, 
operation, and closure of the repository. 
In addition to the NWPA, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law No. 102-486) provided 
additional direction to EPA in establishing public health and safety standards for the protection 
of the public from possible releases of radioactive materials stored in a repository at Yucca 
mountain; the specific direction was to ensure that the standards are consistent with the findings 
and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. The Energy Policy Act also 
provided direction to NRC to modify its licensing regulations so as to be consistent with the 
established EPA standards. 
4.2.2 EPA Safety Standard Requirements 
In response to the NWPA, as amended in 1987, and the Energy Policy Act, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency promulgated 40 CFR 197 to establish the environmental 
radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain. These standards apply to the storage and 
management of radioactive materials above and below ground at the site, during both the 
preclosure and postclosure periods. 
Preclosure Requirement: 40 CFR 197.4 of Subpart A requires that no member of the public in 
the general environment receive an annual committed effective dose (as defined in the 
regulation) of more than 15 millirem. 
Postclosure Requirement: 40 CFR 197.20 of Subpart B requires that DOE use a performance 
assessment to demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that for 10,000 years following 
disposal, the reasonably maximally exposed individual would receive no more than an annual 
committed effective dose equivalent of 15 millirem from releases from the undisturbed Yucca 
Mountain disposal system. 
The foregoing EPA safety standards have been incorporated by NRC into Subparts K and L of 
10 CFR 63 for regulating repository licensing requirements. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4.2.3 NRC Licensing Requirements/ Guidance 
4.2.3.1 10 CFR 63 
In response to the NWPA, as amended in 1987, and the Energy Policy Act, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission promulgated 10 CFR 63 to regulate licensing requirements for the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Among other topics, this regulation specifies the preclosure and postclosure performance 
objectives of the geologic repository operations area that must be met for licensing the 
repository. 
Sections of 10 CFR 63 that are directly relevant to geotechnical parameters that might affect 
repository design and performance are the following: 
 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1)(ii) requires that information regarding the geomechanical properties 
and conditions of the host rock be included in the Safety Analysis Report of the License 
Application. 
 10 CFR 63.111(d) requires that a Performance Confirmation Program be implemented 
within the geologic repository operations area through permanent closure. 
 10 CFR 63.132(a) states that a specific requirement of this Performance Confirmation 
Program is to provide a continuing program of surveillance, measurement, testing, and 
geologic mapping during repository construction and operation to confirm geotechnical 
and design parameters, and to ensure that appropriate action is taken to inform the 
Commission of design changes needed to accommodate actual field conditions 
encountered. 
 10 CFR 63.132(b) states that subsurface conditions must be monitored and evaluated 
against design assumptions. 
 10 CFR 63.132 (c) states that specific geotechnical and design parameters to be measured 
or observed, including any interactions between natural and engineered systems and 
components, must be identified in the performance confirmation plan. 
 10 CFR 63.132(d) states that the measurements and observations of geotechnical and 
design parameters must be compared with the original design bases and assumptions. If 
significant differences exist between the measurements and observations and the original 
design bases and assumptions, the need for modifications to the design or in construction 
methods must be determined and these differences, their significance to repository 
performance, and the recommended changes reported to the Commission. 
 10 CFR 63.132(e) states that in situ monitoring of the thermomechanical response of the 
underground facility must be conducted until permanent closure, to ensure that the 
performance of the geologic and engineering features is within design limits. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The foregoing requirements would include the monitoring of ground control performance 
parameters such as opening convergence, ground support and rock temperatures, and ground 
support loads. 
4.2.3.2 Regulatory Guide 1.28 (Rev. 3, 1985) 
All work associated with the acquisition of geotechnical parameters for repository design 
purposes will comply with the general guidance provided in this regulatory guide in regards to 
Quality Assurance Program requirements. 
4.2.3.3 Yucca Mountain Review Plan (Rev. 2) 
This NUREG-1804 establishes a format for the review of DOEs license application (NRC 
2003). Its objective is to ensure quality and uniformity of the individual NRC staff licensing 
reviews. It presents the areas of review, review methods, acceptance criteria, evaluation findings, 
and references that the staff will use for its review. Consequently, this document provides 
guidance in regards to what constitutes an acceptable technical content for a successful license 
application. This document supports determining compliance with specific regulatory 
requirements from 10 CFR Part 63, and with the final rules of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency applicable to Yucca Mountain. 
Specific items in NUREG-1804 that are directly relevant to subsurface geotechnical parameters 
are the following: 
Site Characterization 
1) Section 1.5.2  (Review Method 2) - The General Information Section of the license 
application will contain a summary of site characterization results. An acceptable summary of 
site characterization data should include an overview of geology and geotechnical properties and 
conditions consistent with other site characterization summaries. This overview should include: 
 A discussion of geology describing the principal rock units in the subsurface and a 
description and location of potentially important stratigraphic and structural features (such as 
faults, fractures, and joint sets and systems) involved in the operation and performance of the 
proposed repository; 
 A description of geotechnical properties of stratigraphic units involved in the operation and 
safety of the proposed repository; 
 A discussion of the results of site investigations necessary to characterize the engineering 
properties of the rock types present at the site, with particular emphasis on the host rock and 
its immediate environs necessary for the underground excavation of the geologic repository; 
 A discussion and description of other site characterization work conducted to define the 
relevant geotechnical properties and anticipated response/performance of both surface and 
subsurface facilities; and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2) Section 1.5.3  (Acceptance Criteria 1 and 2)  A sufficient description of site 
characterization should include: 
 An adequate overview of site characterization activities related to geology and geotechnical 
properties and conditions of the host rock; and 
 An adequate description of site characterization results providing a sufficient understanding 
of current features and processes present in the Yucca Mountain region. 
Preclosure Safety Analysis 
1) Section 2.1.1  The Safety Analysis Report Section of the license application will contain a 
Preclosure Safety Analysis. Preclosure safety analysis is a systematic examination of the 
site, the design, the potential hazards and initiating events and their consequences, and the 
potential dose consequences to workers and the public. As part of developing a risk-
informed, performance-based review plan for preclosure safety evaluation, preclosure safety 
analysis considers the probability of potential hazards, taking into account the range of 
uncertainty associated with the data that support the probability calculations. The adequacy 
of the site description will be assessed in the context of the information required to conduct 
the preclosure safety analysis and design the geologic repository. 
2) Section 2.1.1.1.2  (Review Method 5) - The preclosure safety analysis should include a 
description of geology and geoengineering properties that are relevant to the design of 
subsurface facilities. This description will be reviewed for: 
 An adequate discussion of site characterization data including geomechanical properties and 
conditions of host rock, based on in situ and laboratory test results for the rock formations, 
where major construction activities will take place; 
 Confirmation that the collection and processing of these data are based on accepted industry 
techniques and standards; and 
 Verification that rock mechanics testing data supports the license application analyses of the 
stability of subsurface materials. Evaluation of the sufficiency of data and appropriateness of 
design parameters will be conducted using the appropriate subsection of Section 2.1.1.7. 
3) Section 2.1.1.1.3  (Acceptance Criterion 5 and 8)  An adequate license application should 
provide: 
 Sufficient data on the geology of the site to support the preclosure safety analysis including 
the stratigraphy and lithology for the entire subsurface construction area; 
 Site characterization data that adequately includes rock mechanics properties based on in situ 
and laboratory test results for the rock formations where major construction activities will 
take place. Collection and processing of these data are based on accepted industry 
techniques; 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Rock mechanics testing data that adequately supports the license application analyses of the 
stability of subsurface materials; and 
 Adequate characterization of potential geochemical alterations to the rock fractures and the 
rock matrix, through heating or other processes that might significantly alter geomechanical 
rock mass properties. 
4) Section 2.1.1.5.1.2  (Review Method 2)  As part of the consequence analysis methodology 
resulting from hazards and initiating events, the LA will need to provide adequate technical 
bases (1) to support selection of input data and information consistent with site-specific data 
and (2) explaining how uncertainty in the input data is appropriately considered in the 
consequences analyses. 
5) Section 2.1.1.7.2.3.II  (Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria 1,4,5)  The geologic 
subsurface design and design analyses that are part of the Preclosure Safety Analysis will be 
reviewed to: 
 Confirm that the applicable design codes, standards, or other detailed criteria used for the 
design of the subsurface facility are specified. Codes and standards should be equivalent to, 
and consistent with, those accepted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for design 
of nuclear facilities with similar hazards and functions. If nonstandard approaches are used, 
confirm that the license application has provided adequate technical bases to justify why they 
are used; 
 Verify that the assumptions made for the data inputs to the design of the subsurface facility 
are technically defensible; 
 Verify that thermal analyses have an appropriate technical basis; use site-specific thermal 
property data; consider temperature dependency and uncertainties of thermal property data; 
 Ensure that uncertainties and spatial and temporal variation are considered in the descriptions 
of site-specific properties of the host rock; 
 Verify that the values for the rock-mass thermal expansion coefficient are consistent with 
properly interpreted site-specific data, and that such interpretation accounts for likely scale 
effects and temperature dependency. Verify that uncertainty in the thermal expansion 
coefficient has been adequately assessed; 
 Confirm that values for rock-mass elastic parameters (Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio) 
and strength parameters (friction angle and cohesion) are consistent with properly interpreted 
site-specific data. If the parameter values are obtained through empirical correlations with a 
rock quality index, verify that the empirical equations used are appropriate for the site, and 
are applied correctly. Confirm that the values of the index are consistent with site-specific 
data. If intact-rock-scale values are used, verify that the bases for application of the values to 
the rock-mass scale are adequate; 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Confirm that the interpretation of fracture modeling results adequately considers effects of 
the representation of the characteristics of the modeled fracture network, compared with 
those of the in situ fracture network; 
 Confirm that the selection of stiffness and strength parameters for rock blocks between any 
fractures that are explicitly represented in the model is appropriate and accounts for fractures 
that are not explicitly represented. 
 Verify that the values for fracture stiffness and strength parameters are consistent with 
properly interpreted site-specific data; 
 Verify that the bases for the magnitude and rate of mechanical degradation of the rock mass, 
fractures and ground support are appropriately established and technically defensible; and 
 Confirm that uncertainties in rock mass and fracture mechanical properties are adequately 
estimated, and considered in both continuum and discontinuum modeling. 
Repository Safety After Permanent Closure 
1) Section 2.2.1 The postclosure safety evaluation provides for a risk-informed, performance-
based review of the DOE performance assessment. The performance assessment is a 
systematic analysis to quantify repository performance with respect to risk information (i.e., 
the dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual). The potential for risk dilution  
the lowering of the risk, or dose, from an unsupported parameter range and distribution  will 
be examined. Parameter ranges and distributions will be evaluated to see whether they are 
technically defensible, whether they appropriately represent uncertainty, and the potential for 
risk dilution. 
The intentional use of conservatism to manage uncertainty is an approach that DOE may use 
to simplify its approaches and data collection needs. However, DOE must provide the 
technical basis that supports the conservative use of parameter ranges or distributions. DOE 
should be aware that approaches designed to overestimate a specific aspect of repository 
performance (e.g., higher temperatures within the drifts) may be conservative with respect to 
temperature but could lead to non-conservative results with respect to dose. An evaluation of 
the adequacy of technical bases supporting models and parameter ranges or distributions will 
consider whether a given DOE approach results in calculated doses that would overestimate, 
rather than underestimate, the dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual. This 
review will evaluate assertions that a given model or parameter distribution is conservative 
from the perspective of overall system performance (dose). 
2) Section 2.2.1.3.1.1  (Areas of Review for the Degradation of Engineered Barriers)  The 
degradation of the underground openings (drifts) where waste packages will be stored has the 
potential to affect drip shield integrity, waste package integrity, and thermal-hydrologic 
environments within drifts. The following aspects of geological data and geotechnical 
parameters will be reviewed for their role in the degradation of engineered barriers: 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Sufficiency of the data and parameters used to justify the total system performance 
assessment (TSPA) model abstraction; and 
 Methods the DOE uses to characterize data uncertainty, and propagate the effects of this 
uncertainty through the TSPA model abstraction. 
3) Section 2.2.1.3.1.2  (Review Methods 2 and 3)  For justification of data sufficiency and 
data uncertainty involving the degradation of engineered barriers, the following aspects will 
be reviewed: 
 Evaluate the sufficiency of the experimental and site characterization data used to support 
parameters used in conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual 
models, considered in the TSPA abstraction of degradation of engineered barriers; 
 Verify whether sufficient data have been collected to adequately model degradation 
processes. For example, mechanical property data should cover the range of anticipated 
temperatures and microstructural conditions; 
 Evaluate and confirm that data used to support the DOE TSPA are based on appropriate 
techniques, and are adequate for the accompanying sensitivity/uncertainty analyses. Evaluate 
the need for additional data, based on the sensitivity analyses; 
 Evaluate the technical bases of the uncertainty of the data for parameter values, assumed 
ranges, probability distributions, and bounding values used in modeling. Verify that the 
technical bases support the treatment of uncertainty and variability of these parameters in the 
performance assessment. If conservative values are used as a method for addressing 
uncertainty and variability, verify that the conservative values result in conservative 
estimates of risk and do not cause unintended results; 
 Verify that appropriate statistical correlations between parameters are established. Verify that 
an adequate technical basis or bounding argument is provided for neglected correlations; and 
 Evaluate the methods used in conducting expert elicitation to define parameter values. 
4) Sections 2.2.1.3.2 and 2.2.1.3.2.1  (Areas of Review for the Mechanical Disruption of 
Engineered Barriers)  As a result of loading and/or degradation of rock properties, a man-
made or natural rockfall could cause a mechanical disruption of a waste package, which is 
defined as a partial or total mechanical failure of the waste package. For example, a rock fall 
may cause a container to rupture or may cause a dent in its structure, which could lead to an 
accelerated rate of corrosion and failure sooner than under normal conditions. The following 
aspects of geological data and geotechnical parameters will be reviewed for their role in the 
mechanical disruption of engineered barriers: 
 Sufficiency of the data and parameters used to justify the TSPA model abstraction; and 
 Methods the DOE uses to characterize data uncertainty, and propagate the effects of this 
uncertainty through the TSPA. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5) Section 2.2.1.3.2.2  (Review Methods 2 and 3)  For justification of data and data 
uncertainty involving the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, the following aspects 
will be reviewed: 
 Evaluate the sufficiency of the geological and engineering data used to support parameters 
for mechanical disruption modeling of engineered barriers. Evaluate the basis for the data on 
physical phenomena, couplings, geology, and engineering used in the abstraction of 
mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. This basis may include a combination of 
techniques, such as laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analog 
research, process-level modeling studies, and expert elicitation; 
 Verify that sufficient data have been collected to adequately characterize the geology of the 
natural system related to the abstraction modeling of mechanical disruption of engineered 
barriers; 
 Evaluate and confirm that data used to support the DOE abstraction of mechanical disruption 
of engineered barriers are based on appropriate techniques, and are adequate for the 
accompanying sensitivity/uncertainty analyses. Evaluate the need for additional data based 
on sensitivity analyses; 
 Evaluate the technical bases of the uncertainty of the data for parameter values, assumed 
ranges, probability distributions, and bounding values, used in conceptual and process-level 
models that pertain to the abstraction of the mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. 
Verify that the technical bases support the treatment of uncertainty and variability of these 
parameters in the performance assessment. If conservative values are used as a method for 
addressing uncertainty and variability, verify that the conservative values result in 
conservative estimates of risk and do not cause unintended results; 
 Verify that the parameter values are adequately constrained by Yucca Mountain site data, 
such that the effects of mechanically disruptive events on engineered barrier integrity are not 
underestimated; 
 Verify that appropriate statistical correlations between parameters are established. Verify that 
an adequate technical basis or bounding argument is provided for neglected correlations; and 
 Evaluate the methods used by the DOE in conducting expert elicitation to define parameter 
values. 
6) Section 2.2.1.3.2.3  (Acceptance Criteria 2 and 3)  Requirements relating to the 
mechanical disruption of engineered barriers model abstraction are to: 
 Ensure that the geological and engineering values, used in the license application to evaluate 
mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, are adequately justified. The review should 
consider whether adequate descriptions are provided of how the data were used, interpreted, 
and appropriately synthesized into the parameters. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Ensure that sufficient data have been collected on the geology of the natural system to 
establish initial and boundary conditions for the TSPA abstraction of mechanical disruption 
of engineered barriers; 
 Ensure that the data obtained on the geology of the natural system, used in the TSPA 
abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers, are based on appropriate 
techniques. These techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-specific field 
measurements, natural analog research, and process-level modeling studies; 
 As appropriate, ensure sensitivity or uncertainty analyses used to support the DOE TSPA 
abstraction are adequate to determine the possible need for additional data; 
 Ensure that models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and 
bounding assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties 
and variabilities, and do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate; 
 Ensure that uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development used for the 
abstraction of mechanical disruption of engineered barriers. This may be done either through 
sensitivity analyses or use of conservative limits; and 
 Where sufficient data do not exist, the definition of parameter values and conceptual models 
is based on appropriate use of expert elicitation, conducted in accordance with NUREG1563. 
If other approaches are used, the DOE must ensure their use is adequately justified. 
Performance Confirmation Program 
1) Section 2.4.1  (Areas of Review) - The Performance Confirmation (PC) plan establishes a 
program for measuring, testing, geologic mapping, and analyses to confirm geotechnical and 
design parameters, and otherwise evaluate the adequacy of the information used to 
demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives in Subpart E (refer to 10 CFR 
63.2). The need for a PC program is unique to high-level radioactive waste disposal and 
reflects the uncertainties in estimating geologic repository performance over thousands of 
years. The general requirements at 10 CFR 63.131 focus on subsurface conditions, as well as 
the natural and engineered systems and components required for repository operation andthat 
are designed or assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure. The review and 
acceptance criteria related to performance confirmation are performance-based, but also risk-
informed when PC focuses on those parameters and natural and engineered barriers 
important to waste isolation. 
The U.S. Department of Energy will implement the program during repository construction 
and operation. At permanent closure, 10 CFR 63.51(a)(1) requires the DOE to present an 
update of the postclosure performance assessment, including any PC data collected and 
relevant to postclosure performance. The following aspects of the performance confirmation 
program relating to subsurface rock behavior and parameter data need to be addressed: 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 General requirements of the PC program, including objectives of acquiring data by identified 
in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, and in situ experiments; overall schedule; and 
plans to implement the PC program; and 
 Confirmation of geotechnical and design parameters, including the plans for measuring, 
testing, and geologic mapping; monitoring, in situ, the thermomechanical response of the 
underground facility until permanent closure to ensure the performance of the geologic and 
engineering features is within design limits; and surveillance to evaluate subsurface 
conditions against design assumptions. 
2) Section 2.4.2  (Review Method 1)  Compliance with the general requirements for the 
performance confirmation program requires that the performance confirmation plan: 
 Identifies specific geotechnical and design parameters, pertaining to natural systems and 
components that are assumed to operate as barriers after permanent closure, that DOE has 
selected to measure or observe, including the method used to select the parameters. 
 Includes specific in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing and in situ experiments to 
acquire the needed data. 
 Specifies which in situ monitoring, laboratory and field testing, or in situ experimental 
methods DOE will apply to: (i) geotechnical and design parameters, including natural 
processes, (ii) engineered systems and components, and (iii) interactions between natural and 
engineered systems and components; 
 Contains sufficient baseline information to implement the PC program. Includes the 
expected changes (that is, design bases and assumptions) from the baseline for the selected 
geotechnical and design parameters, including natural processes, that will result from 
construction and waste emplacement operations; 
 Includes a schedule for planned activities and assess that the schedule is sufficient to meet 
the general requirements for the PC program. 
3) Section 2.4.2  (Review Method 2) - Criteria that demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements of the performance confirmation program to (1) perform measuring, testing, 
and geologic mapping to confirm geotechnical and design parameters during repository 
construction and operation, including natural processes and (2) to monitor, in situ, the 
thermomechanical response of the underground facility until permanent closure are based on: 
 Evaluation that adequate DOE methods were used to select the geotechnical and design 
parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters to monitor and analyze; 
 Verification that the DOE list of selected geotechnical and design parameters and in situ 
thermomechanical response parameters is reasonable and complete; 
 Evaluation of the adequacy of the DOE method used to establish the baseline of the selected 
geotechnical and design parameters and in situ thermomechanical response parameters; 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Verification that the baseline of the selected geotechnical and design parameters and in situ 
thermomechanical response parameters are reasonable, and that estimates of expected 
changes from baseline are reasonable; 
 Verification that the monitoring, testing, or experimental methods are suitable for each 
geotechnical or design parameter or in situ thermomechanical response parameter that will be 
monitored and analyzed. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 4-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5. GEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 
5.1 INTRODUCTION 
An understanding of the regional geologic setting and the local geology of the Yucca Mountain 
area is necessary to fully understand the development of the different geotechnical properties 
exhibited by the various tuffaceous rock units comprising Yucca Mountain. This section of the 
report presents an overview of the regional geologic framework and local geology of Yucca 
Mountain, as well as some terminology definitions of observed lithostratgraphic features. 
5.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN 
The geologic framework of the Yucca Mountain region is described in detail in Section 4 of the 
Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and some salient aspects are 
summarized here (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.10). 
The Yucca Mountain region lies in the north-central part of the Basin and Range physiographic 
province, within the northernmost subprovince commonly referred to as the Great Basin that 
encompasses nearly all of Nevada, as well as adjacent parts of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and 
California. The mountain ranges of the Great Basin, including Yucca Mountain, are mostly 
tilted fault-bounded blocks that may extend for more than 80 km in length, and are generally 8 to 
24 km wide. Relief between valley floors and mountain ridges is typically 300 to 1,500 m, and 
valleys occupy approximately 50 to 60 percent of the total land area. 
The current geologic setting of Yucca Mountain results from extensional tectonism and 
volcanism active during the middle and late Cenozoic Era, which is fundamentally controlled by 
plate tectonic interactions at the western margin of the North American continent. Past explosive 
volcanism resulted in the formation of six major calderas in the vicinity of Timber Mountain 
north of Yucca Mountain between about 15 to 7.5 Ma years ago, which were the sources of the 
silicic volcanic rock materials comprising Yucca Mountain. These silicic Mid-Tertiary volcanic 
rocks, consisting mostly of variably welded pyroclastic-flow and fallout tephra deposits with 
minor lava flows and reworked materials, dominate the exposed stratigraphic sequence at Yucca 
Mountain. The central portion of Yucca Mountain is essentially a dip slope formed by rocks of 
the Paintbrush Group dipping gently to the east, generally less than 10 degrees. The potential 
repository horizon, and the access to it, is located entirely within the Paintbrush Group, which 
consists of four formations. In descending order, the formations are the Tiva Canyon, Yucca 
Mountain, Pah Canyon, and Topopah Spring Tuffs. Each of these formations is composed 
primarily of pyroclastic-flow deposits (also referred to as ash flows or ignimbrites) that are 
interstratified with small-volume pyroclastic flow and fallout tephra deposits, and locally, lava 
flows and secondary volcaniclastic deposits from eolian and fluvial processes. The lowermost 
formation is the Topopah Spring Tuff, which forms the host rock for the radioactive waste 
repository, and therefore is one of the most intensely studied formations at Yucca Mountain. 
Underlying the Topopah Spring Tuff is the Calico Hills Formation, which consists of a complex 
series of rhyolitic tuffs and lavas that resulted from an episode of volcanism approximately 12.9 
Ma years ago. The Calico Hills Formation overlies older Tertiary volcanic rocks of similar 
composition that comprise the Crater Flat Group. In turn, the Crater Flat Group overlies pre-
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tertiary basement rocks, which consist mostly of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that range from 
approximately 225 to 570 million years in age. 
Overlying the youngest Tiva Canyon Tuff of the Paintbrush Group at Yucca Mountain are 
unconsolidated surficial Quaternary deposits. These deposits consist mainly of valley-fill 
alluvium, but also include veneers of hillslope colluvium and localized eolian deposits. Most 
unconsolidated deposits exposed at the surface at Yucca Mountain were deposited during the last 
100,000 years. 
The fundamental elements of the structural geology of Yucca Mountain are the spatial and 
temporal patterns of faulting and fracturing of the volcanic bedrock. The structural geology of 
Yucca Mountain is controlled by block-bounding normal faults spaced 1 to 4 km apart. In the 
site area, these north-striking faults include (from west to east) the Windy Wash, Fatigue Wash, 
Solitario Canyon, Bow Ridge, and Paintbrush Canyon faults. The Dune Wash and Midway 
Valley faults are also block-bounding faults, but differ from the other block-bounding faults in 
that they have no evidence of Pleistocene movement. The block-bounding faults commonly dip 
50o to 80o to the west. A subordinate component of left-lateral displacement is commonly 
associated with these block-bounding normal faults, as determined from slickenside orientations. 
The orientation, amount of offset, and nature of the associated deformation varies from north to 
south (and to some degree from west to east) within the site area. Displacement is transferred 
between block-bounding faults along relay faults, which intersect block-bounding faults at 
oblique angles, providing an intrablock kinematic link between the bounding structures. As 
such, the relay faults are significant components of the block-bounding fault systems, 
particularly, but not exclusively, in the southern half of Yucca Mountain. Within structural 
blocks, small amounts of strain are accommodated along intrablock faults. In many cases, 
intrablock faults appear to represent local structural adjustments in response to displacements on 
the block-bounding faults. 
Fracture data at Yucca Mountain are used in hydrologic flow modeling, to characterize the 
fracture networks for evaluating the mechanical stability of the repository, and to better 
understand the paleostress history of Yucca Mountain. Fractures are generally of three types: 
early cooling joints, later tectonic joints, and late joints caused by erosional unloading. Cooling 
and tectonic joints have similar orientations, but can be distinguished because cooling joints are 
smoother. These joints form two orthogonal sets of steeply dipping fractures, as well as a 
subhorizontal set of fractures. The parameters of fracture intensity and connectivity have the 
strongest influence on groundwater flow within the volcanic rocks. Values for these variables 
are greatest in the densely welded tuffs, least in the nonwelded units, and intermediate in the 
lithophysal zones. 
The southern Great Basin is a favorable geologic province for several types of economic 
deposits. Consequently, the potential for economic resources in the Yucca Mountain area at 
present, or in the foreseeable future, has been evaluated. Based on this evaluation, the potential 
for industrial minerals and rocks, as well as for energy resources including geothermal resources, 
is low for the Yucca Mountain area. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5.3 LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN 
The lithostratigraphy of the Yucca Mountain site is described in detail in Section 4.5 of the 
Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and some major aspects are 
summarized here. References for specific aspects of this description are cited in the Yucca 
Mountain Site Description. 
5.3.1 General Characteristics 
The Tertiary volcanic rocks comprising Yucca Mountain have been differentiated into 
lithostratigraphic units based on three principal criteria: 1) Lithology and rock properties, 2) 
Mineralogy, and 3) Geophysical log characteristics. Based on these criteria, the rocks have been 
divided into progressively thinner units ranging from Groups, to Formations, Members, Zones, 
Subzones, and Intervals. Identification of lithostratigraphic units is based on changes in 
depositional features, development of zones of welding and devitrification, and, in some rocks, 
the development of vapor-phase and fumarolic alteration products, such as the formation of clay 
and zeolite minerals. Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 illustrate the lithostratigraphic sequence 
comprising Yucca Mountain. These lithostratigraphic units have been defined on the basis of the 
foregoing criteria. Also shown on Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 are the correlations of the 
lithostratigraphic units with defined thermo/mechanical units based on the thermal and 
mechanical properties of the rocks, as well as defined hydrogeologic units based on the 
hydrologic or groundwater-transmitting properties of the rock units. The sources of these three 
systems of stratigraphic nomenclature are footnoted on Table 5-1. (CRWMS M&O 2000, 
Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.3) 
The distribution of rock physical properties, such as bulk density, porosity, and pore size, are 
controlled largely by variations in grain size and sorting, the abundance of volcanic glass, degree 
of welding, types and abundance of crystallization, amount and type of alteration to clay or 
zeolite, lithophysal content, and fracture characteristics. High-silica rhyolite and quartz latite 
tuffs are the two most common compositions of the rocks at Yucca Mountain. The matrix 
density of high-silica rhyolite and quartz latite is typically 2.35 and 2.40 g/cm3, respectively. 
The degree of welding in these rocks ranges from nonwelded to densely welded rock. Most 
rocks at Yucca Mountain contain some phenocrysts and lithic clasts, and most have devitrified 
during cooling or exhibit some alteration to clay or zeolite minerals. Lithophysae resulting from 
escaping gases during cooling are found in rocks that are densely welded, and infrequently in 
rocks that are moderately welded. Lithophysae consist of a cavity, which is commonly coated 
with vapor-phase minerals on the inner wall. This is surrounded by a fine-grained zone, which, 
in turn, is surrounded by a thin, very fine-grained border. The lithophysae range in size from 
about 1 cm to as much as 1 m in diameter, and range in shape from nearly spherical to extremely 
oblate. Associated with the lithophysae are light gray to grayish-orange pink spots 1 to 5 cm in 
diameter. Some spots may represent the cross sections of rims on lithophysae, whereas others 
have a crystal or lithic clast in the core that could have acted as a nucleation site. Lithophysae 
commonly occur in concentrated zones; specific zones are distinguishable on the basis of a 
combination of lithophysae, spots, and fracture characteristics. Lithophysal zones have fewer 
fractures compared to nonlithophysal zones, and the fractures are typically irregular in profile 
and have rough surfaces with few high-angle, planar, and smooth fractures. (CRWMS M&O 
2000, Section 4.5.3.1) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In addition to the stratigraphic variations of the physical rock properties discussed above, the 
volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain show variations in mineralogy resulting from crystallization 
and alteration that also contribute to the identification of individual lithostratigraphic units. 
High-temperature devitrification forms rocks composed mostly of feldspar and silica minerals 
(quartz, cristobalite, or tridymite) with a variety of minor amounts of other minerals, which 
texturally form the groundmass that has crystallized within the glass particles. Grain sizes and 
shapes are typically small (less than 1 mm), intricately intergrown, and referred to as 
microgranophyric. As the temperature cools, vapor-phase mineralization occurs and precipitates 
minerals such as tridymite or cristobalite, sanidine, and minor amounts of other minerals. 
Vapor-phase mineralization also reduces pore-size geometry and distribution. In the unsaturated 
zone of Yucca Mountain, the dominant low-temperature alteration products are clay and zeolite 
minerals (smectite, clinoptilolite, and mordenite). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.2) 
The volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain also show stratigraphic variations in their chemical and 
isotopic compositions. Such variations between different ignimbrite sheets are the result of 
igneous differentiation and assimilation processes within the magma chamber. Compositionally, 
the most important chemical constituents of both vitric and devitrified tuffs are SiO2 and Al2O3. 
The relative abundances of these two constituents in unaltered representatives of the major rock 
types at Yucca Mountain are the following: high-silica rhyolites (more than 75 percent SiO2), 
low silica rhyolites (72 to 75 percent SiO2), and quartz-latitic rocks (less than 75 percent SiO2). 
In the Yucca Mountain lithostratigraphic sequence, the Calico Hills Formation, Yucca Mountain 
Tuff, and crystal-poor members of the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs are predominantly 
high-silica rhyolites. The Pah Canyon tuffs consist mainly of low silica rhyolites, and the 
crystal-rich members of the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs are largely quartz latites. 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.3) 
The lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain also illustrates some systematic variations in 
the distribution and concentrations of rare earth and trace elements with stratigraphic position. 
Variations in these elements, reflecting differences in magma sources and differentiation 
histories, are useful for stratigraphic correlation and for the identification of altered zones. Some 
isotopic ratios, such as Sr isotopes, also illustrate stratigraphic variations that are useful for 
inferring the history of rock alteration and fluid migration within the lithostratigraphic units. 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.3.3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 5-1. Comparison of Several Stratigraphic Subdivisions of Mid-Tertiary Volcanic Rocks at Yucca 
Mountain. 
Thermal-Mechanical 
Hydrogeologic 
Lithostratigraphic Unitsa,e,f,g 
Unitsa,b 
Unitsc 
Timber Mountain 
Rainier Mesa member (Tmr) 
Group (Tm) 
Pre-Rainier Mesa bedded tuff (Tmbt1) 
PAINTBRUSH GROUP (Tp) 
Undifferentiated 
Unconsolidated Surficial 
rhyolite of Comb Peak (Tpk); includes the 
overburden (UO) 
Materials (UO) 
pyroclastic flow deposit (TpKi) that is 
informally referred to as tuff unit X (Tpki) 
Post-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt5)
crystal-rich member (Tpcr) 
vitric zone (Tpcrv) 
-nonwelded subzone (Tpcrv3) 
-moderately welded subzone (Tpcrv2) 
-densely welded subzone (Tpcrv1)
Tiva Canyon welded 
Tiva Canyon welded 
nonlithophysal zone (Tpcrn)
(TCw)d 
(TCw)d 
lithophysal zone (Tpcrl) 
crystal-poor member (Tpcp) 
upper lithophysal zone (Tpcpul)
Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) 
middle nonlithophysal zone (Tpcpmn)
lower lithophysal zone (Tpcpll)
lower nonlithophysal zone (Tpcpln)
-hackly subzone (Tpcplnh)
-columnar subzone (Tpcplnc) 
vitric zone (Tpcpv) 
-densely welded subzone (Tpcpv3) 
-moderately welded subzone (Tpcpv2) 
Paintbrush nonwelded 
Paintbrush nonwelded 
-nonwelded subzone (Tpcpv1) 
(PTn) 
(PTn) 
pre-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt4) 
Yucca Mountain 
Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) 
Tuff (Tpy) 
pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff (Tpbt3) 
Pah Canyon 
Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) 
Tuff (Tpp) 
pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff (Tpbt2) 
Topopah Spring 
crystal-rich member (Tptr) 
Tuff (Tpt) 
-vitric zone (Tptrv)
-nonwelded subzone (Tptrv3)
-moderately welded subzone (Tptrv2)
-densely welded subzone (Tptrv1)
Topopah Spring welded. 
Topopah Spring welded 
nonlithophysal zone (Tptrn)
Lithophysae-rich (TSw1) 
(TSw) 
lithophysal zone (Tptrl) 
crystal-poor member (Tptp) 
upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) [upper part] 
REPOSITORY 
upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) [lower part]
HOST
middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) 
Topopah Spring welded. 
HORIZONe 
lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) 
Lithophysae-poor (TSw2) 
lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) 
vitric zone (Tptpv) 
Topopah Spring welded 
Topopah Spring basal 
-densely welded subzone (Tptpv3) 
vitrophyre (TSw3) 
vitrophyre (TSbv) 
-moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2) 
-nonwelded subzone (Tptpv1) 
pre-Topopah Spring bedded tuff (Tpbt1) 
Calico Hills (Tac) 
Calico Hills Formation (Tac) 
Calico Hills 
Calico Hills 
pre-Calico Hills bedded tuff (Tacbt) 
Nonwelded (CHn) 
Nonwelded (CHn) 
Source: Modified from CRWMS M&O (2000, Table 4.7-1) 
NOTES: abBuesch et al. (1996b, Table 4).
Ortiz et al. (1985, Table 1) 
cdArnold et al. (1995, Table 2-1)
Where preserved, the base of the crystal-poor densely welded subzone (Tpcpv3) forms the base of the
TCw thermal-mechanical and hydrogeologic units (Buesch et al. 1996b, Table 4)
efMoyer et al. (1995)
CRWMS M&O (SGR 1997d, Table 3-1)
gGeslin et al. (1995, Table 2) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: CRWMS M&O 1997b, Figure 5 
Figure 5-1. General Stratigraphic Column for Yucca Mountain 
NOTES: The detailed lithostratigraphic and thermal/ mechanical nomenclature are shown for the Topopah Spring 
Tuff, including lithostratigraphic positions of the Repository Host Horizon, the ESF main drift, and the 
repository 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5.3.2 Description of Lithostratigraphic Units 
The following descriptions pertain to the lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain, which 
is presented in Table 5-1 and illustrated in Figure 5-1. The individual units range in age from the 
oldest Calico Hills Formation (approximately 12.9 Ma years) at the base of the sequence, to the 
youngest Timber Mountain Group (approximately 11.5 Ma years) at the top of the sequence. 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Sections 4.5.4.6 and 4.5.4.9) 
5.3.2.1 Calico Hills Formation 
The Calico Hills Formation (Tac), which underlies the Paintbrush Group, is a complex series of 
rhyolite tuffs and lavas. Five pyroclastic units, overlying a bedded tuff unit and a locally 
occurring basal sandstone unit, have been distinguished in the Yucca Mountain area. The 
formation thins southward across the potential repository site area, from composite thicknesses 
of as much as 460 m (1,500 ft) to only about 15 m (50 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 
4.5.4.6) 
The basal volcaniclastic sandstone unit of the Calico Hills Formation is interbedded with rare 
reworked pyroclastic flow deposits; thicknesses of the unit range from 0 to 5.5 m. The overlying 
bedded tuff (unit Tacbt), 9 to 39 m thick, is composed primarily of pyroclastic fall deposits with 
subordinate, primary, and reworked pyroclastic-flow deposits. Each of the five pyroclastic units 
forming the bulk of the Calico Hills Formation (units Tac1 to Tac5) consists of one or more 
pyroclastic flow deposits with similar macroscopic characteristics. The flow deposits are 
separated by locally preserved fall horizons; these pumice-fall and lithic-fall deposits are 
grouped arbitrarily with the superjacent pyroclastic unit. Ash falls and ash flows beneath the 
potential repository block give way to lava flows to the north and east. (CRWMS M&O 2000, 
Section 4.5.4.6) 
There is an abundance of authigenic zeolites in all units of the Calico Hills Formation, except in 
the southwest part of the central block of Yucca Mountain, where the entire formation is vitric. 
As a result of its zeolitic content, the sorption capabilities of the Calico Hills Formation and the 
underlying bedded tuffs comprise one of the most potentially significant barriers to waste 
migration at Yucca Mountain. Despite its great heterogeneity, the Calico Hills Formation has a 
consistently high matrix porosity (average 28 to 35 percent) and poor fracture development, 
resulting in an important role for matrix flow and interaction. Other properties, particularly 
permeability, are extremely variable and strongly dependent on mineralogy; permeability drops 
by about two orders of magnitude, and sorption by cation exchange rises by up to five orders of 
magnitude, in the transition from vitric to zeolitic character within the formation. (CRWMS 
M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.6) 
The Calico Hills Formation is overlain by a bedded tuff unit (Tpbt1) that occurs at the base of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff of the Paintbrush Group. The unit can also be distinguished from the 
Topopah Spring Tuff by differences in mineralogy and chemical composition. (CRWMS M&O 
2000, Section 4.5.4.6) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5.3.2.2 Paintbrush Group 
The Paintbrush Group (Tp) consists of four formations. In ascending order, the formations 
include the Topopah Spring (Tpt), Pah Canyon (Tpp), Yucca Mountain (Tpy), and Tiva Canyon 
(Tpc) tuffs. This group is one of the most widespread and voluminous caldera-related 
assemblages in the southwestern Nevada volcanic field. The Paintbrush Group is dominated by 
the Topopah Spring and Tiva Canyon tuffs. The Yucca Mountain and Pah Canyon tuffs are 
volumetrically minor, but are of potential hydrologic importance because of their high matrix 
porosity compared to the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs, which are largely densely 
welded with low matrix porosity. The welded tuffs also have higher fracture abundances and 
connectivities, providing stratified contrasts in unsaturated hydrologic properties in the 
Paintbrush Group rocks above the potential repository. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7) 
Topopah Spring Tuff -The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) includes the host rock units for the 
potential repository, and as such, its characteristics are of direct importance to repository design, 
unsaturated zone hydrologic flow and radionuclide transport, and total system performance 
assessment. Consequently, it is probably the most extensively characterized unit of the 
lithostratigraphic sequence at Yucca Mountain, and is described in more detail in Section 5.3.3. 
In the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, the Topopah Spring Tuff has a maximum thickness of about 
380 m (1,250 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.1) 
Pah Canyon Tuff -The Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) is composed of multiple flow units. The 
formation reaches its maximum thickness of about 70 m (225 ft) in the northern part of Yucca 
Mountain, and thins southward to zero. The Pah Canyon Tuff is rhyolitic and varies from 
nonwelded to moderately welded. Throughout much of the area, vitric pumice clasts are 
preserved in a nondeformed matrix that was sintered or lithified by vapor-phase mineralization. 
Large pumice clasts contain distinctive clusters of phenocrysts. Phenocrysts in the matrix and in 
most pumice clasts comprise 5 to 10 percent of the rock, with a high ratio of feldspars to mafic 
(biotite and clinopyroxene) phenocrysts. Lithic clasts (up to 5 percent of the rock) of devitrified 
rhyolite are common, and clasts of porphyritic obsidian occur in some horizons. Shards occur 
either as poorly preserved clear glass or as devitrified material. The Pah Canyon Tuff typically 
alters to smectite. A bedded tuff unit (Tpbt3) intervenes between the Pah Canyon Tuff and the 
overlying Yucca Mountain Tuff where these two formations are present in the Yucca Mountain 
area. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.2) 
Yucca Mountain Tuff -The Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) is a high-silica rhyolite cooling unit 
that varies in thickness from 0 to 45 m (0 to 150 ft), thickening toward the northern and western 
parts of Yucca Mountain. It is typically nonwelded and vitric, but becomes increasingly more 
welded and more devitrified in the thicker areas. The formation is nonlithophysal throughout 
Yucca Mountain, but it contains lithophysae where it is densely welded in northern Crater Flat. 
Although the formation is rhyolitic, it contains both plagioclase and sanidine phenocrysts. A 
bedded tuff sequence (unit Tpbt4) overlies the Yucca Mountain Tuff. Thin beds of pyroclastic 
fallout tephra deposits interbedded with thin, oxidized, weathered zones characterize this 
sequence. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tiva Canyon Tuff -The Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) is a large-volume, regionally extensive tuff 
sequence that forms most of the rocks exposed at the surface of Yucca Mountain. The unit is 
compositionally zoned, ranging from a high-quartz rhyolitic glass at its base upward to a quartz 
latite. The thicknesses of the formation penetrated in boreholes or observed in outcrops range 
from less than 50 m to as much as 175 m (165 to 575 ft). The formation is divided into a lower 
crystal-poor member (Tpcp) and an upper crystal-rich member (Tpcr), and into zones within 
each of these two members. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) 
The lower rhyolitic crystal-poor member (unit Tpcp) is divided into five zones: vitric (unit 
Tpcpv), lower nonlithophysal (unit Tpcpln), lower lithophysal (unit Tpcpll), middle 
nonlithophysal (unit Tpcpmn), and upper lithophysal (unit Tpcpul). Division into subzones is 
based on vitric versus devitrified rocks, degree of welding, differences in pumice clasts, presence 
or absence of lithophysae, and fracture morphology. The crystal-poor member and overlying 
crystal-rich member are separated by a thin transitional subzone in which there is an upward 
increase in crystal content and an increase in the ratio of mafic to felsic phenocrysts. (CRWMS 
M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) 
The upper quartz-latitic crystal-rich member (unit Tpcr) is divided into three zones. It consists 
primarily of a devitrified, nonlithophysal zone (Tpcrn), which is locally underlain by a 
lithophysal zone (Tpcrl), and is capped by a thin (less than 1 m) vitric zone (Tpcrv) that is only 
locally preserved and typically has been eroded from most of Yucca Mountain. (CRWMS M&O 
2000, Section 4.5.4.7.4) 
5.3.2.3 Post Tiva Canyon Units 
A sequence of pyroclastic flow and fallout tephra deposits occurs between the top of the Tiva 
Canyon Tuff and the base of the Rainier Mesa Tuff of the Timber Mountain Group in the 
vicinity of Yucca Mountain (units Tpbt5, Tpk, and Tmbt1). Rocks in this stratigraphic position 
occur in the subsurface beneath alluvial deposits in Midway Valley, on the east flank of Yucca 
Mountain. The sequence ranges in thickness from 0 to 61 m (0 to 200 ft) and is intermediate in 
composition between the Tiva Canyon and Rainier Mesa tuffs. (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 
4.5.4.8) 
The overlying Timber Mountain Group (Tm) includes all of the quartz-bearing pyroclastic flow 
and fallout tephra deposits that were erupted from the Timber Mountain caldera complex about 
11.5 Ma. The oldest unit of the Timber Mountain Group is the Rainier Mesa Tuff (Tmr). This 
unit is a compositionally zoned compound-cooling unit consisting of high-silica rhyolite tuff 
overlain with a partial cooling break by a considerably thinner quartz latite tuff that is restricted 
to the vicinity of the Timber Mountain caldera. The unit does not occur across much of Yucca 
Mountain, but is locally present on the downthrown blocks of large faults in valleys on either 
side of the mountain. In localities near Yucca Mountain, a maximum thickness of 240 m (787 ft) 
for the Rainier Mesa Tuff was observed in the southwestern part of Crater Flat. Thicknesses 
reported from studies of boreholes on the east side of Yucca Mountain are generally less than 30 
m (100 ft). (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.9) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5.3.3 Topopah Spring Tuff Characteristics 
The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) encompasses the host rock units for the repository, and its 
characteristics have been studied in detail. A detailed description of this formation is presented 
in Buesch et al. (1996b) and in the Yucca Mountain Site Description (CRWMS M&O 2000), and 
its major features are summarized here (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.5.4.7.1). 
5.3.3.1 General Description 
The Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) is divided into a lower crystal-poor member (Tptp) and an upper 
crystal-rich member (Tptr) as illustrated in Figure 5-2. Each member is divided into numerous 
zones, subzones, and intervals based on variations in depositional features, such as crystal 
content and assemblage, lithophysal content, size and abundance of pumice and lithic clasts, 
distribution of welding and crystallization zones, and fracture characteristics. 
The Topopah Spring Tuff is compositionally zoned, with an upward change from high-silica 
rhyolite in the crystal-poor member to quartz latite in the crystal-rich member; these two 
members are also clearly distinguishable on the basis of mineralogy and trace element 
concentrations. The lower crystal-poor member (Tptp) of the Topopah Spring Tuff, which 
encompasses the potential repository horizon, is one of the most chemically homogeneous rock 
types in the region. The homogeneity of the major-element chemistry within the high-silica 
rhyolite also extends to trace elements. Somewhat greater chemical variability is seen in the 
quartz latites. These characteristic chemical differences result in variable devitrification, vapor-
phase, and low-temperature alteration minerals that account for differences in rock texture and 
mineralogy between the rhyolitic and quartz-latitic rocks. 
The crystal-poor member (unit Tptp), which is characterized by less than 3 percent felsic 
phenocrysts, is divided into vitric rocks of the vitric zone near the base (unit Tptpv) and 
devitrified rocks of the upper lithophysal (unit Tptpul), middle nonlithophysal (unit Tptpmn), 
lower lithophysal (unit Tptpll), and lower nonlithophysal (unit Tptpln) zones; the latter four 
zones form the host rock for the potential repository. The vitric zone (Tptpv) is divided into 
three subsystems primarily on the basis of degrees of welding, which range upward from a 
nonwelded subzone (Tptpv1) at the base, that includes partially welded rocks near the top, 
through a moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2), to a densely welded subzone (Tptpv3) that caps 
the sequence. The vitric, densely welded subzone (Tptpv3), commonly referred to as the 
vitrophyre, is also identified as an important thermal-mechanical unit (unit TSw3). 
Within the repository host rock units (i.e., the devitrified, rhyolitic portion of the Topopah Spring 
Tuff), phenocrysts are minor constituents (less than 5 percent) of the rock, with the remaining 
more than 95 percent consisting of fine-grained devitrification minerals. These devitrification 
products are principally feldspars plus a variable combination of the silica polymorphs tridymite, 
cristobalite, and quartz. The silica polymorph distributions are particularly important because of 
their thermal stability, dissolution properties, and properties as inhalation hazards. 
A transitional zone, commonly referred to as the vitric-zeolitic transition, extends downward 
from the base of the lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) into the crystal-poor vitric zone (Tptpv) 
through a stratigraphic interval ranging from about 3 to 30 m in thickness. This zone is 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
composed of partly devitrified vitrophyre, in which devitrification is sporadic and localized 
around fractures. The most common alteration features within this zone are fractures with 
devitrified borders of alkali feldspar and cristobalite up to 0.3 m thick. Some of the devitrified 
borders are downward extensions from the overlying, completely devitrified tuff. The outermost 
margins of devitrified fracture borders contain zeolites, smectite, and minor silica. Quartz, 
chalcedony, and opal are locally abundant as fracture and void fillings. There are discontinuous 
distributions of secondary minerals both vertically and horizontally, as well as substantial 
variation in the abundances and proportions of alkali feldspar, smectite, henlandite-clinoptilolite, 
and silica that comprise the characteristic secondary-mineral assemblage. 
In many parts of Yucca Mountain, the moderately welded and nonwelded subzones at the base of 
the crystal-poor vitric zone are overprinted by zeolite alteration. Accordingly, a vitric-zeolitic 
boundary has been drawn that varies within a narrow range of stratigraphic positions, but 
generally coincides closely with the contact between the moderately welded subzone and the 
overlying densely welded subzone. This boundary is further defined as the contact between the 
Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) and the underlying Calico Hills nonwelded 
hydrogeologic unit (CHn). 
The upper crystal-rich member (unit Tptr), which overlies the potential repository host horizon, 
is characterized by greater than 10 percent phenocrysts, with a crystal-transition subzone at the 
base where the abundance of phenocrysts increases upward from 3 to 10 percent. In ascending 
order, the crystal-rich member is divided into lithophysal (unit Tptrl), nonlithophysal (unit 
Tptrn), and vitric (unit Tptrv) zones. Rocks in both the lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones are 
devitrified, so the division is based on the presence or absence of lithophysae. The vitric zone 
(unit Tptrv), which caps the member, is distinguished by preservation of the volcanic glass to 
form rocks with a vitreous luster; the zone typically grades upward from a densely welded 
subzone (unit Tptrv1) to a nonwelded subzone (unit Tptrv3). This vitric zone is a particularly 
important geochemical subunit because it is relatively impermeable. 
Matrix materials comprise the bulk of the Topopah Spring Tuff, exclusive of open fractures, 
fracture fillings larger than about 0.2 mm, and lithophysal cavities and xenoliths larger than 
about 5 mm. Texture (phenocrysts, lithic fragments, cryptocrystalline groundmass, etc.) is the 
most variable parameter. Microveinlets observed in thin sections are almost always filled with 
silica minerals and alkali feldspar, and they commonly connect with those in lithophysal cavity 
linings. Granophyric pumice is a significant matrix constituent because of the larger size of its 
crystals (up to 0.5 mm) and because the crystals commonly line cavities in the interiors of 
pumice. 
A sequence of bedded tuffaceous rocks (unit Tpbt2) occurs between the Topopah Spring Tuff 
and the overlying Pah Canyon Tuff. The lower part of this unit, 5 to 15 m thick, consists of 
moderately well sorted pumiceous tephra with a thin (2 cm) lithic-rich fallout tephra overlying a 
thin (2 cm) very fine-grained ash bed at the base. This thin unit occurs across Yucca Mountain, 
in core from boreholes and in surface exposures, from the southwestern flank of the mountain 
along Solitario Canyon to north of Yucca Wash near Fortymile Wash. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SOURCE: BSC 2003a, FIGURE 5
Figure 5-2. Schematic Illustration of the Structure of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-12 December 2003

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
5.3.3.2 Primary Lithostratigraphic Features 
The rocks of the repository host horizon are within the crystal-poor member of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff, and geochemically these rocks have a very uniform geochemical composition of 
rhyolite. Lithostratigraphic features in the crystallized rocks of the Topopah Spring Tuff include 
the matrix-groundmass, lithophysal cavities, rims (developed on lithophysal cavities and some 
fractures), spots, vapor-phase mineral coatings or linings, and vapor-phase corroded or 
mineralized areas (Figure 5-3). The matrix-groundmass is a combination of sedimentary and 
igneous petrologic terms applicable to crystallized pyroclastic-flow deposits (or ignimbrites). 
"Matrix" is used here as a sedimentological term that refers to the finer-grained material between 
larger grains. In ignimbrites, the matrix material has vitroclastic textures formed by shards, 
crystal, pumice, and lithic clasts that are typically less than a few millimeters in size, and this 
material is between the larger clasts of pumice, lithic, and even crystal fragments. "Groundmass" 
is used here as an igneous term that refers to the fine-grained interstitial minerals between 
coarse-grained minerals. The high temperature crystallization of ignimbrites (typically about 
550 to 900 C, depending on the geochemical composition) results in fine-grained textures of 
feldspar and quartz (or cristobalite). Lithophysae are the gas cavities in a rock formed where the 
vapor pressure was great enough to inflate a cavity; most lithophysae have various components 
including the cavity, rim, and a vapor-phase mineral coating (or lining). A spot is similar in 
texture and mineralogical composition to a rim, except there is not a cavity; some spots have 
cores of crystal fragments, lithic clasts, or small areas of crystallized matrix-groundmass. 
Fractures at Yucca Mountain are generally of three types: cooling joints, later tectonic fractures, 
and late joints caused by erosional unloading. Unlike the earliest assessments, the current 
understanding is that the majority of fractures and associated features mapped underground are 
cooling joints; however, there also are localized tectonic fracture zones related to faults. The 
cooling joints typically form two orthogonal sets of steeply dipping fractures, as well as a 
subhorizontal set of fractures. Some cooling joint fractures and incipient fractures are 
characterized by four major features, depending on the size and type of rock and fracture 
described: veinlets, streaks, stringers, and vapor-phase partings. Early cooling fractures may 
have formed while the rock was still glassy, and some cooling fractures served as pathways that 
transferred vapor during cooling and welding of the ignimbrite. These pathways led to either 
porous rim material along the open fractures or, later in time, surface deposits of vapor phase 
minerals. Vapor Phase Partings (VPP) are subhorizontal cooling fractures that are typically long 
and rougher than the above fractures; in some cases VPP zones did not form distinct fractures. 
Changes in the numbers and roughness of fractures typically coincide with the boundaries of 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones. In general, although nonlithophysal zones have VPP 
fractures, the zones are dominated by high-angle fractures with smooth surfaces. In contrast, 
lithophysal zones contain some low-angle fractures with rough surfaces, except possibly near 
zone boundaries. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: Modified from Buesch, et. al 1996b, Figure 3. 
NOTES: Porosity values (f) for the matrix-groundmass are from Flint (1998) and the values for rims, borders, and 
vapor-phase mineral coatings are estimates by Buesch (2003). Note that there are two types of matrix-
groundmass. The nomenclature for color (e.g., pale red purple  5RP6/2) is based on soil color charts 
(Munsell Color Company 1994). 
Figure 5-3. Lithostratigraphic Features Related to Lithophysae and Fractures 
Some of the geological terms related to lithophysae are defined as follows: 
Lithophysa  A hollow, bubblelike cavity in a volcanic rock that is typically surrounded by a 
porous rim formed by fine-grained alkali feldspar, quartz, and other minerals. 
Lithophysae are typically a few centimeters to a few decimeters in diameter; however, 
they can be as small as 1 mm in diameter to as large as 1 m or more in diameter (the 
largest measured at Yucca Mountain is 1.8 m across). Lithophysae occur in vitric 
(glassy) and crystallized volcanic rocks and result from the local accumulation of vapor 
(gas) in glassy rocks prior to cooling to form a rock. Many lithophysal cavities have a 
thin (less than a few mm) coating of vapor-phase minerals on the inner walls of the 
cavity. 
Lithophysal Rock  A volcanic rock that contains lithophysae. 
Lithophysal Zone  A lithostratigraphic unit within a formation (typically a lava flow or densely 
welded tuff) that contains lithophysae. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Lithostratigraphic Unit or Zone  In the hierarchical lithostratigraphic nomenclature used at 
Yucca Mountain, a zone is a subunit of a formation or member that is identified by one or 
more lithostratigraphic features such as lithophysae, spots and fracture characteristics. 
Zones can contain subzones. 
Spots  A more or less spherical feature that is similar in texture and mineral composition to a 
lithophysal rim, but has no central cavity. Spots occur with varying frequency in 
lithophysal rocks and occur in some nonlithophysal rocks. 
Vitric Zone  A deposit of volcanic ash or pyroclastic flow material dominated by glassy 
(noncrystalline) fragments. Vitric zones occur at the top and bottom of otherwise 
crystallized (devitrified) zones such as in the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring Tuffs. 
Welding  Consolidation (compaction) of high temperature vitric tuffaceous deposits due to 
the self-weight of the rock material (lithostatic stress) and possibly rheomorphic flow of 
the rock. During the welding of an ignimbrite, hot gasses are typically squeezed out of 
the rock. The ignimbrites of the Paintbrush Group are divided into four welding 
categories: nonwelded, partially welded, moderately welded and densely welded. 
Nonwelded rocks are porous vitric rocks containing glass shards and pumice clasts that 
are not deformed. On the other extreme, in densely welded rocks the matrix, shards and 
pumice are fused, and macroscopic porosity is absent. 
5.3.3.3 Description of Repository Horizon Units 
Site-specific characteristics of the rock units of the Topopah Spring Tuff that constitute the host 
rock at the repository horizon have been described in detail through the geologic mapping of 
those units in both the Main Drift/ Ramps of the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and the 
ECRB Cross Drift. These studies, which have been summarized for the ESF (Beason et al. 1996; 
Barr et al. 1996; Albin et al. 1997; and Eatman et al. 1997), and for the ECRB Cross Drift 
(Mongano et al. 1999), are the sources for the site-specific unit descriptions presented here. 
The locations of the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift, and the lithostratigraphic units excavated by the 
tunnels, are illustrated by a geologic cross section (Figure 5-4). The units that comprise the host 
rocks of the repository horizon are all zones of the crystal-poor member (Tptp) of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff. In descending order, the host rocks consist of the lower part of the upper 
lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the lower TSw1 thermal/ mechanical unit, and all of the TSw2 
thermal/ mechanical unit which includes the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), the lower 
lithophysal zone (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln) (see Table 5-1 and Figure 
5-1). In terms of the repository design layout, Board (2003, p. 4-1) evaluated that the 
emplacement drifts would be located primarily within the Tptpll and the Tptpmn units. 
Based on the report by Mongano et al. 1999, the site-specific characteristics of the repository 
horizon units from tunnel mapping are summarized as follows: 
TptpulThe crystal-poor upper lithophysal zone is exposed in both the ESF and ECRB Cross-
Drift. The ECRB Cross-Drift begins in the upper central portion of the zone and it exposes rocks 
of the central and lower portions of the zone from Station 0+00 to 10+15. The upper portion of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
the upper lithophysal zone is also exposed in the hanging wall of the eastern strand of the 
Solitario Canyon fault zone from Station 25+90 to 26+57.5. In both exposures, the unit is 
moderately to densely welded, devitrified, and vapor-phase altered. In general, the rock appears 
grayish red-purple (5RP4/2) and contains 10 to 40 percent vapor-phase spots, stringers, and 
partings. The central and lower parts of the zone (Station 0+00 to 10+15) are composed of 0 to 
15 percent pumice, 1 to 3 percent phenocrysts, 0 to 5 percent lithic fragments, 10 to 60 percent 
lithophysae, and 40 to 90 percent matrix. The upper part of the zone (Station 25+90 to 26+57.5) 
is composed of 5 to 15 percent pumice, 2 to 5 percent phenocrysts, less than 1 percent lithic 
fragments, 3 to 20 percent lithophysae, and 60 to 90 percent matrix. 
TptpmnThe ESF is excavated in the middle nonlithophysal zone from Stations 27+21 to 
57+29, from 58+78 to 63+08, and from 70+58 to 71+68. The ECRB Cross-Drift exposes the 
middle nonlithophysal zone from Station 10+15 to 14+44. In general, the moderately to densely 
welded, devitrified and variably vapor-phase altered unit is composed of less than 5 to 10 percent 
pumice (locally 25 to 35 percent), 1 to 2 percent phenocrysts, 1 to 2 percent lithic fragments, 0 to 
1 percent lithophysae, and 85 to 93 percent matrix. Vapor-phase spots, stringers, and partings 
comprise from 1 to 15 percent of the rock. Smooth, high-angle fractures are typical of the zone, 
but it also contains occasional low-angle, continuous shears and cooling joints. Another feature 
characteristic of the Tptpmn is the presence of low-angle concentrations of vapor-phase 
minerals. These features appear as continuous partings subparallel to the dip of the unit. 
TptpllThe ESF exposes a small portion of the upper contact of the lower lithophysal zone from 
Station 57+29 to 58+78. The lower lithophysal zone is exposed along the ECRB Cross-Drift 
from Station 14+44 to 23+26. In general, the moderately to densely welded, devitrified, and 
vapor-phase altered unit is composed of 3 to 7 percent pumice (locally 10 to 35 percent), 1 to 2 
percent phenocrysts, 1 to 5 percent lithic fragments (locally 12 to 15 percent), 5 to 30 percent 
lithophysae (locally 1 to 5 percent), and 56 to 90 percent matrix. Lithophysae vary in size from 
ten centimeters to greater than 1 meter in diameter. Throughout most of the unit, vapor-phase 
spots, stringers, and wisps comprise between 3 and 12 percent of the rock. In several intervals, 
however, vapor-phase alteration products form 15 to 40 percent of the rock. 
TptplnThe Tptpln, exposed only in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 23+26 to 25+85, 
comprises moderately to densely welded, devitrified pyroclastic-flow material. It is generally 
composed of 3 to 20 percent pumice, 1 to 2 percent phenocrysts, 3 to 7 percent lithic fragments, 
0 to 5 percent lithophysae, and 66 to 93 percent matrix. Vapor-phase alteration products form a 
minor component of the rock in some portions of the unit. Rocks of the lower nonlithophysal 
zone vary from a heterogeneous mix of grayish red and grayish orange pink (5YR7/2) to 
comparatively homogeneous pale red, light brown, pale brown, or grayish brown (5YR6/4). 
Near the Solitario Canyon fault zone, this unit is brecciated and altered. In this area, the breccia 
matrix varies from moderate reddish brown to grayish orange pink to pale red; breccia clasts are 
locally bleached to very light gray adjacent to the fault plane. 
Rock Mass Structural Features  Internal structures within the tuffaceous host rocks of the 
repository horizon are among the most important features in determining their thermomechanical 
properties, their geotechnical strength, and their structural response to repository-
related stresses. Among the most important internal structures are fracture characteristics and 
lithophysal content (and associated porosity). These structures have been extensively mapped in 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
the ESF and the ECRB Cross Drift (CRWMS M&O 1998d, Section 7.4, and Mongano et al. 
1999, pp. 12-46), and various relationships have been observed (Figures 5-2 and 5-4). 
The two basic types of repository host rock units are nonlithophysal units (Tptpmn, Tptpln) and 
lithophysal units (Tptpul, Tptpll), based on their relative proportion of lithophysal cavities (see 
Figure 5-2). As noted by Board (2003, Section 5.2.1), the nonlithophysal units are generally 
hard, strong, fractured rocks with matrix porosities of 10 percent or less. Fractures that formed 
during the cooling process are the primary structures in these units. In contrast, the lithophysal 
units have significantly fewer fractures of significant continuous length (i.e., trace length greater 
than 1 m), but have relatively uniformly distributed porosity in the form of lithophysal cavities. 
Lithophysal porosity in the Tptpul and Tptpll is on the order of 10 to 30 percent by volume. The 
groundmass that makes up the rock matrix in the lithophysal units is heavily fractured with small 
scale (lengths on the order of 1 cm) inter-lithophysal fractures in the Tptpll, but is relatively 
fracture-free in the Tptpul. 
As shown in Figure 5-5, detailed line mapping in the ECRB Cross Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, p. 
76 and Figure 13) has demonstrated an inverse relationship between fracture density and 
lithophysal porosity in the repository host rock units. The density of fractures with trace length 
greater than 1 m is significantly higher in the Tptpmn and Tptpln (20-35 fractures/10 m), as 
compared to 5-fractures/10 m or less in the Tptpul and Tptpll where lithophysal porosities are 
higher. The fractures and lithophysae are among the dominant rock structures that will probably 
largely determine the thermal-mechanical responses of the rock mass during repository 
construction and operation. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: After Mongano et al. 1999, Drawing OA-46-345 
Figure 5-4. Geologic Cross Section through the ECRB Cross Drift (approximately Northeast-Southwest, looking Northwest) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: Mongano et al. 1999, Figure 13 
Note: Observe the inverse relationship within individual lithostratigraphic units. 
Figure 5-5. Composite Plot of Fracture Frequency and Lithophysal Porosity as a Function of Distance Along the ECRB Cross-Drift 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 5-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A5-20December 20035.4 UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY LAYOUTThe repository will consist of four construction panels (Panels 1-4) that will cover about 5.0 sqkm (1.9 sq miles) within the Topopah Spring Formation, as shown in Figure 5-6. The repositoryfootprint extends about 5 km in length with the widest part being about 2 km. The total length ofall excavated openings, including the emplacement drifts, turnouts, exhaust mains, exhaust shaftsand raises, and other miscellaneous openings is about 110 km (68 miles). Emplacement driftswill have a diameter of 5.5 m (18 ft). Microsoft Excel was used to determine the percent ofdrifts within each lithostratigraphic unit (see the file PanelUnitPercentage_SGPR.xls inAttachment VIII). Approximately 66 km (41 miles) of the emplacement drifts are foundprimarily within the Tptpll (red, 81 percent), and the Tptpmn (green, 12 percent). The remaininggeological units comprise about 7 percent (Tptpul about 4 percent and Tptpln about 3 percent) ofthe emplacement drift area. Overall, the nonlithophysal rocks comprise roughly 15 percent ofthe emplacement area, whereas the lithophysal rocks comprise approximately 85 percent.
Details of the repository layout are presented in the Underground Layout Configuration (BSC2003i, Section 8.4, Attachment II, Table II-2).
Source: BSC 2003i, after Figure II-2Figure 5-6.Overlay of the Lithostratigraphic Units on the Planned Repository Layout

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
6. DATA NEEDS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN 
6.1 GENERAL 
Geomechanical data and thermal properties are primary design input parameters for analyzing 
the stability of repository openings; assessing the need, type, and dimension of ground support 
for the preclosure period; and predicting the drift degradation during the postclosure period (BSC 
2003a). In addition, other project analyses involving thermal and mechanical computations 
involving the rock mass properties require the same lithostratigraphic properties and parameters. 
The Ground Control for Emplacement Drifts for LA (BSC 2003d), Drift-Scale Coupled 
Processes (DST and THC Seepage) Models (BSC 2003c), Drift Scale THM Model (BSC 2003b), 
Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) (BSC 2003f), Repository Subsurface Waste 
Emplacement and Thermal Management Strategy (CRWMS M&O 1998e), Two-dimensional 
Repository Thermal Design Calculations (BSC 2003h), Ventilation Model and Analysis Report 
(BSC 2003j), Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of Emplacement Drift Stability 
(BSC 2003k), and Shaft Liner Design (under development) are some examples of such analyses 
and models. 
6.2 DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND REPOSITORY OPENINGS 
6.2.1 Opening Types 
The subsurface repository includes the following types of openings: 1) emplacement drifts, 2) 
emplacement drift turnouts, 3) access ramps and mains, 4) exhaust mains, 5) shafts, 6) portals, 
and 6) other ancillary openings (e.g. the TBM launch chambers, monitoring niches, and PC 
drifts). Except for shafts, portals, and ramps, all other openings will be located within the 
repository host horizon (RHH), namely in the TSw2 thermal/mechanical unit. This unit consists 
of both nonlithophysal and lithophysal lithostratigraphic units. 
6.2.2 Opening Design Elements 
Engineering design of these openings involves the following elements: 
 Dimensioning of all members of underground structures 
 Pillar stability analyses 
 Assessment of interactions between adjacent underground openings 
 Intersections 
 Assessment of opening stability during excavation stage 
 Initial (temporary) ground support 
 Final (permanent) ground support 
 Numerical analyses based on the continuum modeling approach 
 Numerical analyses based on the discontinuum modeling approach 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
6.2.3 Design Input 
Results from numerical modeling aid in developing design solutions and verification. The 
following input data and parameters are required for performing numerical analyses: 
 joint geometry 
 porosity 
 joint mechanical properties 
 intact rock physical and mechanical properties 
 rock mass mechanical properties 
 vibratory ground motion time history 
 rock thermal properties 
 rock temperature time histories 
 repository layout information 
Joint Geometry. The joint geometry data includes the identification of the major joint set 
orientation, joint trace length, and joint intensity. The development of joint geometry parameters 
is based on mapping data collected from the ESF, including the main loop (which is composed of 
the North Ramp, Main Drift, South Ramp) and the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository 
Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift. Mapping data from the ESF being used in the analysis includes both 
USGS/USBR full periphery geologic maps (FPGMs) and the detailed line survey (DLS). 
Rock Porosity The rock porosity data includes total porosity (matrix and lithophysal) and its 
spatial variation in lithophysal rock. These data are developed based on the panel mapping data 
collected from the ECRB. 
Joint Mechanical Properties. Joint strength is characterized by cohesion, friction angle, 
dilation, and stiffness. The parameter values were developed based on laboratory shear strength 
test data from core specimens. 
Intact Rock Physical and Mechanical Properties Intact rock properties are required to 
represent the block material properties for the nonlithophysal rockfall. The mean rock density 
and mean elastic rock properties were used in the analysis for modeling nonlithophysal rock. 
Rock Mass Properties Rock mass mechanical properties include the unconfined compressive 
strength, Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, cohesion, friction angle, and tensile strength for 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock units, and for various thermal-mechanical rock units. 
Empirical rock mass classification systems, based on the experience of a large number of case 
histories of underground excavations in nonlithophysal rock, are required for ground support 
design and to estimate rock mass properties. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Rock Mass 
Quality Rating (Q) classification systems are two such empirical systems. Both systems consist 
of an empirical model that involves the calculation of several input rock parameters to estimate 
the index parameters RMR (range 0 to 100) and Q (range 10-3 to 103). These index parameters 
are then used to estimate the rock mass parameters. 
Seismic Ground Motion Seismic ground motion time history data are required for dynamic 
simulation. Both preclosure and postclosure ground motions data are needed. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Rock Thermal Properties The following thermal properties data are required for the regional 
thermal-mechanical calculation: 
 Thermal conductivity 
 Specific heat 
 Coefficient of thermal expansion 
 Heat decay curve. 
Rock Temperature Time Histories Rock temperature time histories for both preclosure and 
postclosure periods are required. These data are considered design output and are generated by 
other design groups. 
Repository Layout Information Repository layout information, including emplacement drift 
diameter and azimuth, is required for proper analysis configuration. This information is 
considered design output and is generated by other design groups. 
6.2.4 Support of Preclosure Safety Analyses 
Adequate prediction of rockfall scenarios, particularly in emplacement drifts, and in 
nonemplacement openings in general, provides essential input to preclosure safety analyses and 
waste package/drip shield design. Such predictive analyses requires the same input as those for 
engineering design of the repository openings. 
6.2.5 Support of Postclosure Safety Analyses 
Degradation of underground openings as a function of time is a natural and expected occurrence 
for any subsurface excavation. Over time, changes occur to both the stress condition and the 
strength of the rock mass due to several interacting factors. Once these factors contributing to 
degradation are characterized, the effects of drift degradation can typically be mitigated through 
appropriate design and maintenance of the ground support system. 
However, for the emplacement drifts of the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, it is 
necessary to characterize drift degradation over a 10,000-year time period, which is well beyond 
the functional period of the ground support system. The Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 
2003a) document provides an analysis of the amount of drift degradation anticipated in 
repository emplacement drifts for discrete events and time increments extending throughout the 
10,000-year regulatory period for postclosure performance. The drift degradation analysis was 
developed to support the license application and fulfill specific agreement items between the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 
6.3 SUPPORT OF MANAGER/CONTRACTOR  CONSTRUCTION PHASE 
Typically, the cost and method of excavation are derived utilizing a range of input data. The 
progress of excavation and associated excavation schedule are determined utilizing the rock 
property data. In addition, the cost of tunneling largely depends of the type and quantities of 
ground support components. These are determined considering both the type and size of 
excavation and the amount of maintenance foreseen as reasonable for the type of designed 
excavation. Accurate lithostratigraphic rock unit information provides a base for more accurate 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
cost and schedule predictions, while less accurate data create the need for contingencies and 
higher costs. 
The data available and included in this analysis provide a basis for preparation of the baseline 
case for construction cost and schedule estimates. 
6.3.1 TESTING REQUIREMENTS 
6.3.1.1 Sampling and Testing Status 
Sampling and testing that has been completed during 2002 and 2003 includes: 
 Laboratory mechanical property testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff for 
uniaxial compression tests by SNL, blocks of lithophysal tuff for extracting cores of 
various diameters for uniaxial compression tests by SNL and uniaxial compression 
testing of these cores, uniaxial compression testing of lithophysal tuff from undercoring 
of 11.4-inch diameter samples from ESF and ECRB boreholes, and blocks of tuff for 
uniaxial compression testing of cubes by UNLV; 
 Laboratory thermal property testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff, and small-
diameter cores of lithophysal and nonlithophysal tuff (from in situ thermal conductivity 
tests), for testing by SNL and other laboratories; 
 Static fatigue testing: large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff for testing by USBR, and 
blocks of nonlithophysal tuff for extracting small-diameter cores for static fatigue testing 
by NER; and 
 Fracture property testing: large-diameter cores of nonlithophysal tuff for direct shear 
testing by USBR. 
The following testing activities are currently underway: 
 Static fatigue testing of nonlithophysal tuff by NER. 
 Static fatigue testing of lithophysal tuff by USBR. 
Samples selected for testing from previously drilled boreholes include: 
 Laboratory mechanical property testing: small-diameter cores for uniaxial compression 
and Brazilian tensile tests, and lumps for point load tests for testing by UNR; and 
 Fracture/fracture property testing: small-diameter cores for testing by UNR. 
Sampling for the following planned testing has not yet been completed: 
 Laboratory mechanical property testing: additional sampling planned for uniaxial 
compression testing of large-diameter cores of lithophysal tuff, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Static fatigue testing: small-diameter cores for testing by UNR, and 
 Laboratory thermal property testing: sampling associated with the Cross Drift thermal 
test (CDTT). 
Additional sampling and in situ testing that are planned or proposed include: 
 Plate loading test in nonlithophysal tuff at Drift Scale Test in Alcove 5. 
 Cross drift thermal test in lithophysal tuff in a new ECRB alcove. 
6.3.1.2 Sampling and Testing Plan Modifications 
Large-diameter coring of the lithophysal tuff to provide samples for uniaxial compression tests 
with standard length/diameter (L:D) ratio of 2:1 was difficult because of the presence of large 
lithophysae and inter-lithophysal fractures. As a result, a much fewer number of tests on 11.4-
inch diameter cores of lithophysal tuff with standard L:D ratio will be performed than originally 
planned. From the first batch of large-diameter cores sent to SNL for uniaxial compression 
testing, 10 of 85 samples met the 2:1 criterion. Testing was completed using ratios between 1:1 
and 2:1. As a result, undercoring of shorter samples was used to prepare 6-inch diameter 
specimens with standard 2:1 ratio from some 11.4-inch diameter cores. 
Static fatigue testing has also encountered a problem with early failure of the large-diameter 
cores of lithophysal tuff. A fewer number of large-diameter samples are available for continued 
testing with sustained loads than originally planned. Also, the blocks of tuff sent to NER for 
static fatigue arrived broken up after transport, so surplus ECRB borehole cores are being sent. 
6.4 TIMELINE FOR DATA NEEDS 
6.4.1 LA Data Needs 
Engineering design of the repository for LA is considered to be preliminary (conceptual). The 
objective of this design phase is to demonstrate the technical adequacy, the meeting of functional 
requirements, and the compliance with the YMRP acceptance criteria. On the other hand, 
detailed, post-LA design will result in all design documents necessary for construction, 
fabrication, and procurement. Design input parameter data must be adequate for such a detailed 
design. 
6.4.2 Post-LA Data Needs 
Field measurements and observations performed during construction will be a continuous source 
of a variety of rock property and construction progress information. The data needs description 
and acquisition schedule will be determined as a part of Performance Confirmation planning and 
resulting activities. These data will be used to verify and refine the conceptual models developed 
to predict lithostratigraphic rock unit performance. In addition, the data will be used to refine 
construction and ground support techniques such that optimum performance of the future 
repository will be assured. The range of construction activities and associated program of data 
gathering and analysis will be used to enhance the data adequacy. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 6-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
7. METHODOLOGY OF GEOTECHNICAL DATA ACQUISITION AND 
ENHANCEMENT 
7.1 INTRODUCTION 
As outlined in Section 6, an outstanding issue for License Application is the production of an 
adequate summary of thermomechanical properties that are needed for subsurface design, pre-
closure repository safety analysis, and repository safety analysis after permanent closure. An 
intimately related outstanding issue is the development of rock behavioral models and 
approaches to adequately capture: (1) the sample size (scale) dependency of rock properties and 
prediction of parameters at the rock mass scale, (2) the spatial variation or heterogeneity of rock 
parameters across the proposed repository storage volume, and (3) the predicted variation of rock 
behavior and parameters over the proposed post-closure period of 10,000 years. 
The methodology of resolving these issues was progressively developed from a series of 
Geotechnical Review Panel meetings held in 2001 and 2002, and from work proposals prepared 
and reviewed by its participants. The Review Panel consisted of BSC personnel as well 
geomechanics experts from SNL, USBR, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), UNLV, UNR, New 
England Research (NER), and consultants from the Itasca Consulting Group and Nick Barton 
and Associates. The general YMP approach for resolving these geomechanical issues are 
summarized in the Resolution Strategy for Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and 
Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) (Board 2003, Section 2.2.1). 
The overall approach for resolving these geomechanical issues consists of utilizing a 
combination of analyses, studies and calculations to maximize site-specific data: 1) Evaluation 
and geotechnical analysis of the existing, extensive geological mapping and geotechnical 
characterization data from surface and underground mapping of lithology, structure, and rock 
quality; 2) Additional laboratory and in situ thermomechanical testing, primarily of lithophysal 
rocks, to provide information for confirmation of the material models and property ranges to be 
used in design and performance sensitivity studies; 3) Development, calibration and validation of 
numerical models capable of representing the thermomechanical behavior of lithophysal and 
nonlithophysal rocks; 4) Use of the validated numerical models to supplement the material 
properties database and explore the impact of geologic variability (porosity, lithophysae shape 
and distribution, and fracture density) on the geomechanical response, primarily of lithophysal 
rocks; and 5) Numerical model sensitivity studies to further explore the impact of parameter 
uncertainty on pre-closure ground support and post-closure drift degradation and seismic 
stability issues (Board 2003, Section 2.2.1). 
7.1.1 Scaling of Rock Properties 
When discussing mechanical and thermal properties of rock, it is important to include a 
discussion of the scale or size of the rock under consideration for property determination. Three 
useful categories of rock can be distinguished for mechanical and thermal testing purposes: rock 
matrix, bulk rock, and rock mass. Larger size rock samples typically behave differently than 
smaller size rock samples due to the presence of lithophysae, discontinuities and other features. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The rock matrix scale represents behavior of the tuff matrix-groundmass (ranging from cm3 to 
3
m for nonlithophysal rock and cm3 to dm3 for lithophysal rock). Properties or parameters 
reported at the rock matrix scale are ideally assumed to be free of any large features causing 
anisotropy or nonhomogeneity such as varying mineral type, lithophysae, rims, spots, and 
fractures. The ignimbrite matrix material contains shards, crystal, pumice, and lithic clasts that 
are typically less than a few millimeters in size. Matrix-groundmass material typically has a 
mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 (10 percent) total porosity and ranges from approximately 0.08 to 0.13 
cm3/cm3 (see Section 8.2.3 for more information). 
Bulk rock is a term referring to whole tuff rock at a laboratory or field scale (bulk rock is 
generally not used for nonlithophysal rock and ranges from cm3 to m3 for lithophysal rock). Bulk 
rock properties represent the behavior of rock samples that may include lithophysae, rims and 
spots, yet still exist as an intact piece of rock. In general, bulk rock data excludes tests of rock 
samples known to have fractures or planes of weakness that would influence the property being 
tested. Since all reported properties are assumed to be of isotropic and homogeneous rock, 
ideally, bulk rock properties should be tested at an appropriate representative elementary volume 
(REV), which is large enough to include a sufficient number of representative lithophysae, rims 
and spots. On the other hand, since such a large REV size is not practical for either sampling or 
laboratory testing, an approach has been adopted to test a sufficient number of the largest intact 
rock samples feasible to collect and test. Experimental data indicate that a number of mechanical 
and thermal properties correlate well with porosity, therefore, the total and lithophysal porosity 
of these samples are measured and reported with the bulk rock properties. 
Rock mass properties apply to a scale large enough to include all the rock imperfections present 
in the field at the scale of interest, including rock fractures (ranging from m3 to dam3 for both 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal). The structure of the rock mass plays what is perhaps the most 
important role in defining the structural response of the repository to thermal and mechanical 
loading. In particular, fractures and the lithophysal porosity are the primary geologic structures 
of importance. For a given lithostratigraphic zone of rock, which is typically assumed to be 
isotropic and homogeneous, the rock mass properties are the appropriate and representative scale 
to use for design and analysis work. For the homogeneous case, the spatial variability in rock 
mass properties is included as part of the uncertainty associated with a given rock mass property. 
For lithostratigraphic zones modeled as nonhomogeneous rock, the vertical and horizontal spatial 
variability of the rock properties are described explicitly and separately, usually as a function of 
porosity. The volume of rock tested as part of in situ field tests may not be adequate to represent 
the rock mass REV. In such cases, further analysis or application of empirical methods will be 
necessary to estimate rock mass properties that appropriately consider joint sets or other 
appropriate large-scale features. 
7.1.2 Approach for Nonlithophysal Rock Parameter Data Analysis 
A relatively large number of laboratory tests have been performed on intact samples of 
nonlithophysal rock. In the field, a large database of meter-scale fracture geometry and rock 
quality data was produced from extensive mapping of the ESF and ECRB tunnels. Although 
evaluation and geotechnical analysis of these data needs to be carried out, the general mechanical 
and thermal behavior of nonlithophysal rock was considered to be adequately understood, along 
with the geometry of representative fracture patterns. Still lacking was an adequate 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
characterization of the mechanical behavior of fractures by fracture set, a characterization of the 
small-scale fractures in nonlithophysal rock, and the effect of these small-scale fractures on rock 
mass behavior. 
The rock mass behavior of nonlithophysal rock is controlled largely by the fracture geometry that 
separates the relatively strong and stiff pieces of intact rock. Even though the fracture geometry 
was well known along the two mapped tunnels, it was realized that a representative fracture 
model of the repository site was needed for design and modeling purposes. Time-dependent 
degradation of rock fracture properties also required better understanding. 
7.1.3 Approach for Lithophysal Rock Parameter Data Analysis 
Until recently the YMP had not focused much effort on understanding the behavior of 
lithophysal rock. This changed with the realization that most of the repository would reside in 
lithophysal rock and that nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock behaviors were significantly 
different. Several important mechanical and thermal rock properties are strongly dependent on 
rock porosity and sample size. Deformability of rock, rock strength parameters and thermal 
conductivity were some of the key parameters identified for further study. Additional site-
specific testing at the laboratory and field scales was undertaken to better characterize the 
porosity and size dependencies on these properties. However, because of practical limitations, 
these effects could not be fully studied in the field and laboratory. It was considered necessary to 
supplement this testing with numerical testing of lithophysal rock, where behavioral mechanisms 
could be carefully studied along with the full range of the sample size effect. 
Before the spatial variability of these properties could be quantified, it was necessary to model 
the variation of rock porosity in the field. Once a picture emerged of how porosity varied across 
the site, property correlations could be used to predict the spatial variation of rock parameters at 
the site for use in design and safety analysis. The rock mass behavior of lithophysal rock is 
controlled largely by stress conditions and lithophysae in the rock that can lead to failure of the 
bulk lithophysal rock. 
7.2 FIELD CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM 
For nonlithophysal rock, the major component of the field characterization program consisted of 
adequate mapping of repository host horizon (RHH) fracture geometries from tunnels, boreholes 
and outcrops. A secondary aspect of the program was to collect rock quality data for rock 
classification purposes in RHH units and perform limited index testing across the site. The 
existing database will be supplemented by large-scale field roughness estimates that will be used 
in empirical relations for estimating shear strength and dilation for each major joint set. 
For lithophysal rock, the primary aspect of field characterization was an adequate mapping of the 
shape, size and abundance of lithophysae, spots and rims in RHH lithophysal rock. This 
mapping could be carried out along the ESF and ECRB tunnels, in existing site boreholes, and 
where RHH units outcrops have been located. A secondary component of lithophysal rock field 
characterization is an adequate mapping of RHH fracture geometries. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
For all lithostratigraphic zones, an additional field characterization activity carried out was 
geophysical logging of boreholes to indirectly determine vertical variation of bulk density and 
porosity data. This existing data will be further evaluated and summarized. 
7.3 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 
A large number of thermomechanical tests has been performed on intact small cores of RHH 
nonlithophysal rock and other rock units from outside the RHH. The mechanical testing 
program using samples from boreholes scattered around the repository site is considered 
adequate for project purposes in describing the behavior of intact nonlithophysal rock. However, 
to better understand the effect of various physical and environmental factors known to impact 
thermomechanical properties, the existing set of laboratory test results needed to be broken down 
and analyzed. The required additional data included better estimates of fracture shear 
constitutive behavior. The fracture shear response was augmented by conducting laboratory 
direct shear tests on large and small samples of nonlithophysal rock by joint set. 
For lithophysal rocks within the RHH, a fairly extensive testing program was required based on 
testing of large diameter core samples. A laboratory program of thermomechanical testing of 
large diameter core samples (from 30.5 cm [12 in.] boreholes) will be conducted to derive 
mechanical and thermal properties of rock samples large enough to contain many lithophysae. It 
is hoped these large laboratory samples will provide useful information regarding porosity and 
size effects. These laboratory tests are also needed for calibrating the numerical models of 
mechanical lithophysal rock behavior. 
One aspect that has not been sufficiently looked at is studying how the mechanical and thermal 
properties of the rock change as a function of time. Of most importance is the time-related 
mechanical degradation of intact rock and fractures under expected stress and thermal loading 
conditions. 
7.4 IN SITU TESTING PROGRAM 
The next step beyond laboratory testing was gathering as much in situ site-specific rock behavior 
information as possible. This program extends from small-scale borehole testing of thermal and 
mechanical behaviors to meter-scale mechanical and thermal testing of rock blocks (e.g., Single 
Heater Test, Plate Loading Tests, Slot Tests) to drift scale tests in both RHH nonlithophysal 
(Drift Scale Test) and lithophysal rock. In particular it was necessary to carry out in situ testing 
in lithophysal rock to help confirm models and ranges of behavior. Rock mass scale testing of 
both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock was also required under thermal loading conditions to 
validate numerical models and empirical approaches to characterizing behavior. Some long-term 
mechanical loading tests of meter-scale rock were also deemed useful for characterizing time 
effects. 
Another aspect of the in situ testing program is the information gathered from Tunnel Boring 
Machine pressure and mining rate data as well as periodic surveying of the ESF and ECRB 
tunnels and drifts to study tunnel deformation over time. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
7.5 NUMERICAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ROCK 
BEHAVIOR AND TO GEOSTATISTICALLY MODEL KEY ROCK FEATURES 
Even after conducting all the testing in the above two sections, only a limited database will exist 
relative to thermal and mechanical lithophysal rock behavior. The approach adopted to 
extrapolate the mechanical behavior to a larger-size scale was to perform additional testing using 
numerical models capable of representing lithophysal rock behavior. These numerical models 
must be developed, calibrated and validated by using the site-specific laboratory and field-testing 
of lithophysal rock. Two- and three-dimensional numerical modeling has the advantage of 
allowing a rock sample to be created and tested at any scale considered necessary, plus holes 
of any convenient size and shape can then be inserted at any desired location within the rock 
sample. These numerical approaches also have been shown to reproduce observed complex rock 
behavior, such as allowing for the development of interlithophysal fracturing, thus providing a 
methodology for representing and understanding the basic mechanical response of lithophysal 
rocks through back-analysis of actual testing. 
This full methodology involves five steps: (1) development of approach to model cavities within 
existing numerical codes, (2) calibration of the numerical model by adjusting numerical model 
properties to reproduce the behavior of actual laboratory and field tests, (3) use of the software to 
further study and understand mechanisms of behavior by simulating tests at the laboratory and 
field scale to assure that all significant aspects of lithophysal rock behavior have been reasonably 
reproduced, (4) use of the software to extrapolate lithophysal rock behavior by simulating 
samples at larger spatial scales, and (5) validation of the modeling in steps (3) and (4), to the 
extent possible, by predicting the behavior of boundary-value in situ tests and other analyses. 
The validated numerical simulations, based on PFC (Section 9.1) and UDEC software (Section 
9.2), will be judiciously used to supplement site-specific test data by relying on professional 
judgment that is explained by means of documented technical reasoning. Any limitations in 
approach will also be clearly stated, such as, the current assumption that Tptpul (upper 
lithophysal) and the Tptpll (lower lithophysal) rock behavior is identical, even though the Tptpll 
is much more fractured (most likely due to higher in situ stresses found at the Tptpll depth). 
In addition, time-dependent strength properties (i.e., static fatigue) need to be determined for 
both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock. Again, the pertinent rock-testing database will be 
limited, so a program similar to the one used for modeling of size effects, using numerical 
modeling, will be carried out to understand and enhance the time-related mechanical behavior of 
nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock. 
The conceptual and numerical modeling of thermal behavior of lithophysal rock is more 
established. This effort has continued to be refined in order to gain an acceptable level of 
understanding of thermal behavior and characterization of thermal parameters. 
Evaluation of the extensive existing database of the tunnel full-periphery structure maps will 
produce a statistical database, by fracture set, of fracture geometry data such as fracture 
orientation, spacing, and trace length. Geostatistical approaches will be applied to this tunnel 
database, the borehole fracture data, and the outcrop fracture measurements as a basis for 
development of statistically representative fracture volumes using the FracMAN software 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
program (Section 9.3). These fracture volumes will contain fracture geometry data by RHH 
units that adequately captures the ranges of fracture geometry parameters expected at the site. 
Finally, a simplified geostatistical approach will also be used to model lithophysae volumes 
(Section 9.4) in the repository area. The simplified geostatistical analysis considers only the 
mapped lithophysal tunnel data, but a more complete geostatistical treatment will also include 
borehole geophysics data, mapped borehole lithophysal data, and outcrop data. Like the fracture 
volumes, these lithophysal volumes will describe the spatial variation of lithophysal cavities 
expected across the site at various degrees of reliability. This variation will then be translated 
into a variation of mechanical and thermal properties as described in Section 10.2. 
7.6 EMPIRICAL APPROACHES TO ESTIMATE ROCK BEHAVIOR 
Nonlithophysal behavior at the rock mass scale cannot be studied in the laboratory; rather, 
traditional empirical rock characterization techniques are usually relied upon to describe the 
mechanical rock mass behavior. However, these empirical approaches have never been applied 
to a lithophysal rock mass. The originator of the Q rock characterization system (Barton et al. 
1974), Nick Barton, has suggested modifications to the Q rock characterization technique in 
order to extend the Q technique to lithophysal rocks (see Duan 2003, Sections 1 and 3). This 
approach for lithophysal rocks will be pursued as a secondary method to numerical modeling as 
a way to determine rock mass mechanical properties. 
7.7 PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE DATA, CONFIRM PARAMETER RANGES, AND 
VALIDATE BEHAVIORAL MODELS 
The final step in the characterization effort is to sufficiently evaluate and integrate all of the 
above sources of rock behavior data using geotechnical judgment. For example, the numerical 
modeling program must be intimately tied to the testing programs to be justifiable. This global 
analysis of the data will be carried out for all rock parameters in the next revision of this report, 
in order to produce defensible parameter summaries that include discussions on parameter ranges 
or distributions, uncertainty, spatial variability and temporal variability. Professional judgment 
will be required to assess and combine the considerably different sources of data into one best 
picture of the state of current knowledge. Judgment will also be required to assess whether 
parameter descriptions are adequate for project purposes. Part of this objective is doing what can 
be practically accomplished to understand and then reduce the level of uncertainty in the 
geomechanical parameters, particularly those of the RHH. 
Related to the above, confidence must be demonstrated that the thermomechancial behaviors of 
the rock, at all scales of interest, are sufficiently understood. In particular, a number of 
numerical and empirical models and approaches are being relied upon heavily to understand and 
describe rock behavior and parameters. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 7-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8. SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND PARAMETERS 
8.1 GENERAL 
Over the past two decades a great amount of data has been collected on the mechanical 
properties of intact tuff from site characterization efforts at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The 
majority of data collected has been determined from rock specimens obtained from the Topopah 
Spring Tuff formation. These efforts were focused on maximizing data and information about 
the lithostratigraphic rock units located within the planned future repository host horizon (RHH). 
The majority of data in RHH comes from specimens recovered from the Tptpmn, as this tuff 
layer was previously planned to be the primary host of the repository drift system. More 
recently, the design has focused on primary emplacement in the Tptpll, located directly below 
the Tptpmn. The analyses of the intact rock mechanical properties presented in this Section 
primarily focus on the RHH units (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln), but also includes the 
properties summary for other rock units (See Figure 5-1). 
Initial studies to determine mechanical properties of rock were performed under quality 
assurance guidelines existing at the time. No matter what the pedigree of the data, however, we 
can gain a great deal of insight from examining all of the Yucca Mountain data related to the 
physical and thermomechanical properties of tuff. 
Analysis of the earlier data has shown that there is some lateral and vertical variability; however, 
the variabilities in the elastic and strength properties of the tuffs are predominantly a function of 
porosity (Price and Bauer 1985 and Price 1993). In a broad sense, the properties are a function 
of a more general concept called the functional porosity. It is defined as pore space plus the 
volume fraction of montmorillonite, a very low strength clay mineral (Price and Bauer 1985). 
While this factor has been shown to be real by Price (1983), porosity alone is still shown to be an 
excellent predictor of the mechanical properties (e.g., Price et al. 1994a). In addition, because 
the montmorillonite content data have not been collected on most of the test samples, the 
remainder of the discussions of this issue will focus on the effects of porosity, only. 
Furthermore, while mineralogy, average grain density, bulk density and other properties have an 
effect on the scatter in the elastic property and strength data at a given porosity, the most 
predominant secondary factor is the distribution of the size and shape of the pores (Price et al. 
1993). In Busted Butte samples of the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff, 
the vast majority of pores were found to be intergranular openings (usually less than 5 m 
across) (Price et al. 1987). However, for the lithophysal welded tuffs, a study on Busted Butte 
samples of the upper lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring tuff (Tptpul) (Price et al. 1985) 
found there are four classes of pore sizes. They are: large lithophysal cavities (from few 
millimeters on up), small pores in the vapor-phased-altered zones (up to 0.2 mm), intergranular 
pores in vapor-phased-altered zones (in the range of 1-5 m), and submicroscopic intergranular 
pores in the devitrified matrix. 
Historically, the studies discussed above were driven by project plans that initially investigated 
all of the tuffs within Yucca Mountain and gradually focused on the middle nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpmn) within the Topopah Spring tuff for most of the data requirements. Recent examination 
of the amount of data considered to be QA and changes in the project perspective on what rock 
zones would be considered for the placement of the repository have resulted in some concerns 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
about adequate data in the units that would be involved in the construction of the potential 
repository and subsequent emplacement of waste. As a result, data have been collected in the 
last couple of years to address potential issues related to spatial variability of rock properties and 
sufficiency of data in all units affected by the repository. These experiments were designed to 
allow the repository design and ground support system to be based on a thorough understanding 
of rock properties. The recent experiments producing the required data have been focused on 
samples from the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) and the upper lithophysal (Tptpul) zones of the 
Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. 
Because of the substantially different nature of the lithophysal units in comparison to the 
nonlithophysal units, laboratory-scale testing of rock from these two categories have somewhat 
different end purposes. For nonlithophysal rock, laboratory tests to determine elastic moduli and 
strength properties can be used to estimate equivalent in situ properties and, thus, be directly 
incorporated into design calculations using commonly-accepted ground support methodologies. 
In situ tests are then used to calibrate models and validate results. For the lithophysal units, 
laboratory-scale tests are used to develop a basic understanding of the rock properties and 
develop models for the rock-mass behavior. In situ tests in the lithophysal zones are conducted 
to obtain in situ properties and develop scaling relationships (from laboratory to field scale) that 
can be used to support the design process. In addition to the standard mechanical and thermal 
properties, time-dependent deformation (creep) could play an important role in the design 
process and ultimate performance assessment, given the extended lifetime of the repository. 
Beginning in the early stages of these investigations, the indications of the primary importance of 
porosity on mechanical properties and general understanding of rock mechanics issues led to a 
general philosophy of gathering the bulk of the data at a set of test conditions considered to be 
the baseline conditions and then the effect of changes in the conditions could be studied one at 
a time off of this baseline set of data. The initial set of baseline conditions was defined in the 
early 1980s as the following (all sizes/conditions are considered to be nominal  in other 
words, each individual sample may vary somewhat from these exact values, but that the exact 
sizes/conditions would be reported with the data): a test specimen in the shape of a right-circular 
cylinder with a diameter of 25 mm and a 2:1 length-to-diameter ratio would be saturated and 
then tested at room temperature, ambient pressure (unconfined) conditions at a constant axial 
-1
strain rate of 10-5 s. In the mid-1980s, more and larger samples were available, so the baseline 
diameter was changed to 51 mm at that time. For many years, this baseline data was considered 
appropriate because the potential repository was being planned in the middle nonlithophysal 
zone of the Topopah Spring tuff and in general, the inhomogeneities in these rocks are quite 
small and could be well characterized in this size sample. However, when data are gathered in 
the lithophysal zones, a much larger sample size is necessary because of the size of the inherent 
inhomogeneities (i.e., the lithophysal cavities and the relatively weak, altered zones) within these 
rocks. 
The data gathered during these experiments are relatively straightforward. For calculating 
specimen stress, the force being applied along the axis of the sample is measured and then the 
stress is calculated by dividing by the initial sample cross-sectional area. The displacements 
from the elastic and permanent deformation of the sample in an axial direction are measured, 
with the axial strain calculated by dividing by the initial length over which the deformation is 
measured. In most cases, a similar measurement is made in a lateral (diametral) direction for the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
determination of lateral strain. In addition, the sample dimensions and saturation state are 
measured and noted, as well as the environmental conditions of the experiment: temperature, 
confining and pore pressures (if appropriate), and time. 
A comprehensive series of mechanical property measurements has been conducted on specimens 
prepared from NRG (North Access Ramp Geologic), SD (Systematic Drilling), UE 
(Underground Exploratory), USW-G drillholes, ESF (Exploratory Studies Facility), and ECRB 
(Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block) drilling operations. Testing to determine 
elastic constants, strengths, and deformation characteristics has been performed on specimens 
from all rock units encompassed by the current repository design. Much of the data collected are 
from the units close to or at the planned repository host horizon (RHH), the Tptpul, Tptpmn, 
Tptpll, and the Tptpln units. Data has been collected on all units from the surface through 
several rock units below the planned RHH. Experiments were also performed to determine the 
effect of temperature, saturation, pressure, strain rate, and specimen size. Testing on tuff from 
Yucca Mountain began in the late 1970s and is continuing. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF INTACT ROCK 
8.2.1 General 
Physical properties of intact rock include density and porosity. Measurements of rock density 
are performed utilizing a standardized approach, whereby the weight of rock fragment is 
determined both under dry and saturated conditions. Typically two types of densities are 
determined; 1) grain or matrix density and 2) bulk material density. While the first accounts for 
solid particles of rock material only, the second density includes intergranular voids and often 
assumed regular geometry of the rock sample. 
As indicated earlier, rock porosity appears to play an important part in assessing a broad range of 
rock parameters. This rock material property generally accounts for micro and macroscopic 
voids within rock structure. Typically, rock porosity estimate accounts for pores existing within 
the rock matrix and fractures common to the specific rock type. In addition to these two 
common types of material discontinuities/voids Topopah Spring tuff within its volume includes 
lithophysae, which are spherical voids varying in size and distribution. Its upper and lower 
lithophysal zones include an abundance of lithophysae, and their presence necessitates an 
assessment of porosity to develop a better understanding of the behavior of the lithophysae-rich 
TSw2 rock zones. 
Discussions of the lithostratigraphic rock unit properties presented earlier already indicate 
possible correlation between rock porosity and other rock parameters. An evaluation of the 
impact of lithophysae on the relevant lithostratigraphic rock unit behavior is presented in this 
section. 
8.2.2 Assessment of Factors Impacting Physical Properties of Intact Rock 
In general, deformation and material characteristics change in response to variation in physical 
and environmental conditions. Examples of physical characteristics are bulk properties 
(including mineralogy, grain density, bulk densities and porosity), sample size which yields 
information about scale effects, and sample orientation in relation to anisotropy. Environmental 
conditions of concern include sample saturation, temperature, confining pressure, and loading 
rate or time-scale changes. Much is known about these effects on rocks in general (e.g., see 
Jaeger and Cook 1979; Goodman 1980) and the Yucca Mountain Project has collected large 
amounts of data on the tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada (e.g., Boyd et al. 1996a and 1996b; 
Martin et al. 1994 and 1995a and Nimick et al. 1985). 
Porosity: An important aspect of repository modeling is knowing the extent and magnitude of 
inherent variability (variability in results for samples at a specific location or specific porosity), 
as well as the variability resulting from a change in position within the rock mass (i.e., lateral and 
vertical variability). It has been frequently observed, that the total porosity is a strong indicator 
of the relative magnitude of Youngs modulus and strength properties. Therefore, more detailed 
knowledge of the variability and distribution of porosity is indicative of the variability in these 
key mechanical properties. 
Sample Size: The issue of scale effect is important because of the application of the properties 
of the lab-sized samples to the in situ conditions within Yucca Mountain. Small specimens are 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
expected to have different behavior than large specimens. One solution for addressing this 
scaling process is to test lab samples of different sizes to develop a predictable way to calculate 
the elastic and strength properties of larger rocks more relevant to the conditions in place. 
Sample Orientation (Anisotropy): The variation in mechanical properties with different 
orientations of the axis of the test specimen is the measure of the mechanical anisotropy in a 
material. Because of the known tuff depositional emplacement processes (ash fall and ash flow), 
there are some anisotropic petrologic features in the welded, nonlithophysal tuffs. If the 
mechanical anisotropy were found to be significant, the complexity of the design and 
performance confirmation modeling of the repository would be increased. 
Saturation: The proposed repository horizon within Yucca Mountain is planned for rock units 
that are partially saturated; however, as more of the repository openings are excavated and 
exposed to air circulation due to ventilation systems and as a result of elevated temperatures 
from the stored nuclear waste, the rock mass will begin to dry out. The effect of this drying 
process on the elastic and strength properties is important to stability issues about the potential 
repository openings. 
Temperature: Because of the nature of a nuclear waste repository, the environment will be 
heated above ambient conditions, so an understanding of the effects of these elevated 
temperatures on mechanical properties is also important. 
Confining Pressure: Most laboratory property experiments are gathered on tests at ambient 
pressure, but the repository is at depth within Yucca Mountain. Therefore, appropriate modeling 
efforts require information concerning the effect of the appropriate stress magnitudes around the 
potential repository and their impact on the mechanical properties. 
Rate or Time-Scale: While the lab experiments are performed in a relatively short span of time 
(most tests are less than 30 minutes in duration), the repository is being designed as viable for a 
very long time (because of the long decay and cooling times for the nuclear waste). 
Methodology must be developed to determine the long-term behavior of the tuffs through the 
running of short-term experiments and applying appropriate techniques to extrapolate the results 
to very long periods of time. 
The effect of varying porosity, sample size, sample orientation (i.e., anisotropy), saturation, 
temperature, confining pressure and rate/time will be discussed, when appropriate, in the 
following two sections on elastic and strength properties. 
To facilitate the display of data in summary tables, a code system was developed that allows for 
a concise display of sample characteristics and testing conditions. Information pertaining to the 
rock unit from which the sample originated, the sample diameter, saturation, temperature, length 
to diameter ratio, strain rate, and confining pressures are included in this code. Table 8-1 
presents an explanation and guide to using the code system shown in the summary tables for the 
data describing results of testing of cores from the RHH rock units. Several other rock units 
exist above and below the four RHH rock units and it is difficult to incorporate a system to 
accommodate these units. Data presented outside of the four RHH are presented exclusive of the 
first digit of the code presented below. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A discrepancy in the method confining pressures have been reported was investigated for the 
compilation of the summary tables included herein. Some reports have reported confining 
pressures in terms of total pressure, while others have included confining pressures reported as 
gage. 
An experiment that is performed with no hydrostatic pressure being applied by the testing 
machine has the atmospheric pressure acting as a confining pressure. Inclusion of the 
atmospheric pressure (0.1 MPa) allows the investigator to report the total pressure. However, 
this pressure is also internal to the specimen (i.e., there is an equal pore pressure), and so the 
effective confining pressure (confining pressure minus pore pressure) is zero (Terzaghi 1943, p. 
12). Knowing that atmospheric pressure will be present for all tests allows the use of gage 
pressure for recording of the pressure condition. Gage pressure is an additional pressure applied 
above atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the reported test conditions unconfined and 
confining pressure of 0.1 MPa are, in fact, the same pressure condition. Unconfined intact 
rock compressive elastic and strength results are summarized with some values of 0.1 MPa 
confining pressure in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. 
The summary tables of results show all codes, for which strength and/or elastic property testing 
was performed. Subsequent elastic parameters may have been omitted while testing or not 
included in testing records. Data is also sorted by the magnitude of total porosity. In the 
summary tables shown hereafter an 11% total porosity threshold is used as a sorting criterion for 
breakdown of additional data where appropriate. Unlike the data tabulation that is provided in 
the data qualification reports (Cikanek et al. 2003a, Cikanek et al. 2003b), Busted Butte test 
results are not weighted differently than test results from specimens collected from surface and 
subsurface drilling operations. Data is presented in proper lithostratrigraphic and thermomechanical 
sequence as described in Section 5.3. 
Statistical values presented in Table 8-6, Tables 8-28 through 8-32, and Tables 8-35 through 837 
are simple statistical measures consisting of the mean, standard deviation, standard error, 
minimum value, maximum value, and range. These values were determined within Microsoft 
Excel using the functions of AVERAGE to determine the mean. This function simply sums 
the selected data and divides this summation by the number of selected points. The STDEV 
function calculates the standard deviation which is a measure of how widely values are dispersed 
from the average value (the mean). The standard deviation calculated assumes that a sample of 
the overall population is representative of the entire population. Often there is limited 
comparative data, so this assumption may not be easily verified. The standard error is calculated 
by taking the square root of the standard deviation squared divided by the number of data. The 
COUNT function is used to determine the number of selected data in a range. The MIN and 
MAX function reports the minimum and maximum values, respectively, of the selected data. 
Finally, the range is simply the mathematical difference of the maximum and minimum values. 
The functions are standard functions of Microsoft Excel and are not subject to qualification 
under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management; see Section 3.2. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-1. Explanation of Code System for Static Data 
Strain Rate 
1 
2 
3 
4 
O 
Unit 
Tptpul 
Tptpll 
Tptpmn 
Tptpln 
Other units 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Size (mm) 
25 
38 
41 
51/57/60 
82 
1 
2 
3 
Saturation 
Dry 
Saturated 
Ambient 
1 
2 
3 
4 
T 
Temperature (C) 
20/22/24 
150 
195/200 
250 
unknown 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
L/D Ratio 
1.7 to 2.4 
<1.7 
2.4 to 3.0 
0.75 
0.5 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
(s-1) 
1.E-02 
1.E-03 
1.E-04 
1.E-05 
1.E-06 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
6 127 6 <0.4 7 1.E-07 5 
7 
8 
267/238 
290 
7 
8 
3.0 to 4.0 
4.0 to 4.5 
8 
9 
1.E-08 
1.E-09 
6 
7 
9 228.6 
013/15 
9 4.5 to 5 
NN/A 
N N/A 8 
Example Example 
Confining 
Pressure (Mpa) 
0, 0.1 
5 
6 
10 
15 
20 
24 
50 
100 
3121153 1st number = 3 = Middle Non-Lithophysal 
2nd number = 1 = 25mm 
3rd number = 2 = saturated 
4th number = 1 = room temp 
5th number = 1 = 1.7 to 2.4 L/D Ratio 
6th number = 5 = 1x10-5 strain rate 
7th number = 3 = 10 Mpa confining pressure 
4412530 1st number = 4 = Lower Non-Lithophysal 
2nd number = 4 = 50/57 mm 
3rd number = 1 = dry 
4th number = 2 = 150 C 
5th number = 5 = L/D Ratio of 0.5 
6th number = 3 = 1x10-3 strain rate 
7th number = 3 = 10 Mpa confining pressure 
Table 8-2. Explanation of Code System for Dynamic Data 
Strain Rate 
1 
2 
3 
4 
O 
Unit 
Tptpul 
Tptpll 
Tptpmn 
Tptpln 
Other units 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Size (mm) 
25 
38 
41 
51/57/60 
82 
1 
2 
3 
Saturation 
Dry 
Saturated 
Ambient 
1 
2 
3 
4 
T 
Temperature (C) 
20/22/24 
150 
195/200 
250 
unknown 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
L/D Ratio 
1.7 to 2.4 
<1.7 
2.4 to 3.0 
0.75 
0.5 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
(s-1) 
1.E-02 
1.E-03 
1.E-04 
1.E-05 
1.E-06 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
6 127 6 <0.4 7 1.E-07 
7 
8 
267/238 
290 
7 
8 
3.0 to 4.0 
4.0 to 4.5 
8 
9 
1.E-08 
1.E-09 
9 
0 
228.6 
13/15 
9 
N 
4.5 to 5 
N/A 
N N/A 
Example Example 
Dynamic Data 
Confining 
Pressure (Mpa) 
0 
0.7 
2.1 
4.1 
6.9 
O13T2N3 1st = O = Other unit 
2nd = 1 = 25mm 
3rd = 3 = Ambient Saturation 
4th = T = Temperature Unknown 
5th = 2 = Length to Diamater Ratio < 1.7:1 
6th = N = Strain Rate Not Applicable 
7th = 3 = Confining Pressure of 4.1 MPa 
213T2N4 1st = 2 = Topopah Spring Lower Lithopysal 
2nd = 1 = 25mm 
3rd = 3 = Ambient Saturation 
4th = T = Temperature Unknown 
5th = 2 = Length to Diamater Ratio < 1.7:1 
6th = N = Strain Rate Not Applicable 
7th = 4 = Confining Pressure of 6.9 MPa 
NOTES: Data in the summary tables is color coded and indicates the following: 1) data on a 
white background indicates that less than six unconfined points of data are available 
for comparison, 2) yellow background indicates six or more unconfined data points 
exist for the represented condition of that test, 3) light green background indicates less 
than six confined data values are available for analysis, and 4) dark green color 
indicates that there are six or more data points available for the condition represented 
for the confined test. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Specimens such as indirect tensile strength do not include strain rate or confining pressure 
values, as these tests were all done at the same strain rate and were perfomed in unconfined 
stress conditions. Most tests did not explicitly state what temperature the test was performed, but 
was most likely done at room temperature. Table 8-2 provides a code description for dynamic 
Youngs modulus and dynamic Poissons ratio data found in this report. 
Summaries of results presented in Section 8.4 of this report are comprised of rock specimens that 
qualify as both matrix and bulk rock specimens. The classification of rock matrix material, bulk 
rock, and rock mass is discussed in Section 7.1.1. In order to physically recover the specimen 
and perform mechanical tests on rock, it must be intact and have no complete fractures passing 
through the specimen. Rock inclusive of fractures on a great scale is classified as rock mass and 
would not have been possible to test mechanically in the laboratory. The rock that was tested 
was either consisting wholly of rock matrix, or rock matrix, vapor phased altered material, small 
or partial discontinuity, and lithophysae. The differentiation between these conditions for 
historical specimens is difficult as the inclusion of porosity measurements and detailed 
laboratory condition of the specimen, both externally and internal is difficult to review. 
Specimens may have contained some degree of lithophysae, regardless of what unit they were 
sampled from. 
An illustration of the effect of lithophysae and vapor phase altered material on porosity and 
sample recovery is further develped in Section 8.2.3.4. 
8.2.3 Measured Sample Porosity 
8.2.3.1 General 
In the welded, devitrified tuffs of the Topopah Spring Member (TSM) of the Paintbrush Tuff 
within Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Price et al. (1985) identified three components as being 
distinctly different in their mechanical properties. These components are the matrix (also 
referred to as matrix-groundmass), the lithophysae (or lithophysal cavities) and the vapor-phase-
altered material (also referred to as rims and/or spots). Figure 8-3 show the sketch identifying 
and illustrating the relative location of these components. The explanation of lithophysae is 
general and also applies to the lithophysae found in the Tiva Canyon lithophysal zones (Buesch 
et. al 1996b, p. 12, 16-21.). 
In order to determine the total porosity of a specimen when the abundance of components has 
been measured, it is necessary to know the porosity of each of the components. The USGS 
determined the porosity of component material found in the RHH tuff of Yucca Mountain. Core 
samples (actually end-member pieces from core samples used for other tests) were obtained from 
the Tptpul and Tptpll rock units in order to determine the porosity of the matrix-groundmass and 
rim/spot material, both of which contribute to a determination of total rock porosity. Forty-seven 
core samples from ESF and ECRB boreholes were cut into three component parts (matrixgroundmass, 
rims, spots, and lithophysae) and analyzed (DTN: GS030483351030.001). The 
data from this DTN was assigned appropriate lithostratigraphic units and statistically 
summarized. The results can be found in Tables 8-3 through 8-5. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In carrying out this analysis, ideally a sufficient number of end-member samples could be 
identified that were 100 percent composed of one type of material component. However, this 
was generally not the case, and so a threshold value of 98 percent or greater one type of material 
component was adopted as an approximation. A comparison of results was also made using a 
threshold of 90 percent or greater end-member component as shown in Tables 8-3 through 8-5. 
Comparison of the summary statistics for material components using both of the threshold 
percentages indicated that they are essentially identical to two significant figures. Therefore, 
either the 98 or 90 percent and above threshold values are considered representative of the actual 
component porosities. 
A limited number of samples were available at a sufficient percent of component material from 
the Tptpul. Comparing Tables 8-3 and 8-5 shows that, in general, matrix-groundmass (MGM) 
and rim porosities from the Tptpul and Tptpll are essentially the same. Also, the porosity of rim 
and spot samples were indistinguishable and are represented as one set of properties. 
Summarizing the component porosities using the those samples having 98 percent or greater 
proportion of the targeted material, the measured porosity values of 31 matrix-groundmass 
samples range from 0.08 to 0.13 cm3/cm3 and have a mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 (Table 8-3). The rim 
and spot (R&S) porosity for 18 samples ranges from 0.23 to 0.36 cm3/cm3 with a mean of 0.30 
cm3/cm3. 
8.2.3.2 Matrix Porosity 
The matrix material in the lithophysal and nonlithophysal tuffs of the Topopah Spring Member is 
moderately to densely welded (Price et al. 1985 and 1987). The porosity of the matrix has been 
described by Price and others (1985 and 1987) as consisting of pores less than 2 m in size and 
generally falling in the range of 0.08 to 0.12 cm3/cm3 void fraction (although smaller matrix 
porosities have been measured down to about 0.05). This range was confirmed by the recent 
component testing reported in the previous section where a mean matrix porosity value of 0.10 
cm3/cm3 was determined. 
For modeling purposes it is useful to isolate and report the properties of the matrix-groundmass. 
Unfortunately, good physical descriptions of many of the tested samples are not available. In an 
effort to screen out both lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock samples containing lithophysae and 
vapor phase altered material (rims and spots), a porosity of 0.11 cm3/cm3 (11%) was selected as a 
sorting criterion for calculation of matrix material summary statistics. Justification for using the 
11 percent value comes from the fact that it lies just above the mean porosity of matrix-
groundmass material and the other components have significantly higher values of porosity (see 
Table 8-3). 
8.2.3.3 Lithophysal Porosity 
The lithophysal cavities are relatively large (ranging from a centimeter to a meter in size) pores 
within the tuffs that were formed by separation of a vapor-rich phase from the solid components 
of the tuff during welding and devitrification process (Price et al. 1985). The volume fraction of 
lithophysae within the tuffs can range from 0.00 up to 0.40 or even higher. The mineralogic 
distinction between the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock is minimal, with the differentiation 
in the material being most apparent when lithophysae are considered. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-3. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpul and Tptpll Samples (cm3/cm3) 
All Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
98 to 100% MGM 31 0.102 0.002 0.010 0.098 0.100 0.081 0.134 
90 to 100% MGM 39 0.103 0.002 0.012 0.117 0.101 0.081 0.138 
98 to 100% Rims 9 0.295 0.009 0.026 0.088 0.291 0.257 0.347 
90 to 100% Rims 24 0.303 0.006 0.028 0.092 0.296 0.257 0.372 
98 to 100% Spots 9 0.298 0.011 0.034 0.114 0.295 0.234 0.362 
90 to 100% Spots 11 0.292 0.010 0.034 0.116 0.294 0.234 0.362 
98 to 100% R&S 18 0.296 0.007 0.030 0.101 0.294 0.234 0.362 
90 to 100% R&S 35 0.300 0.005 0.030 0.100 0.294 0.234 0.372 
Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 
Table 8-4. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpul Samples (cm3/cm3) 
Tptpul Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
98 to 100% MGM 6 0.098 0.005 0.013 0.133 0.095 0.081 0.115 
90 to 100% MGM 11 0.103 0.004 0.012 0.117 0.101 0.081 0.117 
98 to 100% Rims NA 
90 to 100% Rims 5 0.288 0.007 0.015 0.052 0.282 0.274 0.311 
98 to 100% Spots NA 
90 to 100% Spots NA 
98 to 100% R&S NA 
90 to 100% R&S 5 0.288 0.007 0.015 0.052 0.282 0.274 0.311 
Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 
Table 8-5. Component Porosity Summary for Tptpll Samples (cm3/cm3) 
Tptpll Samples Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
98 to 100% MGM 25 0.102 0.002 0.010 0.098 0.100 0.092 0.134 
90 to 100% MGM 28 0.104 0.002 0.011 0.106 0.101 0.092 0.138 
98 to 100% Rims 9 0.295 0.009 0.026 0.088 0.291 0.257 0.347 
90 to 100% Rims 19 0.307 0.007 0.029 0.094 0.306 0.257 0.372 
98 to 100% Spots 9 0.298 0.011 0.034 0.114 0.295 0.234 0.362 
90 to 100% Spots 11 0.292 0.010 0.034 0.116 0.294 0.234 0.362 
98 to 100% R&S 18 0.296 0.007 0.030 0.101 0.294 0.234 0.362 
90 to 100% R&S 30 0.302 0.006 0.031 0.103 0.294 0.234 0.372 
Source: DTN GS030483351030.001 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The lithophysae in the Tptpul generally tend to be smaller, roughly 1 cm to 10 cm in diameter, 
than the lithophysae in the Tptpll, which tend to have lithophysae which are highly variable. The 
lithophysae found in the Tptpll range roughly from less than 1 cm to 1.8 m in size. The 
lithophysae in the Tptpul tend to be more uniform in size and distribution than the lithophysae in 
the Tptpll, which tends to have shapes that are highly variable and are of simple geometry to 
irregular, cuspate, and merged. The lithophysae have varying infilling and rim thickness. The 
lithophysae in both units have a volume percentage that varies consistently with stratigraphic 
position and are stratigraphically predictable. 
The porosity of a lithophysal cavity is 1.0 cm3/cm3 void fraction or 100% as expressed as a 
percentage. The lithophysae are often filled or lined with vapor phase altered material having 
porosity between the rock matrix porosity and the porosity of the lithophysae (1.0). The vapor 
phase altered material generally has porosity between .30 and .80, while rim material generally 
has porosity between 0.20 and 0.40 (Buesch 2003). 
8.2.3.4 Total Porosity 
The total porosity of a specimen is either calculated by saturating the specimen and determining 
what volume of the sample is occupied by water, by drying the samples and using the dry bulk 
and average grain densities, or by an approximation method using a point count of the exterior of 
the specimen in combination with the porosity of the components encountered. The total 
porosity in a rock is defined as the summation of the volume fraction of all open (pore) spaces 
contained within the solid material constituents. Therefore, the total porosity in the welded, 
devitrified of the Topopah Spring is calculated by adding together the volume fraction of pores 
contained within each of the three material components. 
The porosity data associated with mechanical strength properties are currently in various levels 
of quality. A data qualification plan has been approved to gather and qualify data that meets the 
requirements of AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data. The porosity data presented in 
this report are either currently qualified and verified, or is associated with strength data that has 
been recently qualified. It is assumed that if the necessary documents for qualification were in 
order for the strength parameters, they will also be adequate for associated porosity data. The 
porosity data qualification effort is expected to occur in the fall if 2003. All porosity data plotted 
in Section 3.5 are total porosity determined from laboratory calculation techniques. 
The total porosity of a specimen is size dependant. Small samples cannot capture lithophysae in 
their entirety. Figure 8-1 is a photograph of the right tunnel wall between stations 14+93 and 
14+96 in the ECRB from the Tptpll. The one-meter high by three-meter long section of wall was 
then analyzed for the abundance and location of lithophysae and altered material. The 
lithophysae (voids) are outlined in red, spot material (solid) is outlined in lavender, rim material 
is outlined in green, and clasts are outlined in yellow. This panel map and accompanying 
information is available in DTN GS021008314224.002. The illustration from the DTN was 
further manipulated for illustration purposes. 
The ability to capture a specimen of the rock mass is impractical, as the specimen must be of 
several lithophysae in diameter, which in this case the specimen would be on the order of meters, 
and because the rock mass includes fractures, a complete and intact specimen for testing would 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
be nearly impossible to obtain. Bulk rock consists of lithophysae, vapor phase altered material, 
cracks (healed), and matrix material. The largest specimens mechanically tested in the 
laboratory are 290 mm cylindrical cores obtained from the lithophysal zones and the smallest 
specimens mechanically tested were 25.4 mm in diameter. 
Figure 8-2 is the same panel map as shown in Figure 8-1 with six randomly located sets of 
specimen outlines. The rectangles at each of the six locations indicate the outline of theoretical 
core specimens with length to diameter ratios of 2:1. The outlines are of vertical cores with 
diameters of 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, 82 mm, 127 mm, 228 mm, 267 mm, and 290 mm with 
corresponding lengths of twice the diameter of the specimen. The geometric centers of each set 
of concentric rings are common. If one assumes that the plane of the photograph shown in 
Figures 8-1 and 8-2 is representative of the conditions perpendicular to the page, then the area of 
the theoretical specimens can be roughly assumed to represent the volumes of the specimens as 
well. The total porosity of a specimen is dependant on the volume that is sampled, and this is 
best illustrated in Figure 8-3, which is the same panel map in Figures 8-1 and 8-2 with the 
photograph removed and the theoretical specimens outlined. Figure 8-3 is an illustration of the 
difficulty in obtaining specimens that are representative of the bulk rock. Of the six sets of 
theoretical specimens, four of the six 25.4 mm specimens are composed entirely of matrix 
material (second, fourth fifth and sixth from the left), one is primarily lithophysae (furthest left), 
and one primarily of spot material (third from left). The porosity of the recoverable material 
would be representative of matrix material. 
The specimen primarily composed of lithophysae (first from left) would be unrecoverable from 
the borehole intact, and therefore would be unable to be tested. The four specimens that are 
composed entirely of matrix material are from a lithophysal zone, but contain no lithophysae, 
therefore are comparable to specimens recovered from nonlithophysal zones. Because of their 
size, it is difficult to capture lithophysae having an impact on total porosity in small specimens, 
in particular 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, and even 82 mm diameter specimens, and samples from all 
lithostratigraphic units can be compared. 
The first set of theoretic specimens (furthest to the left) most likely would not be able to be 
recovered as the lateral dimension of the large lithophysae located in the center of the specimen 
would make recovery difficult. Recovery of specimens depends on the size and location of the 
sample in relation to the lithophysae. To capture the effective total porosity of the rock, sample 
specimens of sufficient size must be obtained. 
Laboratory measurements of specimen total porosity are summarized in Table 8-6. Various 
methods of porosity determination were used. The qualification of porosity data is planned and 
will incorporated into a DTN that will compile all data. The presentation in Table 8-6 is from 
various DTNs associated with mechanical strength testing. Some DTNs were qualified, and 
others were not. Table 8-6 is not a table of complete qualified source data and each example 
should be investigated before use. Table IX-2 of Attachment IX provides the measured porosity 
for each laboratory specimen summarized in Table 8-6. Electronic files are provided in 
Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
100 mm 
10 cm 
200 mm 
20 cm 
500 mm 
50 cm 
1000 mm 
1 m 
Source: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-1. Panel Map Photograph and Stenciled Lithophysae and Vapor Phase Altered Material at Station 14+93 Through Station 14+96 Right 
Wall 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
100 m m 
10 cm
200 mm
20 cm
500 mm 
50 cm 
1000 mm 
1 m 
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-2. Panel Map of Lithophysal Zone at Station 14+93 Through Station 14+96 Right Wall and Randomly Located Specimen Outlines 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10 cm 
20 cm 
500 mm 
50 cm 
1 m 
1000 mm 
200 mm 
100 mm 
Source: Adapted from GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-3. Panel Map of Station 14+93 through 14+96 Right Wall Including Outline of Lithophysae and Randomly Selected Specimen Outlines 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results 
Thermo-Litho- Porosity (%) 
5 3.74 44.2 35.8 
i 7 3.11 47.8 44.6 
11 7.74 27.6 31.7 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
6 3.23 23.7 
1 N/A 13.3 13.3 
5 3.69 15.7 14.2 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
4 7.75 
4 7.15 
7 14.3 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
17 6.12 1.71 
1 N/A 10.4 10.4 
1 8.40 N/A 
17 8.39 2.73 11.2 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 8.80 N/A 
2 N/A 17.9 
l1 N/A 16.1 16.1 
Tpcpv2 4 9.54 21.6 
Tpcpv1 3 0.31 37.8 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A 54 54 54 N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
Tpy 3 3.79 30.5 
1 N/A 38 38 38 N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
9 3.78 51.2 42.6 11.9 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A 54.7 54.7 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A 39.8 39.8 
6 7.28 15.5 
2.36 15.4 12.1 
2.07 13.8 
3.51 14.4 22.1 19.2 
5 1.18 14.3 12.4 
5 2.36 14.4 11.1 
5 0.11 18.2 18.2 
3 1.97 18.7 17.2 
1 N/A 14.9 14.9 
5 1 
2 N/A 
() 1 8.90 N/A 
iUnit 
ll 
UO 
TCw 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
Tmr O421150 42.46 1.7 44.5 8.7 
TpkO421150 47.84 1.2 52.8 8.2 
O421150 26.41 2.3 10 41.7 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A 
Tpcrn2 O421150 25.97 1.3 24.95 32.4 8.7 
Tpcrn1 O421150 13.30 N/A 13.3 N/A 
O421150 17.64 1.6 22.6 8.4 
O431143 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431146 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431147 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A 
O121151 8.33 1.56 0.8 7.2 10.6 3.4 
O121153 7.15 0.06 0.0 7.1 7.2 0.1 
O421150 9.93 2.57 1.0 8.6 7.4 6.9 
O421151 N/A N/A N/A 
O421153 N/A N/A N/A 
O431144 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431146 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431147 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 0.4 5.50 4.50 10.20 5.7 
O421151 10.40 N/A 10.4 N/A 
O421153 N/A 8.4 8.4 8.4 N/A 
O421150 0.7 7.5 5.2 16.4 
O421151 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O421153 N/A N/A N/A 
O431140 8.80 N/A 8.8 8.8 8.8 
O431143 N/A 8.8 8.8 8.8 N/A 
O431145 17.75 N/A 17.75 8.8 26.7 
Tpcpnc O421153 16.10 N/A 16.1 N/A 
O421150 29.80 4.8 32.00 16.80 38.40 
O421150 38.07 0.2 38 38.4 0.6 
O421150 57.10 N/A 57.10 57.10 57.10 
O431140 54.00 N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 32.93 2.2 31 37.3 6.8 
O421150 38.00 N/A 
O421151 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 50.56 1.3 54.5 
O421153 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 54.70 N/A 54.7 N/A 
O431150 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Tptrv3 O421150 39.80 N/A 39.8 N/A 
O121150 10.22 3.0 10.15 2.9 18.4 
O121151 13 15.36 0.7 19.2 7.1 
O121153 11 13.72 0.6 11 16.4 5.4 
O421150 52 14.37 0.5 2.9 
O421151 14.26 0.5 15.5 3.1 
O421153 14.30 1.1 16.6 5.5 
O431150 18.28 0.0 18.4 0.2 
O421150 19.00 1.1 21.1 3.9 
O421151 14.90 N/A 14.9 N/A 
O121150 7.56 0.40 0.2 7.5 7.1 8.1 
O121170 8.90 N/A 8.9 8.1 9.7 1.6 
continuedO421150 N/A 8.9 8.9 8.9 N/A 
Mechanical 
Unit 
stratgraphic 
TSw1 
Tpcpmn 
Tpcpul 
Tpcpln 
Tpbt2 
Tpbt3 
TpcpPTn 
Tpbt4 
Tpcrn 
Tptf 
Tptrl 
Tptrn 
Tpp 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02000000011.000, SNL02030193001.001, SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003,
SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.007,
SNL02030193001.008, SNL02030193001.012, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014,
SNL02030193001.015, SNL02030193001.016, SNL02030193001.018, SNL02030193001.019,
SNL02030193001.020, SNL02030193001.021, SNL02030193001.022, SNL02030193001.028,
SNL02040687003.001, SNL02072983001.001, SNL02072983003.001, SNSAND80145300.000,
SNSAND82048100.000, SNSAND82105500.000, SNSAND82131400.000, SNSAND82131500.000,
SNSAND83164600.000, SNSAND84086000.000, SNSAND84110100.000, SNSAND85070300.000,
SNSAND91089400.000, SN0305L0207502.006
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Porosity (%) 
7 3.99 15.3 11.4 11.9 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
10 3.03 30.9 
3 42.8 25.3 
3 38.9 38.7 38.7 
6 9.14 31.6 25.6 
1 40.9 N/A 40.9 40.9 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
3 0.00 10.3 10.3 0 
14 0.77 10.4 10.3 
6 0.81 11.1 10.4 
6 1.01 10 12.2 
2 N/A 10.3 10.3 0 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
21 1.76 8 15.2 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 13.6 12.6 2 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
6 1.11 10.6 9 12 3 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
5 1.57 11.6 13.9 
6 1.75 
5 1.38 10.6 12.6 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
26 4.01 12.9 24.7 17 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 14.5 14.5 0 
2 N/A 12.9 12.9 0 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
8 2.46 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 26.4 N/A 26.4 23.6 
1 25.7 N/A 25.7 25.7 
() 3 3.52 32.4 30.6 
Unit 
iUnit 
) 
ll 
l 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
1421150 15.61 1.5 23.3 
1421151 N/A N/A N/A 
1421153 N/A N/A N/A 
1431150 N/A N/A N/A 
1613150 N/A N/A N/A 
1621150 N/A N/A N/A 
1631150 N/A N/A N/A 
1721150 35.21 1.0 34.95 40 9.1 
1813250 41.63 15.78 9.1 56.8 31.50 
1821150 0.35 0.2 39.3 0.60 
1831150 34.95 3.7 51.7 26.10 
1831250 N/A 40.9 N/A 
3111350 N/A N/A N/A 
3121130 10.30 0.0 10.3 
3121150 10.79 0.2 12.2 1.9 
3121151 11.23 0.3 12.2 1.8 
3121153 11.13 0.4 11.05 2.2 
3121170 10.30 N/A 10.3 
3231150 N/A N/A N/A 
3231350 N/A N/A N/A 
3331350 N/A N/A N/A 
3411150 N/A N/A N/A 
3411151 N/A N/A N/A 
3411153 N/A N/A N/A 
3411170 N/A N/A N/A 
3412130 N/A N/A N/A 
3412150 N/A N/A N/A 
3412153 N/A N/A N/A 
3412170 N/A N/A N/A 
3412180 N/A N/A N/A 
3421130 N/A N/A N/A 
3421150 10.31 0.4 10 7.2 
3421151 N/A N/A N/A 
3421153 13.60 N/A 14.6 
3421155 N/A N/A N/A 
3421170 N/A N/A N/A 
3421190 10.65 0.5 
3422150 N/A N/A N/A 
3422151 N/A N/A N/A 
3422162 11.52 0.7 9.7 4.2 
3422163 11.22 0.7 11.35 8.7 13.9 5.2 
3422164 10.70 0.6 9.3 3.3 
3521150 N/A N/A N/A 
3621150 N/A N/A N/A 
3631150 N/A N/A N/A 
3921150 N/A N/A N/A 
2121150 13.43 0.8 7.7 
2121151 N/A N/A N/A 
2121153 14.50 N/A 14.5 
2121170 12.90 N/A 12.9 
2131150 N/A N/A N/A 
2411150 N/A N/A N/A 
2412150 N/A N/A N/A 
2421150 12.68 0.9 12.05 9.9 17.6 7.7 
2421153 N/A N/A N/A 
2431150 N/A N/A N/A 
2512150 N/A N/A N/A 
2531150 N/A N/A N/A 
2613150 N/A N/A N/A 
2621150 N/A N/A N/A 
2631150 N/A N/A N/A 
2813250 N/A 29.2 5.60 
2821150 N/A 25.7 N/A 
continued2831150 33.47 2.0 37.4 6.80 
TSw2 
Mechanical stratgraphic 
(cont. from 
previous 
pageTptpTSw1 
Tptpmn 
Tptpu
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: SEE SOURCE DTNS ON PREVIOUS PAGE 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-6. Summary of Porosity Results (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Porosity (%) 
Mechanical 
Unit 
stratigraphic 
Unit Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
(cont. from 
previous 
page) 
Tptpln 
4121120 
4121140 
4121150 
4121160 
4421150 
0 
0 
5 
0 
5 
N/A 
N/A 
12.40 
N/A 
10.44 
N/A 
N/A 
0.00 
N/A 
1.55 
N/A 
N/A 
0.0 
N/A 
0.7 
N/A 
N/A 
12.4 
N/A 
9.8 
N/A 
N/A 
12.4 
N/A 
9.6 
N/A 
N/A 
12.4 
N/A 
13.2 
N/A 
N/A 
0 
N/A 
3.6 
TSw2 
4421151 
4421153 
4422164 
4431150 
1 
1 
1 
0 
6.90 
5.70 
7.60 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
6.9 
5.7 
7.6 
N/A 
6.9 
5.7 
7.6 
N/A 
6.9 
5.7 
7.6 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
TSw3 Tptpv3 
O421150 
O421151 
O121153 
O421153 
0 
0 
3 
0 
N/A 
N/A 
3.03 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
1.27 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
0.7 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
3.5 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
1.6 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
4 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
2.4 
N/A 
Tptpv2 O121150 
O431150 
O431150 
O121130 
1 
2 
2 
3 
13.9 
14.9 
7.83 
38.1 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
0.00 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
0.0 
13.9 
14.9 
7.83 
38.1 
13.9 
13.9 
7.45 
38.1 
13.9 
15.9 
8.20 
38.1 
N/A 
2 
0.75 
0 
Tptpv1 O121151 
O121150 
O121153 
2 
5 
2 
35.2 
36.94 
35.2 
N/A 
1.59 
N/A 
N/A 
0.7 
N/A 
35.2 
38.1 
35.2 
35.2 
35.2 
35.2 
35.2 
38.1 
35.2 
0 
2.9 
0 
CHn 
Tpbt1 
O121150 
O121170 
O121170 
O421150 
O111150 
O121130 
0 
0 
2 
0 
2 
2 
N/A 
N/A 
38.1 
N/A 
37.80 
36.70 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
38.1 
N/A 
37.8 
36.7 
N/A 
N/A 
38.1 
N/A 
37.8 
36.7 
N/A 
N/A 
38.1 
N/A 
37.8 
36.7 
N/A 
N/A 
0 
N/A 
0 
0 
Tac O121155 
O121170 
O121150 
O121153 
O131153 
O421150 
6 
2 
34 
8 
2 
0 
39.53 
36.70 
39.03 
38.83 
37.80 
N/A 
1.34 
N/A 
1.90 
1.73 
N/A 
N/A 
0.5 
N/A 
0.3 
0.6 
N/A 
N/A 
40.4 
36.7 
39 
39.1 
37.8 
N/A 
37.8 
36.7 
36.7 
36.7 
37.8 
N/A 
40.4 
36.7 
43 
40.4 
37.8 
N/A 
2.6 
0 
6.3 
3.7 
0 
N/A 
1 N/A 36.6 36.6 36.6 
3 2.70 32.2 29.5 34.9 
8 3.93 32.5 28.7 36.4 
4 0.29 23.5 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
17 2.00 5 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 17.7 
8 1.62 22.7 24.4 
11 1.83 5 
18 1.14 25 28 3 
1 N/A 21.9 21.9 21.9 
Tcpbt 4 0.06 28 28.1 
4 0.00 0 
1 N/A 16.7 16.7 16.7 
Tcplv 0 NA 
icallO431140 36.60 N/A N/A 
O431165 32.20 1.6 5.4 
Tacbt O121150 32.53 1.4 7.7 
Tcbbt O121150 23.75 0.1 23.75 24 0.5 
O113141 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O113143 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O113145 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O121150 24.59 0.5 24 23 28 
O123143 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O123145 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O123146 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
O431145 19.85 N/A 19.85 22 4.3 
Tcblv O121150 22.70 0.6 21 3.4 
Tcbuv O121150 35.65 0.6 36 34 39 
O121150 26.92 0.3 27.15 
O431147 21.90 N/A N/A 
O121150 28.05 0.0 28.05 0.1 
O121150 32.00 0.0 32 32 32 
O431140 16.70 N/A N/A 
O431140 
Undifferentiated 
Listed Alphabety, Not in Depositional Sequence 
Tcplc 
Tcpm 
Tcbm 
Tcbuc 
/N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 14.5 
1 N/A 19.1 19.1 19.1 
4 0.23 23.2 23.4 
4 0.29 20.5 
29 7.33 25.5 17.6 24.4 
4 0.23 21.2 21.4 
7 2.66 32.9 27.9 
N/A N/A N/A 
O431145 16.25 N/A 16.25 18 3.5 
O431148 19.10 N/A N/A 
Tctuc O121150 23.20 0.1 23 0.4 
Tctlc O121150 20.75 0.1 20.75 21 0.5 
Tctlv O121150 24.49 1.4 42 
Tctm O121150 21.20 0.1 21 0.4 
Tctuv O121150 30.81 1.0 33 5.1 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02000000011.000, SNL02030193001.001, SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003, 
SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.007, 
SNL02030193001.008, SNL02030193001.012, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014, 
SNL02030193001.015, SNL02030193001.016, SNL02030193001.018, SNL02030193001.019, 
SNL02030193001.020, SNL02030193001.021, SNL02030193001.022, SNL02030193001.028, 
SNL02040687003.001, SNL02072983001.001, SNL02072983003.001, SNSAND80145300.000, 
SNSAND82048100.000, SNSAND82105500.000, SNSAND82131400.000, SNSAND82131500.000, 
SNSAND83164600.000, SNSAND84086000.000, SNSAND84110100.000, SNSAND85070300.000, 
SNSAND91089400.000, SN0305L0207502.006 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.2.4 Density 
8.2.4.1 General 
Rock densities are used in the thermal mechanical calculation of stresses at Yucca Mountain due 
to heating and cooling of the repository. Density data is commonly presented in terms of the 
following properties: 1) dry grain density or matrix density data, 2) dry bulk density data, and 3) 
saturated bulk density data. Included below are the existing Yucca Mountain density data in the 
format as shown. Density and porosity information derived from geophysical data will be added 
in the next version of this report. 
8.2.4.2 Dry Bulk Density 
The data presented in Table 8-7 include dry bulk density values for the various lithostratigraphic 
and thermal-mechanical units of the Yucca Mountain lithostratigraphic rock units. The mean 
values for thermal-mechanical units are determined by averaging the densities of the 
lithostratigraphic units within each thermal-mechanical unit, weighted according to the thickness 
of each lithostratigraphic unit. Additional details are provided in the Microsoft Excel file, 
thermal properties TM units v1.xls (BSC 2003a, Attachment I). 
8.2.4.3 Saturated Bulk Density 
The saturated bulk density data are provided in Table 8-8. The mean density value for these data 
is 2.41 g/cc. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-7. Density Data for Various Thermal Mechanical Units and Associated Lithostratigraphic Units 
Thermal Mechanical 
Unit Stratigraphic Unit Thicknessa (m) DryBulk Density 
(kg/m3) DTNb 
TCw / PTn 
Tpcpv3 0.0 2310 
SN0307T0503102.009 
Tpcpv2 5.1 1460 
Tpcpv1 2.4 1460 
Tpbt4 0.5 1460 
Tpy 3.8 1460 
Tpbt3 3.8 1460 
Tpp 5.1 1460 
Tpbt2 8.3 1460 
Tptrv3 1.9 1460 
Tptrv2 1.2 1460 
Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1460 
TSw1 
Tptrv1 1.2 2310 
Tptrn 35.6 2190 
Tptrl 6.1 2190 
Tptpul 66.8 1834 
SN0208T0503102.007 
Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1974 
TSw2 / TSw3 
Tptpmn 38.3 2148 
Tptpll 95.6 1979 
Tptpln 55.1 2211 
Tptpv3 12.0 2310 
SN0307T0503102.009 
Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 2095 
CHn 
Tptpv2 4.7 1460 
Tptpv1 15.4 1460 
Tpbt1 2.0 1460 
Calico 45.5 1670 
Calicobt 15.9 1670 
Mean (weighted by unit thickness) 1614 
NOTES: aThickness of units extracted from DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002. The details of this extraction are 
provided in Drift Degradation Analysis, BSC 2003a. 
bMean values are calculated in this report and not provided by the DTNs listed in this table. Data 
extracted from DTN: SN0208T0503102.007 are summarized in BSC 2002h, Table 7-10. 
Source: BSC 2003a 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-8. Density Data from the Tptpln Unit 
Borehole Sample Number 
Saturated 
Bulk Density (g/cc) 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1230.2-SNL 2.395 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1236.7-SNL 2.393 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1252.3-SNL 2.369 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1257.8-SNL 2.421 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1259.1-SNL 2.420 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1265.2-SNL 2.426 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1314.8-SNL 2.418 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1399.1-A-SNL 2.409 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1400.5-B-SNL 2.428 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1230.2-SNL 2.339 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.416 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.396 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1263.7-SNL 2.421 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1307.0-SNL 2.414 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1307.0-SNL 2.411 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1348.8-SNL 2.440 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1348.8-SNL 2.424 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1353.7-SNL 2.388 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1363.5-SNL 2.442 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1385.0-SNL 2.424 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1385.0-SNL 2.419 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1402.7-SNL 2.358 
NRG-7a NRG-7a-1409.0-SNL 2.450 
SD-12 SD-12-1073.3-SNL 2.415 
SD-12 SD-12-1077.1-SNL 2.426 
SD-12 SD-12-1107.1-SNL 2.416 
SD-12 SD-12-1112.1-SNL 2.400 
SD-12 SD-12-1118.9-SNL 2.372 
SD-12 SD-12-1209.0-SNL 2.423 
SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1243-SNL 2.418 
SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1298-SNL 2.439 
SD-9 NRG-SD-9-1346.5-SNL 2.419 
Mean Density Value 2.411 
DTN: SNL02030193001.027 
Source: BSC 2003a 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3 THERMAL PROPERTIES OF LITHOSTRATIGRAPHIC ROCK UNITS 
8.3.1 General 
A unique feature of the repository design is to assess the performance of the repository subjected 
to a large amount of heat that will be generated by waste packages emplaced in emplacement 
drifts. The performance of the repository is largely determined by energy transport within the 
rock mass adjacent to the emplacement drifts. The energy transport involves the processes of 
heat transfer, fluid migration and phase changes, and volumetric changes. These processes are 
directly controlled by the rock mass thermal properties such as thermal conductivity, heat 
capacity, and thermal expansion. 
Use of laboratory and field measurements to determine thermal properties of the Yucca 
Mountain tuff has been a significant part of the Yucca Mountain Office of Repository 
Development (YMP) Site Characterization Efforts (DOE 1988 [100282], Section 8.3.1.15). 
These measurements are essential in providing not only the site-specific values of thermal 
properties among other parameters but also the information of their spatial variability and 
dependencies on temperature, porosity and/or fracture, and moisture content. Additionally, these 
testing efforts have also assisted in development of theoretical models that describe spatial 
correlation of thermal properties and correlation between rock mass thermal properties, intact 
rock thermal properties, and other rock properties such as porosity. Use of theoretical models to 
estimate rock mass thermal properties, for example thermal conductivity, is an important 
alternative to field measurements when such measurements are either unfeasible or unavailable. 
The data collected so far cover a number of lithostratigraphic units of the Yucca Mountain tuff. 
Majority of the data are for the upper lithophysal (Tptpul), the middle nonlithophysal (Tptpmn), 
the lower lithophysal (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) units. These four units 
have been the primary focus of site characterization efforts in recent years because the proposed 
repository host horizon will be located within these four units (BSC 2003i, Attachment II, Table 
II-2). These four units can be grouped into the lithophysal (Tptpul and Tptpll) and 
nonlithophysal (Tptpmn and Tptpln) rocks based on their dominant features such as voids or 
fractures. The dominant features of lithophysal rocks are the presence of large-scale air-filled 
voids, while those of nonlithophysal rocks are fractures. 
Numerous laboratory tests using small specimens containing few voids and/or fractures show 
that intact rock thermal characteristics of these two types of rocks are similar (CRWMS M&O 
1997d, Tables 5-11, 5-13, 5-15, and 5-16), indicating that similar methods may be used for 
acquiring intact rock thermal properties. However, rock mass characteristics of these rocks are 
quite different due to their different dominant features, large-scale voids or fractures. These 
impacting factors will be reflected in the difference in their rock mass thermal properties, 
suggesting for example the use of different methods of acquiring rock mass thermal properties 
for the lithophysal rocks versus those methods used for the nonlithophysal rocks. Due to the 
associated relatively high cost and logistics involved, only a limited number of field thermal tests 
have been conducted (BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.3.5, 6.3.1.4, and 6.3.3.6.5), estimation of rock 
mass thermal properties and their spatial variations based solely on the available field testing 
data may not be sufficient. This may point to a necessity of developing theoretical models that 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
can aid in describing the correlation between intact rock and rock mass thermal properties and 
the spatial variations. 
8.3.2 Assessment of Factors Impacting Thermal Rock Properties 
Thermal properties may be affected by many factors such as temperature, porosity, fracture, 
moisture content, specimen size or scale, mineral content, and loading condition. A brief 
discussion regarding the dependencies of thermal properties on these factors is provided below. 
Temperature. Thermal properties of both lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks are highly 
temperature dependent. This dependency is primarily related to mineralogical phase changes, 
liquid phase changes, and volumetric changes when the rocks experience variations in 
temperature. This may also include the effect of heating and cooling cycles because rock may 
behave differently during a heating phase than during a cooling phase. Heat and resulting 
changes in temperature due to waste emplacement play an important role in the physical 
processes in the rock mass surrounding the emplacement drifts. Understanding of the 
temperature effect on thermal properties has been an essential part of the investigation within the 
scope of YMP site characterization activities. 
Porosity. A large number of voids exist in the Yucca Mountain tuff. Most of these voids are 
air-filled and some of them, called lithophysae, are of large scale. Porosity, a measure of 
volumetric fraction of void space, in the lithophysal rock may be as high as 40 percent (BSC 
2002i, Figure 6-5). Since the thermal energy transport rate and expansion are different in solid 
than in air, the porosity including both matrix and lithophysae will affect the effective thermal 
properties of rock mass, especially the lithophysal rock. According to the subsurface layout for 
the License Application (LA), about 81 percent of the emplacement drifts will be excavated in 
the Tptpll unit (BSC 2003i, Table II-2). This makes the understanding of the effect of porosity 
on rock mass thermal and mechanical properties a primary area of investigation in recent years. 
Fracture. The observation concerning the effect of porosity on thermal properties also applies 
to the effect of fractures as long as fractures are not completely closed. In case fractures are 
completely closed with no filling materials, they may have insignificant effect on thermal energy 
transport and expansion. 
Moisture Content. Moisture content, measured in terms of degree of saturation, contained in 
voids may also affect the effective thermal energy transport rate and expansion. This effect is 
sometime reflected in the dependency of thermal properties on temperature because pore water 
will experience phase changes at the boiling temperature, followed by a dry out in the rock. A 
dry rock has a lower thermal conductivity compared to a saturated or partially saturated rock 
since air thermal conductivity is much lower than water. 
Specimen Size or Scale. The size dependency of thermal properties reflects the effect of 
heterogeneity or discontinuities in rock. With increasing size of rock specimens, the degree of 
heterogeneity or discontinuities increases and so does the effect on thermal properties. 
Investigation of the size effect should lead to an improved understanding of the effect of porosity 
or fracture on the rock mass effective thermal properties. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Mineral Content. The effect of mineralogy on thermal properties is related to the presence of 
certain minerals such as tridymite and cristobalite and their phase changes at a certain transition 
temperature. 
Loading Condition. By definition, thermal properties are measured under stress-free 
conditions. In a field thermal/mechanical test at a drift scale, however, rock is subjected to 
confining stresses, and achieving a stress-free condition in the field test is not feasible. The 
confining stresses usually cause rock to deform, which in turn results in a reduction in fracture 
apertures or porosity, and are expected to mainly affect the thermal expansion. Investigation of 
the loading condition effect should lead to an improved understanding of the effect of confining 
stresses on the rock mass thermal expansion properties. 
8.3.3 Thermal Conductivity 
Energy transport within the rock mass surrounding an emplacement drift is dominated by heat 
conduction, which is governed by Fouriers law of heat conduction (Holman 1997 [101978], Eg. 
1-1). 
.Q - = kA .T (Eq. 8-1) 
.t .x 
Where: .Q/.t is the heat transfer rate, .T/.x is the temperature gradient in the direction of the 
heat flow, A is the cross-sectional area, and k is the thermal conductivity of the material. 
As defined in Fouriers law, thermal conductivity (k) is a proportionality constant that relates the 
heat transfer (conduction) rate per unit area in a material to the normal temperature gradient. 
Equation 8-1 can also be used to calculate the value of thermal conductivity from laboratory 
measurements, given that the following assumptions are valid: 1) the heat flow is one-
dimensional, 2) the testing material is homogeneous and isotropic, and 3) the thermal 
conductivity is independent of the changes in temperature and moisture content. These 
conditions are generally achievable in laboratory measurements by using small right circular 
cylindrical specimens, controlling heat flow in one-dimension, and measuring heat transfer rate 
over a small temperature change. In field measurements, these conditions are, however, difficult 
to achieve. Hence, the Equation 8-1 cannot be directly used to calculate thermal conductivity, 
and other theoretical and/or numerical approaches are desired to estimate the rock mass thermal 
conductivity from the field measurements (Section 8.3.3.2). 
Due to the heterogeneity and discontinuities in the rock units that will host the repository, 
thermal conductivity of the rock of interest is both scale and direction dependent. When 
increasing the size of testing specimens, the degree of heterogeneity and the impact of 
discontinuities increase, thus affecting the thermal conductivity of the rock specimen. Since the 
temperature changes in the rock mass due to heat originating from waste packages in the 
emplacement drift are largely determined by the rock mass thermal conductivity, it is important 
to understand the effect of scale on the rock thermal conductivity and the difference between the 
intact rock and the rock mass, so a correct value of thermal conductivity can be used in the 
design. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3.3.1 Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity 
The thermal conductivity of intact rock can be determined based on laboratory thermal 
conductivity measurements using small specimens that are assumed to contain few or no 
discontinuities. The test specimens used in the laboratory thermal conductivity measurements by 
the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) for the Yucca Mountain tuff were right circular 
cylinders, cored to nominal dimensions of 50.8 mm in diameter and 12.7 mm in length (Brodsky 
et al. 1997 [100653], Section 2.1, Table 2-1). These rock specimens usually contain few voids or 
fractures, and behave like an intact rock. Therefore, the results from the laboratory thermal 
conductivity measurements using these small rock specimens can be considered to represent 
properties of intact rock. 
Laboratory thermal conductivity measurements obtained by SNL were conducted using a 
guarded heat flow meter following the SNL technical procedure SNL TP-202, Rev 01. 
Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Samples Using the Guarded Heat-Flow 
Meter Method (TP-202 [108553]). Moisture contents were either air dry, oven dry, vacuum 
saturated, or partially saturated (intermediate between air dry and vacuum saturated). Tests were 
conducted over a temperature range of 30C to 300C (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). 
The test specimen was placed between two heater plates controlled at different temperatures and 
heat flow was measured (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.1). The thermal conductivity 
was calculated using Equation 8-1. 
In order to apply Fouriers law of heat conduction (Equation 8-1) for calculating thermal 
conductivity of intact rock, k must remain a constant over a given time interval and temperature 
change. Depending on the characteristics of rock specimens, k may change even with a very 
small change in temperature. For example, vaporization of moisture over a regional trans-
boiling temperature zone will dry out rock, resulting in a reduction in thermal conductivity. 
On the other hand, though laboratory thermal conductivity measurements were made on small 
specimens, voids and/or fractures may still exist in these specimens. The presence of any voids 
and/or fractures, no matter how few or small they are, may still have some impact on the 
measured temperature gradient and heat flow rate. The thermal conductivity determined based 
on these measured data may not be the upper bound for intact rock. 
Characterization of the thermal conductivity of Yucca Mountain tuffs has been continuing since 
1980. The data collected in early 1980s from boreholes USW G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 were 
reviewed and summarized by Nimick (1989, Appendix A). Analysis of the data for the welded, 
devitrified portion of the Topopah Spring member was given in Nimick (1990a, Section 3). 
Experimental results for core specimens from Yucca Mountain were analyzed in Nimick (1990b, 
Section 3) and Sass et al. (1988). 
Significant number of laboratory thermal conductivity tests using small specimens taken from 
the Yucca Mountain tuff have been performed since the late 1990s. Most of the tests were 
conducted by SNL under a fully qualified QA program (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], p. ii). 
The specimens were taken from the UE25 NRG-4, UE25 NRG-5, USW NRG-6, and USW 
NRG-7/7A drillholes. A total of 95 specimens were tested and 143 thermal conductivity tests 
were run (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). These cores covered various 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
lithostratigraphic rock units, including the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln units. The intact 
rock thermal conductivities at the below and above 100 C of the four repository units are 
presented in Tables 8-9 and 8-10, receptively (DTN: SNL01A05059301.005). Tables 8-11 and 
8-12 summarize the intact rock thermal conductivities at the below and above 100 C of 
available thermal mechanical units (DTN: SNL01A05059301.005). Detailed description of the 
data was presented in Brodsky et al. (1997 [100653], Sections 3.1 and 4.1) and CRWMS M&O 
(1997d, Section 5.2.1). 
Additional intact rock thermal conductivity tests were conducted on Tptpmn specimens taken 
from the Single Heater Test (SHT) block and the Drift Scale Test (DST) area (BSC 2002i, 
Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3) (DTN: SNL22080196001.001 [109722]; DTNs: 
SNL22100196001.006 [158213] and SN0203L2210196.007 [158322], respectively). The 
specimens were either air dry, oven dry, vacuum saturated, or partially saturated, and the thermal 
conductivity tests were followed the SNL technical procedure SNL TP-202, Rev 01 
Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Samples Using the Guarded Heat-Flow 
Meter Method [TP-202, 108553]. Detailed description of the intact rock thermal conductivity 
data was presented in BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3). 
Supplementary tests of the intact rock thermal conductivity were performed on Tptpll specimens 
from various locations including the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) 
thermal test hole cores. The supplementary tests were a part of the field thermal testing program 
in the ECRB drift, and examined effects of temperature, saturation and artificial porosity on the 
intact rock thermal conductivity. Details of the intact rock thermal conductivity data were 
presented in DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001. 
Sensitivity of intact rock thermal conductivity to temperature, porosity, moisture content, and 
specimen size has been evaluated based on these laboratory tests. The evaluation was carried out 
by comparing the results of tests on specimens at these different conditions. Measured data 
presented in most test reports and the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) are grouped 
according to either the thermal/mechanical or lithostratigraphic unit for each saturation state or 
specimen size. For each rock unit, saturation state, or specimen size, the data are presented as a 
function of temperature. Statistical analyses of the data within each group have been limited to 
the information of mean and standard deviation about the mean. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-9. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Below 100 C for Repository Units 
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Stratigraphic 
Units 
Saturated Partially Saturated Air Dry Dry 
Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N 
Tptpul 1.97 0.11 12 N/A N/A N/A 1.20 0.21 6 1.07 0.12 9 
Tptpmn 2.33 0.45 42 N/A N/A N/A 1.68 0.12 15 1.51 0.49 39 
Tptpll 2.13 0.13 9 N/A N/A N/A 1.65 0.08 9 1.45 0.03 9 
Tptpln N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-11; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 
Table 8-10. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Over 100 C for Repository Units 
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Stratigraphic 
Units 
Dry 
Mean Std. Dev. N 
Tptpul 1.06 0.22 32 
Tptpmn 1.60 0.11 101 
Tptpll 1.54 0.04 19 
Tptpln N/A N/A N/A 
Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-13; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 
Table 8-11. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Below 100 C for Thermal Mechanical Units 
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Stratigraphic 
Units 
Saturated Partially Saturated Air Dry Dry 
Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. N 
TCw 1.89 0.12 18 1.39 0.56 18 1.58 0.16 9 1.17 0.35 18 
PTn 0.92 0.13 42 0.57 0.12 33 0.35 0.13 12 0.38 0.10 49 
TSw1 1.70 0.19 50 1.23 0.46 11 1.21 0.12 30 0.98 0.26 59 
TSw2 2.29 0.42 51 N/A N/A N/A 1.66 0.10 24 1.49 0.44 48 
Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-12; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 
Table 8-12. Intact Rock Thermal Conductivities at Over 100 C for Thermal Mechanical Units 
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Stratigraphic 
Units 
Dry 
Mean Std. Dev. N 
TCw 1.53 0.17 57 
PTn 0.42 0.14 102 
TSw1 1.15 0.15 173 
TSw2 1.59 0.10 125 
Source: CRWNS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-14; DTN: SNL01A05059301.005 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Effect of Temperature Intact rock thermal conductivity for oven dried specimens either 
increases or remains constant with increasing temperature (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 
4.1; CRWMS M&O 1997d, Section 5.2.1). Decreases in thermal conductivity with increasing 
temperature as observed in saturated specimens are attributed to dehydration (Figure 8-4). 
Increases in thermal conductivity observed near a temperature of 100C for some oven dried 
specimens may be associated with the vaporization of remaining water. Thermal conductivity 
increases with temperature for plagioclase and glasses; however, it decreases with temperature 
for quartz (Lappin 1980 [102973], Figure 3). Overall, if a constant moisture content is 
maintained during a test, the effect of temperature on intact rock thermal conductivity is 
insignificant. This was observed in over hundreds of tests using specimens taken from both the 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.1; BSC 2002i, 
Sections 6.2.1.3 and 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). Table 8-13 presents averaged 
values of the oven-dried and saturated thermal conductivity from DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, 
Tables 8 and 9. 
Effect of Porosity Investigation on the effect of porosity including both matrix and lithophysal 
on thermal conductivity has been primarily focused on the lithophysal rock. Recent tests 
conducted by SNL on the 38.1 mm Tptpll core specimens obtained from the ECRB indicate that 
intact rock thermal conductivity decreases with increasing natural or matrix porosity for both 
saturated and oven-dried specimens, as shown in Figure 8-5 (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, 
Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The effect of porosity on thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock were 
also investigated using laboratory tests on oven-dried specimens, which were drilled to add about 
8 percent additional artificial porosity (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001, Tables 10 and 11). The 
artificial porosity results indicate that thermal conductivity decreases between 0.5 to 0.65 W/mK 
per 10 percent increase in porosity over a limited range of porosity. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity 
Specimen ID: NRG-6-987 
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5 
0 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 
livi()Therma Conductty W/mKOven Dry 
Air Dry 
Saturated 
Temperature (oC) 
Source: DTN SNL01A05059301.005 
Figure 8-4. Thermal Conductivity for Tptpll Specimens NGR-6-987.0-SNL-A (Saturated) and NGR-6-
987.0-SNL-B (Air and Oven Dry) 
Table 8-13. Thermal Conductivities for Oven Dried and Saturated Specimens from Tptpll for Repository 
Units 
Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/mk); Oven-Dried 
30 oC 50 oC 70 oC 110 oC 150 oC 175 oC 
N 38 38 38 38 38 38 
Mean 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 
Std. Dev. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 
Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/mk); Saturated 
30 oC 50 oC 70 oC 
N 38 38 38 
Mean 2.1 2.1 2.1 
Std. Dev. 0.2 0.2 0.1 
Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity 
Tptpll at 70 oC 
0 
1 
2 
3 
/
i0.5 
1.5 
2.5 
Thermal Conductivity (Wmk) 
Oven dred 
Saturated 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 
Porosity 
Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 
Figure 8-5. Porosity Versus Thermal Conductivity for Tptpll Specimens (Saturated and Oven Dried) 
Effect of Moisture Content The effect of moisture content on the intact rock thermal 
conductivity was studied extensively based on laboratory tests using specimens from various 
lithostratigraphic units (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 4.1; BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.1.3 
and 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). The results indicate that thermal conductivity 
measured on saturated specimens is higher than that measured on dried specimens. For example, 
in Table 8-13, the average thermal conductivity for saturated specimens from the Tptpll rock is 
about 2.1 W/mK at a temperature ranging from 30C to 70C, while for oven-dried specimens it 
is about 1.7 W/mK, a decrease of about 19 percent from saturated to oven-dried conditions 
(DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). Additionally, the tests on the Tptpll specimens also show that 
the difference between saturated and dry values of thermal conductivity increases with increasing 
porosity (BSC 2002i). 
Effect of Specimen Size The diameter of most specimens used in laboratory thermal 
conductivity measurements is 50.8 mm (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Table 2-1; BSC 2002i, 
Section 6.3.1.3; DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). To investigate the effect of specimen size on 
thermal conductivity, recent laboratory tests on thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock were also 
conducted on specimens with a diameter of 38.1 mm (DTN: SN0209L01A1202.001). The 
results indicate that though the values for the smaller specimens appeared slightly higher than 
those for the larger ones (Table 8-14). However, it is difficult to conclude that the two different 
specimen diameters produced a systematic difference in thermal conductivity, since the effect of 
porosity was not included in this comparison between diameters of 50.8 and 38.1 mm specimens. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-14. Thermal Conductivities from 38.1 mm and 50.8 mm Diameter Specimens of Tptpll 
Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) of Tptpll at 70 oC 
38.1 mm Diameter 50.8 mm DiameterOven Dried Saturated Oven Dried Saturated 
N 20 20 18 18 
Mean 1.83 2.20 1.64 2.02 
Std. Dev. 0.18 0.13 0.29 0.11 
Source: DTN SN0209L01A1202.001 
Uncertainties on intact rock thermal conductivity obtained from laboratory thermal conductivity 
tests are associated with errors from measurements and variations of specimens taken from 
different borehole cores. Among them, the latter is the primary contributor and more difficult to 
quantity. Errors in the laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity are caused by 
equipment calibration and precision, variations of test environment such as temperature and 
insulator control, and operation of equipment by different testers. Since laboratory 
measurements of thermal conductivity were conducted under a controlled environmental 
condition, and equipment used was calibrated to the requirements specified by test procedures or 
manufacturers, the uncertainties associated with measurements are relatively insignificant. 
Uncertainty of data from laboratory measurements of thermal conductivity is mainly caused by 
variations of specimens. The specimens used were collected from various boreholes drilled at 
various locations. Difference in the test results from different specimens reflects in part the 
spatial variations in rock properties. Quantification of uncertainties associated with spatial 
variations requires the development of correlations between rock properties and spatial variables. 
This task can be accomplished by collecting samples from various locations of interest and then 
applying the approach of geostatistics. This approach is considered more comprehensive and 
requires complete information about locations of samples collected, and related sample property 
values such as porosity and moisture content associated with the locations. 
8.3.3.2 Rock Mass Thermal Conductivity 
Thermal conductivity of rock mass is the effective value of thermal conductivity that relates the 
heat conduction rate to the normal temperature gradient in a rock mass. It accounts for the 
effects of voids, fractures, and any heterogeneity or discontinuity that affect thermal 
conductivity. 
Significant efforts have been made recently to develop some correlations between intact rock or 
rock matrix thermal conductivity, porosity including both matrix and lithophysae, and rock mass 
thermal conductivity. These efforts included both developing theoretical approaches and 
conducting experimental tests. Determination of rock mass thermal conductivity is more 
difficult than that of intact rock because of the scale requirement in a test. It is difficult to 
conduct laboratory testing using a specimen with a size at drift scale. Field measurements are 
usually used and require more efforts and resources. To compensate for the lack of field 
measurements, use of either laboratory measurements with large specimens or analytical 
calculations based on the correlation between intact rock thermal conductivity, rock mass 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
thermal conductivity, and key controlling factors such as porosity may serve as alternatives to 
estimate the rock mass thermal conductivity. The correlation, if used, needs to be validated 
using available field measured data or laboratory data measured based on large specimens. 
Field measurements are considered the most effective and valuable methods to determine rock 
mass thermal conductivity. The measurements can be made using a thermal probe consisting of 
a heat source and several temperature sensors. During measurements, a certain amount of heat is 
transferred to the rock, and temperature differences caused by the heat are measured. 
To evaluate the effects of porosity, fracture, and moisture content on the rock mass thermal 
conductivity, mapping voids or fractures of testing boreholes and measuring in situ moisture 
content are needed. Additionally, to evaluate spatial variations of rock mass properties, tests at 
several different locations within the same rock unit are also necessary. 
Two major field tests that involve the measurements of rock mass thermal conductivity are the 
Drift Scale Test (DST) and the In Situ Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the ECRB. 
The DST measurements are made on the Tptpmn rock, while the ECRB measurements are on the 
Tptpll rock. 
The DST is conducted in a block of rock of approximately 60 m wide, 50 m deep, and 50 m 
high. The test includes 9 floor/canister heaters in a 5 m diameter drift and 50 wing heaters 
installed in horizontal boreholes drilled perpendicular to the drift into the rock (Figure 6.3-2 of 
BSC 2002i). The heating of the DST lasted for over four years. The test is on-going for a 
planned cooling phase of four years. The maximum drift wall temperature at the end of the 
heating phase was about 200C. For measurements of the rock mass thermal conductivity, five 
locations were selected based on the competency of the wall rock, including minimal fracturing, 
sufficient separation from rock bolts installed, and similarity of density. The testing boreholes 
were drilled in random directions to average the effects of unseen physical phenomena (faulting, 
stress relief, etc.). The temperatures during the heating phase in these boreholes, measured using 
the Rapid Estimation of thermal conductivity (k) and thermal diffusivity (a, Alpha), REKA, 
probe developed at the University of Nevada, Reno, and were used to determine the rock mass 
thermal conductivity (BSC 2002i, Section 6.3.1.4; CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 10.2). The 
REKA used a two-dimensional optimization procedure based on the least-squares-fit of 
simulated temperature field to the measured temperature field (CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 
10.2) to evaluate the best prediction for thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity. 
Rock mass thermal conductivity of the Tptpmn rock was measured from the DST during the 
heating phase (Table 8-15). The mean value was about 1.8 W/mK, which is lower than that 
observed in the laboratory measurements on the saturated specimens from the same rock unit but 
higher than that for the oven-dried specimens (Table 8-9). Generally rock mass thermal 
conductivity obtained from the field measurements fall within the same range as that from the 
laboratory measurements, indicating that the effect of discontinuities in the Tptpmn on thermal 
conductivity is not as significant as anticipated. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-15. REKA Results with and without Background Temperature Correction 
REKA Location 
No Background Temperature Correction With Background Temperature Correction 
Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Error of Fita (oC) Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Error of Fita (oC) 
1 1.69 0.033 1.72 0.015 
2 1.95 0.037 1.92 0.010 
3 1.86 0.024 1.89 0.018 
4 1.88 0.039 1.93 0.015 
5 1.70 0.025 1.76 0.025 
Average: 1.82 1.84 
Source DTNs: LL980411104244.061, LL980902104244.070, UN0106SPA013GD.004, UN0201SPA013GD.007 
aError of fit is the root mean square between the simulated and measured temperature fields, all having 35 readings 
with time and 6 readings along the length of the Sierra Science REKA probe 
The in situ measurements of rock mass thermal conductivity in the ECRB consisted of three 
tests. The first test involved a single heater and single instrumentation borehole (Two-hole test 
in Table 8-16). The heater was 5 m long and inset approximately 3 m from the ECRB drift wall. 
The second borehole, perpendicular to the first and about 12 cm above it contained 30 
thermocouples. The second test comprised an array of three heaters and three instrumentation 
boreholes and sampled a much larger test volume (Six-hole test in Table 8-16). The other 
dimensions were similar to the first test. The third test used a single heater, but had 
instrumentation holes both above and below the heater to measure any effect of convection on 
temperature distribution (Three-hole test in Table 8-16). Other dimensions were also similar to 
the first test. Details on the configurations of these three field tests are provided in the Field 
Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the Topopah Spring Lower Lithophysal Unit (Tptpll) 
(Kalia 2001 [165092], Section 2). The rock mass thermal conductivity was determined by a 
back calculation method based on a relationship for heat conduction in a heated sphere 
(Carslaw and Jaeger 1959 [100968], Eq. 4). In this method, predicted temperatures are 
calculated using initial guesses for thermal conductivity and diffusivity. The measured and 
predicted temperatures are compared, and the error is taken as the sum of the squares of the 
differences between measured and predicted values. The values of thermal conductivity and 
diffusivity are adjusted until the error is within the specified criterion. 
Rock mass thermal conductivity of the Tptpll rock was measured from three field tests in the 
ECRB (Table 8-16). The mean values ranged from 1.74 to 2.18 W/mK. Similar to what was 
indicated in the field measurements of the DST for the Tptpmn rock, the in situ values are within 
the same range as that observed in the laboratory measurements on specimens with natural 
porosity in Table 8-9. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-16. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivity Values from ECRB Thermal K Tests 
ECRB Thermal K Test 1 ECRB Thermal K Test 2 ECRB Thermal K Test 3 
(Two-hole test)1 (Six-hole test)2 (Three-hole test)3 
Thermal conductivity 
(W/m-K) 
Borehole 
Thermal 
conductivity 
(W/m-K) 
Borehole 
Thermal 
conductivity 
(W/m-K) 
1.75a TMK6 2.18 TMK10 1.73 
1.74b TMK7 2.09 TMK11 1.76 
TMK8 2.03 Average: 1.74 
Average: 2.10 
SOURCES: 1DTN: SN0206F3504502.012 
2DTN: SN0208F3504502.019 
3DTN: SN0206F3504502.013 
aA single value of each thermal property was calculated using all the data shown in DTN: SN0206F3504502.011. 
bA single value of each thermal property was calculated using the data shown in DTN: SN0206F3504502.011 from 
an elapsed time of 2.665 days through 28.63 days. The earlier time data were scattered. 
An analytical approach may serve as one of the alternatives to estimate rock mass thermal 
conductivity as well as to assess its spatial variations when data from only a limited number of 
field tests are available. With the analytical approach, a correlation that relates rock mass 
thermal conductivity to porosity and intact rock thermal conductivity must be developed. 
Various analytical approaches have been developed for estimating the effective value of rock 
mass thermal conductivity taking into account of the effects of matrix, fracture, and lithophysal 
porosity (Kaviany 1991). Most of the approaches are capable of assessing the effective thermal 
conductivity of two-phase media (e.g., solid and fluid) using deterministic approaches assuming 
or idealizing microstructures of the media (spheres, disks, thin crack, and etc.). The so-called 
effective-medium approximation could not accurately predict the microstructure-sensitive 
conductivity of most real two-phase media (Torquato 1987) because of its simple assumption on 
the microstructures. Torquato (1987) discussed statistical approaches by defining the upper and 
lower bounds of the effective thermal properties in order to deal with the limitation of the 
effective-medium approximation. 
However, since the deterministic approaches could simulate a homogeneous and isotropic porous 
solid saturated with a fluid, either air or fluid, utilizing the calculations should be reasonable for 
the dry and wet effective thermal conductivity of rock mass. Estimating the effective thermal 
conductivity of a partially saturated rock (three-phase medium with solid, air, and fluid) is a 
more complicated task. The simplest approach currently available is the linear interpolation 
from the dry and wet effective thermal conductivities from the analytical calculations. If the dry 
and wet effective thermal conductivity were predicted reasonably well, the linear interpolation 
approach might be suitable for estimating the unsaturated effective thermal conductivity taking 
into account of the complexity of three-phase media and the variability of testing data. 
Primary focus of the investigations of rock mass thermal conductivity within the YMP is on the 
effect of lithophysae, air-filled large-scale voids found to varying degrees in both lithophysal and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
nonlithophysal rocks. A comprehensive study on this topic is based on the Hsu et al. three-
dimensional cubic model presented in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository 
Horizon Model Report (BSC 2002h, Section 6.1.7). In this model, the rock mass is 
conceptualized as a porous medium composed of matrix and voids. The matrix component 
consists of solid minerals and their associated intergranular pore space. Matrix thermal 
conductivity is a function of matrix porosity, the thermal conductivity of the saturating fluid, the 
thermal conductivity of the solid minerals, and the geometry and connectivity of the solid. The 
thermal conductivity of the saturating fluid is treated as constant, but the remaining model 
parameters are treated as spatially uncertain random functions. The geostatistical method known 
as sequential Gaussian simulation is used to develop spatially independent, realizations of these 
uncertain properties. Available measurements from core samples, borehole petrophysical logs, 
or the ECRB mapping can be used to derive models of spatial continuity and to condition the 
geostatistical simulations. These 3D property sets then serve as inputs to the matrix thermal 
conductivity model yielding 3D geostatically-based realizations of matrix thermal conductivity. 
The spatial heterogeneity and uncertainty of lithophysal porosity can be addressed in a similar 
manner. Detailed description of the analytical model based on the Hsu et al. model is provided 
in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report (BSC 2002h, 
Section 6.1.7). 
Rock mass or called bulk thermal conductivity is calculated by considering that the matrix and 
lithophysae act in parallel with respect to energy transport. Applying Fouriers equation of heat 
conduction to a parallel system yields the following relation (BSC 2002h, Eq. 6-1): 
kb =fLk +(1-f )k (Eq. 8-2)
a Lm 
Where kb and km are the bulk or rock mass and matrix thermal conductivities, respectively; fL is 
the lithophysal porosity; ka is the thermal conductivity of air. 
Note that the volume average model expressed in Equation 8-2 represents a physical system of a 
series of parallel solid plates sandwiched by pore space, and gives a higher bound estimate of the 
effective rock mass thermal conductivity since the system represented is the most efficient 
configuration of solid and pore space. To get a lower bound estimate for the rock mass thermal 
conductivity, other models, such as the model developed by Torquato (1987) or a model for a 
physical system of solid and pore space in series, may be used. 
The analytical approach based on the Hsu et al. model was validated (BSC 2002h, Section 7) 
using data from various measurements including laboratory and field. The validation was 
performed by comparing calculated values with measured ones on matrix and lithophysal 
porosity, intact rock or matrix thermal conductivity, and rock mass thermal conductivity. The 
results indicate that the spatially independent realizations of rock mass thermal conductivity are 
valid and appropriate for their intended use. 
Estimated spatial variation and uncertainty of rock mass thermal conductivity of four 
lithostratigraphic units, Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln, using a developed analytical model 
are presented in the Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report 
(BSC 2002h, Section 7.5). It is indicated that rock mass thermal conductivity is substantially 
less in the lithophysal rock than in the nonlithophysal rock, confirming the expected influence of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-35 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
lithophysae on thermal conductivity. The effect of moisture content on thermal conductivity is 
also indicated. 
The mean values of dry bulk thermal conductivity vary from 1.18 to 1.28 W/mK for the 
lithophysal rock and from 1.42 to 1.49 W/mK for the nonlithophysal rock, while the mean 
values of wet bulk thermal conductivity range from 1.77 to 1.89 W/mK for the lithophysal rock 
and from 2.07 to 2.13 W/mK for the nonlithophysal rock. The standard deviations of these 
means are about 0.25 W/mK, with a slightly higher value for the nonlithophysal rock than for 
the lithophysal rock, which contradicts what would be expected. This may be due to the fact that 
uncertainty in matrix thermal conductivity instead of lithophysal porosity plays an important role 
in the uncertainty estimate of bulk thermal conductivity using this model. A summary of bulk 
thermal conductivity is presented in Tables 8-17 for the repository units. In addition, Table 8-18 
shows a summary of bulk thermal conductivity for the non-repository units. Note that since 
lithophysal porosity was not applied to the calculation of the thermal conductivity, the bulk 
thermal conductivity is as same as the matrix thermal conductivity. Details of the thermal 
conductivity for the non-repository units are presented in DTN: SN0307T0503102.009. 
Table 8-17. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivities for Repository Stratigraphic Units 
Stratigraphic Unit 
Dry Bulk Thermal 
Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Wet Bulk Thermal 
Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 
Tptpul 1.18E+00 2.44E-01 1.77E+00 2.47E-01 
Tptpmn 1.42E+00 2.65E-01 2.07E+00 2.52E-01 
Tptpll 1.28E+00 2.51E-01 1.89E+00 2.48E-01 
Tptpln 1.49E+00 2.84E-01 2.13E+00 2.68E-01 
SOURCE: DTN SN0208T0503102.007 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-36 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-18. Rock Mass Thermal Conductivities for Non-Repository Stratigraphic Units 
Stratigraphic Unit # of Points 
Dry Bulk Thermal 
Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Wet Bulk Thermal 
Conductivity (W/m-K) 
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. 
Crystal-Rich 
Tiva/Post-Tiva 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
Tpcp 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
TpcLD 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
Tpcpv3 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 
Tpcpv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tpcpv1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tpbt4 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Yucca 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tpbt3_dc 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Pah 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tpbt2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tptrv3 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tptrv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tptrv1 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 
Tptrn 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
Tptrl 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
Tptf 17 1.30E+00 2.31E-01 1.81E+00 1.95E-01 
Tptpv3 2 6.88E-01 2.29E-01 7.96E-01 2.51E-01 
Tptpv2 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tptpv1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Tpbt1 9 4.90E-01 1.58E-01 1.06E+00 1.46E-01 
Calico 5 5.95E-01 1.12E-01 1.26E+00 1.41E-01 
Calicobt 5 5.95E-01 1.12E-01 1.26E+00 1.41E-01 
Prowuv 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 
Prowuc 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 
Prowmd 17 1.06E+00 1.83E-01 1.63E+00 1.68E-01 
Prowlc 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 
Prowlv 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 
Prowbt 9 5.69E-01 1.04E-01 1.13E+00 1.17E-01 
Bullfroguv 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 
Bullfroguc 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 
Bullfrogmd 17 1.30E+00 2.39E-01 1.81E+00 1.98E-01 
Bullfroglc 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 
Bullfroglv 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 
Bullfrogbt 9 6.58E-01 1.30E-01 1.19E+00 1.38E-01 
Tramuv 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 
Tramuc 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 
Trammd 17 1.06E+00 1.83E-01 1.63E+00 1.68E-01 
Tramlc 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 
Tramlv 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 
Trambt 9 5.35E-01 1.06E-01 1.10E+00 1.16E-01 
SOURCE: DTN SN0307T0503102.009 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-37 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The primary uncertainties of the rock mass thermal conductivity are dependent on the methods of 
data acquisition. Field measurements and analytical estimation usually yield different 
uncertainties. These uncertainties are in general difficult to quantify. In addition to these 
uncertainties, spatial variations of rock mass characteristics can also contribute to the uncertainty 
of the data since the field measurements were made only at limited locations. 
The physical system of porous media like the lithophysal and nonlithophysal rocks may or may 
not be accurately represented by the developed model. This model represents an upper bound of 
rock mass thermal conductivity of a porous medium because it describes the system of solid and 
pore space configured in parallel. This may contribute to the greatest uncertainty of estimated 
rock mass thermal conductivity. Quantification of this uncertainty can be achieved by 
comparing the estimated values with those measured from field tests or by comparing the 
estimated values from different models. 
Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is based on the stochastic, geostastically simulated 
rock properties of porosity and matrix thermal conductivity. There is some degree of uncertainty 
in determination of these properties because their simulations are conditioned to measured data. 
For example, use of the well-log petrophysical measurements of bulk density and neutron 
porosity or those from the ECRB mapping may yield different estimates of the lithophysal 
porosity. These differences will consequently be carried over in the prediction of rock mass 
thermal conductivity. 
Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is only for the dry and fully saturated wet conditions, 
which may not cover the range of application. It is the users responsibility to determine whether 
the estimated data are appropriate for use and to assess any associated uncertainty if used outside 
the range of application. 
Any errors in laboratory or field measurements of rock properties that are used in the estimates 
of rock mass thermal conductivity will also contribute to the uncertainty. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3.4 Heat Capacity 
8.3.4.1 General 
Heat capacity of a material (Cp, J/kgK) is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the 
temperature of a unit mass of the substance by one-degree (Nimick and Connolly 1991, p.5). For 
solid materials, heat capacity is virtually independent of changes in pressure, but is strongly 
dependent on temperature. The equation defined and used to calculate the heat capacity at 
constant pressure is (Brodsky et al. 1997, p.20) is as follows: 
C = 1 .Q (Eq. 8-3)
p 
m .T 
where m is the mass of the specimen (kg), .Q is the increment of heat added to the subject (J), 
and .T is the change of specimen temperature (K). 
Heat capacity is a major component of the accumulation term in the energy balance equation, 
and as such is a significant contributing parameter in modeling heat transport (Incropera and 
Dewitt 2002, p. 63) [163337]: 
.. .T . ...T . ...T ..T
. k .+ . k .+ q =.Cp
.x ..x ..y .k 
.y .+ 
.z ..z ..t (Eq. 8-4)
.. 
Where: q is the heat energy generated per unit volume of the medium (W/m3) and . is the 
density of medium (kg/m3). 
The rock grain heat capacity is defined to be the heat capacity of the rock minerals that doesnt 
consider the effect of water in the rocks pores (water saturation, Sw), while the rock mass heat 
capacity considers the heat capacity of both solids and pore water in Heat Capacity and Thermal 
Expansion Coefficients Analysis Report (BSC 2003e, p. 6). To determine the rock heat capacity, 
three temperature ranges of 25-94 C, 95-114 C, and 115-325 C are established from the 
temperature range of interest, 25-325 C, corresponding to the pre-boiling, trans-boiling, and 
post-boiling regimes (BSC 2003e, p. 6). For temperatures in the trans-boiling regime, 95-114 C 
(Nimick and Connolly 1991, Section 3.4), the additional energy required to vaporize the pore-
water is accounted for in the rock mass heat capacity. The term specific heat is often used 
synonymously with heat capacity; however, the latter term is used in this document. 
8.3.4.2 Rock Matrix Heat Capacity 
Laboratory measurements for heat capacity of rock specimens were conducted using an adiabatic 
pulse calorimeter following the SNL technical procedure, SNL-TP-204 entitled Measurement of 
Specific Heat of Geologic Samples by Adiabatic Pulse Calorimetry (TP-204 [108538]). The 
heat capacity was measured for three Tptrn specimens from UE25 NRG-4 and seven Tptpmn 
specimens from UE25 NRG-5 (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 3.3)[DIRS 100653]. The specimens 
were right circular cylinder approximately 57 mm in length and 51 mm in diameter (Brodsky et 
al. 1997, Table 2-1)[100653], and were tested in the air-dried saturation status. The 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-39 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
measurements were conducted at atmospheric pressure and over a temperature range of 25C to 
300C with 5C intervals. 
The laboratory-measured heat capacities are presented in Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7 (DTN 
SNL01C12159302.002) calculated from the three Tptrn specimens from UE25 NRG-4 and the 
seven Tptpmn specimens from UE25 NRG-5, respectively. Uncertainty for the mean and 
standard deviation values presented in those figures might be relatively high because of the 
limited specimen numbers. However those specimens present consistent values of the laboratory 
measured heat capacity (small standard deviation), in spite of the limited specimen number and 
the widely separated sampling depth for each specimen (approximately 10m). 
The thermal capacitance data (heat capacity multiplied by density, .Cp) are presented in Table 819 
(CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-20). The thermal capacitance data were determined from the 
laboratory measurement using two-segment, least squares polynomial curve-fit at the 25 C 
intervals (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 3.3). The thermal capacitance data were compared and 
discussed with calculated values of thermal capacitance from Nimick and Connolly (1991, 
Section 3.5) in the Section 4.3.2 of Brodsky et al. (1997). 
Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity 
from UE25 NRG-4 
1.20 
1.00 
0.80 
0.60 
0.40 
0.20 
0.00 
(J/) 
lHeat CapacitygKMean Cp 
1 Std. Dev. ess 
1 Std. Dev. more 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 
Te m eparature (oC) 
SOURCE: DTN SNL01C12159302.002 
Figure 8-6. Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from Three Specimens of UE25 NRG-4 (Tptrn). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-40 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity 
from UE25 NRG-5 
Heat Capacity (J/gK) 
1.40 
1.20 
1.00 
0.80 
0.60 
0.40 
0.20 
0.00 
lMean Cp 
1 Std. Dev. ess 
1 Std. Dev. more 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 
Temeparature (oC) 
SOURCE: DTN SNL01C12159302.002 
Figure 8-7. Laboratory Measured Heat Capacity from Seven Specimens of UE25 NRG-5 (Tptpmn). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-41 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-19. Thermal Capacitance or Volumetric Heat Capacity (.Cp) from Laboratory Measurements 
Temperature 
(oC) 
Mean .Cp 
(J/cm3K) 
Standard 
Deviation 
(J/cm3K) 
No. of 
Tests Temperature 
(oC) 
Mean .Cp 
(J/cm3K) 
Standard 
Deviation 
(J/cm3K) 
No. of 
Tests 
25 1.58 0.04 3 25 1.79 0.11 3 
50 1.68 0.05 3 50 1.88 0.11 3 
75 1.80 0.05 3 75 2.00 0.11 3 
100 1.91 0.05 3 100 2.16 0.11 3 
125 2.03 0.06 3 125 2.32 0.11 3 
150 2.14 0.11 3 150 2.45 0.13 3 
175 2.13 0.10 3 175 2.43 0.18 3 
200 2.09 0.07 3 200 2.40 0.16 3 
225 2.07 0.06 3 225 2.39 0.17 3 
250 2.05 0.05 3 250 2.39 0.19 3 
275 2.03 0.05 3 275 2.39 0.22 3 
300 2.03 0.06 3 300 2.43 0.26 3 
Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d [103564], Table 5-20 
If laboratory measurements were not available or feasible to take, there were several methods 
that could be used for determining the rock grain heat capacity. Nimick and Connolly (1991, pp. 
5  11) summarized three different methods: oxide summation, fictive  oxide mineral-
component, and mineral summation. 
Based on the available essential input data (mineral abundance, mineral heat capacities, rock 
matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical properties of 
water), the mineral summation method was selected as the analytical technique for evaluating the 
rock grain heat capacity in the Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion Coefficients Analysis 
Report (BSC 2003e, Section 6.2). 
The mineral summation method was used to estimate heat capacity of mineral composites in 
each stratigraphic unit defined by the Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 
2002b). The mineral summation method is based on Kopps law (Nimick and Connolly 1991, p. 
6 - 7). 
j =n 
C =. C x p (Eq. 8-5)
g p jj
, 
j =1 
Where xj and Cpj are the abundance (weight fraction) and heat capacity of mineral j respectively, 
n is the number of mineral components, and Cp,g is the effective heat capacity of the rock grain. 
Berryman (1995, p. 219) [159696] has shown that a temperature dependent correction to Kopps 
law is small at temperatures less than 500 C. Since the temperature range of interest, 25-325 C, 
is well below 500 C, the use of Kopps law is deemed to be appropriate. 
The mineral abundance data are provided by the Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model 
Report (BSC 2002b, Section 6.3.2). The input abundance data were averaged for each layer and 
used in determining the rock grain heat capacity. The only exception is the heat capacity values 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-42 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
of the Calico Hills Formation and adjacent layers, since the layers of the Calico Hills and the 
adjacent bedded tuff layers exhibit a bimodal composition and are characterized as either vitric 
or zeolitic (BSC 2002b, Section 6.3.2). 
The equations used to estimate the average and standard deviations of the rock grain heat 
capacities are given below. These statistical measures were developed following the principles 
outlined in (Bulmer 1979, pp. 71-73) [111961]. The average and standard deviations calculated 
are the result of propagating uncertainties in the mineral abundance and mineral heat capacity 
through Kopps law. 
If the expected (or average) value of C g p over a specified temperature range and the expected 
, 
value of xj were denoted as C E ] and x E j ], respectively, 
[ g p [
,
The expected or average value of the rock grain heat capacity can be expressed in terms of the 
expected mineral abundance and the expected weight fraction (BSC 2003e, Eq. 6-9a). 
[ g p 
j =n 
, [ j [
C E ]=. x E ] C E pj ] (Eq. 8-6) 
j =1 
Similarly, the standard deviation of C g p , denoted as s[C ], can be written as (BSC 2003e, Eq. 
, g p 
, 
6-13a): 
j =n 
2
s[C ]= .((C E ]s[xj ]) +(x E 
, [ pj 
2 []s[C pj ]) ) (Eq. 8-7)
g p j 
j =1 
Where s[C ] is the standard deviation of the heat capacity of mineral j ands[x ] is the standard
pj j 
deviation of the abundance of mineral j . Equations 8-6 and 8-7 were used to estimate the rock 
grain heat capacities statistics (average and standard deviation). 
The rock grain heat capacity was determined for four temperature intervals: 25-325C 
(temperature range of interest), 25-94C (pre-boiling), 95-114C (trans-boiling), and 115-325C 
(post-boiling). The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3-7 (BSC 2003e and 
DTN: SN0307T0510902.003). 
A limitation of the rock grain heat capacity is associated with the nature of the input data; the 
type of data available determines the calculation method that can be used (i.e., mineral 
abundance, mineral heat capacities, rock matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, 
lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical properties of water). Additionally, the input data are 
averaged for the layer. The exception to this is the heat capacity values of the Calico Hills 
formation and adjacent layers of bedded tuffs that are separated into vitric and zeolitic regions. 
In general, the developed values of heat capacity are appropriate because the layers are 
compositionally and mechanically homogeneous. However, the user needs to be aware of this 
limitation if a location-specific estimate of heat capacity or spatial variability within a layer is 
required. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-43 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-20. Rock Grain Heat Capacities for Lithostratigraphic Units 
MineralogicModel Unit 
Avg Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacityfor T = 
25-325C 
J/g K 
Std Dev of 
Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacity 
T = 
25-325C 
J/g K 
Avg Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacityfor T = 
25-94C 
J/g K 
Std Dev of 
Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacity 
T = 
25-94C 
J/g K 
Avg Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacityfor T = 
95-114C 
J/g K 
Std Dev of 
Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacity 
T = 
95-114C 
J/g K 
Avg Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacityfor T = 
115-325C 
J/g K 
Std Dev of 
Rock 
Grain Heat 
Capacity 
T = 
115-325C 
J/g K 
Tpc_un 0.93 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.87 0.08 0.99 0.10 
Tpcpv3-0.95 0.11 0.83 0.09 0.90 0.09 1.00 0.10 
Tpcpv2 
PTn 0.96 0.23 0.84 0.20 0.90 0.22 1.00 0.24 
Tptrv1 0.95 0.10 0.84 0.08 0.90 0.08 0.99 0.10 
Tptrn-Tptrl-0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 
Tptf 
Tptpul 0.93 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 
Tptpmn 0.93 0.14 0.78 0.11 0.87 0.11 0.99 0.13 
Tptpll 0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 
Tptpln 0.93 0.10 0.78 0.07 0.87 0.07 0.99 0.09 
Tptpv3 0.98 0.24 0.86 0.21 0.93 0.23 1.02 0.25 
Tptpv2 0.98 0.19 0.86 0.16 0.93 0.17 1.02 0.19 
Tptpv1-Tpbt1 1.08 0.42 0.95 0.37 1.02 0.40 1.12 0.43 
Tac4 1.07 0.42 0.93 0.38 1.01 0.40 1.12 0.44 
Tac3 1.07 0.38 0.93 0.33 1.01 0.36 1.12 0.39 
Tac2 1.07 0.36 0.94 0.32 1.01 0.34 1.12 0.38 
Tac1 1.07 0.35 0.94 0.31 1.01 0.33 1.12 0.37 
Tacbt 1.02 0.24 0.88 0.21 0.95 0.22 1.07 0.25 
Tcpuv 1.04 0.28 0.90 0.24 0.98 0.26 1.09 0.29 
Tcpuc-0.93 0.13 0.78 0.10 0.87 0.10 0.99 0.12 
Tcpmd-Tcplc 
Tcplv-Tcpbt-1.10 0.19 0.96 0.16 1.04 0.17 1.15 0.19 
Tcbuv 
Tcbuc-
Tcbmd-Tcblc 
0.93 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.10 
Tcblv-Tcbbt-
Tctuv 
1.05 0.22 0.90 0.19 0.98 0.20 1.10 0.22 
Tctuc-Tctmd-
Tctlc 
0.94 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 
Tctlv-Tctbt 0.94 0.12 0.78 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.99 0.11 
Tund 0.96 0.13 0.82 0.11 0.90 0.11 1.02 0.13 
Source: DTN SN0307T0510902.003 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-44 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3.4.3 Rock Mass Heat Capacity 
Rock mass heat capacity is the effective value of heat capacity that accounts for the effect of 
solids and of water that exists in the rocks pores. Some efforts to measure the rock mass heat 
capacity were made. Volumetric heat capacity (= .Cp) of the Tptpll rock was calculated from 
the temperature measurement of the two-hole, six-hole, and the three-hole tests in the ECRB 
(DTNs: SN0206F3504502.012, SN0208F3504502.019, and SN0206F3504502.013, 
respectively). The summary of the volumetric heat capacity values for the tests are presented in 
Table 8-21. 
Table 8-21. Summary of Volumetric Heat Capacity for ECRB Thermal K Tests 1, 2,and 3 
ECRB Thermal K Test 1 ECRB Thermal K Test 2 ECRB Thermal K Test 3 
(Two-hole test)1 (Six-hole test)2 (Three-hole test)3 
Volumetric Volumetric 
Volumetric Heat capacity Borehole Heat capacity Borehole Heat capacity 
(J/m3K) (J/m3K) (J/m3K) 
2.13E+06a TMK6 1.97E+06 TMK10 1.96E+06 
2.15E+06b TMK7 1.95E+06 TMK11 2.01E+06 
TMK8 2.30E+06 Average: 1.98E+06 
Average: 2.07E+06 
Source DTNs:
1 SN0206F3504502.012
2 SN0208F3504502.019
3 SN0206F3504502.013
abA single value of each thermal property was calculated using all the dataA single value of each thermal property was calculated using the data shown from an elapsed time of 
2.665 days through 28.63 days. The earlier time data were scattered. 
The volumetric heat capacity values range from 1.96x106 to 2.30x106 J/m3K. The uncertainties 
of the rock mass heat capacity are dependent on the methods of data acquisition and spatial 
variations of rock mass characteristic due to limited locations of field measurements. Again, the 
information on porosity, fracture, and moisture content at the locations of measurements needs to 
be analyzed in order to assess the effects of these properties on the rock mass heat capacity. 
After the rock grain heat capacities have been determined (Section 8.3.4.2), the heat capacity of 
the rock mass is estimated for the three temperature ranges: 25-94C (pre-boiling), 95-114C 
(trans-boiling), and 115-325C (post-boiling). For temperatures below boiling (the pre-boiling 
phase), the Equations 9 and 10 of Nimick and Connolly (1991, Eqs. 9 and 10, p. 31) are 
presented below as Equations 8-8 and 8-9, respectively. 
(.Cp)rm = .g(1-fm)(1-fL)Cp,g + .w (1-fL) fm Sw Cp,w + .a[fL + (1-fL) fm(1-Sw)]Cp,a 
 .g(1-fm)(1-fL)Cp,g + .w(1-fL)fm Sw Cp,w (Eq. 8-8) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-45 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
(. Cp )rm  
(. Cp )rm (Eq. 8-9)
C = 
rm p 
, .. g (1-f L 1)( -f ) - + f f S .
(1)
rm m Lmww 
Where,(. Cp)rm is the thermal capacitance of the rock mass, J/m3-K 
f m is matrix porosity, m3/m3 
f L is the volume fraction of lithophysal cavities, m3/m3 
Cp,g is the rock grain heat capacity, J/kgK 
Sw is the degree of matrix saturation, m3/m3 
Cp,w and Cp,a are the heat capacity of water and air, respectively, J/kgK 
. g is the rock grain density, kg/m3 
. w and . a are the densities of water and air, respectively, kg/m3 
Due to the extremely low density of air, the term of . a[f L + (1-f L) f m (1- Sw)]Cp,a is negligible 
relative to the first two terms of Equation 8-8. Therefore, Equation 8-8 is simplified to Equation 
8-9. An approximation is implied in Equations 8-8 and 8-9, namely the fracture porosity (f f) 
does not significantly contribute to Cp,rm or (. Cp)rm. The fracture porosity is estimated to range 
from 2.7 x 10-5 to 18 x 10-5 (Klavetter and Peters 1986, Table 2), and the ratio of fracture 
porosity to matrix porosity, (f f / f m), ranged from 0.006 to 0.149 percent (Nimick and Connolly 
1991, Table 6). Therefore, it is assumed that the fracture porosity makes a negligible 
contribution to calculated values of Cp,rm or (. Cp)rm. 
Following the pre-boiling phase, pore water begins boiling off at 95 C. In the trans-boiling 
phase, 95 - 114 C, the water saturation is assumed to decrease linearly from its initial value to 
zero over the 20 C temperature range. Equation 6-16 from BSC 2003e is reproduced here as 
Equation 8-10. 
Sw = Swo (20.376316  0.05263T) (Eq. 8-10) 
Where Swo is the initial water saturation and T is the absolute temperature. The temperature of 
105 C used to calculate Sw is selected because 105 C is the approximate midpoint or average 
temperature over which boiling occur (95 to 114 C). During the trans-boiling phase, a correction 
is added to the calculation of thermal capacitance, which accounts for the heat capacity of 
boiling (BSC 2003e, Eq.6-17). 
C 
rm p =( C rm p ). (1- f f S . H fg .
w lmw 
,, T = 105 +
. 
) 
.
. . T .
. (Eq. 8-11) 
rm 
For temperatures above 114 C, the water is assumed to be completely boiled off. Therefore, the 
matrix saturation is zero, Sw= 0. In this case Equation 8-8 reduces to 
(.Cp)rm = . g(1-f m)(1-f L)Cp,g (Eq. 8-12) 
Substituting Equation 8-12 into Equation 8-9 gives the result that the rock mass heat capacity is 
equal to the rock grain heat capacity. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-46 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
(.Cp )rmC == C (Eq. 8-13)
p ,rm g p 
,
.g (1-fL 1)( -f )
m 
The rock mass heat capacity was determined and is presented in Table 8-22. The values for rock 
mass heat capacity given in Table 8-22 are only valid to two significant figures. Uncertainty of 
the rock mass heat capacity is similar to the limitation of the rock grain heat capacity that is 
associated with the nature of the averaged input data; i.e., mineral abundance, mineral heat 
capacities, rock matrix properties, lithophysal porosity, lithostratigraphic contacts, and physical 
properties of water. In addition to the inputs, the uncertainty of grain density and water 
saturation should be considered. As discussed before, the values for rock mass heat capacity 
given in Table 8-22 are only valid to two significant figures because of the uncertainty. The 
standard deviation for each model layer has been assigned a value of approximately 30 percent 
of the average value. The 30 percent of the average is selected as the uncertainty associated with 
the rock mass heat capacity values and is based on the standard deviations calculated for the rock 
grain heat capacities. The influence of the other properties uncertainty (porosities, densities, 
and saturations) have not been accounted for explicitly in the rock mass heat capacity values 
given in Table 8-22. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-47 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-22. Rock Mass Heat Capacities for Lithostratigraphic Units 
MineralogicModel Unit 
Average Rock 
Mass Heat 
Capacity 
T=25-94C 
J/kg K 
Standard 
Deviation of 
Rock Mass 
Heat Capacity 
T=25-94C 
J/kg K 
Average Rock 
Mass Heat 
Capacity 
T=95-114C 
J/kg K 
Standard 
Deviation of 
Rock Mass 
Heat Capacity 
T=95-114C 
J/kg K 
Average Rock 
Mass Heat 
Capacity 
T=115-325C 
J/kg K 
Standard 
Deviation of 
Rock Mass 
Heat Capacity 
T=115-325C 
J/kg K 
Tpc_un 9.1E+02 3.E+02 3.0E+03 9.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tpcpv3-Tpcpv2 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.4E+03 2.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 
PTn 1.3E+03 4.E+02 9.1E+03 3.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 
Tptrv1 8.9E+02 3.E+02 1.8E+03 5.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptrn-Tptrl-Tptf 8.9E+02 3.E+02 2.7E+03 8.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptpul 9.4E+02 3.E+02 3.6E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptpmn 9.1E+02 3.E+02 3.0E+03 9.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptpll 9.3E+02 3.E+02 3.3E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptpln 9.0E+02 3.E+02 2.8E+03 8.E+02 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tptpv3 9.1E+02 3.E+02 1.7E+03 5.E+02 1.0E+03 3.E+02 
Tptpv2 1.1E+03 3.E+02 5.1E+03 1.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 
Tptpv1-Tpbt1 1.2E+03 4.E+02 6.4E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tac4 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tac3 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tac2 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tac1 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.8E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tacbt 1.2E+03 4.E+02 7.6E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tcpuv 1.4E+03 4.E+02 9.7E+03 3.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tcpuc-Tcpmd-
Tcplc 1.0E+03 3.E+02 5.4E+03 2.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tcplv-Tcpbt-
Tcbuv 1.3E+03 4.E+02 7.2E+03 2.E+03 1.2E+03 3.E+02 
Tcbuc-Tcbmd-
Tcblc 9.5E+02 3.E+02 3.7E+03 1.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tcblv-Tcbbt-
Tctuv 1.2E+03 4.E+02 7.1E+03 2.E+03 1.1E+03 3.E+02 
Tctuc-Tctmd-
Tctlc 1.3E+03 4.E+02 1.1E+04 3.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tctlv-Tctbt 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.2E+03 2.E+03 9.9E+02 3.E+02 
Tund 1.2E+03 4.E+02 8.2E+03 2.E+03 1.0E+03 3.E+02 
Source: DTN SN0307T0510902.003 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-48 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3.5 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) 
8.3.5.1 General 
Thermal expansion is a mechanical response in the form of displacement to the change of 
temperature. It is given by (Weast 1974, p. F-112): 
l
t = l0 ( 1+a T ) (Eq. 8-14) 
Where lt and l0 are the lengths at the temperature of interest and at the reference temperature 
respectively, a is the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and T is the temperature of 
interest. 
If thermal expansion is temperature dependent, a more general form of expression is given by 
(Weast 1974, p. F-112): 
23
l
t = l0 ( 1+a T + T +. T + L) (Eq. 8-15) 
Where a ,  , and . are empirically determined constant, related to thermal expansion. 
Repository emplacement drifts will be subjected to increase of temperature due to decay heat 
from waste packages following waste emplacement. The increase of temperature in rock 
adjacent to the emplacement drifts will cause it to expand or result in thermally induced stresses 
if the rock expansion is restricted. The thermally induced displacements and stresses may 
adversely affect the stability of emplacement drifts and the performance of ground support 
installed in the drifts. Therefore the rock mass thermal expansion will have an impact on the 
repository design and the performance evaluation. 
8.3.5.2 Intact Rock Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 
Intact rock CTE is the change in length of a solid rock when it is subjected to heat. In order for 
the solid rock to represent a corresponding intact rock, it should contain no discontinuities, such 
as voids or fractures. In reality, a perfectly intact rock may only be found in a microscopic level. 
For the purposes of application of the intact rock thermal expansion in repository design, a rock 
sample that contains few discontinuities and behaves independently on the presence of the 
discontinuities may well represent an intact rock. 
Intact rock CTE can be determined based on laboratory thermal expansion measurements using 
small specimens. The size of most rock specimens used in the laboratory thermal expansion 
measurements was typically 25.4 mm in diameter and 50.8 mm in length (Brodsky et al. 1997 
[100653], Table 2-1; CRWMS M&O 1999, Table 6-3 [129261]; CRWMS M&O 1997a, Table 32). 
These rock specimens are considered small compared to the size of an emplacement drift 
with a diameter of 5.5 m. They usually contain few voids or fractures, and behave like an intact 
rock. Therefore, the results from the laboratory thermal expansion measurements using these 
small rock specimens are considered as representative for the intact rock. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-49 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made using a push rod dilatometer (Brodsky 
et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.2; CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 6.2.2.2 [129261]; CRWMS 
M&O 1997a, Section 3.3.2). Test specimens were right circular cylinders, cored to nominal 
dimensions mentioned above. Moisture contents were either air dry (as received), oven dry, or 
vacuum saturated. Tests were conducted at ambient pressure over a temperature range of 25C 
to over 325C. Temperature was increased at the rate of 1C per minute. Specimens under 
saturated conditions were tested up to 100C. The tests were conducted in accordance with the 
SNL procedure SNL TP-203, Rev 01. Measurement of Thermal Expansion of Geologic Supplies 
Using a Push Rod Dilatometer [145491]. 
The CTE is defined as the ratio of the change in length of a line segment in a specimen per unit 
of temperature change to its length at a reference temperature. The mean CTE is the linear 
thermal expansion per unit change in temperature, and is calculated using Equation 8-16 
(Halliday and Resnick 1988, p. 456)[152103]. 
a= L2 - L1 (Eq. 8-16)
m 
L0 .T 
Where am is the mean CTE between two temperatures, T1 and T2; L0 is the sample length at 
reference temperature; L1 is the sample displacement at temperature T1; L2 is the sample 
displacement at temperature T2; .T=T2-T1 is the temperature increment. Temperatures and 
displacements of rock specimens were measured throughout a heating and cooling cycle. The 
mean CTEs were then calculated using Equation 8-16 in 25C intervals from data obtained at the 
endpoints of the interval. Because data are not always collected at exact 25C intervals, a linear 
least squares fit may be used to calculate the specimen lengths L1 and L2 at temperatures T1 and 
T2, respectively (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Section 3.2; CRWMS M&O 1999 [129261]; 
CRWMS M&O 1997a). 
Equation 8-16 applies only to the linear change in specimen length caused by change in 
temperature. For specimens with high degree of temperature dependency, the temperature 
interval should be kept small in order to accurately calculate the mean CTE over the temperature 
interval, or the instantaneous CTE, aT, should be calculated. The instantaneous CTE is the slope 
of the linear thermal expansion curve at temperature T. The calculation is made at specified 
temperatures 25C apart starting at 50C during heat-up and cool-down. It must be accompanied 
by the temperature, at which it is determined. The instantaneous CTE is defined as: 
1 dL
aT = (Eq. 8-17)
L0 dT 
A large number of laboratory thermal expansion tests using small specimens taken from the 
Yucca Mountain tuff have been conducted since late 1990s. Most of the tests were performed by 
SNL under a qualified QA program (Brodsky et al. 1997 [100653], Abstract). These rock 
specimens were taken from Alcoves 5 and 7, the Single Heat Test (SHT) block, the Drift Scale 
Test (DST) area in Alcove 5, and NRG and SD drillhole cores. The cores covered various 
lithostratigraphic rock units, including the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln units. The mean 
CTEs for the heating and cooling cycles of the repository units are presented in Table 8-23 
(CRWMS M&O 1997d, Tables 5-15 and 5-16; DTN: SNL01B05059301.006). Table 8-24 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-50 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
summarizes the mean CTEs for the heating and cooling cycles of available thermal mechanical 
units (DTN: SNL01B05059301.006). Detailed description of the data was presented in Brodsky 
et al. (1997 [100653], Section 4.2) and CRWMS M&O (1997d, Section 5.2.2). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-51 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-23. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Repository Units 
MCTE on Heat-up (10-6/oC) 
25~50 50~75 75~100 100~12 125~15 150~17 175~20 200~22 225~25 250~27 275~30 
Units oC oC oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 
Tptpul Saturated N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 
Mean 7.59 7.00 7.91 10.22 10.76 12.95 16.73 25.60 32.83 43.98 53.94 
Std. Dev. 0.01 0.33 0.65 0.69 0.32 1.76 3.19 7.08 3.35 8.99 3.49 
Dry N 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 
Mean 7.41 8.43 8.89 9.52 10.86 13.51 19.38 29.34 32.35 40.16 48.83 
Std. Dev. 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.52 1.34 2.57 6.89 10.73 8.56 17.22 18.41 
Tptpmn Saturated N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 
Mean 7.20 7.78 7.93 8.73 10.11 11.74 12.96 15.53 20.60 31.23 50.39 
Std. Dev. 0.84 1.90 0.94 2.04 0.87 0.47 0.70 1.02 2.04 3.75 7.55 
Dry N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 17 17 17 
Mean 6.89 8.45 8.95 9.50 10.12 10.95 12.09 14.57 19.45 27.24 41.56 
Std. Dev. 1.45 0.30 0.24 0.27 0.36 0.52 1.01 2.04 3.47 6.23 7.92 
Tptpll Saturated N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 
Mean 7.09 7.20 7.03 9.37 9.87 11.73 13.20 15.42 17.80 20.65 26.93 
Std. Dev. 0.45 1.09 1.31 2.78 0.69 1.76 1.85 2.22 3.29 4.80 8.26 
Dry N 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 
Mean 6.41 8.15 8.77 9.12 9.87 10.75 12.55 15.14 25.19 26.15 33.40 
Std. Dev. 0.75 0.47 0.54 0.57 0.68 1.01 1.80 3.26 27.61 13.65 17.99 
Tptpln Saturated N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Mean 
Std. Dev. 
Dry N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
Mean 6.55 8.24 8.79 9.58 10.65 11.56 11.90 12.78 13.87 15.28 17.78 
Std. Dev. 1.29 0.57 0.47 1.07 2.17 2.75 2.35 1.53 1.11 1.94 4.38 
MCTE on Cool-Down (10-6/oC) 
275~30 250~27 225~25 200~22 175~20 150~17 125~15 100~12 75~100 50~75 35~50 
Unit 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC oC oC oC 
Tptpul Saturated N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 
Mean 19.87 28.46 34.81 33.46 35.28 23.61 17.14 13.93 11.91 10.84 9.84 
Std. Dev. 2.44 1.92 3.38 2.90 5.21 5.79 2.61 1.30 0.41 0.26 0.01 
Dry N 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 
Mean 21.56 29.24 34.20 30.06 30.33 22.27 16.63 13.40 10.82 9.68 6.95 
Std. Dev. 3.32 9.61 15.44 8.76 11.03 7.57 4.29 2.41 0.91 0.81 1.80 
Tptpmn Saturated N 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 
Mean 27.79 38.28 36.20 25.84 17.93 14.51 12.75 11.48 10.65 9.83 9.14 
Std. Dev. 1.45 2.14 5.05 4.41 3.02 1.32 0.84 0.63 0.47 0.40 0.52 
Dry N 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 
Mean 24.82 30.08 28.39 22.55 17.20 13.72 11.88 10.73 9.93 9.34 8.38 
Std. Dev. 2.25 5.33 6.30 4.27 5.10 3.42 2.78 1.86 1.07 0.45 1.25 
Tptpll Saturated N 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 
Mean 17.30 19.71 19.05 17.91 16.75 13.66 12.26 11.56 9.92 9.16 8.50 
Std. Dev. 3.93 5.31 4.90 3.92 3.16 1.38 1.65 2.77 0.54 0.64 0.57 
Dry N 13 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 
Mean 17.15 20.16 22.11 21.69 22.06 15.80 11.47 10.10 8.88 8.12 7.03 
Std. Dev. 2.71 4.78 8.25 8.17 14.24 5.54 3.63 2.87 2.50 2.33 2.39 
Tptpln Saturated N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
Mean 
Std. Dev. 
Dry N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
Mean 15.02 15.52 15.38 15.07 14.08 13.03 11.98 10.85 9.95 9.20 5.24 
Std. Dev. 2.70 2.89 2.28 1.63 2.06 2.61 2.56 1.87 1.09 0.63 0.23 
Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Tables 5-15 and 5-16, DTN: SNL01B05059301.006 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-52 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-24. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Thermal Mechanical Units 
MCTE on Heat-up (10-6/oC) 
25~50 50~75 75~100 100~12 125~15 150~17 175~20 200~22 225~25 250~27 275~30 
T/M unit oC oC oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 
Tcw Saturated N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 
Mean 7.09 7.62 8.08 10.34 13.17 15.20 16.99 18.99 21.38 27.42 42.99 
Std. Dev. 0.43 0.15 0.50 1.52 1.23 1.57 1.41 0.96 1.23 1.94 37.35 
Dry N 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 
Mean 6.60 8.29 9.62 10.53 12.69 14.90 17.03 20.68 29.64 36.49 49.15 
Std. Dev. 1.49 0.99 1.06 1.60 1.55 1.91 2.31 5.41 21.88 16.97 34.24 
PTn Saturated N 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 
Mean 4.46 4.28 -1.45 -30.42 5.54 4.47 0.64 -4.65 -9.79 -13.46 -12.96 
Std. Dev. 0.38 1.61 3.63 21.47 0.41 0.79 1.03 4.05 7.85 11.12 12.90 
Dry N 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 
Mean 4.55 4.24 3.36 -4.78 6.46 5.69 3.61 0.56 -2.96 -5.81 -7.25 
Std. Dev. 0.74 1.46 2.40 11.12 0.96 1.41 2.58 5.81 9.12 11.36 10.80 
TSw1 Saturated N 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 
Mean 6.56 7.32 6.83 6.92 10.72 14.28 20.98 36.82 41.64 42.76 43.81 
Std. Dev. 1.16 0.60 1.60 3.28 1.74 3.26 7.01 20.49 17.35 13.19 13.65 
Dry N 33 33 33 28 28 27 26 25 25 25 25 
Mean 6.29 7.60 8.39 8.96 10.37 15.51 23.67 34.24 34.00 36.07 38.74 
Std. Dev. 1.22 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.38 4.53 11.07 20.30 13.70 13.23 13.78 
TSw2 Saturated N 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 16 16 16 16 
Mean 7.14 7.47 7.46 9.07 9.98 11.74 13.09 15.47 19.03 25.28 37.19 
Std. Dev. 0.65 1.51 1.21 2.41 0.77 1.28 1.40 1.75 3.09 6.87 14.27 
Dry N 40 40 40 40 40 38 38 35 35 35 35 
Mean 6.67 8.31 8.87 9.37 10.10 10.96 12.22 14.52 20.79 25.13 35.13 
Std. Dev. 1.20 0.42 0.40 0.55 0.88 1.16 1.50 2.57 17.03 10.07 14.56 
MCTE on Cool-Down (10-6/oC) 
275~30 250~27 225~25 200~22 175~20 150~17 125~15 100~12 75~100 50~75 35~50 
T/M unit 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC 0 oC 5 oC oC oC oC 
Tcw Saturated N 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 
Mean 14.72 21.97 33.53 37.01 23.81 18.48 15.72 13.51 12.09 10.78 10.85 
Std. Dev. 3.76 6.79 16.44 26.18 10.01 3.25 1.96 1.48 1.28 1.36 1.96 
Dry N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 
Mean 17.46 26.34 36.95 33.72 22.86 17.58 13.89 11.77 10.21 9.35 6.59 
Std. Dev. 3.70 6.88 11.50 14.21 3.16 2.00 2.39 2.22 1.56 1.15 2.20 
PTn Saturated N 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 
Mean 15.58 9.12 7.20 6.39 6.98 6.29 5.93 5.36 5.12 4.33 1.94 
Std. Dev. 1.04 0.84 0.29 0.17 1.51 0.78 0.47 0.36 0.34 0.84 2.93 
Dry N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 
Mean 11.22 7.91 6.78 6.45 6.47 6.53 6.11 5.80 5.52 4.82 2.41 
Std. Dev. 2.46 1.00 0.81 0.90 1.14 1.35 1.30 1.16 0.89 0.84 0.86 
TSw1 Saturated N 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 
Mean 15.07 19.87 24.05 26.15 27.57 26.66 28.19 19.89 11.46 9.92 9.35 
Std. Dev. 4.68 7.82 9.85 7.37 8.36 9.91 18.04 8.05 2.01 1.54 1.06 
Dry N 25 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 33 33 33 
Mean 16.68 20.71 24.16 23.26 26.74 25.34 25.55 17.78 10.53 9.22 6.95 
Std. Dev. 4.13 7.78 10.61 7.29 9.32 9.35 14.94 8.53 2.15 1.51 2.49 
TSw2 Saturated N 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 
Mean 21.89 27.83 26.55 21.38 17.31 14.06 12.49 11.52 10.27 9.48 8.81 
Std. Dev. 6.16 10.36 10.01 5.70 3.07 1.38 1.32 2.00 0.62 0.63 0.62 
Dry N 35 35 35 35 38 38 40 40 40 40 40 
Mean 20.57 24.31 24.20 21.16 18.45 14.34 11.74 10.51 9.54 8.87 7.48 
Std. Dev. 4.88 7.55 8.08 6.24 9.36 4.23 3.03 2.26 1.79 1.56 1.99 
Source: DTN SNL01B05059301.006 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-53 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Additional laboratory measurements of CTEs were performed for the specimens from the SHT 
and DST (CRWMS M&O 1999, Section 6.2.3.2 [129261] and CRWMS M&O 1997a, Section 
3.4.2, respectively). Summaries for the measurements are presented in Tables 8-25 and 8-26. 
The laboratory measurements of the mean CTEs from the SHT and DST are localized in Tptpmn 
unit. 
Sensitivity of intact rock thermal expansion to temperature, moisture content, specimen size, and 
confining stress has been evaluated based on laboratory tests. The evaluation was carried out by 
comparing the results of tests from specimens at different conditions (Brodsky et al. 1997 
[100653], Section 4.2.1; CRWMS M&O 1997d, Section 5.2.2). 
Effect of Temperature and Heating and Cooling Cycle 
Intact rock thermal expansion is highly temperature dependent, and increases with increasing 
temperatures (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. This can be observed from the mean 
CTEs for the Tptpmn and Tptpll rock, as shown in Figure 8-8. These results are summarized 
from about 3,000 and 500 measurements on the specimens with various moisture contents from 
Tptpmn and Tptpll units, respectively. Over a temperature range from 150C to 200C, the 
CTEs increase more steeply, which is believed to be associated with mineral phase changes 
occurring in Yucca Mountain welded tuff. It is also observed that the mean CTEs for Tptpmn 
specimens are greater than those for Tptpll, especially when temperature exceeds 200C. 
Table 8-25. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Specimens from the SHTa 
MCTE on the First Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 
25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 
N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 
Mean 8.6 9.9 9.0 9.6 10.6 11.8 12.3 15.4 21.9 33.6 57.1 54.9 
Std. Dev. 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.7 5.5 8.6 12.0 8.5 
MCTE on the First Cooling Cycle (10-6/oC) 
300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 
oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC 
N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 
Mean 16.9 29.4 39.4 37.6 25.6 20.1 15.1 12.7 11.8 10.6 10.0 10.4 
Std. Dev. 2.3 1.8 5.1 8.2 4.3 4.4 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 3.0 
MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 
25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 
N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 
Mean 8.5 9.7 9.0 10.2 11.1 12.2 14.1 19.1 25.2 43.6 49.7 31.8 
Std. Dev. 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.6 2.1 3.3 4.2 9.3 8.2 2.8 
MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 
oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC 
N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 
Mean 17.9 29.5 40.3 38.5 26.1 19.2 14.7 12.3 11.5 10.4 9.8 9.4 
Std. Dev. 1.7 1.6 4.7 7.5 3.5 2.5 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 
Source: DTN SNL22080196001.003 
aAir dried. Lithostratigraphic unit is Tptpmn. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-54 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-26. Summary of Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion Data for Specimens from the DSTa 
MCTE on the First Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 
25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 
N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 13 
Mean 7.34 8.99 9.73 10.22 10.91 12.20 14.74 22.31 27.34 33.88 54.13 52.28 
Std. Dev. 0.57 0.47 0.54 0.58 0.79 1.04 4.79 18.09 15.70 6.94 12.18 13.42 
MCTE on the First Cooling Cycle (10-6/oC) 
300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 
oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC 
N 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 15 
Mean 15.74 24.07 35.63 36.01 26.50 24.19 18.30 14.14 12.36 11.05 10.24 9.67 
Std. Dev. 1.88 5.70 8.39 8.32 4.69 9.82 7.37 2.61 1.76 0.84 1.24 0.66 
MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
75~100 100~125 125~150 150~175 175~200 200~225 225~250 250~275 275~300 300~325 
25~50 oC50~75 oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 
N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 13 
Mean 7.22 8.87 9.63 10.24 11.28 13.22 19.37 22.66 24.82 37.84 46.78 34.46 
Std. Dev. 0.76 0.59 0.54 0.61 0.98 2.98 14.97 10.66 5.47 9.52 11.63 10.17 
MCTE on the Second Heating Cycle (10-6/oC) 
300~325 275~300 250~275 225~250 200~225 175~200 150~175 125~150 100~125 75~100 
oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC oC 50~75 oC30~50 oC 
N 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 
Mean 16.50 26.48 37.06 36.39 26.44 23.64 17.46 13.75 12.01 11.36 10.16 9.81 
Std. Dev. 1.06 2.32 4.00 3.77 2.14 4.50 2.92 0.99 0.56 0.87 0.31 0.33 
Source: DTN SN0203L2210196.007 
aAir dried. Lithostratigraphic unit is Tptpmn except for HDFR1-97.9, which may be from Tptpll. 
Mean CTE (10-6 oC-1) 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
Tptpmn 
Tptpll 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Temperature (oC) 
Source: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15 
Figure 8-8. Mean CTEs Measured from Specimens of Tptpmn and Tptpll Units 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-55 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The temperature dependency of thermal expansion was observed on both wet (fully-saturated) 
and dry (oven-dried) specimens (Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. 
Effect of Moisture Content 
Effect of moisture content on intact rock thermal expansion was investigated through laboratory 
thermal expansion measurements using air- or oven-dried and vacuum-saturated specimens 
(Brodsky et al. 1997, Section 4.2.1)[100653]. The results indicate that the moisture content of 
specimens has insignificant effect on the CTEs, especially at temperatures below 200C. 
Effect of Confining Stress 
Most of laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made at ambient atmospheric 
pressure. By definition, CTE is measured at a stress-free condition. This can be achieved in a 
laboratory test, however, in a drift-scale field thermal expansion measurement, a stress-free 
condition is difficult to achieve. Adjustment of field measurements for confining stresses is a 
complex issue as it requires an accurate determination of the magnitude of stresses at the location 
where the thermal expansion is measured. Sometimes the stress conditions are unknown. 
Additionally, some mineralogical phase changes are not only temperature dependent but also 
pressure sensitive. For these reasons, the effect of confining stress on CTE was assessed in 
laboratory tests using the specimens taken from borehole USW SD-12, covering the rock units of 
Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln (Martin et al. 1997d, Sections 3 and 4). Tests were conducted at a 
confining stress ranging from 1 to 30 MPa. At each confining stress, several thermal cycles were 
performed up to a temperature of about 250C. 
It appears that at low temperature, the mean CTEs are slightly lower for tests at lower confining 
stress than at higher confining stress, while at higher temperatures the mean CTEs are higher for 
tests at lower confining stress than at higher confining stress. Overall, the mean CTEs are not 
very sensitive to the confining stress (Martin et al. 1997d, Sections 3 and 4). 
Effect of Specimen Size 
Most of laboratory thermal expansion measurements were made on small specimens with a 
nominal diameter of 25.4 mm (1-in). Since the Yucca Mountain tuff contains features such as 
voids and fractures, the effect of these features on CTE depends on the size of specimens tested. 
This effect was investigated for the Tptpll rock unit by comparing the mean CTEs obtained from 
tests on small 1-in specimens to those on large 12-in (30.5 cm) specimens (DTNs: 
SN0208L01B8102.001 and SN0211L01B8102.002). A comparison of results is shown in Figure 
8-9. The mean CTEs for smaller specimens are generally greater than those for larger 
specimens, indicating that portion of the space occupied by air in larger specimens is absorbed 
by expanding rock matrix during heating, resulting in a lower CTE. The difference in CTE 
between two sizes of specimens is diminishing as temperature increases, a result of voids or 
fractures closing with increase of temperature. 
A thorough understanding of the correlation between specimen size and thermal expansion may 
help in selection of right CTE values for use in the repository design and assessment of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-56 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
uncertainty of or confidence in the data used. To achieve this, additional test data may be 
required. 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
C-1) 
i 
iMean CTE (10-6 o 
Mean for 1 inch specmens 
Mean for 12nch specimens 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Temperature (oC) 
Sources: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15; DTNs: SN0208L01B8102.001and SN0211L01B8102.002 
Figure 8-9. Mean CTEs Measured on 1-in (25.4 mm) and 12-in (30.5 cm) Specimens Taken from Tptpll 
Unit 
Uncertainties on the mean CTEs obtained from laboratory thermal expansion tests are associated 
with errors from measurements and variations of specimens taken from different borehole cores. 
Among them, the latter is the primary contributor and more difficult to quantify. 
Errors from measurements are contributed by equipment precision, variations of test 
environment, and operation of equipment by different personnel. These errors or uncertainties 
are either aleatory or epistemic. Quantification of these uncertainties is possible but requires the 
study of complete test records. Since laboratory thermal expansion measurements were 
conducted under a controlled environmental condition, and equipment used were calibrated to 
the requirements specified by test procedures, the uncertainties associated with measurements are 
relatively insignificant. 
Uncertainty of data from laboratory thermal measurements is mainly contributed by variations of 
specimens. The specimens used were collected from various boreholes drilled at various 
locations. Difference in the test results from different specimens reflects in part the spatial 
variations in rock properties. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-57 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.3.5.3 Rock Mass Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 
Rock mass thermal expansion is the effective thermal expansion that rock mass experiences 
when subjected to a change in temperature. It accounts for the effects of voids, fractures, 
moisture content, and any heterogeneity or discontinuity that affect the thermal expansion. 
Determination of rock mass thermal expansion is more difficult than that of intact rock because 
of the scale considered in a measurement. It is hardly feasible to conduct a laboratory 
measurement using a specimen with a size of the drift scale. Field measurements are usually 
used and require more efforts and resources. In the case of a lack of field measurements, use of 
either laboratory measurements with large specimens or analytical calculations based on the 
correlation of thermal expansion and key controlling factors such as discontinuity may serve as 
alternatives to estimate rock mass CTEs. The analytical calculations need to be validated using 
available field measured data or laboratory data measured based on large specimens. 
Field measurements are conducted on rock displacements at different temperatures. These 
displacements are then used to calculate rock mass dimension changes and thermal expansion at 
the corresponding temperature based on Equation 8-16. Measurements of rock displacements 
are usually made by multi-point borehole extensometer (MPBX), while those of rock 
temperatures are by thermal probes. In order to evaluate the effects of porosity, fractures, 
moisture contents, and confining stresses, mapping voids or fractures of the measuring boreholes 
and measuring in situ moisture contents and confining stresses are considered necessary. Field 
measurements are considered the most valuable in terms of rock mass properties. Due to spatial 
variations of rock properties and uncontrollable conditions at field, uncertainties associated with 
the field data are usually very high, which makes the interpretation of field data a challenge task. 
Two major field tests, which involved the measurements of rock mass thermal expansion, are the 
SHT and the DST. Both of the SHT and the DST are located in the Tptpmn rock unit. 
The SHT block is approximately 12.9 m wide, 9.5 m deep, and 5.5 m high. The SHT used a 
heater power of about 4,000 watts for a period of nine months, followed by a cool down period 
of seven months with the heater off completely. The maximum rock temperature measured at 
the end of the heating period was about 160C. MPBX displacements were measured at different 
temperatures within the rock mass surrounding the SHT. These displacements from MPBX-1, 
MPBX-3, and MPBX-2 were then used to determine rock mass thermal expansion at the 
corresponding temperature (BSC 2002i, Table 6.2.3.5-1). 
Similar to the SHT, MPBX displacements have been measured during the DST. These 
displacements measurements from boreholes 81 and 82 that are roughly parallel to the Heated 
Drift and extend over 45 m have been used to estimate rock mass thermal expansion during 
heating as a function of temperature (Equation 8-16) in Table 6.3.3.6-5 of BSC 2002i(DTN: 
SN0208F3912298.039). 
The mean rock mass CTEs, as shown in Figure 8-10, were calculated based on the measured 
MPBX displacements from both SHT and DST. Similar to those from the laboratory 
measurements, the mean rock mass CTEs are also highly temperature dependent, but their 
dependency is less profound than for the intact rock. The rock mass CTEs are lower than the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-58 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
intact rock. The difference is getting smaller with increasing temperature, indicating that the 
effect of fractures on CTEs is diminishing as more fractures are closed by rock deformation as a 
result of temperature increase. 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
C-1)Mean CTE (10-6 o 
Mean from Lab 
Mean from SHT 
Mean from DST 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Temperature (oC) 
Sources: CRWMS M&O 1997d, Table 5-15; BSC 2002i, Tables 6.2.3.5-1 and 6.3.3.6-5 
Figure 8-10. Comparison of Mean Intact Rock CTEs from Laboratory Measurements and Rock Mass 
CTEs from SHT and DST Measurements for Tptpmn Unit 
There are no field thermal expansion measurements available in the Tptpll rock unit. The best 
data available on rock mass thermal expansion for this rock unit are those from laboratory 
thermal expansion measurements on specimens with a nominal diameter of 12 inches (DTNs: 
SN0208L01B8102.001 and SN0211L01B8102.002). Only five specimens were tested. No 
definite conclusion can be drawn in terms of the effects of scaling and lithophysal cavities or 
fractures on rock mass thermal expansion. The results may still help to shed some light on the 
understanding of this effect. A comprehensive knowledge of the effect of lithophysal cavities on 
rock mass thermal expansion may be acquired by conducting additional laboratory tests with 
specimens of various sizes or some field measurements. 
The mean CTEs from the laboratory measurements on 12-in specimens are shown in Figure 8-9. 
Observation similar to those for the rock mass CTEs of Tptpmn unit can be made. The 
difference between the mean CTEs from small 1-in specimens and those from 12-in specimens 
(see Figure 8-9 is relatively smaller than that for Tptpmn (see Figure 8-10). There are Three 
possible reasons behind this. First, for Tptpll unit the comparison is made on the results all from 
laboratory measurements on specimens with different sizes, while for Tptpmn the results are 
compared between laboratory measurements and field ones. Laboratory measurements are made 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-59 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
under a better-controlled environment or condition, while field measurements usually involve 
unknown conditions, resulting in a higher uncertainty. Second, rock mass characteristics of 
Tptpll and Tptpmn units are quite different. Third, scale effect may be a factor, since the 12-in 
specimens are still small compared to the drift scale. These differences may also contribute to 
the effect on rock mass CTE. 
Analytical approach may be one of the alternatives to estimate rock mass CTEs as well as to 
assess their spatial variations without conducting costly field tests. With the analytical approach, 
a correlation that relates rock mass CTE to lithophysal porosity and intact rock CTE must be 
developed. Some theoretical principles employed in developing various analytical models for 
estimating rock mass thermal conductivity, as discussed in Section 8.3.3.2.7, may be applicable 
for developing the analytical models for estimating rock mass thermal expansion. 
In case field measurements are not either feasible or available, numerical experiments using 
commercially available software to estimate rock mass CTE unit may be an alternative. This 
may be achieved by using a similar approach that was used to calculate rock mass deformation 
modulus of Tptpll based on the PFC code (Board 2003, Section 6.2.4 [165036]). Either FLAC or 
ANSYS may be a candidate code for this task. In such a numerical experiment, the variables or 
factors that may affect the results include the size, shape, distribution, and density of voids 
explicitly modeled. The effect of these factors should be addressed in the numerical 
experiments. 
The primary uncertainties of rock mass CTEs are associated with field measurements of MPBX 
displacements and RTD and thermocouple temperatures. These uncertainties, quantifiable and 
non-quantifiable, are discussed in BSC 2002i, Sections 6.2.3.5.2 and 6.3.3.6.6. The accuracy of 
the instrumentation and the conversion of the electrical output to engineering units contribute to 
the errors in the data. These errors are systematic and are generally quantifiable. 
In addition to these uncertainties, spatial variations of rock mass characteristics can also 
contribute to the uncertainty of the data since the field measurements were made only at limited 
locations. 
As far as the rock mass CTEs of Tptpll units are concerned, the primary uncertainties are 
associated with the spatial variations of lithophysal cavities. Five 12-in specimens collected 
from two locations represent a relatively small sample. In addition, 12-in specimens may or may 
not be representative for the rock mass. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-60 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF INTACT ROCK 
8.4.1 General 
Properties of rocks are determined using specimen sizes ranging from microscopic mineral 
crystals to large volumes of rock mass, where features such as fractures, may impact rock 
behavior such that it may no longer be treated as a uniform rock type. For logistic reasons, small 
rock samples, from which test specimens can be prepared and tested, can be obtained much 
easier than large-size specimens. For this reason mechanical properties of intact rock provide a 
basis for comparison of any additional factors and testing methods that may contribute to the 
specific behavior of rock at various sample sizes and subject to a variety of testing methods. 
This section provides a summary of testing performed on on intact rock specimens from the 
YMP. 
8.4.2 Assessment of Factors Affecting Properties of Intact Rock 
The two elastic constants that are routinely determined from measurements in virtually all of the 
mechanical property experiments are Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. These properties are 
discussed in terms of their variability with changes in the physical characteristics and 
environmental conditions discussed earlier. Intact rock elastic properties were collected from 
core samples from surface and subsurface drilling efforts. The data have been collected since the 
beginning of subsurface exploration in the late 1970s and includes data that have most recently 
been collected from additional testing done on specimens collected from drilling operations in 
the ESF and ECRB. Table 8-16 shows the drill hole or approximate location of the sample 
collection for all unconfined compressive specimens as well as the associated elastic properties 
calculated from the strength test. Samples tested range in diameter from 25.4 mm (1 in) to 290 
mm (11.4 in). 
Elastic rock data presented come from many different studies performed by several laboratories. 
Data were collected and tested under quality assurance programs that were in place at the time of 
testing. Most recently, in mid 2003, a data qualification effort located data and qualified data 
that meet the conditions of corroboration set by AP-SIII.2Q Rev 1 ICN 1, Qualification of 
Unqualified Data. The Data Qualification and Summary Report is available as TDR-MGR-GE-
000004, Rev. 00 (Cikanek et. al 2003c), and the data summary is presented in DTN 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Additional data from recent testing performed by Sandia National 
Laboratories to explore the effect of lithophysae are found in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, 
SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, and 
SN0305L0207502.004. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-61 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-27. Drillhole and Subsurface Location of Test Rock Samples 
Tptpul 
Tptpmn 
Tptpll 
Tptpln 
Drillhole/Surface 
USW NRG-6 
USW G-4 
USW G-1 
USW G-1 
Specimens 
USW NRG-7a 
USW NRG-7a 
USW G-2 
USW G-4 
USW SD-9 
USW GU-3 
USW G-4 
USW GU-3 
USW GU-3 
UE-25 NRG #5 
USW NRG-6 
USW NRG-7a 
Busted Butte 
USW NRG-6 
USW NRG-7a 
USW SD-9 
USW SD-12 
USW GU-3 
USW SD-12 
USW SD-9 
Busted Butte 
UE-25a #1 
UE-25a #1 
Fran Ridge 
Busted Butte 
Subsurface ESF/ECRB 
ESF 63+50 
ESF 12+50 
ECRB 21+50 
No subsurface 
Specimens 
samples from the
ESF 65+00 
Drift Scale Thermal 
ESF 22+00 
ESF/ECRB
Test Area 
ESF 65+60.5 
ESF 19+00 
included in this 
Instrumentation
through 
ECRB 19+22.2 
report.
Boreholes
ESF 65+96 
through 
ECRB 19+28.7 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-62 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.2.1 Intact Rock Youngs Modulus 
The magnitude of Youngs modulus depends on several environmental and physical conditions. 
The effects of the physical and environmental conditions are explored within this section. 
Youngs modulus was most often calculated between 10 and 50 percent of the ultimate strength. 
Various laboratories and investigators have performed testing with slightly varying methods of 
calculating the elastic modulus. The method of calculating Youngs Modulus is generally 
explained in ASTM D3148-96 Standard Test Method for Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core 
Specimens in Uniaxial Compression. Some modulus results were calculated between 25 and 50 
percent or the linear portion of the stress-strain curve. Modulus values were calculated most 
often by least squares linear regression of all data points collected between the above-mentioned 
bounds. 
Generally, Youngs modulus and failure strength depend on the welding of the tuff. Nonwelded 
tuff is weak and exhibits low Youngs moduli, and welded tuffs have higher moduli (CRWMS 
M&O 1997d p. 5-119, p. 5-133). 
A summary of all calculated Youngs moduli for the repository host horizon, as well as units 
found above and below the RHH is shown in Table 8-28. All codes shown in the summary table 
below are explained in Section 8.2.2. All static Youngs modulus results for individual specimen 
testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in 
Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. 
Porosity: Studies have shown a strong inverse relationship between Youngs modulus and 
porosity (Olsson and Jones 1980; Price 1983; Price and Bauer 1985; Price et al. 1993, 1994a, and 
1994b). 
Ten large Tptpul samples were tested at baseline conditions (saturated, room temperature). The 
test specimens had an average porosity of 0.35, with a range from 0.31 to 0.40. Results of this 
testing are available in DTN SNSAND84086000.000. Samples that were 267 mm in diameter do 
not show a clear correlation between porosity and elastic modulus because there is a large range 
of modulus values over a limited range of porosity. 
A collection of all currently qualified and verified RHH Youngs modulus values that were 
calculated from stress-strain curves on 50.8 mm diameter, saturated, tested at room temperature, 
having a length to diameter ratio near 2:1 and tested at a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 are plotted against 
measured porosity in Figure 8-11. An inverse relationship between Youngs modulus and 
porosity is apparent. There is no apparent correlation between Youngs modulus and porosity 
for 25.4 mm specimens because of the narrow range of porosities considered. 
Sample Size: Two studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of sample size on intact 
tuff mechanical properties. Price (1986) tested outcrop samples of the Tptpmn zone of the 
Topopah Spring tuff obtained from large boulders from Busted Butte, just to the southeast of 
Yucca Mountain. The test specimens were all cylinders with nominal diameters of 25.4 mm, 
50.8 mm, 82.6 mm, 127.0 mm and 228.6 mm, and tested at the baseline set of conditions. The 
results from these tests, as shown in Figure 8-12, indicate that Youngs modulus is independent 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-63 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
of sample size. The average Youngs moduli for these five sample sizes range from 35.3 GPa to 
43.7 GPa and the Poissons ratios from 0.19 to 0.22 (Price 1986). 
The second study with data on samples also from large boulders retrieved from Busted Butte is 
available in DTN SN0306L0207502.008. These boulders, however, were taken from the Tptpll 
zone of the Topopah Spring tuff. The test specimens are cylinders of nominal diameters of 25.4 
mm, 51.0 mm, 82.1 mm, and 120.7 mm, and a set of 5 parallelepipeds with a square cross-
sectional area samples and an average width of 204 mm. The samples were tested at all baseline 
conditions except for one: because of the urgency of the experiments to meet project deadlines, 
the samples were tested room dry instead of saturated. While these samples are from a 
lithophysal zone, this is a section of the zone with very few lithophysae, and those that are 
present are quite large and flattened, occurring almost exclusively in the largest samples and at a 
high (about 45o) angle to the axis of each sample. In spite of some issues about the varying 
distribution of the rare lithophysal cavities (discussed in the strength section), the Youngs 
Modulus and Poissons ratio data collected so far have shown a similar result as the earlier study: 
both of these elastic properties seem to be independent of sample size. Actually, the average 
Youngs moduli values have a smaller span than before, ranging from 32.8 GPa to 36.3 GPa and 
the Poissons ratio means are from 0.17 to 0.19 (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). A plot of the 
most recent RHH data is shown in Figure 8-13. 
Temperature: Two studies in the early 1980s by Olsson and Jones (1980) and Olsson (1982) 
had a small amount of data and often did not have comparative data (i.e., side-by-side samples) 
for different temperatures, so quantitative conclusions are not possible. The Youngs modulus 
data for some non-welded tuff from Ranier Mesa at the Nevada Test Site indicate a distinctly 
lower value for the 200C tests than the room temperature tests. No results were recorded for 
Youngs modulus for welded tuff, nor for Poissons ratio, in any tuff type. 
In a later study by Price and others, Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn zone of the 
Topopah Spring tuff were tested at room temperature and 150oC, and at unconfined and 5 MPa 
effective confining pressures (Note: all elevated temperature tests were run with a 2 MPa pore 
pressure in order to maintain the water in a liquid state). The effectively unconfined test results 
show a 16% decrease in Youngs modulus, while the test data at 5 MPa effective pressure show a 
21% decrease for the stated increase in temperature (Price at al. 1987). No lateral displacement 
measurements were made on the elevated temperature experiments, so no similar comparison 
can be made on the Poissons ratio values. 
Experiments have recently been conducted on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpll 
lithostratigraphic unit. The preliminary results do not indicate a difference in Youngs modulus 
or Poissons ratio with varying temperature. The most recent data are contained in DTNs 
SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008 and 
SN0305L0207502.004. 
The effect of temperature on Youngs modulus using all currently qualified RHH 50.8 mm 
saturated specimens at room temperature is shown in Figure 8-14. Testing involving varying the 
temperature of the specimens and determining the Youngs modulus while at 150C was only 
performed on samples collected from the Tptpmn rock unit. Although tests were performed at 
only two temperatures, an inverse relationship between Youngs modulus and sample 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-64 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
temperature is observed. This relationship is slight, but noticeable for both saturated and dry 
specimens. 
Saturation: Unless considering the deformation of a fully saturated rock in an undrained 
condition, in general changing the amount of water in a rock rarely results in a significant effect 
on the elastic properties of rocks, and even more specifically on silicic rocks, like tuff. Olsson 
and Jones (1980) tested both dry and saturated test specimens of tuff from Ranier Mesa on the 
Nevada Test Site at various strain rates. These test results show a consistent, but small decrease 
in Youngs moduli values when comparing dry and saturated results at any given strain rate. 
A very limited study on four room-dry samples and four saturated samples of Calico Hills tuff is 
presented in Price and Jones (1982). These Youngs modulus data are inconclusive, and contrary 
to expectations show a slight modulus increase for specimens varying in saturation from room 
dry to saturated. 
Forty-four room dry and saturated samples were tested at a range of confining pressures and 
strain rates. When comparing the same sets of test conditions, neither Youngs modulus nor 
Poissons ratio show a consistent relationship with saturation. The trends in the differences vary 
with conditions, but more significantly the ranges of values determined within one standard 
deviation of the mean have large overlapping values, indicating the differences are not 
significant (Price et al. 1987). 
An ongoing study on 51 mm diameter samples from Busted Butte outcrop samples of the Tptpll 
zone is incomplete, although some results are available. The preliminary results show a small 
decrease (about 6%) when comparing the means for Youngs modulus values from tests on six 
room dry samples compared to seven saturated samples (DTN SN0306L0207502.008). 
The level of saturation for the given sample is relatively unknown, as it is uncertain whether 
internal pores become saturated during the procedure that required vacuum saturation of 
specimens. For the purpose of testing, saturation was deemed to occur when the change in 
weight became relatively insignificant. A plot of 50.8 mm diameter samples, tested saturated at 
a constant strain rate of 10-5s-1, from all RHH specimen testing throughout the years is shown in 
Figure 8-15. Figure 8-15 suggests that if any trend exists, increasing saturation results in a 
decrease in Youngs modulus for nonlithophysal specimens. In summary, the data are not 
absolutely conclusive, but the majority of data indicate that saturation level has a relatively small 
effect on the elastic properties of the nonlithophysal welded tuffs. It should be noted that there 
are indications of a greater effect of moisture on lithophysal welded tuff. 
Rate or Time Scale: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested saturated and oven-dried samples of Grouse 
Canyon welded tuff from Rainier Mesa, Nevada Test Site, at three strain rates: 10-6 s-1, 10-4 s
-1
and 10-2 s. For the oven-dried samples, the average Youngs moduli are essentially equal for all 
of the strain rates; however, for the saturated samples, a slight trend is evident. The saturated 
Youngs moduli are found to be inversely related to rate, with the mean Youngs moduli values 
(the overall change was 26.0 to 23.3 GPa) decreasing by an average of 2.5% per decade increase 
in rate over the strain rates stated above. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-65 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
There are some limited data on rate effects in three early studies, one on moderately welded 
Tram tuff (Price and Nimick 1982), one on non-welded Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 1982) 
and one on highly welded Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al., 1982). In all of these rate studies, 
saturated samples were tested at room temperature and ambient pressure. The studies by Price 
and Nimick (1982) and Price et al. (1982) used strain rates of 10-6, 10-4 and 10-2 s-1, while Price 
-1
and Jones (1982) used 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s. The Price and Nimick (1982) results show no trend 
in Youngs modulus (overall average of 7.3 GPa) with strain rate; however, the Price and Jones 
(1982) and the Price et al. (1982) studies show the mean Youngs moduli values decreasing by 
an average of 6.8% and 3.4%, respectively, per decade increase in strain rate. 
Similarly, in the study by Price et al. (1987), the Youngs moduli data for the saturated samples 
tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 show an 
inverse relationship with rate. The samples were from Busted Butte outcrop samples of the 
Tptpmn unit. The mean Youngs moduli data decrease (from 40.1 to 32.5 GPa) an average of 
4.7% per decade increase in strain rate. A smaller set of data was gathered on oven-dry samples 
-1
tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s. These data 
indicate a direct relationship between Youngs modulus and rate, with the average data being 
38.0 GPa for the 10-7 s-1 experiments and 40.5 GPa for the 10-5 s-1 experiments. 
A study conducted to extend the Price et al. (1987) work above was carried out by Martin et al. 
(1993a and 1993b). Six experiments were performed on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples 
from the Tptpmn unit. The test specimens were water saturated and tested at room temperature, 
-1
ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These results show a reversal of the Youngs 
modulus trend above, with the average Youngs modulus being 33.9 GPa. 
A plot of Youngs modulus versus strain rate for all Tptpmn specimens tested saturated at room 
temperature with length to diameter ratio near 2:1 is shown in Figure 8-16. 
Sample Orientation (Anisotropy): Elastic anisotropy has not been clearly determined to be 
observable in the Yucca Mountain tuffs. (Price et al. 1984). A later study investigating both 
static and dynamic elastic moduli found that the tuff is clearly anisotropic, approximately 7% for 
dynamic measurements, and 20% static measurements (Martin et al. 1992). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-66 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values 
Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) 
Tmr 5 
7 
11 13.92 2.58 11.50 31.70 
3 23.83 1.21 24.20 4.13 
5 14.26 1.41 15.00 7.90 
1 33.40 N/A N/A 33.40 N/A 
6 24.81 2.74 28.15 15.47 
1 21.4 N/A 21.4 
1 19.17 N/A N/A 19.17 N/A 
1 22.8 N/A 22.8 
3 23.88 1.00 23.17 3.25 
4 35.08 2.76 36.95 12.40 
4 37.68 0.56 37.30 2.50 
8 35.81 2.60 38.95 21.40 
2 35.40 35.40 15.00 
1 27.40 N/A N/A 27.40 N/A 
1 16.13 N/A N/A 16.13 N/A 
1 34.54 N/A N/A 34.54 N/A 
1 24.13 N/A N/A 24.13 N/A 
4 34.43 2.35 35.21 9.51 
17 35.74 0.85 36.70 14.40 
1 24.40 N/A N/A 24.40 N/A 
1 22.30 N/A N/A 22.30 N/A 
20 33.84 1.35 35.75 18.70 
3 32.73 4.94 36.10 16.10 
3 43.97 5.02 39.20 15.30 
1 57.50 N/A N/A 57.5 
1 43.90 N/A N/A 43.9 
1 58.30 N/A N/A 58.3 
1 18.80 N/A N/A 18.80 N/A 
5 10.90 3.87 7.70 21.90 
4 
1 N/A 
1 N/A 
1 N/A 2.9 N/A 
Tpy 5 
2 N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 
10 0.98 0.21 0.75 1.80 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 
6 
3 
2 N/A 
6 30.32 25.90 
13 19.80 1.32 20.60 16.40 
11 22.58 1.76 25.30 21.00 
57 21.24 1.25 19.9 50.70 
8 22.36 1.82 24.60 15.00 
8 19.65 2.90 20.05 26.40 
5 21.32 2.67 19.80 13.50 
3 10.30 4.30 
1 14.40 N/A N/A 14.40 N/A 
5 48.84 46.3 29.70 
2 42.00 N/A N/A 42 
1 54.70 N/A N/A 54.7 
UO 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
O421150 3.36 2.69 1.20 3.70 0.70 7.20 6.50 
Tpki O421150 3.77 1.54 0.58 4.00 0.70 5.10 4.40 
O421150 8.55 6.50 38.20 
O431150 2.09 21.58 25.71 
Tpcrn2 O421150 3.16 9.70 17.60 
Tpcrn1 O421150 33.40 33.40 
O421150 6.72 14.8 30.27 
O431143 N/A 21.4 21.4 N/A 
O431146 19.17 19.17 
O431147 N/A 22.8 22.8 N/A 
O431150 1.74 22.61 25.86 
O121151 5.52 27.00 39.40 
O121153 1.12 36.80 39.30 
O421150 7.35 20.00 41.40 
O421151 10.61 7.50 27.90 42.90 
O421153 27.40 27.40 
O431144 16.13 16.13 
O431146 34.54 34.54 
O431147 24.13 24.13 
O431150 4.71 28.89 38.40 
O421150 3.49 24.60 39.00 
O421151 24.40 24.40 
O421153 22.30 22.30 
O421150 6.05 21.40 40.10 
O421151 8.56 23.00 39.10 
O421153 8.69 38.70 54.00 
O431140 57.5 57.5 N/A 
O431143 43.9 43.9 N/A 
O431145 58.3 58.3 N/A 
Tpcplnc O421153 18.80 18.80 
Tpcpv2 O421150 8.65 2.10 24.00 
Tpcpv1 O421150 2.53 1.67 0.83 2.95 0.30 3.90 3.60 
O421150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 
O431140 0.41 N/A 0.41 0.41 0.41 N/A 
O431150 2.90 N/A 2.9 2.9 
O421150 5.24 3.05 1.36 4.90 2.30 9.20 6.90 
O421150 1.30 N/A 1.30 0.20 2.40 2.20 
O421151 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 1.80 N/A 1.80 1.20 2.40 1.20 
O421150 0.66 0.30 2.10 
O421153 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 1.05 N/A 1.05 0.80 1.30 0.50 
O421150 0.67 0.68 0.28 0.50 0.01 1.70 1.69 
O431150 0.90 0.53 0.31 0.70 0.50 1.50 1.00 
Tptrv3 O421150 0.99 N/A 0.99 0.07 1.90 1.83 
O121150 11.20 4.57 30 17.6 43.5 
O121151 4.77 12.30 28.70 
O121153 5.83 8.40 29.40 
O421150 9.41 9.2 59.9 
O421151 5.16 14.00 29.00 
O421153 8.19 2.00 28.40 
O431150 5.98 14.80 28.30 
O421150 9.13 2.38 1.37 6.40 10.70 
O421151 14.40 14.40 
O121150 11.58 5.18 38.6 68.3 
O121170 41.9 42.1 0.20 
(continued) O421150 54.7 54.7 N/A 
Tpcrn 
Tptf 
Tptrl 
Tptrn 
Tpp 
Tpbt4 
TCw 
PTn 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
TSw1 
Tpcpmn 
Tpcpul 
Tpcpln 
Tpbt2 
Tpbt3 
Tpcpll 
Mechanical 
Unit 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-67 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values (continued) 
Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) 
i8 20.41 9.16 3.24 6.00 33.30 
2 25.10 N/A 25.1 17.8 32.4 
1 22.30 N/A 22.3 22.3 22.3 
2 19.70 N/A 19.70 18.30 21.10 
1 6.70 N/A 6.7 6.7 
2 11.40 N/A 11.4 15.6 
5 12.86 3.86 1.73 14.5 16.9 
15.47 3.15 1.00 15.80 10.90 21.50 
3 10.30 3.22 1.86 9.90 7.30 13.70 
3 5.87 0.85 0.49 5.90 5.00 6.70 
6 13.45 5.79 2.36 5.80 20.50 
1 14.90 N/A 14.90 14.90 14.90 N/A 
24.02 4.13 0.75 25.10 6.80 27.80 
3 36.60 2.31 1.33 37.4 38.4 
34.90 5.58 1.02 33.8 28.1 47.3 
6 37.40 3.85 1.57 35.9 43.6 
6 34.23 2.17 0.89 34.05 32 38 
2 35.55 N/A 35.55 33.6 37.5 
36.76 3.48 0.87 37.6 28.9 43.1 
30.01 7.29 1.95 33.7 
32.40 2.93 0.62 32.65 25.7 36.7 
4 40.55 5.01 2.51 41.4 33.7 45.7 
3 37.43 3.52 2.03 37.9 33.7 40.7 
3 35.57 4.53 2.62 33.1 32.8 40.8 
4 37.98 4.48 2.24 38.8 32.1 42.2 
2 26.10 17.11 12.10 14.00 38.20 
3 37.30 0.53 0.31 37.5 36.7 37.7 
3 36.43 1.59 0.92 37.2 34.6 37.5 
4 38.25 2.44 1.22 37.45 36.3 41.8 
4 66.70 57.25 28.63 33.10 152.40 
4 32.53 4.12 2.06 33.2 26.9 36.8 
32.53 6.74 1.05 34.17 13.4 45.7 
5 35.56 1.40 0.62 35.5 33.9 37.1 
29.65 4.69 1.30 30.75 21.4 35.2 
5 28.09 4.80 2.15 29.58 19.8 31.5 
4 40.10 3.83 1.91 39.6 36.7 44.5 
6 33.85 4.58 1.87 33.85 26.1 38.8 
4 30.98 2.21 1.10 31.6 32.7 
3 28.60 10.96 6.33 33.9 35.9 
5 33.04 4.05 1.81 31.2 29.6 39.9 
6 30.83 4.57 1.86 32.4 22.3 
5 31.50 3.02 1.35 31 27.7 34.6 
9 41.53 4.41 1.47 43.8 32.3 
35.31 5.56 1.68 35.7 25.3 45.1 
1 32.40 N/A 32.4 32.4 32.4 
2 39.75 N/A 39.75 37.4 42.1 
28.20 7.63 1.44 30.60 2.44 38.10 
3 26.00 8.55 4.94 23.2 19.2 35.6 
3 24.13 9.39 5.42 25.6 14.1 32.7 
2 27.40 N/A 27.40 22.00 32.80 
32.26 2.91 32.55 26 38.1 
7 36.09 2.22 0.84 36.7 32.7 38.4 
6 37.13 1.42 0.58 37.15 35.3 39.4 
29.97 6.43 1.66 31.30 16.90 37.60 
1 29.60 N/A 29.6 29.6 29.6 
34.52 3.75 0.49 34.80 24.50 41.30 
4 34.43 8.07 4.03 37.05 23.1 40.5 
35.40 5.00 36.3 41.5 
1 7.10 N/A 7.1 7.1 
1 10.90 N/A 10.9 10.9 10.9 
28.03 11.67 2.83 33.7 41.6 
2 6.80 N/A 6.80 6.50 7.10 
1 5.30 N/A 5.30 5.30 5.30 N/A 
() 3 7.57 2.25 1.30 8.50 5.00 9.20 
Unit 
) 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maxmum Range 
1421150 21.90 27.30 
1421151 N/A 14.60 
1421153 N/A N/A 
1431150 N/A 2.80 
1613150 N/A 6.7 N/A 
1621150 N/A 7.2 8.40 
1631150 7.3 9.60 
1721150 10 10.60 
1813250 6.40 
1821150 1.70 
1831150 13.05 14.70 
1831250 N/A 
3111350 30 21.00 
3121130 34 4.40 
3121150 30 19.20 
3121151 34 9.60 
3121153 6.00 
3121170 N/A 3.90 
3231150 16 14.20 
3231350 14 11 37 26.00 
3331350 22 11.00 
3411150 12.00 
3411151 7.00 
3411153 8.00 
3411170 10.10 
3412130 26.10 24.20 
3412150 1.00 
3412153 2.90 
3412170 5.50 
3412180 40.65 119.30 
3421130 9.90 
3421150 41 32.30 
3421151 3.20 
3421153 13 13.80 
3421155 11.70 
3421170 7.80 
3421190 12.70 
3422150 28 4.70 
3422151 16 19.90 
3422162 10.30 
3422163 35 12.70 
3422164 6.90 
3521150 46 13.70 
3621150 11 19.80 
3631150 N/A N/A 
3921150 N/A 4.70 
2121150 28 35.66 
2121151 16.40 
2121153 18.60 
2121170 N/A 10.80 
2131150 16 0.73 12.10 
2411150 5.70 
2412150 4.10 
2421150 15 20.70 
2421153 N/A N/A 
2431150 59 16.80 
2512150 17.40 
2531150 12 1.44 23 18.50 
2613150 N/A 7.1 N/A 
2621150 N/A N/A 
2631150 17 9.6 32.00 
2813250 N/A 0.60 
2821150 N/A 
continued2831150 4.20 
Tptpul 
Tptpmn 
Tptpll 
TSw1 
stratigraphic 
(cont. from 
previous 
pageTSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-68 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-28. Summary of Young's Modulus Values (continued) 
Thermo-Litho- Young's Modulus (GPa) 
2 32.90 N/A N/A 32.9 
2 32.60 N/A N/A 32.6 
29.72 2.29 32.4 19.70 
3 33.00 5.29 35.3 17.90 
37.78 1.43 38.8 14.00 
3 34.27 1.73 35.9 
3 35.50 2.07 34 
1 43.90 N/A N/A 43.9 
2 35.05 N/A N/A 35.05 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 25.20 N/A N/A 25.20 N/A 
1 54.20 N/A N/A 54.20 N/A 
1 32.90 N/A N/A 32.90 N/A 
2 34.25 N/A N/A 34.25 4.7 
1 16.10 N/A N/A 16.10 N/A 
2 16.75 N/A N/A 16.75 0.1 
3 
5 0.35 2.25 3.7 
2 N/A 
2 N/A N/A 3.745 1.21 
2 N/A 3.1 
4 
3 12.17 1.02 11.2 
1 N/A 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
33 7.07 0.37 6.6 
8 
6 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
2 13.16 N/A N/A 13.16 1.73 
3 
8 10.18 
4 16.68 1.72 17.8 
1 16.50 N/A N/A 16.5 
1 15.70 N/A N/A 15.7 
2 19.05 N/A N/A 19.05 
16 14.18 1.05 14.85 16.98 
1 13.10 N/A N/A 13.1 
1 17.80 N/A N/A 17.8 
1 13.80 N/A N/A 13.8 
2 20.67 N/A N/A 20.67 2.86 
8 18.64 2.09 18.15 17.30 
11 6.58 1.25 5.76 13.77 
18 7.67 0.60 8.525 
1 18.74 N/A N/A 18.74 N/A 
4 
4 
1 47.90 N/A N/A 47.9 
1 N/A 
2 29.01 N/A N/A 29.01 3.99 
1 21.95 N/A N/A 21.95 N/A 
4 14.63 0.25 14.55 
4 18.33 2.85 20.35 12.40 
29 7.95 0.45 7.92 10.79 
4 19.88 0.61 19.95 
7 10.32 1.11 10.4 
UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically, Not in Depositional Sequence 
CHn 
) 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
4121120 29.2 36.6 7.40 
4121140 27.7 37.5 9.80 
4121150 10 7.25 16.6 36.3 
4121160 9.17 22.9 40.8 
4421150 10 4.53 30.4 44.4 
4421151 3.00 30.8 36.1 5.30 
4421153 3.59 32.9 39.6 6.70 
4422164 43.9 43.9 N/A 
4431150 34.4 35.7 1.30 
O121153 N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 25.20 25.20 
O421151 54.20 54.20 
O421153 32.90 32.90 
O431150 31.90 36.60 
O121150 16.10 16.10 
O431150 16.70 16.80 
O121130 2.70 0.84 0.48 2.96 1.76 3.37 1.61 
O121150 2.402 0.79 1.53 2.17 
O121151 3.39 N/A 3.39 3.10 3.68 0.58 
O121153 3.745 3.14 4.35 
O121170 2.26 N/A 2.255 1.41 1.69 
O121150 9.25 2.32 1.16 9.75 6.3 11.2 4.90 
O121170 1.76 11.1 14.2 3.10 
O421150 3.90 N/A 3.90 3.90 3.90 N/A 
O111150 7.31 N/A 7.31 6.50 8.12 1.62 
O121130 5.43 N/A 5.43 5.41 5.45 0.04 
O121150 2.13 3.51 12.8 9.29 
O121153 6.76 1.56 0.55 6.51 4.28 8.90 4.62 
O121155 7.42 2.13 0.87 7.66 3.92 9.72 5.80 
O121170 7.45 N/A 7.45 7.03 7.86 0.83 
O131153 7.27 N/A 7.27 7.20 7.34 0.14 
O421150 6.50 N/A 6.50 6.10 6.90 0.80 
O431140 12.29 14.02 
O431165 8.69 0.81 0.47 8.50 7.99 9.57 1.58 
Tacbt O121150 6.92 4.13 1.46 6.375 2.52 12.7 
Tcbbt O121150 3.44 11.7 19.4 7.70 
O113141 16.5 16.5 N/A 
O113143 15.7 15.7 N/A 
O113145 17.6 20.5 2.90 
O121150 4.19 3.82 20.8 
O123143 13.1 13.1 N/A 
O123145 17.8 17.8 N/A 
O123146 13.8 13.8 N/A 
O431145 19.24 22.10 
Tcblv O121150 5.90 11.6 28.9 
Tcbuv O121150 4.13 2.03 15.8 
O121150 2.54 2.64 10.2 7.56 
O431147 18.74 18.74 
Tcpbt O121150 9.54 1.36 0.68 9.03 8.58 11.5 2.92 
O121150 4.13 1.11 0.55 4.06 3.14 5.25 2.11 
O431140 47.9 47.9 N/A 
Tcplv O431140 7.84 N/A 7.84 7.84 7.84 N/A 
O431145 27.01 31.00 
O431148 21.95 21.95 
Tctuc O121150 0.51 14.2 15.2 1.00 
Tctlc O121150 5.70 10.1 22.5 
Tctlv O121150 2.42 2.61 13.4 
Tctm O121150 1.23 18.3 21.3 3.00 
Tctuv O121150 2.94 6.66 14.5 7.84 
Tcbm 
Tcbuc 
Tcplc 
Tcpm 
Tpbt1 
Tac 
Tptpv2 
Tptpv1 
Tptpv3 TSw3 
Tptpln 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
(cont. from 
previous 
pageTSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-69 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Young's M odulus vs Porosity 
50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 
50 
Young's Modulus (GPa) 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
SNL02030193001.004 
SNL02030193001.019 
SNL02030193001.026 
SNL02030193001.020 
SNL02030193001.023 
SNL02030193001.012 
SNL02072983001.001 
SNSAND85070900.000 
SN0306L207502.008 
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 
Por osity (%) 
Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-11. Young's Modulus vs. Porosity (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens Saturated, Ambient Temperature, 
Unconfined) 
Young's Modulus vs Sample Diamete r: Saturated, Room Temperature, 
-1
L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 s
50.00 
45.00 
40.00 
Young's Modulus (GPa) 
35.00 
30.00 
25.00 
20.00 
15.00 
10.00 
5.00 
0.00 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 
Specim en Diam eter (m m) 
1986 Middle Non-Lit hophysal Busted Butte Data 
Figure 8-12. Young's Modulus vs. Sample Size (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens Saturated, Ambient 
Temperature) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-70 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Temperature 
Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing (DTN SN0306L0207502.008) 
45.0 
40.0 
35.0 
Source DTN(s) 
SN0306L0207502.008 
Young's Modulus (GPa)
30.0 
25.0 
20.0 
15.0 
10.0 
5.0 
0.0 
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 
Specimen Diameter (mm) 
Cylindrical Specimens 
Parallelpiped Specimens 
Figure 8-13. Young's Modulus vs. Sample Diameter From Recent (2003) Busted Butte Specimens 
(Room-Dry, Ambient Temperature, L:D Approximately 2, Strain Rate 10-5s-1 from Tptpll) 
Young's Modulus vs Tem pe r atur e 
50.8m m Specim ens , Strain Rate = 10-5 
50 
Young's Modulus (GPa) 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 
Specim en Tem pe r atur e (C) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Saturated 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry 
Figure 8-14. Young's Modulus vs. Temperature (RHH 50.8 mm Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-71 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Young's Modulus vs Saturation 
50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5 s-1 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
lYoung's Moduus 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 Dry Ambient Saturation Saturated 
Saturation 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 150C 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Room Temp 
Figure 8-15. Young's Modulus vs. Saturation (50.8 mm RHH Room Temperature Specimens) 
Young's Modulus vs Strain Rate
Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated,
50 Room Tem per ature, L:D=2:1
40 
Young's Modulus (GPa) 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 
Strain Rate (s^-1) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-16. Young's Modulus vs. Strain Rate (50.8 mm RHH Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-72 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.2.2 Intact Rock Poissons Ratio 
The majority of the compressive strength tests also had Poissons ratio calculated and reported 
with the strength data. Poissons ratio was determined using LVDTs (linear-variable differential 
transformer) to physically measure the lateral displacement of the specimen or by measuring a 
change in volume of the fluid in the triaxial cell of a confined compression experiment. 
Poissons ratio results are presented in Table 8-29 and primarily originates from DTN 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and recent DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, 
SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004. All static Poissons ratio 
results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic 
files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. 
The effect of varying porosity, saturation, temperature, specimen size, or changing the loading 
rate must be analyzed to determine the magnitude of their effect. 
Porosity: The Poissons ratio data do not correlate with porosity, but instead have an overall 
average value of about 0.20, ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 (see Price 1983; Price et al. 1994a and 
1994b). Ten large upper lithophysal (Tptpul) samples were tested at baseline conditions. The 
test specimens had an average porosity of 0.35, with a range from 0.31 to 0.40, while the average 
Poissons ratio was 0.16. A plot of all measured Poissons ratios with corresponding sample 
porosity is shown in Figure 8-17. This plot shows all 50.8 mm saturated, ambient temperature 
-1
samples with length to diameter ratios near 2:1 and tested at a strain rate of 10-5s. 
Sample Size: Price (1986) tested outcrop samples of the Tptpmn zone of the Topopah Spring 
tuff obtained from large boulders from Busted Butte, just to the southeast of Yucca Mountain. 
The test specimens were all cylinders with nominal diameters of 25.4, 50.8, 82.6, 127.0 and 
228.6 mm, and tested at the baseline set of conditions. The results from these tests indicate that 
Poissons ratio is independent of sample size. The average Poissons ratios for these sizes range 
from 0.19 to 0.22 (Price 1986). A plot of all data from the RHH currently qualified is shown in 
Figure 8-18. 
Temperature: Limited lateral displacement data were collected on specimens tested at varying 
temperature, however Poissons ratio was primarily determined at room temperature. Figure 819 
shows a plot of Poissons ratio versus temperature of all 51 mm dry and saturated samples 
tested at room temperature and 150C with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) near 2:1, tested at a 
-1
constant strain rate of 10-5 s. It appears that there is a distinct decrease in modulus with 
increased temperature, but little data is available to strengthen this statement. A series of 
experiments has been recently conducted on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpll unit. 
The preliminary results do not indicate a significant difference in Poissons ratio values for a 
change in temperature. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-73 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Poisson's Ratio vs Porosity 
50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature , L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 
0.50 
0.40 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
SNL02030193001.004 
SNL02030193001.019 
SNL02030193001.026 
SNL02030193001.020 
SNL02030193001.023 
SNL02030193001.012 
SNL02072983001.001 
SNSAND85070900.000 
SN0306L207502.008 
Poisson's Ratio
0.30 
0.20 
0.10 
0.00 
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 
Porosity (%) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-17. Porosity vs. Poisson's Ratio (50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) 
Pois s on's Ratio vs Sam ple Diam ete r 
Saturate d, Room Te m per at ur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
0.50 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0.40 
0.30 
0.20 
0.10 
0.00 
Poisson's Ratio 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Specim en Diam et er (m m ) 
Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-18. Poisson's Ratio vs. Sample Size (RHH Saturated Samples) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-74 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Pois son's Ratio vs Tem pe rature 
50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 s-1 
Poisson's R atio 
0.35 
0.30 
0.25 
0.20 
0.15 
0.10 
0.05 
0.00 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 
Te m pe rature (C) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry 
Figure 8-19. Poisson's Ratio vs. Temperature (50.8 mm Tptpmn Specimens) 
Poisson's Ratio vs Satur ation 
50.8m m and 38m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
Poisson's Ratio 
0.50 
0.40 
0.30 
0.20 
0.10 
0.00 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
Dry Ambient Saturation Saturated 1 
Saturation 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 150C 
Lower Non-Lithophysal Room Temp 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Room Temp 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 38mm Room Temp 
Figure 8-20. Poisson's Ratio vs. Saturation (RHH 38 mm and 50.8 mm Nonlithophysal Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-75 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Saturation: A recent study involving testing 51 mm diameter samples from Busted Butte 
outcrop samples of the Tptpll zone is being analyzed, and results are available in DTN 
SN0306L0207502.008. The Poisson ratio data show a slight increase (less than 9%) when 
comparing the results from the same room-dry samples to the results from the saturated samples 
(DTN SN0306L0207502.008). 
The data are not absolutely conclusive, but the majority of data indicate that saturation level has 
an insignificant effect on the elastic properties of the nonlithophysal welded tuffs; however, there 
are indications of a more significant effect on lithophysal welded tuff. Figure 8-20 summarizes 
the Poissons ratio versus saturation results of all 51 mm and 38 mm samples from the RHH 
tested at room temperature and 150C with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) near 2:1 tested at a 
-1
constant strain rate of 10-5s. 
The effect of saturation and temperature on lithophysal specimens is not clear as samples of the 
same size and strain rate were not tested under varying saturation and strain rate. The effect of 
saturation and temperature on lithophysal rock will be further explored in testing recently 
finished by Sandia National Laboratories. The results of this study are presented in DTN 
SN0306L0207502.008. 
Strain Rate or Time Scale: Poissons ratio results were collected in these studies, and the 
results indicate an insensitivity of Poissons ratio to changes in strain rate. Similarly, in the study 
by Price et al. (1987), the Poissons ratio data for the saturated samples tested at room 
temperature, ambient pressure and at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 show no relationship 
with rate (all had mean Poissons ratio values in the range of 0.20 to 0.21), while the results from 
the oven-dry samples indicate an increase in Poissons ratio with increasing rate, with mean 
values of 0.17 and 0.23 for the strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s-1, respectively. 
A study conducted to extend the Price et al. (1987) work above was carried out by Martin et al. 
(1993a and 1993b). Six experiments were performed on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples 
from the Tptpmn. The test specimens were water-saturated and tested at room temperature, 
-1
ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These results show a distinctly lower average 
Poissons ratio than measured in the earlier studies (in the more recent study, the average is 
0.13). A plot of Poissons ratio versus strain rate for RHH specimens is presented in Figure 821. 
The effect of strain rate on lithophysal rock is inconclusive, as only two Tptpll specimens 
-1
were tested at a rate other than 10-5 s. 
A summary of Poissons ratio values determined under a variety of testing conditions on all 
available rock units is provided in Table 8-29. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-76 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Poisson's Ratio vs Str ain Rate
Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated,
Room Temperature, L:D=2:1
Poisson's Ratio 
0.35 
0.30 
0.25 
0.20 
0.15 
0.10 
0.05 
0.00 
-0.05 
1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
Strain Rate (s^-1) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-21. Poisson's Ratio vs. Strain Rate 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-77 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson's Ratio 
Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration 
iiTmr 5 
7 
0.04 0.01 0.16 0.29 
3 
5 
1 N/A N/A 
6 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
3 
4 
4 
7 
2 N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
4 
0.03 0.01 0.20 0.32 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
0.02 0.00 0.17 0.25 
3 
3 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
5 
4 
1 N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
Tpy 5 
1 N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 
0.12 0.04 0.09 0.53 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 
6 
3 
2 N/A N/A 
6 
0.08 0.02 0.13 0.45 
0.06 0.02 0.15 0.34 
0.06 0.01 0.14 0.43 
8 
8 
4 
3 
1 N/A N/A 
4 0.19 0.3 
2 N/A 
) 1 N/A N/A 
UO 
Unit Code Count Mean Standard 
Devaton 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
O421150 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.06 
Tpki O421150 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.48 0.43 
O421150 11 0.21 0.21 0.13 
O431150 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.03 
Tpcrn2 O421150 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.06 
Tpcrn1 O421150 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A 
O421150 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.2 0.05 
O431143 N/A N/A N/A 
O431146 N/A N/A N/A 
O431147 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.04 
O121151 0.24 0.04 0.02 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.09 
O121153 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.02 
O421150 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.05 
O421151 0.16 N/A 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.06 
O421153 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 N/A 
O431144 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A 
O431146 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 N/A 
O431147 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.01 
O421150 17 0.22 0.22 0.12 
O421151 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 N/A 
O421153 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 N/A 
O421150 20 0.21 0.20 0.08 
O421151 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.05 
O421153 0.23 0.03 0.01 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.05 
O431140 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 N/A 
O431143 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 N/A 
O431145 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 N/A 
Tpcplnc O421153 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 
Tpcpv2 O421150 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.19 0.13 
Tpcpv1 O421150 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.21 0.18 
O421150 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 
O431140 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A 
O431150 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 N/A 
O421150 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.02 
O421150 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A 
O421151 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.12 0.21 0.09 
O421150 10 0.28 0.27 0.44 
O421153 N/A N/A N/A 
O431150 0.29 N/A 0.29 0.23 0.34 0.11 
O421150 0.21 0.10 0.04 0.17 0.13 0.40 0.27 
O431150 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.06 
Tptrv3 O421150 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.30 0.15 
O121150 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.13 0.27 0.14 
O121151 12 0.21 0.21 0.32 
O121153 11 0.22 0.20 0.19 
O421150 57 0.24 0.23 0.29 
O421151 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.24 0.10 
O421153 0.20 0.08 0.03 0.21 0.02 0.33 0.31 
O431150 0.25 0.04 0.02 0.24 0.21 0.30 0.09 
O421150 0.40 0.18 0.10 0.31 0.28 0.60 0.32 
O421151 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 N/A 
O121150 0.24 0.05 0.02 0.235 0.11 
O121170 0.26 N/A 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 
(continuedO421150 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 N/A 
Tpcrn 
Tptf 
Tptrl 
Tptrn 
Tpp 
Tpbt4 
TCw 
PTn 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
TSw1 
Tpcpmn 
Tpcpul 
Tpcpln 
Tpbt2 
Tpbt3 
Tpcpll 
Mechanical 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-78 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson's Ratio 
Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration 
8 
2 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
3 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
3 
6 
6 
2 N/A N/A 
4 
3 
3 
4 
2 N/A N/A 
3 
3 
4 
4 
4 
5 
5 
4 
5 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
5 
6 
5 
9 
9 
1 N/A N/A 
2 N/A N/A 
3 
3 
2 N/A N/A 
7 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A 
4 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
() 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
(
) 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
1421150 0.25 0.13 0.05 0.22 0.09 0.46 0.37 
1421151 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.42 0.23 
1421153 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A 
1431150 N/A N/A N/A 
1613150 N/A N/A N/A 
1621150 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 N/A 
1631150 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.21 
1721150 10 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.21 0.08 
1813250 N/A N/A N/A 
1821150 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.24 0.21 
1831150 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 N/A 
1831250 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A 
3111350 N/A N/A N/A 
3121130 0.27 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.04 
3121150 30 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.15 
3121151 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.16 0.30 0.14 
3121153 0.23 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.06 
3121170 0.16 0.155 0.11 0.2 0.09 
3231150 16 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.19 0.17 0.34 0.17 
3231350 14 0.20 0.07 0.02 0.18 0.12 0.39 0.27 
3331350 22 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.22 0.07 
3411150 0.23 0.07 0.03 0.21 0.18 0.32 0.14 
3411151 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.04 
3411153 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.06 
3411170 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.175 0.12 0.2 0.08 
3412130 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.37 0.22 
3412150 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.03 
3412153 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.03 
3412170 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.075 0.04 0.13 0.09 
3412180 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.33 0.28 
3421130 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.185 0.18 0.23 0.05 
3421150 41 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.2 0.07 0.3 0.23 
3421151 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.01 
3421153 13 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.33 0.22 
3421155 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.06 
3421170 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.18 0.23 0.05 
3421190 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.15 
3422150 N/A N/A N/A 
3422151 N/A N/A N/A 
3422162 0.20 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.08 
3422163 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.22 0.15 0.26 0.11 
3422164 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.05 
3521150 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.06 
3621150 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.2 0.17 0.27 0.10 
3631150 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 
3921150 0.22 0.215 0.21 0.22 0.01 
2121150 24 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.11 0.36 0.25 
2121151 0.25 0.10 0.06 0.30 0.14 0.32 0.18 
2121153 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.21 0.30 0.09 
2121170 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.20 0.09 
2131150 16 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.115 0.202 0.09 
2411150 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.173 0.161 0.191 0.03 
2412150 N/A N/A N/A 
2421150 15 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.40 0.29 
2421153 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 
2431150 57 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.14 0.23 0.09 
2512150 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.1605 0.097 0.348 0.25 
2531150 12 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.1905 0.161 0.232 0.07 
2613150 N/A N/A N/A 
2621150 N/A N/A N/A 
2631150 15 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.2 0.098 0.34 0.24 
2813250 N/A N/A N/A 
2821150 N/A N/A N/A 
continued2831150 N/A N/A N/A 
Tptpul 
Tptpmn 
Tptpll 
TSw1 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
cont. from 
previous 
pageTSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-79 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-29. Summary of Poisson Ratio (continued) 
Thermo-Litho- Poisson's Ration 
1 0.31 N/A N/A 0.31 N/A 
1 0.25 N/A N/A 0.25 N/A 
0.3 
3 0.24 0.02 0.25 0.06 
3 0.24 0.02 0.22 0.06 
3 0.23 0.01 0.23 0.05 
1 0.12 N/A N/A 0.12 N/A 
2 0.22 N/A N/A 0.215 0.2 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A 
1 N/A 
1 N/A 
2 N/A 0 
1 N/A 
2 N/A 
3 
5 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 0 
4 0.1 
2 0.1 
1 N/A 
2 N/A 
1 N/A 
24 0.16 0.02 0.12 0.29 
6 
4 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
2 N/A 
3 
8 
4 0.1 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
10 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.05 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A 
8 0.11 
10 0.09 0.01 0.085 0.15 
13 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.05 
1 N/A 
3 
4 
1 N/A 0.3 N/A 
1 N/A 
2 N/A 
1 N/A 
4 
3 
22 0.19 0.02 0.175 0.24 
4 0.05 
7 
ln 
CHn 
) 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
4121120 0.31 0.31 
4121140 0.25 0.25 
4121150 10 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.215 0.18 0.12 
4121160 0.03 0.21 0.27 
4421150 10 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.28 0.14 
4421151 0.03 0.22 0.28 
4421153 0.03 0.21 0.26 
4422164 0.12 0.12 
4431150 0.23 0.03 
O121153 N/A N/A N/A 
O421150 0.39 N/A 0.39 0.39 0.39 N/A 
O421151 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 
O421153 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 N/A 
O431150 0.18 N/A 0.18 0.18 0.18 
O121150 0.21 N/A 0.21 0.21 0.21 N/A 
O431150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.04 
O121130 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.26 0.14 
O121150 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.07 
O121151 N/A N/A N/A 
O121153 N/A N/A N/A 
O121170 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.17 0.17 
O121150 0.20 0.07 0.03 0.225 0.24 0.14 
O121170 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.105 0.11 0.01 
O421150 0.11 N/A 0.11 0.11 0.11 N/A 
O111150 0.30 N/A 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.02 
O121130 0.33 N/A 0.33 0.33 0.33 N/A 
O121150 0.08 0.07 0.36 
O121153 0.31 0.05 0.02 0.33 0.22 0.36 0.14 
O121155 0.26 0.13 0.06 0.22 0.17 0.45 0.28 
O121170 0.22 N/A 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.01 
O131153 0.28 N/A 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.01 
O421150 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.09 0.31 0.22 
O431140 0.17 N/A 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.06 
O431165 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.06 
Tacbt O121150 0.25 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.14 0.37 0.23 
Tcbbt O121150 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.135 0.16 0.06 
O113141 N/A N/A N/A 
O113143 N/A N/A N/A 
O113145 N/A N/A N/A 
O121150 0.02 0.09 0.14 
O123143 N/A N/A N/A 
O123145 N/A N/A N/A 
O123146 N/A N/A N/A 
O431145 0.26 N/A 0.26 0.23 0.28 0.05 
Tcblv O121150 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.135 0.08 0.19 
Tcbuv O121150 0.04 0.03 0.18 
O121150 0.02 0.11 0.16 
O431147 0.19 N/A 0.19 0.19 0.19 N/A 
Tcpbt O121150 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 
O121150 0.24 0.20 0.10 0.24 0.05 0.43 0.38 
O431140 0.30 N/A 0.3 0.3 
Tcplv O431140 0.18 N/A 0.18 0.18 0.18 N/A 
O431145 0.23 N/A 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.05 
O431148 0.20 N/A 0.20 0.20 0.20 N/A 
Tctuc O121150 0.27 0.10 0.05 0.26 0.17 0.38 0.21 
Tctlc O121150 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.24 0.17 
Tctlv O121150 0.07 0.07 0.31 
Tctm O121150 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.255 0.22 0.27 
Tctuv O121150 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.07 
Tcbm 
Tcbuc 
Tcplc 
Tcpm 
Tpbt1 
Tac 
Tptpv2 
Tptpv1 
Tptpv3 TSw3 
TptpUndifferentiated 
Listed Alphabetically, Not in Depositional Sequence 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
(cont. from 
previous 
pageTSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-80 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.3 Dynamic Properties of Intact Rock 
8.4.3.1 General 
Dynamic elastic properties are used in design of structures that are loaded dynamically. This 
may be blast round design of turnouts, shafts, and alcoves that may be constructed for repository 
operations. Dynamic elastic properties are also commonly compared with static results. The 
dynamic results are generally some factor different than the results calculated from static testing. 
8.4.3.2 Dynamic Youngs Modulus 
Qualified dynamic Youngs modulus data resides in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and 
GS940408312232.010 and is sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. Compressive and shear wave 
velocities were measured at five static stress levels of 0 MPa, 0.7 MPa, 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 
6.9 MPa. The majority of the data comes from specimens recovered from borehole UE-25 
UZ#16 with additional samples from UE25 NRG-1 providing specimens from the Tiva Canyon 
formation for units Tpcpul and Tpcpmn, as well as Busted Butte and borehole USW GU-3 for 
Tptpmn (Cikanek et al. 2003c). Most samples varied in length and were tested air-dried at room 
temperatures. 
The method of determining the ultrasonic elastic constants of the rock is presented in ASTM D 
2845-95, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic 
Elastic Constants of Rock. The compressional and shear wave velocities were calculated by 
measuring one-way travel time of a compressional or shear wave along the rock core axis and 
dividing the time by the length of the rock core. By assuming the sample is isotropic, the 
dynamic elastic modulus can then be calculated as presented in the data qualification report 
(Cikanek et al. p 13. 2003c). 
The effect of confining pressure was evaluated PBT (1993, pp.30-45). The specimens that were 
tested in this series were tested at 0.7 MPa, again at 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa to determine 
if confining pressure causes an effect on test results. Cikanek (p. 16 2003c) reports that 
increased confinement from 0.7 MPa to 6.9 MPa caused an increase of between 2% and 20% in 
the modulus results. 
The summary of qualified data for dynamic Youngs modulus is presented in Table 8-30. All 
dynamic Youngs modulus results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-4 of 
Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Dynamic Elastic Master 
Sheet.xls. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-81 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Youngs Modulus 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
Mechanical stratigraphic 
Unit Unit Code 
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
3 
19.61 
2.33 
1.35 
18.62 
17.93 
22.27 
4.34 
O43T1N0 
Tpcrn 
3 
20.59 
1.97 
1.14 
20.13 
18.90 
22.75 
3.85 
O43T1N0 
O43T1N1 
7 
22.35 
2.89 
1.09 
22.75 
16.62 
25.72 
9.10 
Tpcpul 
7 
23.05 
1.45 
0.55 
22.96 
21.58 
25.65 
4.07 
O43T1N0 
O43T1N1 
7 
32.80 
3.24 
1.23 
33.51 
27.85 
37.16 
9.31 
Tpcpmn 
7 
29.83 
5.25 
1.99 
30.68 
19.51 
35.51 
16.00 
O13T3N1 
O43T1N1 
2 
43.65 
NA 
NA 
43.65 
43.10 
44.20 
1.10 
O13T3N2 
1 
45.50 
NA 
NA 
45.50 
45.50 
45.50 
NA 
O13T3N3 
1 
46.60 
NA 
NA 
46.60 
46.60 
46.60 
NA 
Tpcpll 
1 
47.30 
NA 
NA 
47.30 
47.30 
47.30 
NA 
O13T3N4 
TCw 
2 
23.45 
NA 
NA 
23.45 
22.00 
24.90 
2.90 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
1 
32.10 
NA 
NA 
32.10 
32.10 
32.10 
NA 
O13T7N3 
1 
34.00 
NA 
NA 
34.00 
34.00 
34.00 
NA 
O13T3N1 
2 
43.80 
NA 
NA 
43.80 
43.70 
43.90 
0.20 
O13T3N2 
1 
44.30 
NA 
NA 
44.30 
44.30 
44.30 
NA 
Tpcplnh 
1 
44.40 
NA 
NA 
44.40 
44.40 
44.40 
NA 
O13T3N4 
O13T3N3 
1 
44.40 
NA 
NA 
44.40 
44.40 
44.40 
NA 
O13T7N1 
4 
41.18 
2.98 
NA 
41.15 
38.50 
43.90 
5.40 
O13T7N2 
2 
42.35 
NA 
NA 
42.35 
39.30 
45.40 
6.10 
Tpcplnc 
2 
42.75 
NA 
NA 
42.75 
39.50 
46.00 
6.50 
O13T7N4 
O13T7N3 
2 
43.15 
NA 
NA 
43.15 
39.70 
46.60 
6.90 
O13T3N1 
2 
3.13 
NA 
NA 
3.13 
3.12 
3.13 
0.01 
O13T3N2 
1 
3.46 
NA 
NA 
3.46 
3.46 
3.46 
N/A 
Tpcpv2 
1 
3.57 
NA 
NA 
3.57 
3.57 
3.57 
N/A 
O13T3N4 
O13T3N3 
1 
3.67 
NA 
NA 
3.67 
3.67 
3.67 
N/A 
013T3N1 
2 
2.79 
NA 
NA 
2.79 
2.79 
2.79 
0.00 
013T3N2 
1 
2.91 
NA 
NA 
2.91 
2.91 
2.91 
N/A 
Tpbt4 
1 
3.00 
NA 
NA 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
N/A 
013T3N4 
013T3N3 
1 
3.03 
NA 
NA 
3.03 
3.03 
3.03 
N/A 
O13T7N1 
2 
5.98 
NA 
NA 
5.98 
5.96 
6.00 
0.04 
O13T7N2 
1 
6.21 
NA 
NA 
6.21 
6.21 
6.21 
N/A 
Tpy 
1 
6.30 
NA 
NA 
6.30 
6.30 
6.30 
N/A 
O13T7N4 
O13T7N3 
1 
6.37 
NA 
NA 
6.37 
6.37 
6.37 
N/A 
PTn 
2 
6.35 
NA 
NA 
6.35 
6.33 
6.36 
0.03 
013T3N2 
013T3N1 
1 
7.33 
NA 
NA 
7.33 
7.33 
7.33 
N/A 
Tpbt3 
1 
8.12 
NA 
NA 
8.12 
8.12 
8.12 
N/A 
013T3N4 
013T3N3 
1 
8.49 
NA 
NA 
8.49 
8.49 
8.49 
N/A 
O13T2N1 
2 
2.27 
NA 
NA 
2.27 
2.26 
2.28 
0.02 
O13T2N2 
1 
2.67 
NA 
NA 
2.67 
2.67 
2.67 
N/A 
O13T2N3 
1 
3.15 
NA 
NA 
3.15 
3.15 
3.15 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
1 
3.56 
NA 
NA 
3.56 
3.56 
3.56 
N/A 
Tpbt2 
2 
3.69 
NA 
NA 
3.69 
3.69 
3.69 
0.00 
O13T3N2 
O13T3N1 
1 
3.82 
NA 
NA 
3.82 
3.82 
3.82 
N/A 
O13T3N3 
1 
3.86 
NA 
NA 
3.86 
3.86 
3.86 
N/A 
O13T3N4 
1 
3.93 
NA 
NA 
3.93 
3.93 
3.93 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
2 
24.15 
NA 
NA 
24.15 
24.10 
24.20 
0.10 
O13T1N2 
1 
27.10 
NA 
NA 
27.10 
27.10 
27.10 
N/A 
O13T1N3 
1 
29.00 
NA 
NA 
29.00 
29.00 
29.00 
N/A 
TSw1 
1 
30.20 
NA 
NA 
30.20 
30.20 
30.20 
N/A
O13T1N4 
Tptrn 
8 
21.45 
2.85 
1.01 
21.85 
17.30 
24.80 
7.50 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
4 
23.43 
2.23 
1.11 
23.15 
21.00 
26.40 
5.40 
O13T7N3 
4 
24.58 
2.19 
1.09 
24.00 
22.60 
27.70 
5.10 
4 
25.63 
2.25 
1.13 
24.90 
23.80 
28.90 
5.10 
(continued) 
O13T7N4 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2.
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-82 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Youngs Modulus (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
Mechanical stratigraphic
Unit Unit Code
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
6
34.15 
5.68 
2.32 
35.95 
27.00 
39.70 
12.70 
113T1N1 
(cont. from 
3
35.13 
6.45 
3.73 
37.20 
27.90 
40.30 
12.40 
113T1N2 
previous page) 
3
36.13 
6.79 
3.92 
38.90 
28.40 
41.10 
12.70 
113T1N4 
113T1N3 
3
37.13 
7.09 
4.09 
40.40 
29.00 
42.00 
13.00 
113T3N1 
2
20.90 
NA 
NA 
20.90 
20.80 
21.00 
0.20 
113T3N2 
1
21.90 
NA 
NA 
21.90 
21.90 
21.90 
N/A
Tptpul 
1
23.40 
NA 
NA 
23.40 
23.40 
23.40 
N/A 
113T3N4 
113T3N3 
1
24.30 
NA 
NA 
24.30 
24.30 
24.30 
N/A
TSw1 
4
28.20 
4.16 
2.08 
28.20 
24.50 
31.90 
7.40 
113T7N2 
113T7N1 
2
29.85 
NA 
NA 
29.85 
25.30 
34.40 
9.10 
113T7N3 
2
31.20 
NA 
NA 
31.20 
25.90 
36.50 
10.60 
113T7N4 
2
31.75 
NA 
NA 
31.75 
26.40 
37.10 
10.70 
31211N0 
30
39.35 
1.55 
0.28 
39.15 
36.20 
42.60 
6.40 
313T8N1 
2
39.25 
NA 
NA 
39.25 
39.00 
39.50 
0.50 
313T8N2 
1
40.10 
NA 
NA 
40.10 
40.10 
40.10 
N/A 
313T8N3 
1
40.50 
NA 
NA 
40.50 
40.50 
40.50 
N/A 
313T8N4 
1
40.80 
NA 
NA 
40.80 
40.80 
40.80 
N/A 
Tptpmn 
2
42.30 
NA 
NA 
42.30 
42.20 
42.40 
0.20 
313T9N2 
313T9N1 
1
43.20 
NA 
NA 
43.20 
43.20 
43.20 
N/A 
313T9N3 
1
43.70 
NA 
NA 
43.70 
43.70 
43.70 
N/A 
313T9N4 
1
44.10 
NA 
NA 
44.10 
44.10 
44.10 
N/A 
34111N0 
5
42.86 
1.47 
0.66 
43.21 
40.83 
44.25 
3.42 
34211N0 
6
42.89 
2.54 
1.04 
43.62 
38.52 
45.34 
6.82 
213T1N1 
2
34.50 
NA 
NA 
34.50 
34.40 
34.60 
0.20 
213T1N2 
1
36.30 
NA 
NA 
36.30 
36.30 
36.30 
N/A 
213T1N3 
1
37.80 
NA 
NA 
37.80 
37.80 
37.80 
N/A 
213T1N4 
1
38.50 
NA 
NA 
38.50 
38.50 
38.50 
N/A 
213T2N1 
2
33.60 
NA 
NA 
33.60 
33.60 
33.60 
0.00 
213T2N2 
1
34.90 
NA 
NA 
34.90 
34.90 
34.90 
N/A 
213T2N3 
1
35.70 
NA 
NA 
35.70 
35.70 
35.70 
N/A 
213T2N4 
1
36.30 
NA 
NA 
36.30 
36.30 
36.30 
N/A
Tptpll 
4
31.78 
3.44 
1.72 
31.70 
28.70 
35.00 
6.30 
213T8N2 
213T8N1 
2
32.80 
NA 
NA 
32.80 
29.10 
36.50 
7.40 
213T8N3 
2
33.25 
NA 
NA 
33.25 
29.60 
36.90 
7.30 
213T8N4 
2
33.50 
NA 
NA 
33.50 
29.90 
37.10 
7.20 
213T9N1 
2
35.55 
NA 
NA 
35.55 
35.40 
35.70 
0.30 
213T9N2 
1
37.30 
NA 
NA 
37.30 
37.30 
37.30 
N/A 
213T9N3 
1
37.50 
NA 
NA 
37.50 
37.50 
37.50 
N/A 
213T9N4 
1
38.00 
NA 
NA 
38.00 
38.00 
38.00 
N/A 
413T7N1 
2
40.10 
NA 
NA 
40.10 
39.90 
40.30 
0.40 
413T7N2 
1
40.80 
NA 
NA 
40.80 
40.80 
40.80 
N/A 
413T7N3 
1
41.00 
NA 
NA 
41.00 
41.00 
41.00 
N/A 
413T7N4 
1
41.50 
NA 
NA 
41.50 
41.50 
41.50 
N/A 
413T8N1 
4
41.13 
0.68 
0.34 
41.00 
40.50 
42.00 
1.50 
413T8N2 
2
41.85 
NA 
NA 
41.85 
41.50 
42.20 
0.70 
Tptpln 
2
42.00 
NA 
NA 
42.00 
41.70 
42.30 
0.60 
413T8N4 
413T8N3 
2
42.30 
NA 
NA 
42.30 
42.00 
42.60 
0.60 
413T9N1 
2
41.85 
NA 
NA 
41.85 
41.80 
41.90 
0.10 
413T9N2 
1
42.70 
NA 
NA 
42.70 
42.70 
42.70 
N/A 
413T9N3 
1
42.80 
NA 
NA 
42.80 
42.80 
42.80 
N/A 
413T9N4 
1
43.30 
NA 
NA 
43.30 
43.30 
43.30 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
2
53.60 
NA 
NA 
53.60 
53.30 
53.90 
0.60 
O13T1N2 
1
57.50 
NA 
NA 
57.50 
57.50 
57.50 
N/A
TSw3 
Tptpv3 
1
57.90 
NA 
NA 
57.90 
57.90 
57.90 
N/A 
O13T1N4 
O13T1N3 
1
58.10 
NA 
NA 
58.10 
58.10 
58.10 
N/A 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2.
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-83 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-30. Summary of Dynamic Youngs Modulus (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
Mechanical stratigraphic
Unit Unit Code
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
2 
18.95 
NA 
NA 
18.95 
18.90 
19.00 
0.10 
O13T2N2 
O13T2N1 
1 
19.60 
NA 
NA 
19.60 
19.60 
19.60 
N/A
Tptpv1 
1 
20.30 
NA 
NA 
20.30 
20.30 
20.30 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
O13T2N3 
1 
20.80 
NA 
NA 
20.80 
20.80 
20.80 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
4 
14.78 
0.33 
0.17 
14.80 
14.40 
15.10 
0.70 
O13T1N2 
2 
16.00 
NA 
NA 
16.00 
15.10 
16.90 
1.80 
O13T1N3 
2 
16.40 
NA 
NA 
16.40 
15.60 
17.20 
1.60 
O13T1N4 
2 
17.10 
NA 
NA 
17.10 
16.20 
18.00 
1.80 
CHn 
2 
14.55 
NA 
NA 
14.55 
14.50 
14.60 
0.10 
O13T2N2 
O13T2N1 
1 
16.80 
NA 
NA 
16.80 
16.80 
16.80 
N/A
Tac 
1 
18.00 
NA 
NA 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
O13T2N3 
1 
20.00 
NA 
NA 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
N/A 
O13T7N1 
10 
15.13 
3.72 
1.18 
14.80 
11.20 
19.40 
8.20 
O13T7N2 
5 
16.32 
4.11 
1.84 
15.80 
12.30 
20.70 
8.40 
O13T7N3 
5 
16.76 
4.06 
1.82 
16.10 
12.60 
21.40 
8.80 
O13T7N4 
5 
17.16 
4.14 
1.85 
16.30 
12.80 
22.00 
9.20 
O12T7N1 
2 
15.55 
NA 
NA 
15.55 
15.50 
15.60 
0.10 
O12T7N2 
1 
15.70 
NA 
NA 
15.70 
15.70 
15.70 
N/A 
O12T7N3 
1 
16.60 
NA 
NA 
16.60 
16.60 
16.60 
N/A 
O12T7N4 
1 
17.90 
NA 
NA 
17.90 
17.90 
17.90 
N/A
Tcp 
2 
12.95 
NA 
NA 
12.95 
12.90 
13.00 
0.10 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
1 
15.40 
NA 
NA 
15.40 
15.40 
15.40 
N/A 
O13T7N3 
1 
17.00 
NA 
NA 
17.00 
17.00 
17.00 
N/A 
O13T7N4 
1 
18.30 
NA 
NA 
18.30 
18.30 
18.30 
N/A 
O12T1N1 
2 
9.96 
NA 
NA 
9.96 
9.92 
10.00 
0.08 
O12T1N2 
1 
10.10 
NA 
NA 
10.10 
10.10 
10.10 
N/A 
O12T1N3 
1 
10.20 
NA 
NA 
10.20 
10.20 
10.20 
N/A 
O12T1N4 
1 
10.40 
NA 
NA 
10.40 
10.40 
10.40 
N/A
Tcplc 
2 
8.33 
NA 
NA 
8.33 
8.31 
8.35 
0.04 
O13T1N2 
O13T1N1 
1 
9.42 
NA 
NA 
9.42 
9.42 
9.42 
N/A 
O13T1N3 
1 
10.70 
NA 
NA 
10.70 
10.70 
10.70 
N/A 
Deep units sorted 
1 
11.60 
NA 
NA 
11.60 
11.60 
11.60 
N/A
O13T1N4 
alphabetically not 
stratigraphically. 
4 
33.73 
6.27 
3.13 
33.85 
28.00 
39.20 
11.20 
O12T7N2 
O12T7N1 
2 
35.25 
NA 
NA 
35.25 
28.90 
41.60 
12.70 
O12T7N3 
2 
35.60 
NA 
NA 
35.60 
29.60 
41.60 
12.00 
O12T7N4 
2 
35.85 
NA 
NA 
35.85 
30.00 
41.70 
11.70 
Tcpm 
4 
31.93 
6.45 
3.22 
32.00 
26.00 
37.70 
11.70 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
2 
32.90 
NA 
NA 
32.90 
27.30 
38.50 
11.20 
O13T7N3 
2 
34.05 
NA 
NA 
34.05 
27.90 
40.20 
12.30 
O13T7N4 
2 
34.75 
NA 
NA 
34.75 
28.40 
41.10 
12.70 
O13T7N1 
2 
13.85 
NA 
NA 
13.85 
13.80 
13.90 
0.10 
O13T7N2 
1 
14.50 
NA 
NA 
14.50 
14.50 
14.50 
N/A 
O13T7N3 
1 
15.20 
NA 
NA 
15.20 
15.20 
15.20 
N/A 
O13T7N4 
1 
15.90 
NA 
NA 
15.90 
15.90 
15.90 
N/A
Tcpuc 
2 
7.51 
NA 
NA 
7.51 
7.50 
7.51 
0.01 
O13T8N2 
O13T8N1 
1 
7.82 
NA 
NA 
7.82 
7.82 
7.82 
N/A 
O13T8N3 
1 
8.64 
NA 
NA 
8.64 
8.64 
8.64 
N/A 
O13T8N4 
1 
9.35 
NA 
NA 
9.35 
9.35 
9.35 
N/A 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. 
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-84 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.3.3 Dynamic Poissons Ratio 
Qualified dynamic Poissons ratio data resides in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and 
GS940408312232.010 and is sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. Compressional and shear wave 
velocities were measured at five static stress levels of 0 MPa, 0.7 MPa, 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 
6.9 MPa. The majority of the data comes from specimens recovered from borehole UE-25 
UZ#16 with additional samples from UE25 NRG-1 providing specimens from the Tiva Canyon 
formation for units Tpcpul and Tpcpmn, as well as Busted Butte and borehole USW GU-3 for 
Tptpmn (Cikanek et al. 2003c). Most samples varied in length and were tested air-dried at room 
temperatures. 
The method of determining the ultrasonic elastic constants of the rock is presented in ASTM D 
2845-95, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic 
Elastic Constants of Rock. The compressional and shear wave velocities were calculated by 
measuring one-way travel time of a compressional or shear wave along the rock core axis and 
dividing the time by the length of the rock core. By assuming the sample is isotropic, the 
dynamic elastic modulus can then be calculated as presented in the data qualification report 
(Cikanek et al. p 13. 2003c). 
The effect of confining pressure was evaluated PBT (1993, pp.30-45). The specimens that were 
tested in this series were tested at 0.7 MPa, again at 2.1 MPa, 4.1 MPa, and 6.9 MPa to determine 
if confining pressure causes an effect on test results. Cikanek reports that air-dry samples 
showed that Poissons ratio generally increased about 5% to 10% as the confining pressure was 
increased from 0.7 MPa to 6.9 MPa (Cikanek et al. 2003c, p. 16). Results of increasing 
confinement on water saturated samples caused a decrease of over 5% as the confining pressure 
increased (Cikanek et al. 2003c, p. 16). 
The summary of qualified data for dynamic Youngs modulus is presented in Table 8-31. All 
dynamic Poissons ratio results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-4 of 
Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Dynamic Elastic Master 
Sheet.xls. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-85 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poissons Ratio 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio
Mechanical stratigraphic 
Unit Unit Code 
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
3 
0.35 
0.02 
0.01 
0.35 
0.33 
0.36 
0.03 
O43T1N0 
Tpcrn 
3 
0.34 
0.02 
0.01 
0.34 
0.32 
0.35 
0.03 
O43T1N0 
O43T1N1 
7 
0.32 
0.04 
0.02 
0.30 
0.27 
0.38 
0.11 
Tpcpul 
7 
0.32 
0.02 
0.01 
0.31 
0.28 
0.34 
0.06 
O43T1N0 
O43T1N1 
7 
0.28 
0.03 
0.01 
0.27 
0.24 
0.33 
0.09 
Tpcpmn 
7 
0.30 
0.03 
0.01 
0.29 
0.28 
0.35 
0.07 
O13T3N1 
O43T1N1 
2 
0.06 
NA 
NA 
0.06 
0.05 
0.07 
0.02 
O13T3N2 
1 
0.08 
NA 
NA 
0.08 
0.08 
0.08 
NA 
O13T3N3 
1 
0.11 
NA 
NA 
0.11 
0.11 
0.11 
NA 
Tpcpll 
1 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.13 
NA 
O13T3N4 
TCw 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
1 
0.11 
NA 
NA 
0.11 
0.11 
0.11 
NA 
O13T7N3 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
NA 
O13T3N1 
2 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
2.80 
0.13 
0.13 
0.00 
O13T3N2 
1 
0.12 
NA 
NA 
0.12 
0.12 
0.12 
NA 
Tpcplnh 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
NA 
O13T3N4 
O13T3N3 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
NA 
O13T7N1 
4 
0.14 
0.01 
0.01 
0.14 
0.13 
0.15 
0.02 
O13T7N2 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.13 
0.15 
0.02 
Tpcplnc 
2 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.15 
0.17 
0.02 
O13T7N4 
O13T7N3 
2 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.15 
0.17 
0.02 
O13T3N1 
2 
0.02 
NA 
NA 
0.02 
0.02 
0.02 
0.00 
O13T3N2 
1 
0.12 
NA 
NA 
0.12 
0.12 
0.12 
N/A 
Tpcpv2 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
O13T3N4 
O13T3N3 
1 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
N/A 
013T3N1 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
0.00 
013T3N2 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
N/A 
Tpbt4 
1 
0.23 
NA 
NA 
0.23 
0.23 
0.23 
N/A 
013T3N4 
013T3N3 
1 
0.24 
NA 
NA 
0.24 
0.24 
0.24 
N/A 
O13T7N1 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
0.00 
O13T7N2 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
0.00 
Tpy 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
0.00 
O13T7N4 
O13T7N3 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
PTn 
2 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.19 
0.01 
013T3N2 
013T3N1 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
Tpbt3 
1 
0.24 
NA 
NA 
0.24 
0.24 
0.24 
N/A 
013T3N4 
013T3N3 
1 
0.24 
NA 
NA 
0.24 
0.24 
0.24 
N/A 
O13T2N1 
2 
0.09 
NA 
NA 
0.09 
0.09 
0.09 
0.00 
O13T2N2 
1 
0.21 
NA 
NA 
0.21 
0.21 
0.21 
N/A 
O13T2N3 
1 
0.23 
NA 
NA 
0.23 
0.23 
0.23 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
1 
0.25 
NA 
NA 
0.25 
0.25 
0.25 
N/A 
Tpbt2 
2 
0.30 
NA 
NA 
0.30 
0.30 
0.30 
0.00 
O13T3N2 
O13T3N1 
1 
0.35 
NA 
NA 
0.35 
0.35 
0.35 
N/A 
O13T3N3 
1 
0.36 
NA 
NA 
0.36 
0.36 
0.36 
N/A 
O13T3N4 
1 
0.38 
NA 
NA 
0.38 
0.38 
0.38 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.14 
0.14 
0.01 
O13T1N2 
1 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
N/A 
O13T1N3 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
N/A 
TSw1 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
N/A 
O13T1N4 
Tptrn 
8 
0.18 
0.03 
0.01 
0.19 
0.12 
0.21 
0.09 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
4 
0.18 
0.04 
0.02 
0.19 
0.12 
0.20 
0.08 
O13T7N3 
4 
0.19 
0.03 
0.02 
0.20 
0.14 
0.21 
0.07 
4 
0.19 
0.03 
0.02 
0.20 
0.15 
0.22 
0.07 
(continued) 
O13T7N4 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2.
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-86 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poissons Ratio (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio
Mechanical stratigraphic
Unit Unit Code
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
6 
0.06 
0.04 
0.02 
0.08 
0.00 
0.11 
0.11 
113T1N1 
(cont. from 
2 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 
0.08 
0.06 
0.11 
0.04 
113T1N2 
previous page) 
2 
0.12 
0.03 
0.02 
0.12 
0.10 
0.14 
0.04 
113T1N4 
113T1N3 
2 
0.12 
0.03 
0.02 
0.12 
0.10 
0.14 
0.04 
113T3N1 
2 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
0.00 
113T3N2 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
Tptpul 
1 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
N/A 
113T3N4 
113T3N3 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
N/A 
TSw1 
4 
0.15 
0.05 
0.03 
0.15 
0.10 
0.20 
0.10 
113T7N2 
113T7N1 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.10 
0.18 
0.08 
113T7N3 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.10 
0.19 
0.09 
113T7N4 
2 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.07 
0.19 
0.12 
31211N0 
30 
0.22 
0.02 
0.00 
0.22 
0.18 
0.25 
0.07 
313T8N1 
2 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.13 
0.00 
313T8N2 
1 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.13 
N/A 
313T8N3 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
N/A 
313T8N4 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
N/A 
Tptpmn 
2 
0.12 
NA 
NA 
0.12 
0.11 
0.12 
0.01 
313T9N2 
313T9N1 
1 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.13 
N/A 
313T9N3 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
N/A 
313T9N4 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
N/A 
34111N0 
5 
0.21 
0.01 
0.00 
0.21 
0.20 
0.22 
0.02 
34211N0 
6 
0.24 
0.02 
0.01 
0.23 
0.23 
0.28 
0.05 
213T1N1 
2 
0.02 
NA 
NA 
0.02 
0.02 
0.02 
0.00 
213T1N2 
1 
0.06 
NA 
NA 
0.06 
0.06 
0.06 
N/A 
213T1N3 
1 
0.10 
NA 
NA 
0.10 
0.10 
0.10 
N/A 
213T1N4 
1 
0.11 
NA 
NA 
0.11 
0.11 
0.11 
N/A 
213T2N1 
2 
0.04 
NA 
NA 
0.04 
0.03 
0.04 
0.01 
213T2N2 
1 
0.01 
NA 
NA 
0.01 
0.01 
0.01 
N/A 
213T2N3 
1 
0.07 
NA 
NA 
0.07 
0.07 
0.07 
N/A 
213T2N4 
1 
0.08 
NA 
NA 
0.08 
0.08 
0.08 
N/A 
Tptpll 
4 
0.12 
0.01 
0.01 
0.12 
0.11 
0.14 
0.02 
213T8N2 
213T8N1 
2 
0.12 
NA 
NA 
0.12 
0.12 
0.13 
0.01 
213T8N3 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.13 
0.15 
0.02 
213T8N4 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.14 
0.15 
0.01 
213T9N1 
2 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
0.00 
213T9N2 
1 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.19 
0.19 
N/A 
213T9N3 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
213T9N4 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
413T7N1 
2 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.14 
0.01 
413T7N2 
1 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
N/A 
413T7N3 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
413T7N4 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
413T8N1 
4 
0.15 
0.01 
0.01 
0.15 
0.13 
0.16 
0.03 
413T8N2 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.14 
0.14 
0.01 
Tptpln 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
0.00 
413T8N4 
413T8N3 
2 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.15 
0.16 
0.00 
413T9N1 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.15 
0.00 
413T9N2 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
413T9N3 
1 
0.17 
NA 
NA 
0.17 
0.17 
0.17 
N/A 
413T9N4 
1 
0.17 
NA 
NA 
0.17 
0.17 
0.17 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
2 
0.19 
NA 
NA 
0.19 
0.18 
0.20 
0.01 
O13T1N2 
1 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.13 
N/A 
TSw3 
Tptpv3 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
O13T1N4 
O13T1N3 
1 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
N/A 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2.
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-87 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-31. Summary of Dynamic Poisson's Ratio (continued) 
Thermo-Litho-Dynamic Poisson's Ratio
Mechanical stratigraphic
Unit Unit Code
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximum 
Range 
2 
0.07 
NA 
NA 
0.07 
0.07 
0.07 
0.01 
O13T2N2 
O13T2N1 
1 
0.01 
NA 
NA 
0.01 
0.01 
0.01 
N/A 
Tptpv1 
1 
0.04 
NA 
NA 
0.04 
0.04 
0.04 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
O13T2N3 
1 
0.02 
NA 
NA 
0.02 
0.02 
0.02 
N/A 
O13T1N1 
4 
0.15 
0.04 
0.02 
0.15 
0.11 
0.19 
0.08 
O13T1N2 
2 
0.15 
NA 
NA 
0.15 
0.15 
0.16 
0.01 
O13T1N3 
2 
0.17 
NA 
NA 
0.17 
0.16 
0.18 
0.02 
O13T1N4 
2 
0.17 
NA 
NA 
0.17 
0.16 
0.17 
0.01 
CHn 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.13 
0.14 
0.01 
O13T2N2 
O13T2N1 
1 
0.17 
NA 
NA 
0.17 
0.17 
0.17 
N/A 
Tac 
1 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
N/A 
O13T2N4 
O13T2N3 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
O13T7N1 
10 
0.11 
0.04 
0.01 
0.11 
0.04 
0.18 
0.13 
O13T7N2 
5 
0.12 
0.04 
0.02 
0.11 
0.07 
0.17 
0.09 
O13T7N3 
5 
0.14 
0.02 
0.01 
0.14 
0.13 
0.17 
0.05 
O13T7N4 
5 
0.15 
0.02 
0.01 
0.15 
0.13 
0.17 
0.04 
O12T7N1 
2 
0.33 
NA 
NA 
0.33 
0.33 
0.33 
0.00 
O12T7N2 
1 
0.33 
NA 
NA 
0.33 
0.33 
0.33 
N/A 
O12T7N3 
1 
0.31 
NA 
NA 
0.31 
0.31 
0.31 
N/A 
O12T7N4 
1 
0.29 
NA 
NA 
0.29 
0.29 
0.29 
N/A 
Tcp 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
N/A 
O13T7N3 
1 
0.03 
NA 
NA 
0.03 
0.03 
0.03 
N/A 
O13T7N4 
1 
0.04 
NA 
NA 
0.04 
0.04 
0.04 
N/A 
O12T1N1 
2 
0.37 
NA 
NA 
0.37 
0.37 
0.37 
0.00 
O12T1N2 
1 
0.37 
NA 
NA 
0.37 
0.37 
0.37 
N/A 
O12T1N3 
1 
0.37 
NA 
NA 
0.37 
0.37 
0.37 
N/A 
O12T1N4 
1 
0.37 
NA 
NA 
0.37 
0.37 
0.37 
N/A 
Tcplc 
2 
0.01 
NA 
NA 
0.01 
0.01 
0.01 
0.00 
O13T1N2 
O13T1N1 
1 
0.06 
NA 
NA 
0.06 
0.06 
0.06 
N/A 
O13T1N3 
1 
0.10 
NA 
NA 
0.10 
0.10 
0.10 
N/A 
Deep units sorted 
1 
0.11 
NA 
NA 
0.11 
0.11 
0.11 
N/A 
O13T1N4 
alphabetically not 
stratigraphically. 
4 
0.27 
0.03 
0.02 
0.29 
0.22 
0.29 
0.07 
O12T7N2 
O12T7N1 
2 
0.26 
NA 
NA 
0.26 
0.25 
0.27 
0.02 
O12T7N3 
2 
0.26 
NA 
NA 
0.26 
0.26 
0.27 
0.01 
O12T7N4 
2 
0.26 
NA 
NA 
0.26 
0.25 
0.27 
0.01 
Tcpm 
4 
0.14 
0.04 
0.02 
0.14 
0.10 
0.18 
0.08 
O13T7N2 
O13T7N1 
2 
0.13 
NA 
NA 
0.13 
0.13 
0.14 
0.01 
O13T7N3 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.13 
0.15 
0.02 
O13T7N4 
2 
0.14 
NA 
NA 
0.14 
0.13 
0.16 
0.03 
O13T7N1 
2 
0.16 
NA 
NA 
0.16 
0.16 
0.16 
0.00 
O13T7N2 
1 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
N/A 
O13T7N3 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
O13T7N4 
1 
0.21 
NA 
NA 
0.21 
0.21 
0.21 
N/A 
Tcpuc 
2 
0.18 
NA 
NA 
0.18 
0.18 
0.18 
0.00 
O13T8N2 
O13T8N1 
1 
0.22 
NA 
NA 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
N/A 
O13T8N3 
1 
0.20 
NA 
NA 
0.20 
0.20 
0.20 
N/A 
O13T8N4 
1 
0.21 
NA 
NA 
0.21 
0.21 
0.21 
N/A 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code see Table 8-2. 
SOURCE DTN: MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, GS940408312232.010 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-88 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.4 Intact Rock Strength Properties 
8.4.4.1 General 
Strength properties of the intact rock specimens obtained from cores specimens were determined 
under a variety of environmental and physical variables. Specimens were tested under both 
unconfined and confined axial compression as well as in indirect tension using the Brazilian 
method. 
8.4.4.2 Unconfined/Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) 
Ground, right cylindrical specimens of tuff were studied by testing to failure at several constant 
-1
strain rates between strain rates ranging from 10-9 to 10-3 s. The majority of specimens were 
50.8 mm tested saturated, under ambient temperature conditions, with a length to diameter ratio 
-1
(L:D) near 2:1, at a strain rate of 10-5 s. Several testing procedures were used by the various 
laboratories that performed testing over the history of the project. These procedures are often 
based on ASTM D 2938 (1995) Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of 
Intact Rock Cores, and the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) procedure 
Suggested Methods for Determining Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Deformability of Rock 
Materials. 
The test results from UCS compressive tests were highly variable. Unconfined compressive 
strength depends on the welding, porosity, and fabric of the rock specimen. Within the welded 
units, the variations in strength are related to the presence and abundance of lithophysae 
(CRWMS M&O 1997d p. 5-102). CRWMS M&O 1997d also reports that very little volumetric 
strain is measured until the specimens are near failure. The fracture failure modes in the test 
specimens were predominantly the result of axial splitting with fractures terminating in the end-
caps, and that there was most often no evidence of shear cone development (CRWMS M&O 
1997d). 
A number of tests under varying temperature, saturation, strain rate, and length to diameter ratios 
were performed. Compressive strength data included in this report are taken from the most 
recent data qualification effort completed in February of 2003 by the procedure outlined in AP-
SIII.2Q. Compressive data are summarized in Data Qualification and Summary Report: Intact 
Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, 
Friction Angle, and Cohesion (Cikanek et al. 2003b). The summary of data is available in DTN 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Recent test data were not included in the summary DTN, but are 
available in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, and SN0305L0207502.004. The data come from boreholes presented in 
Table 8-27. A summary table of all the UCS test results is shown below in Table 8-23. All static 
unconfined compressive strength test results for individual specimen testing are presented in 
Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file Compressive 
and Porosity Data.xls. 
Samples from the PTn T/M unit have the lowest strength, generally less than 20 MPa, while 
specimens tested from the Calico Hills (CHn) formation have strengths generally less than 100 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-89 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
MPa. Specimens originating from the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw1 and TSw2) are the strongest 
with strengths generally averaging between 150 MPa and 200 MPa. 
Some tests performed by Terra-Tek, ReSPEC, and Sandia National Laboratories were reportedly 
done at confining pressure 0.1 MPa. An experiment that is performed with no hydrostatic 
pressure being applied by the testing machine has the atmospheric pressure acting as a confining 
pressure. However, this pressure is also internal to the specimen (i.e., there is an equal pore 
pressure), and so the effective confining pressure (confining pressure minus pore pressure) is 
zero (Terzaghi 1943). Therefore, the reported test conditions unconfined and confining 
pressure of 0.1 MPa are, in fact, the same pressure condition. The difference is essentially the 
in the method the pressures were recorded, not the pressures themselves. Unconfined intact rock 
compressive elastic and strength results are summarized with some values of 0.1 MPa confining 
pressure in DTNs MO0304DQRIRPPR.002and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. 
Porosity: There have been a number of studies completed examining the effect of porosity on 
mechanical properties (Olsson and Jones 1980; Price 1983; Price and Bauer 1985; Price et al. 
1993, 1994a, and 1994b). Price et al. (1985) tested large samples of Tptpul at baseline 
conditions. The average strength of these samples is 16.2 MPa. This result was used by Price 
(1993) to test an empirical model relating strength, porosity and sample size. His model predicts 
the strength of these samples to within 10% of the mean value, an excellent fit considering the 
natural scatter in the tuff data. A plot of all qualified unconfined compressive strength data from 
RHH 50.8 mm saturated specimens from Topopah Spring Tuff tested at room temperature with a 
length to diameter ratio (L:D) of 2:1, and a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is shown in Figure 8-22. 
Results from RHH specimens shown in Figure 8-22 indicate there is a clear relationship between 
unconfined compressive strength and porosity. Even at this smaller sample diameter (51 mm), it 
is evident that samples from lithophysal zones (showing porosity in a range between 11% and 
18%, or more) do have greater porosity than nonlithophysal samples that typically display the 
porosity range between 8% and 15%. Qualified data from 25.4 mm diameter specimens do not 
indicate a similar relationship between porosity, which range from 8% to 16%, and sample 
compressive strength, because of the small data set and the narrow porosity range found in the 
tested specimens. 
In general, large specimens tend to have much greater porosity, as lithophysae can be more 
readily captured in the specimen volume. Specimens of large diameter, and consequently greater 
specimen volume, have greater porosities and lower strengths than specimens of smaller 
diameter tested under the same environmental conditions. Porosity is a function of sample size, 
and this is evident in Figure 8-23. Samples with greater diameter, and therefore greater sample 
volume tend to capture more lithophysae, and consequently will have greater total porosity. A 
plot of porosity versus sample diameter for RHH samples near a 2:1 length to diameter ratio is 
shown in Figure 8-23. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-90 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Unconfined Conpr es s ive Strength vs Porosity 
50.8m m Specim ens , Saturated, Room Te m per at ur e, L:D=2:1, Rate = 10-5 
350 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
SNL02030193001.004 
SNL02030193001.019 
SNL02030193001.026 
SNL02030193001.020 
SNL02030193001.023 
SNL02030193001.012 
SNL02072983001.001 
SNSAND85070900.000 
SN0306L207502.008 
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 
Por osity (%) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-22. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Porosity (50.8 mm Saturated Room Temperature) 
Porosity vs Sam ple Diam eter 
45 
40 
35 
30 
Source DTN(s) 
SNL02030193001.004 
SNL02030193001.019 
SNL02030193001.026 
SNL02030193001.020 
Porosit y (%) 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Sam ple Diameter (mm) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Figure 8-23. Porosity vs. Sample Diameter 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-91 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Sample Size: It is difficult to sample large rock specimens due to the lithophysae and fractures 
that are found in the rock units. Small samples are much less likely to contain lithophysae, as the 
lithophysal voids tend to be on the order of several centimeters. A small sample will most likely 
contain matrix material, or the solid rock that exists between lithophysae. Sampling of fractures 
in cylindrical cores is impractical, as the core would need to be of sufficient diameter to capture 
an entire fracture, which may be on the order of meters. Cylindrical sample sizes ranging from 
25.4 mm to 290 mm have been collected and tested. 
Two studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of sample size on intact tuff elastic 
properties. Price (1986) tested outcrop samples (nominal diameters of 25.4, 50.8, 82.6, 127.0 
and 228.6 mm and tested at the baseline set of conditions) of the Tptpmn rock unit obtained from 
Busted Butte. The results indicate that unconfined compressive strength decreases as the 
specimen size increases. 
Figure 8-24 is a plot of unconfined compressive strength versus specimen diameter for a set of 
specimens collected from Busted Butte in 1986, tested saturated at room temperature, with 
length to diameter (L:D) ratios near 2:1 and were tested under a constant strain rate of 10-5 s. 
The purpose of this data set and study was to investigate the effects of sample size on mechanical 
properties of tuff (Price 1986, DTN SNSAND85070900.000). 
Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Sample Diameter 
-1
Saturated, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
SNSAND85070900.000 
0 50 100 150 200 250 
Specimen Diameter (mm) 
1986 Middle Non-Lithophysal Busted Butte Data 
Figure 8-24. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Sample Diameter (Busted Butte Tptpmn 
Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-92 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Temperature: Investigation of the effect of temperature on UCS was a part of two studies in 
the early 1980s by Olsson and Jones (1980) and Olsson (1982). These studies were based on a 
small number of specimens and frequently did not have comparative data (i.e., side-by-side 
samples) for different temperatures. However, the strength data for some non-welded tuff from 
Rainier Mesa (Nevada Test Site) indicate distinctly lower (35% decrease) UCS values for the 
200oC tests than the room temperature tests. A similar effect of temperature on the UCS of 
welded tuff at Yucca Mountain is reasonably expected. 
A plot of unconfined compressive strength versus temperature for RHH 50.8 mm saturated and 
dry samples tested at room temperature, with a length to diameter ratio (L:D) of 2:1 and tested at 
a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 is shown in Figure 8-25. 
Two series of experiments recently completed have some data on temperature effects. One 
involves large samples of the Tptpll and Tptpul taken from the ESF and ECRB, and the other is 
on Busted Butte outcrop samples from the lower-lithophysal lithostratigraphic unit. The 
preliminary results indicate distinct differences in average strength between experiments at room 
temperature and 200oC (DTN SN0305L0207502.004). Figure 8-26 is a plot of 50.8 mm 
specimens most recently tested from the Busted Butte outcrop at room temperature and 200C. 
The data show a slightly greater UCS at 200C than at room temperature for both 50.8 mm and 
81 mm (SN0306L0207502.008). Although the specimens from DTN SN0306L0207502.008 
were collected from the Tptpll, they have relatively small and few lithophysae. 
Saturation: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested both dry and saturated test specimens of tuff from 
-1
Rainier Mesa on the Nevada Test Site, at strain rates of 10-6, s-1 10-4 s-1 and 10-2 s. The average 
ultimate strengths for the saturated samples are about 30% lower than the mean strengths for the 
oven dried samples, for each of the three strain rates. 
A very limited study on four room-dry samples and four saturated samples of Calico Hills tuff at 
each of two levels of confining pressure (ambient and 10 MPa) is presented in Price and Jones 
(1982). The average strength values (of the two tests at each set of conditions) at ambient 
pressure and 10 MPa decrease by 22% and 35%, respectively, for saturation levels ranging from 
room-dry to saturated conditions (Price and Jones 1982). 
Figures 8-27 and 8-28 show the effects of saturation on unconfined compressive strength for 
various lithophysal and nonlithophysal samples. Figure 8-28 plots recently collected results 
from Block 0 at Busted Butte, consisting of lower-lithophysal 50.8 mm specimens with length to 
-1
diameter ratios near 2:1 tested at room temperature under constant strain rate of 10-5 s. (DTN 
SN0306L0207502.008). Figure 8-27 plots all large specimens tested from the lithophysal zones 
of the repository host horizon. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-93 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Unconfined Com pressive Strength vs Tem perature 
50.8m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
350 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 
Tem perature (C) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Dry 
Middle Non-Lithophysal Saturated 
Figure 8-25. Unconfined Compressive Strength versus Temperature (Tptpmn Specimens) 
Unconfined Com pr essive Str engt h vs Tem perature 
50.8m m Specim ens, Dry, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s-1 
250 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
SN0306L0207502.008 
0 50 100 150 200 250 
Tem per atur e (C) 
Lower Lithophysal Busted Butte Block 0 Data 
Figure 8-26. UCS vs. Temperature From Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-94 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Forty-four room-dry and saturated samples were tested at a range of confining pressures and 
strain rates. There are four paired-sets of saturated and oven-dry test results at room 
temperature. Three of the four sets of tests on saturated samples show a decrease in average 
strength when compared to the oven dry strengths. The test results at ambient pressure and a 
strain rate of 10-7 s-1 decrease by 13%, the data at 5 MPa pressure and 10-5 s-1 decrease by 6% 
and the results at 10 MPa pressure and 10-5 s-1 decrease by 29%. The reverse trend is observed in 
the test data at ambient pressure and 10-5 s-1, these results show an average strength increase of 
15% when going from oven dried to saturated. (Price et al. 1987) 
Recent testing on 50.8 mm diameter samples obtained from the Busted Butte outcrop of the 
Tptpll unit has been completed. Figure 8-27 presents the 50.8 mm data from the recent testing of 
Tptpll samples from Busted Butte outcrop cores. The preliminary results show an average 
strength decrease of about 12% when comparing the tests on six room-dry samples and the seven 
saturated samples (SN0306L0207502.008). The large variation in strength can be attributed to 
differences in porosity, and macro-imperfections within the specimens. A recent study on large 
(nominally 289 mm in diameter, with all samples having an L:D ratio of 1.7:1 to 2.0:1, except 
one sample with an L:D of 1.5:1) samples from the Tptpul and Tptpll zones in the Topopah 
Spring tuff has been completed. There are some difficulties in comparing the data; however, 
lumping the UCS results from the 10 room dry samples gives 21.9  6.7 MPa and lumping the 4 
saturated samples gives 12.4  2.6 MPa (DTNs SN0208L0207502.001 and 
SN0211L0207502.002). The data are shown in Figure 8-28, but further analysis of these data is 
needed before conclusions are drawn. 
In summary, the preponderance of data indicates that saturation level has a distinct effect on the 
strength properties of both the nonlithophysal and lithophysal welded tuffs. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-95 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Unconfine d Com pre s sive Str ength vs Saturation 
51m m Specim ens, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5s-1 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
SN0306L0207502.008 
Dry Ambient S atu r ati o n Saturated 
Saturation 
Lower Lithophysal 51mm Busted Butte Recent Data 
Figure 8-27. UCS vs. Saturation from Recent Busted Butte Outcrop Testing 
Unconfined Com pr essive Strength vs Sat ur ation 
Dr y @ 200C and Other s at Room Te m p, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
SN0305L0207502.004 
SN0211L0207502.002 
SN0211L0207502.001 
SN0302L0207502.003 
Dry Ambient 
Saturation Saturated 
Saturation 
Upper Lithophysal 127mm 
Lower Lithophysal 127mm 
Lower Lithophysal 290mm 
Upper Lithophysal 290mm 
Figure 8-28. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Saturation (Large Lithophysal Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-96 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-32. Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength 
Thermo-Litho- Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
Count i5 
7 
11 
3 
6 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
6 
3 100 
4 
8 244 
4 
Tpcpll 17 
20 
1 N/A N/A 364 364 N/A 
Tpcpv2 5 
Tpcpv1 4 3 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
Tpy 5 21 
2 N/A N/A 2 
2 N/A N/A 
10 
2 N/A N/A 
6 
3 
2 N/A N/A 
6 162 
57 
8 
8 
5 64 
3 
5 130 220 90 
2 N/A N/A 115 117 2 
1 N/A N/A 157 157 N/A 
8 
2 N/A N/A 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
2 N/A N/A 
5 
3 
3 
6 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
236 
3 280 319 39 
326 
2 N/A N/A 230 243 13 
4 
4 
2 N/A N/A 174 145 
3 152 80 
4 148 63 
4 115 70 
4 169 
4 149 
6 
4 
9 
1 N/A N/A N/A 
() 2 N/A N/A 
UO 
Code Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maxmum Range 
Tmr O421150 7.60 7.48 3.34 6.5 1.8 20.3 18.5 
Tpki O421150 5.94 2.72 1.03 6.5 1.1 9.8 8.7 
O421150 32.61 28.02 8.45 23.6 10.4 110.6 100.2 
O431150 100.30 31.19 18.01 115.8 64.4 120.7 56.3 
Tpcrn2 O421150 26.13 10.39 4.24 24.3 13.1 39.7 26.6 
Tpcrn1 O421150 132.90 132.9 132.9 132.9 
O421150 70.05 30.64 12.51 79.2 32.5 109.6 77.1 
O431150 77.43 19.55 11.29 66.7 65.6 34.4 
O121151 222.38 68.25 34.13 222.7 153.2 290.9 137.7 
O421150 167.19 64.12 22.67 183.55 71.9 172.1 
O431150 206.33 60.50 30.25 211 128.9 274.4 145.5 
O421150 308.56 107.41 26.05 315.80 75.40 429.70 354.3 
O421150 172.33 58.09 12.99 154.75 78.2 278.4 200.2 
O431140 364.00 364 
O421150 34.82 25.27 11.30 27.40 11.30 61.80 50.5 
O421150 5.05 1.41 0.71 4.7 3.9 6.9 
O421150 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 
O431140 7.03 7.03 7.03 7.03 
O431150 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 
O421150 19.30 6.99 3.13 7.8 26.2 18.4 
O421150 1.80 1.8 0.8 2.8 
O431150 5.10 5.10 4.30 5.90 1.60 
O421150 3.19 2.45 0.77 2.2 1.3 9.4 8.1 
O431150 3.70 3.70 3.30 4.10 0.80 
O421150 2.92 2.30 0.94 1.85 0.8 6.4 5.6 
O431150 3.20 1.42 0.82 2.70 2.10 4.80 2.70 
Tptrv3 O421150 4.25 4.25 2.7 5.8 3.1 
O121150 109.18 46.95 19.17 101.4 62.6 99.4 
O421150 64.33 31.20 4.13 56.8 25.7 148.4 122.7 
O421151 87.39 15.56 5.50 89.05 65.5 111.1 45.6 
O421153 107.63 50.62 17.90 93.1 50.4 218.5 168.1 
O431150 63.34 36.60 16.37 26.5 114.3 87.8 
Tptrl O421150 26.73 9.25 5.34 26.9 17.4 35.9 18.5 
O121150 176.80 37.57 16.80 167 
O121170 116.00 116 
O421150 157.00 157 
1421150 65.21 44.40 15.70 60.9 15.7 149.4 133.7 
1431150 47.50 47.5 37.3 57.7 20.4 
1613150 17.70 17.7 17.7 17.7 
1621150 28.10 28.1 14.9 41.3 26.4 
1631150 33.06 12.65 5.66 28.8 19.4 53 33.6 
1721150 10 16.24 4.97 1.57 15.95 10.3 27.8 17.5 
1813250 30.47 9.47 5.47 34.8 19.6 37 17.4 
1821150 11.23 1.68 0.97 11.6 9.4 12.7 3.3 
1831150 22.22 7.56 3.09 21.8 13.5 33.5 20 
1831250 22.10 22.1 22.1 22.1 
3111350 30 146.46 57.33 10.47 155.1 31.9 204.1 
3121130 294.00 21.70 12.53 283 
3121150 30 222.67 42.41 7.74 224.3 113.3 212.7 
3121170 236.50 236.5 
3231150 16 176.35 65.82 16.46 173.9 71.3 324.1 252.8 
3231350 14 133.96 70.24 18.77 140.95 34.3 245.7 211.4 
3331350 22 143.15 50.31 10.73 145.5 75.1 243.8 168.7 
3411150 122.58 35.32 17.66 118.6 87 166.1 79.1 
3411170 150.88 50.18 25.09 169.95 78.1 185.5 107.4 
3412130 101.50 101.5 29 
3412150 111.00 40.04 23.12 109 72 
3412170 114.50 29.13 14.56 112.5 85 
3412180 85.25 30.94 15.47 90.5 45 
3421130 113.20 42.86 21.43 107.85 68.1 100.9 
3421150 42 164.58 65.62 10.13 161.55 38.4 288.9 250.5 
3421170 131.00 25.20 12.60 140.35 94.3 54.7 
3421190 85.42 21.74 8.87 90.05 45.3 108.5 63.2 
3422150 117.38 20.67 10.33 122.15 89.4 135.8 46.4 
3521150 119.57 31.65 10.55 130.6 58.86 160.7 101.84 
3621150 11 97.67 30.60 9.23 90.41 59.91 170.8 110.89 
3631150 159.60 159.6 159.6 159.6 
continued3921150 90.14 90.14 86.92 93.36 6.44 
TSw1 
TSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
Tpcpmn 
Tpcpul 
Tpcpln 
Tpbt2 
Tpbt3 
TCw 
PTn 
Tpbt4 
Tptpmn 
Tpcrn 
Tptpul 
Tptf 
Tptrn 
Tpp 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-97 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-32. Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength (continued) 
Thermo-Litho- Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
3 187 184 
2 N/A N/A 130.5 123 138 15 
195.75 150.8 
7 175.2 53 
6 213.25 26 
12.28 135.1 147.5 
1 N/A N/A 206.9 N/A 
153.2 195.7 
4 31.55 167.55 142 
142.4 180 119 
1 28.30 N/A N/A 28.3 
1 38.00 N/A N/A 38 38 38 N/A 
89.89 10.11 105.9 123.2 
2 31.65 N/A N/A 31.65 
1 15.70 N/A N/A 15.7 
3 21.23 4.45 21.7 15.4 
2 N/A N/A 153.45 7.5 
2 N/A N/A 145.5 23.4 
11.96 109.65 31 121.1 
3 40.98 156.6 131.7 
160.35 110 
2 N/A N/A 171.55 2.7 
1 16.4 N/A 16.4 
2 45.8 N/A 45.8 8 
1 90.5 N/A 90.5 
2 91.5 N/A 91.5 
3 8 15 7 
5 12.8 6 19 13 
2 N/A 8 12 4 
4 27.25 3.01 26 22 35 13 
3 27.67 0.33 28 27 28 1 
1 20.50 N/A N/A 20.5 
2 36.85 N/A N/A 36.85 41 8.3 
2 24.05 N/A N/A 24.05 
34 27.40 1.53 24.85 38.9 
2 20.70 N/A N/A 20.7 
2 24.60 N/A N/A 24.6 
2 44.25 N/A N/A 44.25 
8 34.99 30.35 55.9 
4 69.63 3.09 72.3 13.1 
17 56.63 117 80.4 
8 96.80 10.33 92.35 153 85.9 
11 24.55 2.90 24.1 36.97 
18 30.43 1.23 29.8 21.4 
4 41.08 4.71 44.7 20.1 
4 13.38 0.62 13.55 3 
1 N/A N/A 130 130 N/A 
1 32.20 N/A N/A 32.2 
4 57.65 56.2 34.2 
4 70.85 11.10 75.9 49.8 
29 32.69 50.2 
4 87.03 11.31 82.5 115 46.9 
7 52.19 2.80 50.2 18.7 
page) 
UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically, Not inDepositional Sequence 
CHn 
ln 
ll 
Code Count Mean Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
2121150 30 112.93 51.37 9.38 121 
2121170 130.50 
2131150 16 194.69 37.99 9.50 110.9 261.7 
2411150 175.93 19.38 7.32 152.2 205.2 
2412150 213.18 11.75 4.80 200.3 226.3 
2421150 15 123.01 47.57 31.6 179.1 
2421153 206.90 206.9 206.9 
2431150 59 153.12 40.06 5.22 50.9 246.6 
2512150 146.33 63.10 54.1 196.1 
2531150 12 140.09 32.20 9.29 61 
2613150 28.3 28.3 N/A 
2621150 
2631150 17 41.69 28.1 151.3 
2813250 31.1 32.2 1.1 
2821150 15.7 15.7 N/A 
2831150 7.71 13.3 28.7 
4121120 153.45 149.7 157.2 
4121140 145.50 133.8 157.2 
4121150 10 104.35 37.81 152.1 
4121160 126.03 70.97 44.9 176.6 
4421150 10 155.51 30.35 9.60 82.9 192.9 
4431150 171.55 170.2 172.9 
O421150 N/A 16.4 16.4 N/A 
O431150 N/A 41.8 49.8 
O121150 N/A 90.5 90.5 N/A 
O431150 N/A 90.2 92.8 2.6 
O121130 12 3.61 2.08 13 
O121150 4.76 2.13 14 
O121170 10 N/A 10 
O121150 6.02 
O121170 0.58 
O421150 20.5 20.5 N/A 
O111150 32.7 
O121130 23.4 24.7 1.3 
O121150 8.89 14.2 53.1 
O121170 19.9 21.5 1.6 
O421150 22.7 26.5 3.8 
O431140 40.8 47.7 6.9 
Tacbt O121150 20.47 7.24 14.8 70.7 
Tcbbt O121150 6.18 60.4 73.5 
Tcbm O121150 19.07 4.63 58 36.6 
Tcblv O121150 29.21 67.1 
Tcbuv O121150 9.61 4.63 41.6 
Tcbuc O121150 5.23 16.6 38 
Tcpbt O121150 9.42 27.4 47.5 
O121150 1.24 11.7 14.7 
O431140 130.00 130 
Tcplv O431140 32.2 32.2 N/A 
Tctuc O121150 16.34 8.17 42 76.2 
Tctlc O121150 22.21 40.9 90.7 
Tctlv O121150 11.86 2.20 30 14.5 64.7 
Tctm O121150 22.62 68.1 
Tctuv O121150 7.40 45.2 63.9 
TSw3 Tptpv3 
TSw2 
Mechanical 
Unit 
(cont. from 
previous 
stratigraphic 
Unit 
TptpTptpTcplc 
Tpbt1 
Tac 
Tptpv2 
Tptpv1 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-98 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Rate or Time-Scale: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested saturated and oven-dried samples of 
Grouse Canyon welded tuff from Rainier Mesa on the Nevada Test Site, at three strain rates: 10-
-1
6, 10-4 and 10-2 s. For both the saturated and oven dried sets of samples, the mean strength 
values decrease by an average of 6% per decade decrease in strain rate over the strain rates stated 
above (the overall changes were 180.3 to 136.7 MPa and 124.7 to 94.3 MPa, respectively). 
There are some limited data on rate effects in three other early studies, one on moderately 
welded Tram tuff (Price and Nimick 1982), one on non-welded Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 
1982) and one on highly welded Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982). In all of these rate 
studies, saturated samples were tested at room temperature and ambient pressure. The studies by 
Price and Nimick (1982) and Price et al. (1982) used strain rates of 10-6, 10-4 and 10-2 s-1, while
-1
Price and Jones used 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s. Both the Price and Nimick (1982) and the Price and 
Jones (1982) results show the mean strength values decreasing by an average of 6.5% and 3.5%, 
respectively, per decade decrease in strain rate. The results in Price et al. (1982) give no distinct 
trend in the strength versus rate data. 
In the study by Price et al. (1987), the tests run on saturated samples (all these tests were at room 
temperature and ambient pressure) at strain rates of 10-7, 10-5 and 10-3 s-1 and the tests on dried 
samples at strain rates of 10-7 and 10-5 s-1 showed mixed results. The average strengths for the 
dry samples actually show an inverse relationship with rate, as do the average strengths for the 
saturated samples at the 10-5 and the 10-3 s-1 rates. The average strength data for the saturated 
samples tested at 10-7 and the 10-5 s-1, however, do decrease about 4% per decade decrease in 
strain rate. As explained by Martin et al. (1993a and 1993b), the trend of the 10-5 to 10-3 s-1 data 
for the saturated samples seems to be the result of elevated pore pressures building up within the 
water-filled pores during this relatively quick (five to ten seconds) tests and thus creating a 
premature failure in these samples. In addition, Martin et al. (1993a) performed six experiments 
on similar Busted Butte outcrop samples from the Tptpmn. The test specimens were water 
-1
saturated and tested at room temperature, ambient pressure and a strain rate of 10-9 s. These 
results show a continuing decrease in the average strengths with decreasing strain rate. The 
overall decrease in the average strengths for the saturated samples tested in the two studies at 
strain rates of 10-9, 10-7 and 10-5 s-1 is found to be somewhat less than 10% per decade decrease 
in strain rate (Martin et al. 1993a). 
A series of constant stress experiments was initiated in the mid-1990s to better define the time 
dependent constitutive behavior of the welded tuffs. The experiments were stopped before a 
definitive result could be achieved, but the indications were that the welded tuffs of the Tptpmn 
behave in such a way that for a given porosity and under given constant stress conditions, the 
time to failure for the tuffs is predictable (Martin et al. 1995b, 1997a and 1997b). In addition, 
the results from these experiments indicate that, even at high stresses (in the range of 100 MPa), 
the low porosity welded tuffs have a very long time-to-failure. Using some YMP data and some 
non-YMP data, the times to failure (for Busted Butte outcrop samples of the middle-non) ranged 
over about six orders of magnitude (i.e., from a few seconds to about 2 million seconds), and the 
resulting data show a general linear trend with a very low negative slope, on a stress difference 
versus log time-to-failure plot. For example, the preliminary fit of the data (having an average 
quasi-static, unconfined compression strength of nearly 150 MPa) predicts that under a constant 
load of 100 MPa, the rock would fail in 7.1 x 109 years. However, this result would have to be 
reanalyzed with data produced within the YMP program. Research is currently being done to 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-99 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
explore the static fatigue behavior of tuffs at Yucca Mountain and results will be available 
sometime in the future. 
A plot of all nonlithophysal 50.8 mm saturated samples from the RHH tested at room 
temperature and with length to diameter ratios (L:D) near 2:1 versus varying strain rate is shown 
in Figure 8-29. 
Unconfined Conpressive Strength vs Strain Rate 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8m m Specimens, Saturated, 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 
Strain Rate (s^-1) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-29. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Strain Rate (RHH 50.8 mm Middle Nonlithophysal 
Saturated Room Temperature Specimens) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-100 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.4.3 Confined/Triaxial Compressive Tests 
The test results from compressive tests were also highly variable. A number of tests under 
varying temperature, saturation, and strain rate were performed. Compressive strength data 
included in this report are taken from the most recent data qualification effort completed in 
February of 2003 by the procedure outlined in AP-SIII.2Q. Compressive data are summarized in 
Data Qualification and Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial 
Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion (Cikanek 
et al. 2003b). The summary of data is available in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Recent test 
data were not included in the summary DTN, but are available in DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, 
SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, SN0302L0207502.003, and 
SN0305L0207502.004. The data come from boreholes presented in Table 8-33. A summary 
Table of all the confined compressive strength test results is shown below in Table 8-34. All 
static confined and unconfined compressive strength test results for individual specimen testing 
are presented in Table IX-2 of Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII 
file Compressive and Porosity Data.xls. Unconfined results presented earlier are used in the 
plots of this section to better visualize the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. 
Confined compression testing was performed on a relatively limited number of specimens in the 
units proposed for the development of the geologic repository. Samples tested were either 50.8 
mm or 25.4 mm in diameter and were recovered from the locations shown in Table 8-33. The 
elastic moduli and strengths under confined pressures are summarized in Martin et al. (1994, 
1995a) and Boyd et al. (1996b). 
The specimens tested under confined compression failed in shear. There was little evidence of 
axial splitting, and in most cases a clear and evident shear plane developed; however, there was 
no evidence of conjugate fracture sets forming. 
Table 8-33. Sample Locations of Confined Compressive Data 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln 
Drillhole/Surface 
Specimens 
USW NRG-7a USW G-4 
USW NRG-7a 
USW G-1 
USW G-4 
USW NRG-7a 
USW SD-9 
USW SD-12 USW NRG-7a USW SD-12 
USW SD-9 Busted Butte 
Busted Butte 
Subsurface ESF/ECRB 
Specimens 
No subsurface 
samples included 
in this report. 
No subsurface 
samples included 
in this report. 
No subsurface 
samples included 
in this report. 
No subsurface 
samples included 
in this report. 
Effects of Pressure: Under the range of anticipated repository conditions (saturation, 
temperature, pressure, etc), the welded tuffs behave as very brittle rocks, so the effect of 
confining pressure on strength for the Yucca Mountain tuffs is adequately captured by the 
parameters in the Coulomb criterion defined in terms of rock cohesion and angle of internal 
friction. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-101 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Olsson and Jones (1980) tested several samples from five units within Yucca Mountain, with a 
few specimens tested at elevated confining stresses mostly up to 20 MPa. The cohesions and 
internal friction angles calculated from the data (the tests were conducted on room-dry samples 
at room temperature and a strain rate of about 10-4 s-1) range from 12.1 MPa to 32.2 MPa and 25 
to 68o, respectively. 
The results from some tests on moderately welded Bullfrog tuff at elevated temperature (200oC) 
and at effective confining pressures between 5 MPa and 21 MPa (dry and saturated samples 
tested at 10-5 s-1) show cohesions of 23.6 MPa (saturated) and 16.5 MPa (dry) and internal 
friction angles of 19.6o (saturated) and 37.4o (dry) (Olsson 1982). 
In two other limited data sets, one on non-welded tuff from Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 
1982) and one on welded tuff from the Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982), the Coulomb 
parameters have not been calculated. The data also indicate the expected confining pressure 
effect on strength. In the study by Price et al. (1987), three sets of test data allowed for 
calculation of Coulomb parameters. The data sets involved the testing of dry samples at ambient 
temperature, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 10 MPa; saturated samples 
tested at ambient temperature, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 10 MPa; and 
saturated samples tested at 150oC, a rate of 10-5 s-1 and confining pressures of 0 MPa to 5 MPa. 
The resulting cohesions are 18.8 MPa, 41.7 MPa and 21.3 MPa, and the angles of internal 
friction are 57o, 31o and 50o, respectively. 
Price and others tested a series of small specimens of the Tptpmn and found that over the range 
of porosities in these samples (about 0.05 to 0.17), the cohesions (ranging from about 3 MPa to 
50 MPa) show a general inverse relationship with porosity, and the internal friction angles are 
found to be independent of porosity (all being roughly in the 50 to 64o range) (Price et al. 
1994b). 
Furthermore, Martin et al. (1997c) tested some drillhole samples from the Tptpmn. The 
experiments were all conducted on saturated samples and at room temperature, with confining 
pressures varying from 0 MPa to 10 MPa. The average strength values at 10 MPa pressure are 
more than double the strength of similar specimens tested under ambient pressure. 
Figure 8-30 is a s1 (axial stress or major principal stress) versus s3 (confining stress of minor 
principal stress) plot of 50.8 mm saturated samples from the Tptpul and Tptpll units tested under 
-1
saturated and room temperature conditions, and a strain rate of 10-5s. 
Figure 8-31 is a plot of unconfined and confined compressive strengths of saturated 50.8 mm 
specimens taken from the Tiva Canyon Lower Non-lithophysal unit (Tptpln) and the Topopah 
Spring Tuff crystal rich nonlithophysal zone (Tptrn), both found above the planned RHH. 
Figure 8-32 is a s1 versus s3 plot of 24.4 mm saturated samples from the Tac zone of the Calico 
Hills formation. The data presented is the most complete set of confined compressive data on 
non-welded tuff collected by the project. The Calico Hills nonwelded tuff (CHn) is considerable 
stronger than the Paintbrush non-welded tuff (PTn). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-102 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Confined Com pressive Strength 
50.8m m Specim e ns, Satur at ed, Room Te m perature, L:D=2:1, Str ain Rate = 10-5 
250 
200 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
SN0306L0207502.008 
Sigma 1 (MPa)
150 
100 
50 
0 
02 4681012 
Sigm a 3 (MPa) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Figure 8-30. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated Room 
Temperature Lithophysal Zone Specimens 
50.8 mm Saturated, Room Tem p, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5 
450 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
400 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
Sigm a 3 (MPa) 
Tpcpln Tptrn 
Figure 8-31. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated Room 
Temperature Tpcpln and Tptrn specimens 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-103 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
25.4 mm Saturated, Room Te m p, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain r ate = 10^-5 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
0 5 10152025 
Sigm a 3 (M Pa) 
Calico Hills Non-Welded Tuff (Tac) 
Figure 8-32. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Saturated, Room 
Temperature Calico Hills non-welded tuff (Tac) 
There is considerable uncertainty involved with calculating failure parameters from such few 
data points. The porosity of the specimens varies greatly, and strength is porosity dependent. 
The large scatter of data in the unconfined tests can be explained by the porosity of the specimen, 
and the specimens shown in Figure 8-30 tested unconfined have porosities ranging from 9.9% to 
23.3%. More data exists on rock collected from lithophysal units than nonlithophysal units. The 
results from the limited number of tests performed at elevated temperature and saturated samples 
are also included in this plot. 
Figures 8-33 and 8-34 show the slightly less variable results of the 25.4 mm specimens from the 
RHH tested under standard conditions. The failure envelope of the rock is better defined at this 
smaller specimen size. The specimens plotted in Figure 8-33 are small samples that have greatly 
ranging porosity, from 7.7% to 24.7% and therefore are expected to demonstrate the great ranges 
of data that are shown. Data plotted in Figure 8-34 plots specimen strengths of great variability. 
The porosity range reported with the associated strengths is limited between 10.0% and 12.4% 
and is a good indicator that the material has inherent variability even at small sample size and 
small ranges of porosity. Small diameter specimens are good indicators of the characteristics of 
the matrix material, being exclusive of lithophysae. The material is inherently variable, but can 
be bounded to a great degree. The variation in results from limited specimens induces a fair 
amount of uncertainty, which will be further examined at a later time. 
Effects of Saturation: Saturation is expected to have a greater effect on confined compressive 
samples when tested in undrained test conditions than when tested in a free draining test 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-104 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
condition. The data available does not indicate that saturation has any significant effect on the 
strength of the specimen. Figure 8-35 plots triaxial compressive results for middle 
nonlithophysal specimens at room and elevated temperature for dry saturation. 
Confined Compressive Strength 
25.4mm Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem per atur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
0 2 4 681012 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Sigm a 3 (M Pa) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Figure 8-33. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Saturated Room 
Temperature of Lithophysal Zone Specimens 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-105 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Confined Compr essive Strength 
25.4m m Specimens, Saturated, Room Temper atur e, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
400 
350 
300 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Sigma 1 (MPa)
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
0 2 4 681012 
Sigm a 3 (M Pa) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Lower Non Lith UCS 
Figure 8-34. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Dry, Room Temperature 
Middle Nonlithophysal Zone Specimens 
Confined Com pressive Strength 
50.8m m Specimens, Dry, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5s-1 
350 
300 
250 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
02 4681012 
Sigm a 3 (MPa) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-35. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 25.4 mm Dry Room Temperature 
Nonlithophysal Zone Specimens 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-106 December 2003

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Effects of Temperature: The failure characteristics of the tuff tested at the elevated temperature 
under triaxial compressive loading conditions indicate that there is a slight decrease in strength if 
compared to those tested at room temperature. The mean confined compressive strength values 
for 50.8 mm Tptpmn specimens that were saturated and tested under room temperature triaxial 
compressive loading at 5 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa confining pressure were strengths of 223 
MPa, 159 MPa, and 195 MPa respectively. The decrease in strength with increasing confining 
pressure is abnormal and further investigation must be made. Samples tested at 150 C with the 
same size, saturation, and strain conditions were tested under 6 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa 
confinement at a strain rate of 10-6s-1, instead of the standard of 10-5s-1 produced normal results. 
The values for specimens tested at 150C were 189 MPa, 249 MPa, and 244 MPa for confining 
pressures of 6 MPa, 10 MPa, and 15 MPa respectively. Figure 8-36 plots axial stress (s1) vs. 
lateral stress (s3) in heated confined compression, for 50.8 mm saturated specimens from the 
Tptpmn unit. 
Confined Com pressive Str ength 
50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, Tem p = 150C, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-6 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
400 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 
Sigm a 3 (M Pa) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-36. Axial (s1) vs. Lateral (s3) Compressive Stress Plot for 50.8 mm Saturated 150C 
Specimens 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-107 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Effect of Pressure on Elastic Properties: Olsson and Jones (1980) tested several samples from 
five units within Yucca Mountain, with a few being at elevated confining pressure of 20 MPa. In 
both the cases of the Youngs moduli and the Poissons ratios, the elastic properties appear to be 
independent of confining pressure. 
The Youngs modulus results from some tests on moderately welded Bullfrog tuff at elevated 
temperature (200oC) and at effective confining pressures between 5 MPa and 21 MPa also show 
an independence with pressure (Olsson 1982). Olsson did not report any Poissons ratio values 
for these experiments. 
In two other limited data sets, one on non-welded tuff from Calico Hills tuff (Price and Jones 
1982) and one on welded tuff from the Topopah Spring tuff (Price et al. 1982), both the Youngs 
modulus and the Poissons ratio results are inconclusive. However, both elastic properties 
appear to be insensitive to changes in confining pressure. 
However, in the study by Price et al. (1987), a correlation between confining pressure and 
Youngs modulus is observed both for oven-dry and for saturated outcrop samples from the 
Tptpmn. Sets of room temperature experiments on oven-dry and saturated samples tested at 0, 5 
and 10 MPa confining pressures both show an average 12% decrease (oven-dry: 40.5 GPa to 
35.6 GPa and saturated: 37.1 GPa to 32.6 GPa) in the magnitude of Youngs modulus for the 
unconfined and 10 MPa confinement. Similarly, a set of experiments at 150oC on saturated 
samples resulted in an 8% decrease (31.0 GPa to 28.6 GPa) in average Youngs modulus when 
comparing the 0 MPa and 5 MPa effective confining pressure. Poissons ratio data were 
determined for tests carried out under all but the elevated experiments, and there appears to be no 
effect of confining pressure on this elastic property. 
Furthermore, Martin et al. (1997a) tested some drillhole samples from the Tptpmn. The 
experiments were all conducted on saturated samples and at room temperature, with confining 
pressures varying from 0 MPa to 10 MPa. Some variations were the result of porosity 
differences in the samples, but in general, the average Youngs moduli decrease over that range 
of pressures is about 11% (32.2 GPa to 28.5 GPa). A larger decrease was measured for welded 
Tiva Canyon tuff samples; however, much of the decrease appears to be related to an effect of 
different sample porosities. 
Tables 8-28 and 8-29 present the results of all confined compression testing for Youngs 
modulus and Poissons ratio. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-108 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-34. Summary of Confined Compressive Differential Strength Results 
MPa
O431143 1 N/A 
O431146 1 N/A 200 200 N/A 
O431147 1 N/A 
4 17.00 359 77.6 
2 N/A 244 140.5 
1 N/A 
O431144 1 N/A 
O431146 1 N/A 
O431147 1 N/A 
1 N/A 
O421153 1 N/A 
O421151 3 57.98 178.6 
3 87.40 266 
O431143 1 N/A 396 396 N/A 
O431145 2 N/A 105 875 770 
lO421153 1 N/A 
O421151 1 N/A N/A 
O421153 1 N/A N/A 
O121151 13 8.89 72.1 124.3 
O121153 11 15.20 178.2 
l O421151 1 N/A 62.1 62.1 
2 N/A 89.4 
6 33.31 87 230.3 
6 19.82 360 134.5 
3 19.05 64.8 
3 39.73 121.7 
3 37.26 112 228 116 
5 30.39 169 161.7 
14 14.86 233.1 
5 17.77 96.1 
3 34.22 107.3 
5 13.23 78.6 
6 20.04 131.9 
5 22.52 123.6 
3 44.06 146.8 
3 46.73 247 150 
3 36.95 128 
3 12.50 42.8 
1 N/A 
O121153 4 9.51 42.5 
O421151 1 N/A 47.2 47.2 
O421153 1 N/A 
O121151 2 N/A 
O121153 2 N/A 
8 4.91 1.74 27.2 35.7 16.8 
6 7.62 3.11 34.6 36.2 19.1 
O113141 1 N/A 87 87 87 N/A 
O113143 1 N/A 93 93 93 N/A 
O113145 2 N/A 119 148 29 
O123143 1 N/A 70 70 70 N/A 
O123145 1 N/A 83 83 83 N/A 
O123146 1 N/A 86 86 86 N/A 
2 N/A 140 145 5 
1 N/A 174 174 N/A 
2 N/A 176 207 31 
1 N/A 299 299 N/A 
ll 
ln 
ln 
UndifferentiatedListed Alphabetically,
Not in DepositionalSequence 
() 
Thermo-
Mechanical 
Unit 
Litho-
stratigraphic 
Unit Code Count Mean 
Standard 
Deviation 
Standard 
Error Median Minimum Maximum Range 
156.50 N/A 156.5 156.5 156.5 N/A 
200.00 N/A 200 
212.40 N/A 212.4 212.4 212.4 N/A 
O121153 317.35 34.01 314.5 281.4 
O421151 314.25 N/A 314.25 384.5 
O421153 235.50 N/A 235.5 235.5 235.5 N/A 
193.10 N/A 193.1 193.1 193.1 N/A 
405.40 N/A 405.4 405.4 405.4 N/A 
191.70 N/A 191.7 191.7 191.7 N/A 
O421151 120.30 N/A 120.3 120.3 120.3 N/A 
147.90 N/A 147.9 147.9 147.9 N/A 
255.53 100.43 308.6 139.7 318.3 
O421153 316.93 151.37 400.4 142.2 408.2 
396.00 N/A 396 
490.00 N/A 490 
Tpcpnc 173.10 N/A 173.1 173.1 173.1 N/A 
Tpbt3 8.30 N/A 8.3 8.3 8.3 
Tpp 7.30 N/A 7.3 7.3 7.3 
81.40 32.06 34.6 158.9 
122.61 50.42 129.1 20.1 198.3 
Tptr62.10 N/A 62.1 N/A 
Tptpul 1421151 89.40 N/A 71.9 106.9 35 
3121151 215.30 81.58 238.35 317.3 
3121153 315.90 48.54 329.6 225.5 
3411151 191.40 32.99 198.6 155.4 220.2 
3411153 225.10 68.81 188 182.8 304.5 
3412153 186.33 64.53 219 
3421151 222.78 67.95 198.7 330.7 
3421153 159.00 55.61 157.3 39.7 272.8 
3421155 194.54 39.73 192 156.3 252.4 
3422151 116.10 59.27 145.2 47.9 155.2 
3422162 188.88 29.59 191.8 147.3 225.9 
3422163 248.55 49.09 236.9 202.3 334.2 
3422164 243.86 50.36 233.5 195.8 319.4 
2121151 133.83 76.32 109.7 72.5 219.3 
2121153 154.43 80.94 119.3 97 
4421151 211.43 64.00 211.1 147.6 275.6 
4421153 255.60 21.65 251.8 236.1 278.9 
4422164 264.50 N/A 264.5 264.5 264.5 N/A 
45 19.03 27 68 41 
47.2 N/A 47.2 N/A 
70 N/A 70 70 70 N/A 
23 N/A 23 17 29 12 
24 N/A 24 16 32 16 
O121153 27.71 18.9 
O121155 30.88 17.1 
87.00 N/A 
93.00 N/A 
133.50 N/A 133.5 
70.00 N/A 
83.00 N/A 
86.00 N/A 
O431145 142.50 N/A 142.5 
Tcbuc O431147 174.00 N/A 174 
O431145 191.50 N/A 191.5 
O431148 299.00 N/A 299 
TCw 
PTn 
Tptrn 
Tptpmn 
Tpcpmn 
TpcpTpcpCHn 
Tptpll 
TptpConfined Compressive StrengthTSw2 
Tptpv3 TSw3 
TSw1 
Tcpm 
Tac 
Tptpv1 
Tpcpul 
Tcbm 
***Note: For a key to the test condition code, see Table 8-1. 
SOURCE DTNS: MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, SN0306L0207502.008, 
SN0302L0207502.003, SN0305L0207502.004, AND ATTACHMENT IX FOR ADDITIONAL DTNS AND 
CORRECTIONS. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-109 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.4.4.4 Intact Rock Tensile Strength 
Indirect tensile strengths were calculated using the procedure outlined in ASTM D3967 on 
specimens recovered from surface boreholes USW-NRG-6, USW-NRG-7a, and UE-25-NRG#5. 
All samples were 50.8 mm in diameter with a length of 38.6 mm and were tested saturated at 
room temperature. A summary of results is shown in Table 8-35 and 8-36. All static indirect 
tensile strength test results for individual specimen testing are presented in Table IX-6 of 
Attachment IX. Electronic files are provided in Attachment VIII file ITS Master Sheet.xls. 
Data were collected and has been recently approved under the procedures set forth by AP-
SIII.2Q. The data are discussed porosity than samples collected from nonlithophysal rock units. 
Figure 8-35 shows indirect tensile strength as a function of porosity for all qualified indirect 
tensile strength specimens. An inverse relationship between porosity and indirect tensile 
strength is evident in the report Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock 
Properties Data on Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness, and Rock Triaxial 
Creep (Cikanek et al. 2003a). These data are available in DTN MO030601DQRIRPTS.000. 
Samples tested for indirect tensile strength also had total porosity determined prior to testing. 
Samples collected from lithophysal units generally have lower tensile strength and greater total 
porosity. 
Values of indirect or splitting tensile strength is most commonly determined through use of the 
Brazilian test, which is a desirable alternative to direct-pull tests because it is easier to perform 
and less expensive. The test methods are routine and are described by Mellor and Hawkes 
(1971) or ASTM D 3967-95a, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock 
Core Specimens. 
Direct tensile testing was performed, but the results have not been qualified and reside in DTN 
MO0301SETSTTST.000. The direct tensile testing that was performed consists of eleven 
samples, ten from the Tptpmn and one from the Tptpln. 
No indirect tensile specimens were tested at conditions other than saturated and room 
temperature with length to diameter ratios other than 0.75 to 1. The effect of strain rate is not 
-1
explored, as all samples were tested at 10-5 s. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-110 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-35. Summary of Indirect Tensile Strength Results (Saturated Data) 
iTmr 3 
6 
1 
16 
l 19 
13 
ll 2 NA NA 
l25 
l8 
3 
3 
Tpy 1 
1 N/A NA N/A 
11 
3 
52 
l 7 
19 
14 
ll 24 
ln 13 
3 
UO 
Count Mean St. Dev St. Error Median Minmum Maximun Range 
1.23 1.27 0.74 0.60 0.40 2.70 2.30 
Tpki 0.70 0.24 0.10 0.70 0.40 1.00 0.60 
Tpcrv 8.70 N/A N/A 8.70 8.70 8.70 NA 
Tpcrn 7.75 3.41 0.85 8.34 2.70 13.44 10.74 
Tpcpu10.07 1.81 0.42 10.00 6.23 13.58 7.34 
Tpcpmn 15.54 3.01 0.84 15.66 7.20 19.08 11.88 
Tpcp14.60 14.60 13.20 16.00 2.80 
Tpcpnh 8.96 3.42 0.68 9.60 2.60 14.80 12.20 
Tpcpnc 11.29 1.70 0.60 11.55 8.20 13.40 5.20 
Tpcpv2 3.60 2.10 1.21 4.50 1.20 5.10 3.90 
Tpcpv1 3.27 3.65 2.11 1.90 0.50 7.40 6.90 
3.00 NA NA 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 
Tpbt3 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 
Tpp 0.17 0.19 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.70 0.68 
Tpbt2 0.33 0.40 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.80 0.70 
Tptrn 5.43 2.07 0.29 5.00 1.60 10.50 8.90 
Tptr4.81 1.36 0.51 5.10 3.40 7.30 3.90 
Tptpul 5.57 3.10 0.71 4.30 1.90 12.90 11.00 
Tptpmn 10.88 4.02 1.07 12.05 4.30 16.80 12.50 
Tptp8.33 2.93 0.60 8.25 3.20 14.30 11.10 
Tptp7.92 2.55 0.71 7.60 4.80 13.70 8.90 
TSw3 Tptpv3 3.97 0.32 0.19 4.10 3.60 4.20 0.60 
Tensile Strength (for saturated data) 
TSw2 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw1 
SOURCE DTN: MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
Table 8-36. Summary of Indirect Tensile Strength Results (Room Dry Data) 
Tensile Strength (MPa) (for room dry data) 
Count 
Mean 
St. Dev 
St. Error 
Median 
Minimum 
Maximun 
Range 
Tmr 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
UO 
Tpki 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcrv 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcrn 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcpul 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcpmn 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
TCw 
Tpcpll 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcplnh 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcplnc 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcpv2 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpcpv1 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tpy 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
PTn 
Tpbt3 
1 
0.30 
N/A 
N/A 
0.30 
0.30 
0.30 
N/A 
Tpp 
1 
0.40 
NA 
NA 
0.40 
0.40 
0.40 
0.00 
Tpbt2 
2 
0.25 
0.07 
NA 
0.25 
0.20 
0.30 
0.10 
Tptrn 
1 
8.40 
NA 
NA 
8.40 
8.40 
8.40 
0.00 
TSw1 
Tptrl 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tptpul 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tptpmn 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
TSw2 
Tptpll 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tptpln 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
Tptpv3 
TSw3 
0 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
NA 
SOURCE DTN: MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-111 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-37. Summary of Porosity Measurements of Indirect Tensile Strength Specimens 
Count St. dev 
Tmr 0 
6 
1 N/A 
7 
l 0 N/A NA NA 
0 
ll 2 N/A NA 
l25 
l8 
3 
3 
Tpy 1 NA NA 
1 
11 
3 
52 
l 7 
19 
14 
ll 24 
ln 13 
3 
UO 
Mean ST. Error median Minimum Maximun Range 
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
Tpki 46.98 2.30 0.29 46.35 44.50 50.40 5.90 
Tpcrv 9.80 NA NA 9.80 9.80 9.80 
Tpcrn 31.70 8.78 2.93 28.00 24.40 44.50 20.10 
TpcpuNA NA NA NA 
Tpcpmn NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 
Tpcp5.55 5.55 5.50 5.60 0.10 
Tpcpnh 14.06 8.78 1.79 12.20 6.40 39.10 32.70 
Tpcpnc 10.24 3.47 3.99 13.50 6.90 16.60 9.70 
Tpcpv2 31.53 4.82 2.08 29.70 27.90 37.00 9.10 
Tpcpv1 33.10 13.68 1.89 40.80 17.30 41.20 23.90 
31.30 31.30 31.30 31.30 NA 
Tpbt3 52.30 N/A N/A 52.30 52.30 52.30 N/A 
Tpp 51.85 3.00 0.05 52.20 45.40 55.20 9.80 
Tpbt2 46.10 9.10 0.19 46.10 37.00 55.20 18.20 
Tptrn 14.81 3.09 0.75 14.70 6.80 22.80 16.00 
Tptr16.53 4.44 1.82 16.40 10.60 22.20 11.60 
Tptpul 16.31 3.19 1.28 15.70 11.30 21.80 10.50 
Tptpmn 11.84 2.96 2.91 10.75 9.00 19.20 10.20 
Tptp11.99 1.96 1.70 13.30 8.80 16.40 7.60 
Tptp8.81 1.89 2.20 9.00 3.80 11.20 7.40 
TSw3 Tptpv3 1.30 0.10 2.29 1.30 1.20 1.40 0.20 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw1 
Porosity (for saturated data) 
TSw2 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02030193001.002, SNL02030193001.003, SNL02030193001.004, SNL02030193001.005, 
SNL02030193001.006, SNL02030193001.010, SNL02030193001.013, SNL02030193001.014, 
SNL02030193001.017, SNL02030193001.019, SNL02030193001.020 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-112 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Indirect Tensile Strength vs Porosity 
Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1, Strain Rate = 10-5 
Indirect Tensile Strength (MPa) 
20.00 
15.00 
10.00 
5.00 
0.00 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
0 5 10152025 
Porosity (%) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-37. Indirect Tensile Strength versus Porosity (RHH Specimens 
8.4.4.5 Intact Rock Hoek-Brown Parameters 
The Hoek-Brown method of failure criterion is widely accepted and used by engineers around 
the world. This method was developed for use in design of underground excavations in hard 
rock such as those found at Yucca Mountain. The method was developed from the results of 
research in brittle failure of intact rock by E. Hoek, and further work to apply it to jointed rock 
mass behavior was done by Brown. Hoek and Brown decided to link their empirical method to 
geologic observations by means of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system proposed by 
Bieniawski (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002) (Bieniawski 1989). 
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion fits a line through the tensile, uniaxial compressive, and 
triaxial compressive data that fits the form 
.s 3 
5.0 
.
s =s 3 +s ci .. m + s .. (Eq. 8-18)
1 
.s ci . 
Where s1 
and s3 are the major and minor effective principal stresses at failure 
sci is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material 
m, and s are material constants where s = 1 for intact rock (Hoek, Carranza-Torres and 
Corkum 2002) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-113 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Many improvements have been made to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion since its introduction 
in the early 1980s. Recent researchers have found that the method of curve fitting the criterion 
to the test data has a major effect on the estimates of the material properties (Mostyn and 
Douglas 2000). According to Mostyn and Douglas, the parameters mi and sc 
are not material 
properties if the exponent, a, is fixed at 0.5. Mostyn and Douglas approach allows the variables 
a, sc, and mi to be determined through a more generalized, best-fit method shown below 
(Mostyn and Douglas 2000): 
. a
.
s =s 3 +s c .. mi 
s 3 + s .. (Eq. 8-19) 
1
.s c . 
Where s1 
and s3 are the major and minor effective principal stresses at failure 
sc 
is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock material best fit by the 
generalized fit method 
mi, and s are material constants where s = 1 for intact rock 
a is an exponent allowed to be fit by the generalized best-fit method 
Inputs for Development of Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion 
Data required for development of the generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion consist of three 
types of strength test results. Intact rock unconfined compressive strength, triaxial or confined 
compressive strength, and tensile strength (either direct or indirect Brazilian), are needed to 
develop the strength envelope for this failure criterion. 
Rock test results are first sorted by lithostratigraphic unit. The data is then sorted by the physical 
effects of specimen size and length to diameter ratio to remove their effect on test results. The 
data are also sorted to remove the environmental effects of saturation, testing temperature, and 
confining pressure. Porosity has a great effect on the mechanical properties of an intact core 
sample. Further separation was accomplished through removal in the analysis of samples with 
total porosity outside of an acceptable range that is expected in the repository host horizon unit 
for which rock mass properties are being calculated. Once sorting is complete, a set of data is 
statistically analyzed to determine the sample mean, distribution, and standard deviation. 
After sorting the data for environmental and physical effects, several data points exist for 
unconfined compressive strength, many exist for tensile strength, but few exist at each confining 
pressure of triaxial testing. To achieve better understanding of the potential range of output 
results with the varying amount of available data, the inputs were entered into a simulation 
program that would allow for Monte-Carlo simulation. GoldSim 7.50.1, a simulation program 
developed by Golder Associates, was used to develop data sets from the stochastic data inputs 
(GoldSim Users Manual 2002). 
It is expected that with increasing confining pressure, an increased axial strength should be 
measured when performing triaxial tests. In order to determine the differential strength, 
specimens are loaded to failure and destroyed in each test, so the theory can never be proven 
with an actual sample. It is understood that the data inputs are not independent, as a specimen 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-114 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
with high uniaxial strength will have high tensile and triaxial strengths as well. To force the 
simulation program to follow this theory, a correlation factor is applied to the selection of the 
triaxial strengths (Golder Users Manual 2002 p. A-33). One value of the uniaxial compressive 
strength is chosen from the uniaxial strength stochastic input, and a correlated value is then 
selected from the other inputs. Initially, a correlation factor of 1 will be used in the selection of 
triaxial strength and a correlation value of 0.9 is used for selection of tensile strength data. The 
negative correlation represents the fact that higher compressive strength samples should also be 
stronger in indirect tension, and the sign convention indicates that compressive strength is a 
positive value, while negative indicates the opposite application of force: tension. The 
correlation factors ensure that realistic data sets will be generated. Figure 8-38 presents the 
stochastic inputs for the planned host horizon unit Tptpmn. The data selected for development of 
the failure criterion is from specimens tested saturated at 150 C. This was the most complete 
and appropriate of the data sets available from this rock unit, and was therefore selected for use. 
Figure 8-38A is the stochastic distribution of uniaxial compressive strength, the stochastic 
distribution of triaxial strength at 6 MPa confining pressure is presented as Figure 8-38C, the 
stochastic distribution of triaxial strength at 10 MPa is presented as Figure 8-38D, and the 
stochastic distribution of indirect tensile strength is presented in Figure 8-38E. Figure 8-38B is 
the input distribution of indirect tensile strength. The vertical axis of Figure 8-38 reflects 
probability and the horizontal axes represent either compressive strength or indirect tensile 
strength in MPa. Figure 8-39 is the input data for the Tptpln in similar order as discussed for 
Figure 8-38. 
The input data for determination of the Hoek-Brown parameter for the Tptpln and Tptpmn rock 
units are summarized in Table 8-27. These values are determined using data collected from 50.8 
mm Tptpmn specimens tested saturated at a temperature of 150 C with length to diameter ratio 
of 2:1 and under a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 to 10-6 s-1 from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. The 
values used for the Tptpln calculation are 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated at room 
temperature with length to diameter ratio of 2:1 and under a strain rate of 10-5 s-1 are also from 
DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, while tensile data originates from: DTN 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. 
Table 8-38. Input Data for Hoek-Brown Parameter Development 
Mean Indirect Tensile 
Strength 
Indirect Tensile 
Strength Standard 
Deviation 
Indirect Tensile 
Strength Min/Max 
Mean Unconfined 
Compressive Strength 
Unconfined 
Compressive Strength 
Standard Deviation 
Unconfined 
Compressive Strength 
Min/Max 
Mean 5 or 6 MPa 
Confined Compressive 
Strength** 
5/6 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
Standard Deviation** 
5/6 Unconfined 
Compressive Strength 
Min/Max** 
Mean 10 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
10 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
Standard Deviation 
10 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
Min/Max 
Mean 15 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
15 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
Standard Deviation 
15 MPa Confined 
Compressive Strength 
Min/Max 
Tptpln 7.92 2.55 0/20 155.51 30.35 0/300 216.4 64 0/500 265.6 21.7 0/500 N/A*** N/A*** N/A*** 
Tptpmn* 10.88 4.02 1/22 117.38 20.67 0/200 194.9 29.6 0/300 258.6 49.1 0/400 258.9 50.4 0/400 
Notes: Specimens used for Hoek-Brown calculations from the Tptpmn were tested saturated and at a temperature of 150 C. Results presented are 
principal stresses (deviator stress plus confining pressure). **Tptpmn specimens were tested at 6 MPa confining, Tptpln were at 5 MPa. ***No 
results available for 15 MPa confined strength. All results in MPa. 
Figure 8-40 shows and example input diagram to GoldSim and the selection relationships among 
the input data. This program will realize (categorically select calculate and return) any number 
of data sets consisting of one point each from the uniaxial strength, tensile strength, and triaxial 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-115 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
strengths and output that selection to a result matrix that can be further used in analysis. The 
correlation factors ensure that realistic data sets will be generated. Figure 8-41 is an example of 
an output matrix from GoldSim. 
Figure 8-38. Stochastic Inputs for Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion for Tptpmn 
Figure 8-39. Stochastic Inputs for Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion for Tptpln 
Figure 8-40. GoldSim Data Selection Diagram 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-116 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
After the model is run to generate correlated data sets, a range of Hoek-Brown failure parameters 
can be calculated for each data set. The data are saved from GoldSim as a Microsoft Excel. file 
and arranged with corresponding confining pressures so plotting and analysis can be performed. 
The data are further organized so two data sets exist in one row of the spreadsheet. A 
MathCAD. worksheet is used to apply a general fit to the twelve data points that exist in each 
line. These 12 points represent 2 points at each unconfined, tensile, and 5 MPa or 6 MPa, 10 
MPa, and 15 MPa triaxial confining pressures when appropriate. The actual MathCAD sheets to 
calculate these curve fits as well as the data generated by the MathCAD selection process are 
available in Attachment II. The output of one run of analysis can be seen in Figure 8-40. The 
horizontal axis is the minor principal stress (confining pressure), and the vertical axis is axial 
stress (axial stress plus confining pressure). A summary of the data including mean, standard 
deviation, and distribution is also calculated by the MathCAD worksheet in Attachment II. 
Electronic files for the Tptpln lithostratigraphic unit of this calculation are provided in 
Attachment VIII files Tptpln.gsm, Correct Tptpln.xls, Correct Tptpln.mcd and Results of 
MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln Data.xls. Electronic files for the Tptpmn 
lithostratigraphic unit of this calculation are provided in Attachment VIII files Tptpmn Hot.gsm, 
Correct Ttptmn Hot 2.mcd, Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls, and Results of MathCAD General Fit 
Routine for Tptpmn Hot Data.xls. 
Figure 8-41. Result of Data Selection 
After the Hoek-Brown failure criterion for intact rock parameters have been determined, derived 
rock mass parameters for the rock mass can be calculated. The blue line in Figure 8-42 shows 
the Hoek-Brown failure envelope generated for one example of Tptpmn data. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-117 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 8-42. Example of Output of MathCAD Genfit Routine for Set for Data from Tptpmn 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-118 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The results of calculation for the Tptpmn and Tptpln rock units are shown in Figures 8-43 and 844, 
respectively. The results of the calculated Hoek-Brown parameter, mi, calculated unconfined 
compressive strength sc, and the fitting exponent a, are shown in Table 8-39. The results 
presented in Table 8-39 are inputs for calculation of rock mass parameters discussed later in this 
report. 
Table 8-39. Results of Mostyn-Douglas Fitting Routine 
Calculated from MathCAD Fitting Routine 
s
c a mi 
Tptpmn mean 
standard deviation 
119.56 0.47 33.87 
15.99 0.01 6.65 
Tptpln mean 
standard deviation 
153.90 0.48 29.97 
29.63 0.06 7.22 
Figure 8-43. Results of Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope for the Tptpln Unit 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-119 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 8-44. Results of Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope for the Tptpmn Unit 
8.4.4.6 Intact Rock Cohesion and Friction Angle 
The data concerning friction angle and cohesion are from Reference Information Base (RIB) 
item MO0210RIB10000.000 and are estimated using the method that has been used previously 
on the YMP for deriving these parameters. More detail on the cohesion and friction angle are 
available in this RIB item, from which this information was taken. 
The method first requires estimating the confinement factor, N, and unconfined compressive 
strength, sc, from uniaxial (unconfined) and triaxial (confined) results using a linear regression 
analysis fitted to the form: 
s1 = N s3 + sc (Eq. 8-20) 
s
Where:
1 = axial stress, or strength of the rock, at failure (calculated as the differential
s
s
stress + the effective confining pressure);
3 = effective confining pressure (confining pressurepore pressure);
c = unconfined compressive strength;
N = confinement factor.
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-120 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Cohesion, c, and rock friction angle, f, can then be calculated using the following equations: 
s 
c = c (Eq. 8-21)
2 
N 
- o
f= (tan2 1 N - 45 ) (Eq. 8-22) 
For this RIB Data Item, the relevant uniaxial and triaxial results from DTN 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 for each lithostratigraphic unit were used to estimate cohesion and 
friction angle. The selected uniaxial and triaxial results were analyzed using the Regression tool 
in Microsoft Excel. The regression results for the intercept (sc) and X Variable (N) were then 
used in the above to calculate cohesion and friction angle. The results are shown in Table 8-40. 
If triaxial tests are conducted with pore pressure in the specimen (undrained tests), the pore 
pressure will have the effect of reducing the effective confining pressure. Pore pressures can, 
therefore, have a significant impact on the value of N in the equations. Because the data sources 
do not always record whether tests were conducted under drained or undrained conditions or the 
pore pressure, the estimates in Table 8-40 are separated by triaxial test type. Drained or 
corrected tests are either identified as drained tests (no pore pressure) or are undrained tests for 
which a pore pressure value is given. The undrained test results are corrected to give effective 
confining pressures by subtracting the pore pressure from the confining pressure. 
The documentation for unknown tests does not indicate whether the test was drained or 
undrained. These are probably drained tests based on the recollection of the principal investigator 
and the sequence of tests. Some of the estimates shown in Table 8-40 also support the anecdotal 
evidence that these unknown tests were drained 
Undrained tests are those tests that were conducted under undrained conditions without pore 
pressure measurements. In calculating the Coulomb strength parameters, the triaxial test 
confining pressures were added to convert differential stress to strength, but no correction could 
be made for the effects of pore pressure. 
The strength parameters in Table 8-40 are based on all the available triaxial test results given in 
DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 (e.g., no tests were culled from the sample), with the following 
exceptions. The Busted Butte data were treated as a separate data set and the Busted Butte 
uniaxial tests were represented as an average value in the calculations for the (non-Busted Butte) 
Tptpmn and Tptpul zones. To minimize the impact of specimen size, if all the triaxial tests were 
of a single diameter, only uniaxial tests for that diameter were considered in the calculation. 
Specimen diameters or diameter ranges used are indicated in Table 8-40. 
These results should be considered estimated values because of the limited number of triaxial 
tests available. In general, sc (the regression line intercept at zero confining pressure) is better 
constrained by the more numerous UCS Compressive Strength results. However, N (the slope of 
the regression line) is generally controlled by a relatively small number of triaxial tests. The 
triaxial tests are subject to the same variability due to lithologic variation and test conditions that 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-121 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
affect the uniaxial tests. As a result, most of the triaxial tests show a relatively wide scatter. The 
need to segregate drained and undrained tests also has the effect of further reducing the number 
of triaxial tests available for use in estimating the Coulomb strength parameters. The small 
number of tests and the significant variability among test results indicate that there is a relatively 
low confidence in the value of N. These issues can produce unusual results in some cases. For 
example, the values in Table 8-40 for drained Tptpmn samples are anomalous because of the low 
value for N resulting from a small number of triaxial tests with apparently low values. 
Because the method used relies on a linear regression analysis, the results given in Table 8-40 
represent a type of average value for each lithologic zone. For some applications, the relatively 
wide range of compressive strengths (and the corresponding range of Coulomb strength 
parameters) may be more significant than an average value. In any case, users should consider 
the number of triaxial tests and the scatter of values (particularly for zones with very few tests) in 
determining the appropriate use for these results. 
In general, welded tuff zones within the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Springs Tuffs have average 
friction angles varying between 45 and 65 degrees. Average cohesion for these zones is 
generally between 10 MPa and 40 MPa. In contrast, the vitric zones and more porous bedded 
tuff units have much lower friction angles that generally vary between 5 and 35 degrees with 
significantly lower cohesion values (less than 15 MPa). 
Test results can be affected by variations in the following test conditions: saturation, 
temperature, and sample diameter. In general, increases in saturation, and, to a lesser extent 
temperature, resulted in reduced compressive strength. These effects were more pronounced in 
confined (triaxial) tests and when both saturation and temperature were increased. These effects 
also increase with increasing porosity in the test specimen. Increasing test specimen diameter 
also has the effect of generally reducing compressive strength. This is believed to be caused by 
the increased likelihood of larger samples containing lithophysae, pumice/lithic clasts, and small 
fractures that can reduce sample strength. 
By far, the greatest source of variation in the test results is due to the variation within each of the 
lithostratigraphic zones due to changes in porosity; the presence or absence of lithophysae, 
pumice/lithic clasts, and fractures; and other variations in compositional or physical properties. 
Such changes are particularly pronounced in the lithophysal zones. These zones show a broad 
distribution of test results that probably represent samples that either contained no lithophysae or 
contained lithophysae of varying size and number. Depending on their need, individual users 
may use individual test results from DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 or the summarized data in 
this RIB Data Item. In either case, users must consider the impact of lithologic variability in 
applying these results to specific problems. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-122 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-40. Intact Rock Friction Angle and Cohesion 
Formation Lithostratigraphic Unit Triaxial Test 
Type* 
Test Environment Cohesion (C) 
(MPa) 
Friction Angle (f) 
(degrees) 
Tpt Tptpul Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T22 
50.8 mm diam. + 1 
avg. BB value (266 
mm diam. tests) 
7.52 60.06 
Tpt Tptpmn Unknown S100 T22 
25.4-50.8 mm 
diam. 
32.10 55.70 
Tpt Tptpmn Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T22 
25.4-50.8 mm 
diam. 
87.00 9.58 
Tpt Tptpmn Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T150 
50.8 mm diam. 
30.53 52.20 
Tpt Tptpmn 
(Busted Butte) 
Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T22 
50.8 mm diam. only 
28.39 39.25 
Tpt Tptpmn 
(Busted Butte) 
Drained or 
corrected 
S0 T22 
25.4-50.8 mm 
diam. 
21.76 55.04 
Tpt Tptpmn 
(Busted Butte) 
Drained or 
corrected 
S0 T150 
50.8 mm diam. 
16.80 53.79 
Tpt Tptpll Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T22 
25.4-50.8mm diam. 
22.06 46.61 
Tpt Tptpll Undrained S100 T22 
25.4 mm diam. only 
21.00 49.57 
Tpt Tptpln Unknown S100 T22 
50.8 mm diam. only 
22.54 58.21 
Tpt Tptpln Drained or 
corrected 
S100 T22 
50.8 mm diam. only 
26.06 52.44 
Tpt Tptpln Drained or 
corrected 
Sam T22 17.68 66.76 
See text for explanation of categories. Sam indicates ambient saturation, S100 indicates the specimens were 
saturated, T22 indicates the test was performed at 22 degrees Celsius, T150 indicates the test was done at 
150 degrees Celsius. 
Source: Calculated from uniaxial and triaxial test results in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 using the method 
discussed previously in Section 3.5.4.5. 
8.4.5 Elastic and Strength Properties Relationship 
A relationship between strength and elastic properties exists for the brittle tuff that is being 
examined in Sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 of this report. Specimens that have greater strength values 
tend to have higher modulus values than specimens that have lower strength. Figure 8-45 is a 
plot of all 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated under ambient room temperature with a length to 
-1
diameter ratio of 2:1 and a strain rate of 10-5 s. There appears to be a very strong relationship 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-123 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
between modulus and strength, even with a large amount of scatter occurring in the Tptpmn 
specimens. 
Figure 8-46 plots the results of the unconfined compressive strengths of ambient saturation 
specimens to the measured Youngs modulus. A very strong relationship exists and appears to 
be nearly linear for the range of modulus values measured. The relationship between 
unconfined compressive strength and elastic modulus is also quite clear in large lithophysal 
specimens. Figure 8-47 plots UCS versus Youngs modulus for all 267 mm specimens collected 
from the Tptpul. 
Poissons ratio is relatively independent of compressive strength. For all specimens of varying 
physical and environmental conditions there appears to be no direct relationship between 
strength and Poissons ratio. Figure 8-48 is a plot of Poissons ratio versus unconfined 
compressive strength for all 50.8 mm specimens tested saturated under room temperature with a 
-1
length to diameter near 2:1 and at a strain rate of 10-5s. The large scatter in the data occurs 
more so in lithophysal zone specimens (Tptpul and Tptpll) than in nonlithophysal zone 
specimens (Tptpmn and Tptpln). 
Unconfined Conpr essive Strength vs Young's Modulus 
50.8m m Specim ens, Satur ated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
350 
300 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 
Young's Modulus (Gpa) 
Upper Lithophysal Middle Non-Lithophysal Lower Lithophysal Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-45. UCS vs. Young's Modulus (50.8 mm Saturated, Room Temperature) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-124 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Unconfined Conpressive Str ength vs Young's Modulus 
50.8m m Specimens, Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 
300 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
250 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 5 1015202530354045 
Young's Modulus (Gpa) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-46. UCS vs. Youngs Modulus (50.8 mm Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature) 
Unconfined Conpressive Strength vs Young's Modulus 
266.7mm Specim ens, Saturated, Room Temperature, L:D=2:1 
50 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
0 5 10152025 
Young's Modulus (Gpa) 
Upper Lithophysal 
Figure 8-47. UCS vs. Youngs Modulus (267 mm Ambient Saturation, Room Temperature) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-125 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Poisson's Ratio vs Young's Modulus 
50.8m m Specim ens, Saturated, Room Tem perature, L:D=2:1 
Poisson's Ratio 
0.50 
0.45 
0.40 
0.35 
0.30 
0.25 
0.20 
0.15 
0.10 
0.05 
0.00 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 
Source DTN(s) 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 
Unconfined Com pr essive Strength (MPa) 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 
Upper Lithophysal 
Lower Lithophysal 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 
Figure 8-48. Poissons Ratio vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength (50.8 mm Saturated, Room 
Temperature) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-126 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.5 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ROCK MASS 
8.5.1 Factors Impacting Properties of Rock Mass 
Several factors will affect the determination of calculated rock mass properties. Rock mass 
properties are calculated from observed tunnel conditions through geologic mapping and intact 
rock mechanical laboratory testing. Laboratory rock core specimens are generally are rock of 
better condition, as the specimen will be unrecoverable if a sample across a fracture. 
Lithophysae cannot be adequately captured in small diameter specimens that are tested in the 
laboratory, and furthermore, lithophysae are not adequately represented in the empirical 
database. The Q system does not allow for characterization of lithophysal rock mass and 
therefore GSI cannot be determined and carried into other empirical equations used for 
development of rock mass parameters. 
Geologic mapping is performed at the tunnel surface and the surface exposure is not exactly 
what is expected in the rock mass. Mathematical calculations must be made to properly 
determine the size and distribution of lithophysae in a three dimensional sense before the rock 
mass can be appropriately characterized. 
The complications of capturing rock mass characteristics in laboratory strength testing and 
surficial geologic mapping will impact rock mass parameter calculation. 
8.5.2 Rock Mass Elastic Properties 
Traditionally, rock mass elastic and strength properties are primarily derived mathematically 
from intact rock core specimens and from empirical methods accounting for the effects and 
conditions of present joint systems. Laboratory testing of lithophysal and fractured rock mass is 
extremely difficult to perform, as are field testing methods. Attachment IX includes all 
worksheets needed to develop Section 8.5 data. Electronic files Tptpln Final Model.gsm, and 
Tptpmn All Data Final Model.gsm are provided in Attachment VIII. 
8.5.2.1 Hoek-Brown Bulk Rock Failure Parameter, mb 
The Hoek-Brown rock mass parameter determination uses the Geological Strength Index (GSI) 
to characterize rock mass strength (Hoek, Kaiser, and Bawden 2000). The United States Bureau 
of Reclamation and United States Geological Survey personnel collected rock mass classification 
data, using the Q system, in the ESF and ECRB behind the advancing TBM. To apply Q system 
data to estimate the strength of jointed rock masses, the Q parameters related to stress (i.e. Jw and 
SRF) should be set equal to 1, equivalent to a dry rock mass subjected to medium stress 
conditions (Hoek, Kaiser, and Bawden 2000) such that 
GSI = ln( * 9 Qp ) + 44 (Eq. 8-23) 
Where 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-127 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
.
.
.
..
J
J
RQD
..
=
..
..
Q
p 
(Eq. 8-24) 
r

J
.
n 
a 
RQD = rock quality designation 
Jn = joint set number 
Jr = joint roughness number 
Ja = joint alteration number 
The material constants of the Hoek-Brown Criterion, mb, s, and a are given by 
GSI
-
100 
exp
..
. 
..
. 
(Eq. 8-25) 
m 
m
=
b 
i 
D
28
-
14 
GSI
-
100 
exp
..
. 
..
. 
(Eq. 8-26) 
s
=
D
9
-
3 
1 
1 
15 
GSI 
3 
20
-
-
..
. 
...
-
(Eq. 8-27)
+
a 
e 
e
=
26 
Where mi 
is a value determined from the MathCAD generalized best-fit curve fitting of the 
tensile, uniaxial compressive, and triaxial compressive data of the data for the intact rock (see 
Section 8.4.4.5). The input, D, is a factor that depends on the degree of disturbance to which the 
rock mass has been subjected to blast damage and stress relaxation (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and 
Corkum 2002). The disturbance factor, D, is 0 for mechanically excavated tunnels in the 
Exploratory Studies Facility. 
Bartons Q system data is needed to determine the parameter Qp that is used to determine GSI, 
which in turns is used as an input for calculation of mb, s, and a presented above. The actual data 
collected from the tunnel is discussed in Section 8.9.4.1. The discrete Q system inputs used in 
the GoldSim calculation model are shown in Figures 8-49 and 8-50. The values of Jn, Ja, and Jr 
are discrete values as the system only allows selection of integer values to describe a joint 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-128 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
condition. 
lue lue 
y 
Mean 
0 
Max 99 
RQD Value Jn VaJa VaJr Value 
Probability 
Probability 
Probability 
60.54 
St. Dev 16.95 
Min 
Figure 8-49. Q Inputs for Tptpmn from Tunnel Observations 
y 
67 
18 
5 
99 
RQD Value Jn Value Ja Value Jr Value 
Probability 
Probability 
Probability 
Mean 
St. Dev 
MinMax 
Figure 8-50. Q Inputs for Tptpln from Tunnel Observations 
The RQD distribution for the Tptpmn (Figure 8-49) data is assumed to be normal, as the 
histogram of observed values resembles a normal distribution. The RQD distribution for the 
Tptpln data appears to be closer to a beta distribution with the majority of the values centered 
near 67. 
Section 8.4.4.5 discusses the development of the input parameter, mi, for the Tptpmn and Tptpln 
units. Table 8-39 presents the mean and standard deviation of the calculated results of this input 
parameter needed for the calculation of mb. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-129 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
An intermediate step to determining mb is the calculation of the geologic strength index, GSI. To 
determine the stochastic distribution of results, 10,000 realizations were completed in GoldSim 
to determine the distribution of the values presented in Section 8.4.4.5. The distribution of GSI 
appears nearly normal for the Tptpmn unit with a mean value of 59.03 for the Tptpmn unit and 
64.84 for the Tptpln unit. The distribution of GSI for the Tptpmn and Tptpln units are presented 
in Figures 8-51 and 8-52, respectively. The distribution of results for the Tptpln is influenced by 
the non-uniform distribution of RQD and the more frequent likelihood of selecting a larger value 
of Jr and a smaller value of Jn than in the Tptpmn inputs. 
GSI 
Probability 
Figure 8-51. Distribution of GSI Results for the Tptpmn Unit 
GSI 
Probability 
Figure 8-52. Distribution of GSI Results for the Tptpln Unit 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-130 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Once GSI has been calculated, the parameter mb can be calculated. Figure 8-53 shows the 
distribution of the values calculated for the Tptpmn unit along with a table showing the 
cumulative probability results. Figure 8-54 shows the distribution of results for the rock unit 
Tptpln. The median value for mb is calculated to be 7.72 for the Tptpmn unit and the median is 
slightly less at 7.70 for the Tptpln unit. 
mb 
Probability 
Figure 8-53. Results of mb Calculation for Tptpmn 
mb 
Probability 
Figure 8-54. Results of mb Calculation for Tptpln 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-131 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.5.2.2 Rock Mass Modulus of Deformability 
The rock mass modulus of deformability is calculated as follows (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and 
Corkum 2002): 
(GSI -10)
D .
E
m =..
1 - 
2 ..
10 40 for sci > 100 MPa (Eq. 8-28)
. 
(GSI -10)
D .
Em =..
1 -.
s
ci 10 40 for sci =100 MPa (Eq. 8-29)
. 2 .100 
Where Em is the rock mass modulus of deformation in GPa and sci is the intact rock uniaxial 
compressive strength in MPa. 
For each realization in the calculation, one input value is selected and is carried entirely through 
the calculation. To calculate the rock mass elastic modulus a set of input values are selected and 
a value of GSI is calculated; Section 8.5.2.1 discusses the calculation of GSI. A value of intact 
rock compressive strength is selected and used to determine which formula will be applied to 
calculate the rock mass modulus. The input values for intact rock compressive strength, sc are 
calculated in MathCAD as discussed in Section 8.4.4.5 and Attachment II. The results of 
calculating the rock mass modulus for units Tptpmn and Tptpln, Em, are presented in Figures 855 
and 8-56, respectively. The median rock mass modulus for the Tptpmn was 16.74 GPa and 
the median for the Tptpln unit was 23.43 GPa. 
The rock mass modulus for the lithophysal rock are developed using the Particle Flow Code 
(PFC) which is discussed in Section 9.2. Modulus values determined for lithophysal rock are 
from field-scale testing such as plate load testing and slot-tests, numerical modeling, as well as 
large sample testing. The results and explanation of the field-testing is done in Section 8.8 of 
this report. 
Figure 8-57 is a diagram showing the relationship in GoldSim between inputs and calculations 
and the calculations which those calculation feed inputs. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-132 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
(
ility 
Rock Mass ModulusGPa) 
Probab
Figure 8-55. Calculated Rock Mass Modulus Distribution for Tptpmn 
(
ility 
Rock Mass ModulusGPa) 
Probab
Figure 8-56. Calculated Rock Mass Modulus Distribution for Tptpln 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-133 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 8-57. GoldSim Calculation Relational Figure 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-134 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.5.2.3 Rock Mass Poissons Ratio 
Measuring rock mass deformation to determine Rock mass Poissons ratio is assumed to be 
represented by the intact rock test results. For all calculations, the value selected was 0.21. This 
value was selected as it is the mean value for all lithophysal specimens tested. This value is 
slightly more conservative than the mean value for all nonlithophysal samples, which was 0.19. 
The distribution of Poissons ratio for all tested samples without regard to size, saturation, or 
temperature is shown below in Figure 8-58. 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
iio 
0% 
ii0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
io 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Poisson's Ratio of All Lithophysal Laboratory 
Specimens 
0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
0.50 
More 
Posson's RatFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Percentage 
Mean = 0.21 
Posson's Rato of All Non-Lithophysal Laboratory 
Specimens 
100 
120 
0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
0.50More 
Poisson's RatFrequency 
100% 
Percentage 
Mean = 0.19 
Figure 8-58. Distribution of Poisson's Ratio 
8.5.3 Rock Mass Strength Properties 
8.5.3.1 Rock Mass Compressive Strength 
The rock mass compressive strength for nonlithophysal rock is calculated using the Hoek-Brown 
method. The uniaxial rock mass compressive strength, sc, (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 
2002) assuming the minor stress is zero is defined as: 
a
s=sci s (Eq. 8-30) 
c 
The global rock mass compressive strength, scm, (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002) is 
determined as: 
a-1
.
(
(m + 4s - m a b -8s))..
m 
4b + s .
b 
cm (
. (Eq. 8-31) 
s=sci  
1 2 + a)(2 +
. 
a) 
The rock mass compressive strength for lithophysal rock is determined from available laboratory 
testing on large rock cores from drilling in the ECRB Cross-Drift and from data collected from in 
situ slot testing. This will be compared to values of rock mass strength determined from the 
Particle Flow Code (PFC). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-135 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Section 8.5.2.1 discusses the development of the intermediate calculation of s and a. 
Distribution of the calculated values of uniaxial rock mass compressive strength, sc, is shown in 
Figures 8-59 and 8-60. The median value of uniaxial rock mass compressive strength is 11.90 
MPa for the Tptpmn unit and 21.02 for the Tptpln unit. 
()
ility 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compressive StrengthMPaProbab
Figure 8-59. Distribution of Calculated Rock Mass Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive Strength for 
Tptpmn 
() 
ility 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compressive StrengthMPaProbab
Figure 8-60. Distribution of Calculated Rock Mass Uniaxial Rock Mass Compressive Strength for 
Tptpln 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-136 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The global rock mass strength for Tptpmn and Tptpmn are also calculated and the results are 
presented in Figures 8-61 and 8-62. The median values of global rock mass compressive 
strength is 44.42 MPa for the Tptpmn and 57.52 MPa for the Tptpln rock unit. Both results 
appear to be near normal distribution. 
) 
Global Rock Mass Compressive 
Strength (MPaProbability 
Figure 8-61. Distribution of Calculated Global Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpmn 
() 
Global Rock Mass Compressive 
StrengthMPaProbability 
Figure 8-62. Distribution of Calculated Global Rock Mass Compressive Strength for Tptpln 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-137 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.5.3.2 Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum (2002) suggest that the rock mass tensile strength, st, can 
be calculated by: 
s t =- s s ci 
(Eq. 8-32)
mb 
The rock mass tensile strength is expected to be lower than the intact rock tensile strength as the 
nonlithophysal rock units tends to contain joints, fractures, voids, and imperfections. A 
condition of biaxial tension is assumed to calculate the rock mass tensile strength. Hoek has 
shown that for brittle materials such as the nonlithophysal rock found in the Topopah Spring 
Tuff of Yucca Mountain, the uniaxial tensile strength is equal to the biaxial tensile strength. A 
condition of biaxial stress occurs when the major and minor principal stress are equal and also 
equal to the tensile strength. 
Figure 8-63 shows the distribution of the calculated rock mass tensile strength for the Tptpmn 
rock unit. Figure 8-64 shows the distribution of the results for the Tptpln unit. The median 
value for the Tptpmn is 0.16 MPa and is a skewed normal distribution with a maximum tensile 
strength less than 0.8 MPa. The median rock mass tensile strength for Tptpln is 0.38, 
considerably higher than the Tptpmn unit. The distribution also appears to be normal, skewed 
toward zero. 
8.5.3.3 Rock Mass Cohesion and Friction Angle 
Mohr-Coulomb Criterion can be calculated from the following equations as suggested by Hoek, 
Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002. An alternative method to the approach of determining rock 
mass properties presented in this section is explained in Attachment III of this report. This 
alternate tunnel-specific method can be used to determine the cohesion and friction angle of the 
rock mass for specific tunnel applications. 
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is determined by fitting an average linear relationship to the 
curve generated by solving the general fit equation for a range of minor principal stress values 
defined by s t<s 3<s 3max. The frictional component, f, is calculated by 
a- 1 .
. 6amb ( s + m s ' )
- 1 b 3n
f ' = sin . 
. 12 + a)( 2 + a)+ 6am ( s + m s ' ) a- 1 ..
. (Eq. 8-33)
.( bb 3n 
And the cohesive component, c, is calculated by: 
a- 1
) )
s [( 1 + 2 sa + (1- ma s ' ]( s + m s ' ) 
(Eq. 8-34)
ci b 3nb 3n
c' = 
.
bb 3n
( 1 + a)( 2 + a) 1 +
.
.( 6am ( s + m s ' ) a- 1 )
(( 1 + a)( 2 + a)).
.
. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-138 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
)
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPaProbability 
Figure 8-63. Distribution of calculated Rock Mass Tensile Strength for Tptpmn 
) 
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPaProbability 
Figure 8-64. Distribution of calculated Rock Mass Tensile Strength for Tptpln 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-139 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Where: 
s' max 3 
=
s
s'3n 
ci (Eq. 8-35) 
and 
s' max 3 =
sci (Eq. 8-36)
4 
The development of the maximum confining stress for deep tunnels is done with an assumption 
that a failure zone for the tunnel does not extend to the surface (Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and 
Corkum 2002). The stress range for Mohr-Coulomb parameter development in Hoeks general 
method of rock mass parameters is from the rock mass tensile strength to one quarter the strength 
of the intact rock strength as shown in Equation 8-36 (Hoek, Carranza, Corkum 2002). The 
median calculated Mohr-Coulomb rock mass cohesion for the Tptpmn is 9.53 GPa and the 
median Mohr-Coulomb cohesion is 12.40 MPa for the Tptpln rock unit. The results of 
calculation for the Tptpmn unit is shown in Figure 8-65, and the results for calculation of 
cohesion for the Tptpln rock unit is presented in Figure 8-66. 
The Mohr-Coulomb internal angle of rock mass friction for the Tptpmn and Tptpln units are 
calculated as stated earlier in this section. The median internal angle of rock mass friction for the 
Tptpmn unit has been calculated to be 43.64 and the median internal angle of rock mass friction 
has been calculated to be 43.55 for the Tptpln rock unit. The distributions and cumulative 
probabilities of occurrence are presented in Figures 8-67 and 8-68. 
The range of stress over which the Mohr-Coulomb rock mass internal angle of friction is defined 
by Hoek, Carranza-Torres and Corkum (2002) in the general case to be between the ranges of 
tensile strength and maximum minor principal stress of one quarter the intact rock compressive 
strength. This upper limit of Mohr-Coulomb parameter development is generally near 30 MPa 
for the Tptpmn data and 39 MPa for Tptpln rock mass. The rock mass tensile strength has been 
calculated to be quite low (see Section 8.5.3.2) and will generally occur between 0.5 MPa and 0 
MPa. An increase in maximum horizontal stress will cause the friction angle to decrease and the 
cohesion to increase. The values calculated are calculated at a stress level approximately that of 
a heated drift. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-140 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
-() 
ility 
MohrCoulomb Cohesion MPaProbab
Figure 8-65. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Cohesion for Tptpmn 
-()MohrCoulomb Cohesion MPaProbability 
Figure 8-66. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Cohesion for Tptpln 
)
Rock Mass Angle of Internal 
Friction (DegreesProbability 
Figure 8-67. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Internal Angle of Friction for Tptpmn 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-141 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
)
Rock Mass Angle of Internal 
Friction (DegreesProbability 
Figure 8-68. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Internal Angle of Friction for Tptpln 
The cohesion and friction angle for the lithophysal rock will be determined based on large 
diameter core testing and on UDEC numeric modeling. Further information on this approach is 
discussed in Section 9.2 of this report. 
8.5.3.4 Rock Mass Dilation Angle 
Rock mass dilation angle is again another parameter, which is extremely difficult to measure 
with meaning. All calculations and models requiring rock mass dilation angle have used an input 
value of 0. This is the most conservative situation and requires all dilation to be the effect of 
joint mobilization. 
8.5.4 Rock Mass Parameters Summary 
Tables 8-41 and 8-42 present the calculated rock mass parameters for the nonlithophysal units 
Tptpmn and Tptpln. The values in the table below are extracted from Sections 8.4.2.1 through 
8.5.3.4 of this report.
Five rock quality categories are presented in Tables 8-41 and 8-42. Each category presented 
represents a value at a percent of the cumulative probability results of the calculation of the given 
property. Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 correspond to 10%, 30%, 50% (the median), 70%, and 
90%, respectively. Values at all other cumulative probabilities than those listed are available in 
the GoldSim file, which calculated these results. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-142 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-41. Summary of Rock Mass Parameters for Tptpmn 
Rock Quality Category 
Tptpmn 1 2 3 4 
Associated Cumulative Probability 
5 
10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Cohesion (MPa) c 7.60 8.69 9.53 10.39 11.75 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Internal Angle of Friction 
(Degrees) 
f 40.15 42.29 43.64 44.92 46.66 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compression Strength (MPa) 
sc 7.10 9.70 11.90 14.64 19.25 
Global Rock Mass 
Compressive Strength (MPa) 
scm 33.50 39.67 44.42 49.50 57.71 
Rock Mass Elastic Modulus 
(GPa) E m 10.25 13.66 16.74 20.23 26.18 
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPa) 
st 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.32 
Modified Rock Mass Quality 
Parameter Q p 2.05 3.59 5.31 7.67 12.58 
Geologic Strength Index GSI 50.48 55.49 59.03 62.33 66.79 
Rock Mass Dilation Angle 
(Degrees) 0 0 0 0 0 
Table 8-42. Summary of Rock Mass Parameters for Tptpln 
Rock Quality Category 
Tptpln 12345 
Associated Cumulative Probability 
10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Cohesion (MPa) c 9.08 10.99 12.40 13.82 16.02 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Internal Angle of Friction 
(Degrees) 
f 34.98 42.14 43.55 44.80 46.44 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compression Strength (MPa) sc 13.51 17.78 21.02 24.36 29.69 
Global Rock Mass 
Compressive Strength (MPa) 
scm 40.31 50.01 57.52 65.29 77.46 
Rock Mass Elastic Modulus 
(GPa) E m 16.33 20.66 23.43 26.02 29.05 
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPa)* 
st 0.21 0.30 0.38 0.48 0.69 
Modified Rock Mass Quality 
Parameter Q p 5.05 7.95 10.13 12.42 15.29 
Geologic Strength Index GSI 58.58 62.65 64.84 66.67 68.55 
Rock Mass Dilation Angle 
(Degrees) 0 0 0 0 0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-143 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.6 ROCK FRACTURE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES 
8.6.1 General 
The characterization of mechanical properties of host rock discontinuities has direct relevance to 
repository design and the pre- and post-closure performance assessment. It is commonly 
accepted that a testing program using laboratory-scale rock specimens is insufficient in providing 
information about behavior of the rock mass containing discontinuities. Characteristics of 
discontinuities are an important component of input to the major rock mass classification 
systems and tunnel rockfall analysis. Methods and results of rock joint characterization used by 
the Yucca Mountain Project are summarized in this Section. 
Discontinuities at Yucca Mountain consist of joints, fractures and faults; however, the term 
fracture will be used in discussing the mechanical behavior of discontinuity types. The 
fracture behaviors considered in this report encompass fracture strength (cohesion, friction 
angle), dilation, and elastic normal and shear stiffness. Strength values may be determined at 
peak, ultimate, or residual strength values. Peak refers to the maximum shear stress, 
ultimate the steady-state shear stress reached with continued shearing, and residual the 
lower-bound shear strength when damage has removed all asperities. These terms are defined 
more completely below and may be different than those found in the supporting lab reports (e.g., 
rotary shear testing reports residual values which are defined in this report as ultimate 
values). Laboratory testing to determine fracture behavior has been carried out using rotary 
shear and direct shear equipment. 
In general, including all the fracture test data currently available, the Yucca Mountain Project has 
not yet produced reliable expected value estimates or ranges of fracture strength or stiffness 
parameters for the main joint sets of the modeled repository host horizon (RHH) geologic units. 
This is due to the limited number of fractures tested, and the lack of a testing plan designed to 
quantify effects of significant factors. 
8.6.2 Assessment of Factors Impacting Yucca Mountain Mechanical Fracture Properties 
To make proper use of rock fracture parameters, the fracture behavior should be adequately 
understood and broken down in terms of factors affecting the mechanical fracture properties. In 
general, fracture stiffness and shear behavior depends on (1) physical characteristics of the 
fracture, (2) the theoretical factors involved with the physics of behavior, (3) environmental 
conditions, and (4) the testing equipment and procedural techniques employed. Each of these 
categories will be discussed briefly below, both in general and with specific reference to fracture 
tests on Yucca Mountain RHH rock. 
8.6.2.1 Physical Characteristics 
Important physical factors are (1) fracture roughness, (2) specimen size (scale effect), (3) 
mineralogy of surface sheared and (4) the presence and nature of filling material in the fracture. 
Typically, different rock joint sets or fault surfaces in the same rock unit may have different 
fracture behavior so it is important to report fracture properties by fracture type. Currently there 
is insufficient Yucca Mountain joint testing data to adequately summarize fracture properties by 
fracture type. A lessor physical factor that is not considered in the current data is shearing 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-144 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
direction. Typically, virgin shearing of the same fracture in different directions will give 
different results (fracture anisotropy). 
Roughness. A rock fracture consists of two opposite surfaces, each having a complex 
topography of asperities. This roughness morphology of the rock is characterized by asperities 
of varying size and an underlying waviness that varies at different scales and in different 
directions. All experimental findings have shown that fracture roughness is the critical factor to 
be considered as part of the mechanical and hydraulic behavior of rock fractures. In practice, 
roughness of rock fractures is measured by means of line profilometry, compass and disc 
clinometry, and photogrammetry. But perhaps the most widely used quantitative measure of 
fracture roughness is the JRC value or Joint Roughness Coefficient (Barton and Choubey 1977; 
Duan 2003, Sections 2.1, 4.2-4.3, and 5.2). JRC is usually determined by means of empirical 
correlations with empirical tilt tests of laboratory samples. Proper use of JRC includes a scale-
effect correction to the laboratory measurements by roughness measurements at a larger field 
scale. 
Yucca Mountain subvertical cooling fractures are relatively smooth while horizontal vapor-phase 
partings (VPP) are much rougher (see Section 5.3.3.2). Rotary test results are not broken down 
by fracture type and the profilometer measurements made do not give a clear picture of fracture 
roughness (no JRC values were reported, but rough JRC estimates could be made from those 
samples including a profile height trace). The recent direct shear tests (reported in Section 
8.6.4.2) suggest that the angle of friction of the rougher VPP fractures (3 samples, mean JRC 
value of 14) is about 10 degrees higher than that of the subvertical cooling fractures (2 samples, 
mean JRC value of 2). Cohesion of cooling fractures is approximately zero with VPP fractures 
having higher values. Dilation angles during shear were 14 and 2 degrees, respectively, for VPP 
fractures and subvertical cooling fractures. Even though these results confirm the expectation 
that rougher joints have higher friction angle and dilation behavior, caution must be exercised 
adopting quantitative results with only five total shear tests. It is expected that rougher joints will 
result in lower normal stiffness values due to the larger variation in asperity size. Direct shear 
stiffness results did not reveal any dependence on roughness, however, too few data points exist 
to make valid conclusions. 
Scale. The roughness morphology of rock fractures is scale dependent and anisotropic. 
Adequate characterization and then modeling of surface roughness remains a challenging area of 
rock mechanics. For site-specific rock fractures at Yucca Mountain, there is an insufficient 
amount of test data to determine the scale effects of fracture properties. The direct shear tests 
have an average shear area of roughly 0.04 m2 (60 in2, Section 8.6.4.2, Table 8-46) while rotary 
shear sample area was typically 0.0012 m2 (1.9 in2, Section 8.6.3.1). Fracture strength 
parameters from the two types of tests gave values in the same range (Sections 8.6.4.1 and 
8.6.4.2). Shear stiffness values from rotary shear tests were substantially higher; unfortunately, 
the two types of testing involved too many different variables to make valid comparisons of 
parameters (Sections 8.6.5.1 and 8.6.5.2). Even though direct shear test areas ranged from 0.015 
m (23 in2) to 0.058 m2 (90 in2), an insufficient number of tests are available to draw any 
definitive conclusions (Section 8.6.4.2, Table 8-46). 
Dilatancy. Dilatancy denotes the overall increase in separation between two fracture surfaces 
during shearing and is measured by fracture normal displacement. Dilatancy is a function of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-145 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
fracture roughness. During shearing of initially mated fracture surfaces, the asperities of 
opposite surfaces are forced to slide and ride up and over one another, increasing fracture normal 
displacement (dilation). Upon reversing the shear direction, the opposite behavior is typically 
observed and the normal displacement of the fracture decreases (compaction). The rate of 
dilatancy depends on both the geometry and strength of the interacting asperities. Given shear 
tests of identical fractures, an increasing normal load will result in less dilation due to increased 
shearing and damage to asperities. 
Mineralogy and Infilling. Common Yucca Mountain fracture surfaces include dense fine-
grained matrix groundmass material, porous rim material, and fractures coated with vapor-phase 
minerals. If the fracture is a veinlet, stringer, or vapor-phase parting, then the fracture material 
contains rim and vapor-phase mineral materials. Deposition of vapor-phase minerals such as 
tridymite may fill the entire fracture. The more completely the fracture is filled with vapor-phase 
mineral deposits, the closer it will be to testing the strength of 0.1-to-2-mm grain-sized tridymite, 
which may have a strength similar to a moderately to well cemented (quartz) sandstone. Given 
that vapor-phase minerals and rim material are typically much weaker, more compressible and 
may have a different roughness than the matrix groundmass, different Yucca Mountain fractures 
may exhibit significant differences in fracture behavior. White vapor-phase minerals were 
observed on fracture surfaces in the color photographs of all three VPP direct shear specimens; 
similar photos for the two subvertical cooling joints are inconclusive. 
On the other hand, other fractures are filled with minerals such as alkali feldspar and cristobalite 
or quartz that may approach strengths similar to the host rock. Another type of potentially strong 
fracture is an incipient type, for example, a streak where vapor migrated through the rock 
resulting in a trail of spherulites that crystallized in the presence of vapor. In this case the 
fracture will likely have a mineral composition similar to the host rock but with slightly 
different crystalline structure. Still other fractures, typically not within the repository host 
horizon units, have aqueously deposited minerals such as calcite, opal and chalcedony. 
The occurrence of mineral coatings and infilling is very similar in both the Cross Drift and the 
ESF. The presence or absence of mineral fillings and coatings for each discontinuity was noted 
in the comments section of the Detailed Line Surveys for each excavation. Table 8-43 shows the 
percentage of calcite, opal, manganese oxide, and vapor-phase mineralization as infilling 
according to lithology for the Cross Drift and the ESF. More information related to the general 
mineralogy of fractures will be available in the USBR/USGS Analysis of Fractures and 
Lithophysae in the Proposed Repository Host Horizon report, available in 2004. 
Unfortunately, no testing has been conducted by the YMP to identify the effect of mineralogy or 
fillings on fracture properties, so there is currently insufficient information to examine this 
effect. Initial fracture strengths may be significantly different from fracture strengths after 
shearing has occurred along a given fracture. Shearing damage of fracture asperities and 
minerals would lead to the aggregation of damaged fines within the fracture. Given the weak 
nature and thickness of vapor-phase material, shearing could also result in significantly widened 
fracture apertures and much smoother fracture surfaces. No shear tests have been conducted to 
determine the mechanical behavior of fractures containing damaged material or to quantify the 
amount of damaged material that may result from shearing various types of fractures. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-146 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-43. Percentage of Calcite, Opal, Manganese Oxide, and Vapor-phase Minerals as Infilling 
Lithology % Calcite % Opal % MnO2 
% Vapor Phase 
Mineralization No Infilling % 
Tptpul 17.0 (11.3) 0.5 (2.1) 5.9 (10.0) 49.1 (52.1) 37.8 (12.1) 
Tptpmn 11.5 (18.7) 0.2 (0.3) 24.4 (59.7) 84.0 (21.0) 8.0 (6.8) 
Tptpll 1.6 0.6 14.3 46.7 37.8 
Tptpln 1.0 0 41.4 49.5 25.2 
Source: Mongano, et. al. 1999, Table 5 
Note: Numbers represent percentages from the ECRB. Numbers in parenthesis are percentages from the ESF for the 
same lithology. 
Recommended Fracture Descriptions. For Yucca Mountain fractures the following is a listing 
of physical fracture features that should be adequately identified and described before a summary 
of their mechanical fracture behavior can be considered complete. First, determine the fracture 
type (correlated with joint set): early cooling fracture, post-crystallization cooling fracture or 
tertiary fracture. Second, identify whether the fracture is open or filled by minerals. Next, 
determine the mineralogy of the fracture coating or filling. Lastly, measure the roughness of the 
fracture (at lab and field scales) including an estimate of JRC value. 
8.6.2.2 Theoretical Factors 
Over the past few decades, researchers across the globe have studied discontinuity shearing and 
stiffness behavior using both empirical approaches and considering fundamental principles of 
physics. Some effects known to influence fracture behavior significantly include: (1) magnitude 
of normal stress, (2) shear strain damage history and (3) the nature of shear loading. 
Normal Stress. Fracture shear strength, dilation angle, ultimate strength, residual strength and 
stiffness behavior are all known to be a function of the applied normal stress on the fracture. 
Since a number of important dependencies exist and only relatively few total tests on site-
specific joints have been performed, currently, a quantification of the normal stress effect would 
have large uncertainties associated with it. On the Yucca Mountain project shear strength is 
assumed to be a linear function of normal stress and is described by the cohesion and angle of 
friction parameters summarized below. With increasing normal stress the same joint is expected 
to dilate less under shear. One major reason for this behavior is that instead of sliding up and 
over each other, more of the asperities are sheared off. Normal stiffness increases rapidly with 
joint closure, and rougher joints usually have lower stiffness values for the same normal stress 
due to more asperity interactions. Shear stiffness is also known to increase with normal stress, 
all other things being equal. 
Damage. During shearing, asperities are damaged which typically results in lower roughness 
values. Accordingly, joint behavior is a function of the amount of damage or plastic shear-strain 
damage history, which is part of the mechanical degradation of a fracture. For the Yucca 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-147 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Mountain project this effect is quantified by analyzing the transition from peak strength to 
ultimate strength of fractures. For the rotary shear tests of room temperature fractures, the 
results showed a decrease of ultimate friction angle and the heated fracture friction angle 
remained about the same (Section 8.6.4.1, Table 8-44). A number of the fractures were still 
dilating at the reported ultimate value, so the true ultimate angle was likely not reached. The 
degraded direct-shear cooling-fracture results did not show any decrease in friction angle 
(Section 8.6.4.1, Tables 8-47 and 8-48). The direct shear test results for VPP degraded joints did 
not reach ultimate values so no conclusions can be drawn. No quantification of damage before 
and after the shear test (e.g., post-shear measure of roughness or weight of damaged material in 
sheared joint) was undertaken in either the rotary or direct shear tests. Besides behavioral 
changes due to roughness damage, shearing may also lead to different mineralogies being in 
contact with one another, for instance a weak mineral coating is worn away. 
Shear Loading. The nature of shear loading (quasi-static, cyclic, dynamic) can have a 
significant impact on joint behavior. In particular, one-way (load-unload) and two-way (load-
unload-reverse direction load-unload) cyclic tests on a joint may result in substantially different 
levels of damage and shear response. Some cycles of shear loading were carried out in the rotary 
shear tests, but these results have not been analyzed or used. 
8.6.2.3 Environmental Factors 
Significant environmental factors that may affect fracture behavior include: (1) rock moisture 
content or degree of saturation, (2) temperature and (3) time degradation of the fracture surfaces. 
Saturation. All fractures were stored and tested in a low humidity condition. Although it may be 
possible to infer some fracture behavior based on the saturation effect on intact mechanical rock 
properties, no direct information is available on the effect of water content on fracture behavior. 
Temperature. Eight nonlithophysal fracture samples were tested in rotary shear at high 
temperature (175 deg C) and eight more were tested at room temperature (not the same samples). 
Ignoring other factors, the results show that maximum tangent shear stiffness may decrease with 
increasing temperature (Section 8.6.5.1, Table 8-51). The effect of temperature on other fracture 
effects and parameters is inconclusive. 
Degradation. Degradation (chemical or mechanical) of the joint asperities is expected to lead to: 
(a) increased values of normal stiffness bounded by the intact rock normal stiffness, (b) 
decreased shear stiffness, (c) decreased cohesion values bounded by zero, (d) a decreased angle 
of friction bounded by the ultimate value and (e) decreased dilation bounded by zero. The 
mechanical degradation results of rotary and direct shearing of fractures provides some evidence 
for degraded values of cohesion, friction angle and maximum dilation angle (Sections 8.6.4.1 
and 8.6.4.2). Test data to estimate joint normal stiffness were not provided for the degraded 
fractures. The impact of shear degradation on shear stiffness from rotary and direct shear test 
data has not been evaluated yet. 
8.6.2.4 Equipment and Procedural Factors 
Fracture behavior is strongly influenced by: (1) type of shear device, (2) measurement 
techniques, and (3) procedures followed during testing and data reduction. Proper 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-148 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
characterization of fracture behavior necessitates measurements of the fracture interface zone, 
which physically involves the interactions between asperities. 
Type of Shear Device. Some limitations of rotary and direct shear test equipment are discussed 
next in Section 8.6.3 and in Olsson 1987, Section 1.1. It is assumed that both types of shearing 
devices give comparable results. Both types of test devices are capable of producing acceptable 
elastic normal and shear stiffness results. Peak shear strength values may vary somewhat 
between the two devices, and ultimate strength values are expected to be similar provided 
ultimate values are reached during testing. 
Measurement Techniques. In characterizing fracture behavior it is advantageous to use 
specialized instrumentation in order to measure joint deformations as opposed to joint plus rock 
deformations. Numerical modeling of fractures encompasses only joint behavior, not a mixture 
of intact rock and fracture behavior. Both normal and shear deformations should be decomposed 
as follows to properly quantify fracture parameters (adapted from Olsson 1987, Section 1.2.1): 
tr m
du = du + du f + du f + du (Eq. 8-37)
ee p 
where u = displacement, t = total relative motion measured in shear device, r = intact rock 
r
adjacent to fracture, f = fracture, m = machine, e = elastic, p = plastic and dup is assumed 
negligible. Practically, dut is measured in a shear device and is corrected by calibration of 
dum and determination of the elastic components. Elastic deformations corrected for test device 
deformation are used to determine stiffness values. Plastic deformations or slip should be plotted 
and used to model fracture shear behavior. It is not clear if and how corrections were employed 
in the reported rotary and direct shear test results. 
Testing and Data Reduction Procedures. Detailed procedures followed in specimen 
recovery/storage, sample preparation, testing and data reduction should be known and carefully 
considered in characterizing fracture behavior. For example, determination of normal stiffness 
from the first cycle of loading gives substantially weaker results than using a loading curve after 
repeated cycles of loading have been performed to eliminate the hysteresis affect. Cycles of 
loading to mate a fracture also influence determinations of shear stiffness and shear behavior. In 
the rotary shear tests, one cycle of normal loading/unloading was performed before the fracture 
was loaded in preparation of the shear test. In the direct shear tests, an undocumented nominal 
load was used to help mate the fracture surfaces. How well the natural fracture is mated and the 
shearing direction can influence fracture behavior. However, these effects were not studied. 
8.6.3 Experimental Methods 
Two types of shear devices have been used to investigate site-specific Yucca Mountain natural 
fractures. Sandia National Laboratory personnel conducted rotary shear tests on fracture samples 
mostly from vertical boreholes drilled in the 1990s and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
performed five direct shear tests on samples taken from horizontal drill holes in the ECRB in 
2002. These tests of fractures from the Repository Host Horizon (RHH) lithostratigraphic units 
are described in this section. Additional rotary shear tests were performed on units outside of the 
RHH and a summary of these results will appear in the next revision of this report. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-149 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.6.3.1 Rotary Shear Tests 
Sandia National Laboratories performed rotary shear tests on 22 natural fractures within the 
RHH taken from drill holes USW-NRG-6, USW-SD-7, USW-SD-9, USW-SD-12 and ESF-
TMA-MPBX-3. Six samples were from lithophysal rock (one Tptpul and five Tptpll) and 16 
were nonlithophysal rock units (nine Tptpmn and seven Tptpln). All samples were taken from 
intact core pieces, the largest of which was approximately 76 mm (3 in) diameter, so larger scale 
roughness and any effects of lithophysae were not represented in these tests. All of the 
lithophysal rock tests were performed at room temperature. Eight of the nonlithophysal samples 
were tested at room temperature while the other eight were tested at 175 C. The data for the 22 
tests are reported in DTNs: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.002, 
SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006 (CIRS #004376 
submitted; corrected information used in this calculation report), and SNL02112293001.007. 
No physical descriptions were given of the fractures and no pictures were taken, so it is not 
possible to identify the type of fracture (vapor-phase parting (VPP), etc). It may be possible to 
examine the photos of core to get an idea of the fracture type. Only some samples have a profile 
height plot provided. Also, no description was provided about whether vapor-phase crystals or 
minerals were present on the fracture and the damaged material created by shearing was not 
analyzed or retained. 
Profilometer measurements were taken but the reported fractal surface roughness values are not 
helpful in classifying the fractures in terms of joint set. The precondition to use fractal 
dimension in characterizing roughness is that the topographical patterns of the fracture surface is 
self-affine. This means that the topographical patterns of rock joints are the same at all scales 
(the rule of self-similarity). However, this conflicts with the observed scale-dependency of the 
fracture surface roughness. Moreover, there is a uniqueness problem in that the same fractal 
roughness parameters may be provided for measured statistically equivalent fracture 
morphologies, but the fractures have different physical properties. This may arise due to the 
randomness of the asperity distributions and the uncertainties inherent in asperity measurements. 
Preliminary efforts to correlate reported fractal roughness parameters to JRC values have not 
been successful. 
The rotary testing followed no published procedure, however the testing was based on a 
proposed ASTM procedure for rotary shear testing, and source Sandia Reports give some details 
of the procedure followed. In the rotary shear tests, the specimens were composed of two, short, 
hollow tubes of rock that were divided at mid-height by the fracture. They were prepared from 
the as-received core by subcoring perpendicular to the fracture. Outer specimen diameters ranged 
from 44.275.9 mm (1.742.99 in.), but twenty were about 44.3 mm. Inner specimen diameters 
ranged from 19.541.3 mm (0.771.63 in.), but most were about 19.6 mm. Considering the 
typical dimensions, the fracture area tested was generally about 1240 mm2 (1.9 in2). Test 
specimens were potted into metal specimen holders with gypsum cement. The metal specimen 
holders were then bolted into the load-frame. 
Stress was applied normal to the fracture while the change in fracture aperture was measured 
with linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs). One normal loading and unloading cycle 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-150 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
was performed up to the pre-selected normal stress to obtain normal stiffness values and help 
mate the fracture before the sample was sheared. 
The shear test was carried out by applying torque to the top sample in order to measure the shear 
stiffness and cause sliding on the interface. All samples were sheared at constant normal stress in 
the air-dry condition (prevailing laboratory relative humidity was approximately 20 percent, 
Olsson and Brown 1997, p. 14). Further details may be obtained from Olsson (1987). For each 
test, plots were provided showing normal stress vs. joint closure, shear stress vs. corrected shear 
displacement and dilation vs. corrected shear displacement. Friction angles were not determined 
for individual fracture surfaces as shear tests were performed at only one normal stress on each 
fracture. Olsson and Brown (1997, p. 10) concluded it would be inappropriate to run multiple 
tests on the same fracture at incrementally increased normal stresses because the shear strength 
of these fractures is a strong function of plastic strain history (asperity damage). 
The literature involving rotary shear tests is sparse. One difficulty with this type of test 
equipment is that a gradient of shear stress and displacement exists across the sample during 
shearing. For the typical Yucca Mountain specimens tested, the rate of rotary shear displacement 
at the outer diameter is more than twice that of the inner diameter. This means peak strength and 
peak dilation will occur on the outer part of the specimen first. While this makes estimation of 
specimen peak strength and dilation values difficult, determination of ultimate shear strength in 
rotary devices can be reliable. 
8.6.3.2 Direct Shear Tests 
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recently performed direct shear tests on five natural fractures 
from nonlithophysal rock (Tptpmn) taken from drill holes in the ECRB near station 12+50. All 
of the shear tests were apparently performed at ambient conditions (room temperature and air-
dry) . The data for the 5 tests are reported in DTN GS030283114222.001. No documentation is 
currently available describing the testing equipment that was used. 
The fractures were identified by fracture type (3 vapor-phase partings and 2 cooling joints were 
tested) and digital images were taken of the fracture surfaces before and after testing. The Joint 
Roughness Coefficient (JRC) values were determined for each fracture before testing and 
roughness profiles were sketched both before and after shear testing. No discussion was given 
about whether vapor-phase crystals or minerals were present on the fracture and the damaged 
material created by shearing was not analyzed or retained. 
YMP-USGS Technical Procedure YMP-USGS-GP-56, R0, Method for Performing Laboratory 
Direct Shear Strength Tests on Rock Specimens Under Constant Normal Force with Allowance 
for Elevated Temperature, was used to conduct tests. Samples were prepared from the as-
received core and encapsulated into the circular direct shear rings. Specimens were generally 
irregularly shaped with shearing lengths ranging from 142-246 mm (5.6-9.7 in). Top and bottom 
samples were roughly the same size. 
A small normal load was applied to the fracture to help seat the sample. Then the load was 
continuously increased up to the pre-selected normal stress but the measurements of normal 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-151 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
fracture displacement were not retained. As a result, no normal stiffness parameters could be 
determined from these fractures. 
Direct shear tests were conducted by applying shear load to the top fracture sample. Shear 
displacement measurements were made on the sample itself to minimize machine dependent 
displacement. All samples were sheared at constant normal stress to some distance beyond the 
peak shear value, but in general, the direct shear tests were not sheared sufficiently to obtain 
ultimate shear stress values. In particular, some tests on fractures were experiencing positive 
dilation and increasing shear stress when shearing was stopped. Ultimate shear stress is defined 
as the stress reached after continued shearing of a fracture sample under a constant normal stress 
when both shear strength and dilation angle no longer increase. 
Next the sample was opened, blown free of damaged material and then repositioned back to the 
zero start position ready for shearing under a higher normal load increment. Each fracture 
sample was tested at four normal stresses in the following sequence: 1, 4, 7 and 1 MPa. The 
final Slide 4 test at 1 MPa represented a measure of degraded strength. Nominal shear area 
corrections were made as part of the normal and shear stress calculations. Friction angles were 
determined for individual joint surfaces assuming no asperity damage between successive shear 
tests on the same joint. 
Direct shear test equipment may not create a uniform normal stress across the fracture surface 
during shearing. If the line of action of the applied shear force does not coincide with the 
average fracture plane, a moment may be created in loading the top moving sample that often 
produces higher normal and shear stresses on the front half of the shearing specimen. The effect 
of this is often evident in the increased damage found on the front half of the fracture surfaces. 
The Yucca Mountain direct shear specimens have not been examined for this effect and stresses 
were calculated using the total apparent interface contact area determined before testing. 
8.6.4 Fracture Strength Behavior 
Cohesion, c, and friction angle, f, are used to represent the strength of Yucca Mountain rock 
fractures. The linear Coulomb law is used for modeling shear strength by fitting the failure data 
to a straight line in a shear stress versus normal stress plot. Shear tests on an individual fracture 
includes one or more pairs of normal stress and peak or ultimate shear stress values. For 
example, using the following equation, the peak strength cohesion and friction angle parameters 
can be determined by plotting and making a linear fit of data pairs from one or more fractures: 
tp = tanfj s + cj (Eq. 8-38) 
Where: tp = peak shear stress (MPa), fj = fracture friction angle, s = normal stress 
(MPa), and cj = fracture cohesion. 
Experimental shear stress-shear displacement curves are generally of two types, characterized by 
an increase to a peak stress, tp, which may or may not be followed by a descent to an ultimate 
strength value, tr . The first type typically has a relatively rapid rise to a peak value, followed by 
an irregular decrease to an ultimate value. For the other type, the increase in shear stress is more 
gradual up to a poorly defined peak stress value. Ultimate shear stress is defined as the stress 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-152 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
reached after continued shearing of a fracture sample under a constant normal stress when both 
shear strength and dilation angle no longer increase. Residual strength is the frictional shear 
strength of smooth rock surfaces after all asperities have been removed through damage 
corresponding to a specific normal stress; residual strength has no cohesive strength component. 
8.6.4.1 Rotary Shear Test Results 
The fracture strength parameters determined from the rotary shear tests within the repository host 
horizon (RHH) lithostratigraphic units are reported in Table 8-44. Rotary shear tests of fractures 
outside of the RHH will be reported in the next revision of this report. Since individual fractures 
are tested at only one normal stress, an underlying assumption in these results is that the different 
tested fractures have identical roughness and behavior within a given rock type (lithophysal 
consists of the Tptpul and Tptpll units; nonlithophysal the Tptpmn and Tptpln units). The reality 
is likely far different from this, especially since no identification or separation as to type of 
fracture was made. Multi-stage testing of the same fracture under increasing normal stresses was 
not done so that virgin peak strengths could be determined. 
In the reported results it is assumed that the specimen peak shear strength and dilation angle is 
the respective highest value measured. Because of the gradient problem in rotary tests 
mentioned earlier, these values might be biased in underrepresenting the actual values. 
Table 8-44. Summary Statistics of Fracture Strength Using Rotary Shear 
RHH 
Rock Unit 
Temp. 
(deg C) Count 
Peak 
Cohesion 
(MPa) 
Peak 
Friction Angle 
(deg) 
Peak 
CC* 
Ultimate 
Cohesion 
(MPa) 
Ultimate 
Friction Angle 
(deg) 
Ultimate 
CC* 
Tptpul/ll Room 6 1.48 40 0.92 1.51 32 0.76 
Tptpmn/ln Room 8 0.79 42 0.85 0.60 39 0.90 
Tptpmn/ln 175 8 1.38 44 0.96 0.24 44 0.91 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Note: CC* refers to the correlation coefficient of a linear fit through the data 
The reported ultimate strength values show some decrease of cohesion and friction angle, 
especially for the room temperature tests. However, a number of the fractures were still dilating 
at the reported ultimate value, so the determined ultimate friction angle in Table 8-44 likely 
overestimates the true ultimate friction angle. Furthermore, it can be seen from Table 8-44 that 
the ultimate fracture cohesion values have not reached zero. 
A temperature effect comparison is difficult to make because the specimens tested at elevated 
temperatures were from borehole SD-7 and the ESF whereas the room temperature data came 
from entirely different locations NRG-6, SD-9, and SD-12. A further problem, again, is that the 
fractures were not separated by type before testing. 
For the rotary tests, the dilation angle is the arctangent of the instantaneous slope of the dilation 
versus shear displacement curve, and the value reported is the dilation angle at peak stress. 
Estimates of peak shear strength and thus peak dilation angle appear to have been chosen 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-153 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
somewhat arbitrarily, in part due to the smoothly increasing shear stresses. Also some dilation 
values appear to have been computed incorrectly, for example the reported value for YM23 is 
33.4 degrees but the actual value should be approximately 10 degrees. No formal check of 
dilation angle estimation has been made. 
Statistics on fracture dilation data are provided in Table 8-45. The large range in values 
illustrates the reason why, to be useful, the fractures should have been separated by fracture type. 
From the reported tests, no conclusion can be drawn as to the effect of temperature on dilation 
angle (Figure 8-69). 
Table 8-45. Summary Statistics of the Rotary Test Peak Dilation Angle 
Rotary Rock Joint Dilation Angle at Peak Stress 
RHH Unit Temp. Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Tptpul/ll Room 6 13.4 3.6 8.8 0.66 13.0 1.2 27.2 
Tptpmn/ln Room 8 15.3 3.3 9.2 0.60 14.7 1.1 33.4 
Tptpmn/ln 175 degC 8 14.0 2.9 8.1 0.58 15.7 0.0 24.5 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Rock Joint Rotary Peak Dilation Angle 
Dilation Angle at Peak ShearStress (deg) 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
0 50 100 150 200 
Temperature (deg C) 
lnTptpTptpmn 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Figure 8-69. Dilation Angles Obtained From Rotary Shear Tests of Rock Fractures at High and Low 
Temperature 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-154 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.6.4.2 Direct Shear Test Results 
A summary of the five direct shear tests performed on fracture surfaces from the Tptpmn unit is 
given below. Each test consisted of repeated direct shearing of the same fracture surface at 
different normal loads as discussed in Section 8.6.3.2. Two tests were performed on subvertical 
cooling joints and three tests were conducted on more or less horizontal vapor-phase partings 
(VPP). The two fracture types have a physically distinct appearance and testing of these 
fractures resulted in equally distinct fracture behaviors (Table 8-46). Some basic information is 
missing from the source DTN GS030283114222.001 that describes these test results. A 
corrective action report is under preparation to request additional documentation and any 
changes to this DTN will be reflected in the next version of this report. 
Cohesion and friction angle parameters were determined from repeated tests on the same fracture 
surface (combined results from slide 1, 2, and 3, which corresponds to 1, 4, and 7 MPa normal 
stress, respectively). The advantage of this is that the same fracture is being tested in the same 
equipment setup. The disadvantage is that because of repeated tests on the same fracture surface, 
degradation of the asperities change the fracture behavior. As a result, the friction angle reported 
in Table 8-47 may be slightly low, the cohesion value may be slightly high and the reported 
dilation angle may be low. The dilation angle was determined using only slide 1 results since 
subsequent shear tests of a damaged surface may not be a good representation of the desired 
virgin volumetric behavior during shear. 
Table 8-46. Direct Shear Test Summary of Tptpmn Fractures 
Friction 
Length Area Cohesion Angle Correlation 
Joint Type: TestID (mm) (m^2) JRC (MPa) (deg) (r^2) 
Cooling 65A-643 239 0.036 2 -0.01 33.74 1.00 
Cooling 65A-657 142 0.015 1 0.08 33.14 1.00 
VPP 65A-642 241 0.058 15 0.72 45.66 0.99 
VPP 65A-646 226 0.031 16 0.66 41.86 1.00 
VPP 65A-647 246 0.047 10 0.84 44.48 0.99 
SOURCE DTN: GS030283114222.001 
Note: JRC* refers to the measured value of Joint Roughness Coefficient 
CC* refers to the correlation coefficient of a linear fit through the data 
Table 8-47 illustrates that cooling fractures have lower cohesion, lower peak friction angle and 
much lower peak dilation angle than the VPP fractures. It is not known how representative this 
results summary is of the underlying population of fracture behavior by fracture type. However, 
if the large difference in roughness shown in Table 8-46 is representative, then there is no reason 
to believe that these results may not be typical. More testing on these fracture types as well as 
better designed tests would be helpful to confirm these results. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-155 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-47. Summary Statistics of Fracture Peak Strength from Direct Shear Tests 
Direct Shear Rock Peak Cohesion (MPa): 
Joint Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Cooling Tptpmn 2 0.032 0.044 0.063 1.97 0.032 -0.013 0.076 
VPP Tptpmn 3 0.74 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.72 0.66 0.84 
Direct Shear Rock Peak Friction Angle (deg): 
Joint Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Cooling Tptpmn 2 33.4 0.3 0.4 0.01 33.4 33.1 33.7 
VPP Tptpmn 3 44.0 1.1 1.9 0.04 44.5 41.9 45.7 
Direct Shear Rock Joint Dilation Angle at Peak Stress 
Joint Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Cooling Tptpmn 2 1.6 2.55 3.61 2.33 1.6 -1.0 4.1 
VPP Tptpmn 3 14.0 1.22 2.12 0.15 13.7 12.1 16.3 
SOURCE DTN: GS030283114222.001 
The fracture surface was to some degree mechanically degraded due to the three previous shear 
tests repeated on the same fracture surface at increasing normal loads. The subsequent slide 4 of 
each direct shear test series, which repeated shearing at the initial normal load, gave an 
indication of degraded shear strength. The final normal stress and shear stress measured in Slide 
4 for each fracture was used to determine the degraded friction angle values assuming the 
cohesion was zero. 
The degraded shear results are shown in Table 8-48. The peak and degraded friction angles are 
approximately the same for the smooth subvertical cooling fracture. The degraded friction angle 
for VPP fractures was slightly higher than the peak value. Since all the Slide 4 final test values 
were still dilating when the test was stopped, the cohesion values are not zero and degraded 
values are not representative of ultimate stress values. To determine a lower bound for fracture 
ultimate strength, it may be useful to cut some rock samples in half and test the fractures by 
direct shear at several normal loads. 
Table 8-48. Summary Statistics of Fracture Degraded Strength from Direct Shear Tests 
Direct Shear Rock Degraded Friction Angle (deg): 
Joint Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Cooling Tptpmn 2 33.4 1.9 2.7 0.08 33.4 31.5 35.3 
VPP Tptpmn 3 46.9 1.7 3.0 0.06 46.5 44.1 50.0 
SOURCE DTN: GS030283114222.001 
8.6.4.3 Empirical Estimate of Peak Dilation Angle of Fractures 
N. Barton used the following empirical equation to estimate peak dilation angles, .peak, for some 
Yucca Mountain joint sets (Duan 2003, Sections 2.2, 4.2-4.4): 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-156 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1 
peak JRC log
.
..
JCS
..
(Eq. 8-39)
=
2
s n.
.
Barton estimated a range of lab scale JRC values for joint sets (Table 8-49) by making JRC 
measurements from roughness traces of the rotary shear and direct shear laboratory fractures, 
making field JRC measurements of fractures in the ESF, and attempting to correlate JRC values 
to USBR R1 to R6 field roughness statistics. Adopting a common value of joint wall normal 
strength (JCS) of 100 MPa and a normal stress range of 4 to 8 MPa, Barton then derived the 
following range of peak dilation angles shown in Table 8-49. For more details see An 
Application of Rock Mass Characterization and Rock Joint Empirical Models at Yucca 
Mountain, to Assist in the Disposal Tunnel Design Studies, (Duan 2003, Sections 2.2, 4.2-4.4). 
Table 8-49. Estimate of Peak Dilation Angles for RHH Fracture Sets 
For nonlithophysal rock: JRC range Peak Dilation Angle Range 
Cooling Joint Sets 1 and 4 2  4 1.4  2.2 
Cooling Joint Set 2 4  8 2.8  4.4 
VPP Joint Set 3 12 16 8.4  8.8 
For lithophysal rock: 
Lithophysal Fractures 12  20 8.4  11.0 
8.6.5 Fracture Normal and Shear Stiffness 
Normal stiffness is the slope of the normal stress versus normal displacement curve, and 
typically is highly nonlinear. The corresponding normal stiffness curve is concave upward with 
loading. Ideally, normal stiffness should be determined after multiple loading-unloading cycles 
to remove the hysteresis effect (especially the large plastic displacement of the first cycle). With 
repeated normal loading cycles the normal stiffness value typically increases and the fracture 
surfaces are better mated. 
Shear stiffness is the slope of the shear stress versus shear displacement curve in the elastic 
region. In the pre-peak loading range the stiffness behavior is nonlinear with a convex 
downward shape, but usually the initial part of the loading curve is more or less linear. Shear 
stiffness plots with a continually changing slope are typically the result of an error of including 
plastic deformation as part of the curve. This unwanted deformation may be caused by damage 
to asperities, slip, shear within fracture fill material or other non-elastic machine or joint 
deformations. 
8.6.5.1 Rotary Shear Test Results 
Normal stiffness was estimated using the instantaneous slope (tangent value) at 5 MPa and a 
summary of results is shown in Table 8-50. The stiffness values were read from the 
instantaneous slope of the normal stress-closure curves plotted in the original Sandia Report 
for each test. Only the first normal compression loading cycle was provided in the SNL rotary 
results; the unloading curve and second loading cycle data was not retained. This was 
unfortunate since the first normal loading curve is considered not to be representative of the 
undisturbed behavior (Bandis, et. al. 1983). As a result, the tangent value was adopted instead of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-157 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
a secant value since a stiffer value was desired to best represent the non-hysteresis normal 
stiffness value. This tangent value will still likely underestimate the non-hysteresis stiffness 
response. 
The normal stiffness values for the Yucca Mountain fractures under rotary shear increased with 
increasing normal stress as is typical for discontinuities of any type. A wide variation in values 
was reported from fracture to fracture, and in the six samples tested for lithophysal rock there 
was an order of magnitude difference in reported values. Assuming the limited number of data 
points are representative of the underlying nonlithophysal rock population, it appears that higher 
temperatures may result in slightly lower normal stiffness values (see Figure 8-70). 
Table 8-50. Summary Statistics of the RHH Fracture Normal Stiffness by Rotary Shear 
Rotary Rock Joint Tangent Normal Stiffness at 5 MPa (MPa/mm): 
Unit Temp. Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Tptpul/ll Room 6 268 149 365 1.36 115 65 1000 
Tptpmn/ln Room 4 94 11 22 0.23 98 65 115 
Tptpmn/ln 175 degC 6 74 12 29 0.39 83 35 110 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Note: Summary descriptive statistics are determined in RotaryRockJointData_SGPR00A.xls (Attachment VIII). 
Estimate of Rock Joint Rotary Normal Stiffness at 5 MPa 
Tangent Normal Stiffness(MPa/mm) 
140 
120 
100 
80 
60 
40 
20 
0 
0 50 100 150 200 
Temperature (deg C) 
lnTptpTptpmn 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Figure 8-70. Normal Stiffness Estimate at 5 MPa for RHH Rotary Fracture Tests 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-158 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Shear stiffness was estimated from the most linear early portion of the experimental curve in the 
pre-peak strength region of the curve. The stiffness values were read from the instantaneous 
slope of the shear stress-slip curves plotted in the original Sandia Report for each test. The initial 
portions of these curves were used because in torsional tests the outer portions of the rock tend to 
reach peak strength first, obscuring any slip and local peak-softening behavior. As a result rotary 
tests typically produce a more gradual shear-stress shear-displacement curve than one would 
obtain in a direct shear test of the same rock fracture. These results are summarized in Table 851. 
Assuming the limited number of data points are representative of the underlying nonlithophysal 
rock population, it appears that higher temperatures may result in average lower shear stiffness 
values (see Figure 8-71). One reason increased temperature tests may give smaller normal and 
shear stiffness values is that thermal stresses may act to increase roughness between asperities. 
Table 8-51. Summary Statistics of the RHH Fracture Shear Stiffness by Rotary Shear 
Rotary Rock Joint Maximum Tangent Shear Stiffness (MPa/mm): 
Unit Temp. Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Tptpul/ll Room 6 168 54 132 0.79 160 30 400 
Tptpmn/ln Room 8 97 19 55 0.57 108 23 180 
Tptpmn/ln 175 degC 8 56 14 39 0.70 38 18 115 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Note: Summary descriptive statistics are determined in RotaryRockJointData_SGPR00A.xls (Attachment VIII). 
Rock Joint Rotary Shear Stiffness 
Maximum Tangent ShearStiffness (MPa/mm) 
200 
160 
120 
80 
40 
0 
0 50 100 150 200 
Temperature (deg C) 
lnTptpTptpmn 
SOURCE DTNS: SNL02112293001.001, SNL02112293001.003, SNL02112293001.005, SNL02112293001.006, AND 
SNL02112293001.007. 
Figure 8-71. Shear Stiffness of RHH from Rotary Fracture Tests 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-159 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.6.5.2 Direct Shear Test Results 
No normal loading data were provided by USBR/USGS for the direct shear tests, so no normal 
stiffness tests can be reported. Some basic information is missing from the source DTN 
GS030283114222.001 that describes these test results. A corrective action report is in 
preparation to request additional documentation, and any changes to this DTN will be reflected 
in the next version of this report. 
No unloading data were provided for the direct shear tests so the loading shear displacement 
values could not be corrected by the shear plastic displacement values to estimate elastic shear 
displacements. As a result, only the total displacements were used to calculate shear stiffness 
which will give smaller than expected stiffness values. Since the rotary shear tests were properly 
corrected and the rotary samples were much smaller in size, the values cannot be directly 
compared. In all cases, the direct shear stiffness values were estimated from the first shear test 
performed on each fracture specimen (Slide 1), each having an applied normal stress of 1.0 
MPa). The results of the five tests are summarized in Table 8-52. 
Table 8-52. Summary Statistics of the RHH Fracture Shear Stiffness by Direct Shear 
Direct Shear Shear Stiffness (MPa/mm): 
Joint Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Cooling Tptpmn 2 11.00 4.00 5.66 0.51 11.00 7.00 15.00 
VPP Tptpmn 3 13.33 3.53 6.11 0.46 12.00 8.00 20.00 
SOURCE DTN: GS030283114222.001 
Note: Stiffness determinations for each test can be found in Microsoft Excel files 65A-642-specimen.xls, 65A-643-
specimen.xls, 65A-646-specimen.xls, 65A-647-specimen.xls, and 65A-657-specimen.xls, and summary descriptive 
statistics are determined in DirectShearRockJointData_SGPR00A.xls (Attachment VIII). 
8.6.5.3 Empirical Estimate of Fracture Stiffness Data 
N. Barton used the Barton-Bandis joint model (Barton 1982, Barton et al. 1985, Barton and 
Bandis 1990) to predict normal and shear stiffness ranges for Yucca Mountain fractures in the 
RHH. Assumptions included adoption of the previous JRC estimates, a normal compressive rock 
strength of 150 MPa, a JCS value of 100 MPa, rock block size of 0.25 m and a residual fracture 
shear strength of 30 degrees. Using a reference normal stress of 10 MPa, the stiffness ranges at 
the fifth normal loading/unloading cycle are shown in Table 8-53. For more details see An 
Application of Rock Mass Characterization and Rock Joint Empirical Models at Yucca 
Mountain, to Assist in the Disposal Tunnel Design Studies, pp. 43-47 (Duan 2003, Sections 5.2-
5.4, Tables 5-2 and 5-3). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-160 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-53. Estimate of Normal and Shear Stiffnesses at 10 MPa for Fracture Sets 
For nonlithophysal rock: JRC range Normal Stiffness 
(MPa/mm) 
Shear Stiffness 
(MPa/mm) 
Cooling Joint Sets 1 and 4 2  4 1360  1750 2.5  2.2 
Cooling Joint Set 2 4  8 1750  1240 2.2  1.9 
VPP Joint Set 3 12 16 870  720 1.8 
For lithophysal rock: 
Lithophysal Fractures 12  20 870  710 1.8  1.7 
8.7 SITE SPECIFIC FIELD TESTING 
8.7.1 General 
Laboratory tests are essential in obtaining the basic rock parameter data in a standardized form 
that makes rock properties of various stratigraphic units comparable with each other. However, 
the question remains: how do these laboratory test results relate to the field conditions? A 
satisfactory answer to this question can only be obtained by identifying appropriate scaling 
relationships and calibrating the associated numerical models such that their performance reflects 
the performance of the full size excavations or other underground structures. 
Field tests play a key role in confirming the range and validity of laboratory-generated results. 
Because of the size and characteristics of field specimens, however, the standardized procedures 
cannot always be completely followed. Test logistics in a confined underground environment 
are more complex than those encountered in a typical laboratory environment, and the number of 
tests is usually limited because the cost of each is substantial. Although attempts are made to 
assure the proper performance of test equipment, the rate of equipment failure in these tests is 
relatively high. Test data often require substantial effort to analyze and reduce to meaningful 
results. Frequently, attempts are made to salvage results obtained from only partially completed 
tests, due to equipment malfunction. These technical, equipment-related difficulties are 
magnified by often complex and unique responses of in situ rock to testing. 
On the Yucca Mountain Project, the lithophysae-containing lithostratigraphic units pose 
especially difficult challenges to researchers. The presence of voids makes the standardized 
field-testing approaches often inadequate because their location and size are difficult to predict. 
Moreover, their presence causes distortions of otherwise uniform load /stress distributions, thus 
making the results of field testing difficult to interpret. 
As pointed out by Board (2003, Section 2.2.1), in situ mechanical and thermal testing and model 
confirmation of lithophysal rocks is necessary to determine the size effect (porosity and fracture) 
on rock mass constitutive behavior. These tests will be used further for validation of the 
numerical model at increasing size scales. It is anticipated that, as a result of these field testing 
activities, it will be possible to develop a model that can be used with confidence for 
extrapolating the mechanical response of lithophysal rocks. The on-going field tests are natural 
extensions of the testing experience and needs identified as a result of the past in situ tests. A 
brief account of these past field activities is provided with appropriate pointers to the original 
data sources published in appropriate Project Reports. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-161 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Although very important, field tests are not the only sources of information about the rock 
performance. Other field activities providing valuable information about the rock involve 
mapping of the exposed excavation walls, in situ deformation measurements, steel set loads 
measurements and observations of rock and ground support elements applied to maintain safety 
and stability of existing excavations. Data originating from all sources must be analyzed because 
each approach offers a unique method of evaluating and quantifying performance of 
lithostratigraphic rock units and engineering components used in ground control. 
8.7.2 Single Heater Test 
The Single Heater Test (SHT) is the first of the in-situ thermal tests conducted as a part of Yucca 
Mountain site characterization activities. The overall objective of the Single Heater Test was to 
gain an understanding of the coupled thermal, mechanical, hydrological and chemical processes 
that are anticipated to occur in the local rock mass in the potential repository as a result of heat 
from radioactive decay of the emplaced waste. 
The heating and cooling of the test block was carried out between August 1996 and January 
1998. The test results encompass a wide range of findings associated with rock performance, 
instrumentation stability and accuracy and suggestions regarding improvements of data accuracy 
in the similar future tests. The details associated with the SHT are provided in CRWMS M&O 
1999 (Section 3). 
8.7.3 Drift Scale Test 
The Drift Scale Test (DST) is an integral part of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 
Program. The DST is a large-scale in situ thermal test with the purpose of developing a better 
understanding of thermal, mechanical, hydrological, and chemical processes, and interaction 
between those processes taking place in the rock mass adjoining the subsurface facility of the 
potential nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The Heated Drift of the DST is 5 meters 
in diameter, 47.5 meters in length, and nominally isolated from the access drift by an insulated 
bulkhead. Heaters within the heated drift supplied about 184 KW of power at the beginning of 
the test and about 155 KW of power at later test stages. Data were collected from approximately 
3,800 sensors once per hour and additional measurements were taken at less frequent intervals 
using a variety of sensors and techniques. More details pertaining to the test and various 
resulting analyses are presented in the Thermal Test Progress Report #6, (Williams 2001a). 
8.7.4 Rock Mass Mechanical Field Tests 
The presence of multiple joint sets in the Tptpmn and Tptpln and the presence of significant 
lithophysae and fracture networks in the Tptpul and Tptpll units preclude obtaining 
representative rock mass properties from laboratory size specimens. Empirical techniques for 
obtaining rock-mass properties from intact laboratory test data and field mapping information 
have also been judged to have an inadequate basis for application to lithophysal rock. Because of 
these limitations, in situ measurements on a scale as large as practicable were designed to 
attempt to measure rock mass mechanical behavior in both lithophysal and nonlithophysal rock 
units. Heuze states that field moduli generally appear to be between 20 percent and 60 percent of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-162 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
laboratory measured moduli, and field strength values are generally several times smaller than 
laboratory values (Heuze 1980, p. 167). 
8.7.4.1 Borehole Jack Tests 
A suite of borehole jack tests was performed as part of the Single Heater Test (SHT) in an alcove 
excavated off the ESF. The purpose of the NX-borehole jack tests, also known as Goodman jack 
or hard-rock jack, was to obtain an in situ estimate of elastic modulus of deformation under 
ambient and hot rock conditions for the Topopah Spring middle nonlithophysal tuff (Tptpmn). 
See DTN SNF35110695001.010 and the Single Heater Test Final Report (CRWMS M&O 1999, 
Section 9.2) for more calculation and testing details. 
A single borehole (ESF-TMA-BJ-1) was drilled roughly horizontal and perpendicular to the SHT 
heater borehole for operation of the borehole jack. The borehole was collared in the observation 
drift and extended towards the heater. Once the heater was energized, a decreasing temperature 
gradient existed from the end of the borehole towards the collar. The nonpermanent jack was 
periodically inserted into the borehole and pressurized at borehole distances (from the collar) of 
2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 4.51, and 6.2 m, although not all locations were tested on each of the test dates. 
Tests were conducted on 26 August 1996 (before heater startup), 10 October 1996, 26 November 
1996, 18 March 1997, 23 October 1997 and 29 January 1998. No additional boreholes were 
tested, so no spatial variation or anisotropy of the rock modulus was determined. 
The cylindrical jack consists of two 20.3 cm (8 in) long platens, which apply a unidirectional 
load to a nominal 7.62 cm (3 in) diameter borehole wall. The platens pressurize 90 degrees of the 
borehole wall on opposite sides. Deformation was measured by an LVDT at each end of the 
loading platens and jack pressure was applied using an Enerpak hand pump, typically in 3.44 
MPa (500 psi) increments. 
The borehole jack tests were based on the procedures of ASTM D 4971-89 with minor 
exceptions. The jack was inserted into the borehole and the platens slowly expanded until the 
pressure just began to rise. This represented the values of zero displacement and pressure. The 
jack pressure was then increased in increments to the desired maximum pressure and then 
decreased in similar increments. The calculated minimum pressure to achieve full platen 
contact based on the approximate borehole diameter (7.57 to 7.90 cm) was about 21 MPa (3000 
psi). Only data above a jack pressure of about 21 MPa were used to calculate the rock mass 
modulus. For the tests conducted on 26 August 1996, the maximum pressure applied to the rock 
by the jack was limited to about 34.5 MPa. For all subsequent tests, the maximum pressure 
employed was about 55.2 MPa. 
The historical use of the borehole jack has shown that corrections must be taken into 
consideration for the mismatch between borehole and platen radii, longitudinal bending of the 
platens, and tensile cracking of the intact rock or opening of existing fractures. These 
corrections are discussed in ASTM D 4971-89 as well as in Heuze and Amadei (1985). 
Corrections were applied in the results that follow. For analyzing the test data it is assumed that 
the rock is linearly elastic, isotropic and homogeneous. The rock Poissons ratio is estimated for 
the modulus calculation. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-163 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The results from the borehole jack tests show that most of the estimated in situ rock modulus 
values range from about 6 to 12 GPa (with extremes of 4 to 23 GPa) as shown in Table 8-54. 
Generally the lower temperatures are reported near the collar, and typically increase with 
distance from the collar. The borehole jack results do not show a clear correlation between 
modulus value and rock temperature. The increase in modulus after heating may be consistent 
with the closing of fractures due to thermal expansion. The mean estimated rock mass modulus 
was about 8 GPa for all borehole locations at ambient rock temperature (Table 8-55). 
Table 8-54. Estimated In Situ Rock Modulus in Borehole ESF-TMA-BJ-1 Using Borehole Jack 
Date Distance from Collar (m) 
2.0 3.0 4.0 4.51 6.2 
In Situ Rock Elastic Modulus, GPa (Temp C) 
08/26/96 6.9 (25) 3.7 (25) no test no test no test 
10/10/96 10.3 (27.5) 10.3 (27.7) 8.3 (30.2) 6.0 (34) no test 
11/26/96 Discarded 10.2 (35.9) 5.7 (46.4) 5.0 (55.4) 8.4 (141.8) 
03/18/97 Discarded 6.3 (41) 10.3 (52) 5.7 (58.7) 22.8 (143.1) 
10/23/97 1st no test no test 6.3 (ambient) discarded 8.3 (ambient) 
10/23/97 2nd no test no test 9.0 (ambient) 7.1 (ambient) 10.0 (ambient) 
01/29/98 1st 5.5 (ambient) 9.7 (ambient) 8.3 (ambient) 7.6 (ambient) not calculated 
01/29/98 2nd no test no test no test no test 11.7 (ambient) 
01/29/98 3rd no test no test no test no test 11.7 (ambient) 
SOURCE DTN: SNF35110695001.010 AND CRWMS M&O 1999, TABLE 9-6 
Note: Estimated moduli presented in italics are based on field data for which the difference between the two borehole 
jack LVDT readings slightly exceeded the limits set in ASTM D 4971-89. Discarded results were for data that far 
exceeded ASTM D 4971-89 limits. These values should not be used in calculations requiring rock mass modulus and 
are not used in the Table 8-55 summary. 
Table 8-55. Summary of Ambient In Situ Rock Modulus (Borehole ESF-TMA-BJ-1) 
In Situ Rock Elastic Modulus (GPa) in Borehole ESF-TMA-BJ-1at 25C and Ambient Temperature 
Unit Condition Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum 
Tptpmn Ambient 12 7.8 0.6 2.2 0.3 8.0 3.7 11.7 
SOURCE DTN: SNF35110695001.010 
The estimated volume of rock mass (Heuze 1980, Table 1) involved in a NX-borehole jack test is 
about 0.13 m3 (4.6 ft3). Since this is not large enough to incorporate discontinuities on the drift 
scale, properly conducted borehole jack tests in better rock may overestimate actual rock mass 
modulus values. On the other hand, fracturing around the tested borehole was reported, and these 
nearby fractures could have resulted in lower modulus values estimated from the test. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-164 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.7.4.2 Plate Loading Test 
The purpose of plate load testing in the Topopah Spring middle nonlithophysal tuff (Tptpmn) 
was to measure the in situ deformation characteristics of the rock mass under ambient and 
elevated temperature conditions, as part of the Drift Scale Test (DST). The DST is a large-scale 
long-term in situ field thermal-mechanical study being undertaken in Alcove 5 of the ESF. The 
plate load test was designed to mechanically load the rock horizontally using large square-shaped 
flatjacks that press against both ribs of a narrow niche constructed perpendicular to the heated 
drift access drift (Sobolik and George 2001, p. 25). The niche where the plate load test was 
conducted was located 5 m outside the heated drift bulkhead in the Tptpmn rock unit. The niche 
was mined using drill and blast techniques to roughly 2.5 m wide with a nominally flat floor 
(Sobolik and George 2001, p. 25). Plate load tests are conducted by incremental and cyclic 
loading over a prescribed range and monitoring rock displacement and applied pressure histories. 
These results are then used to determine the in situ rock mass modulus, and unloading/reloading 
moduli of the rock mass. 
It was desired to determine these thermal-mechanical properties of the niche rock before, during 
and after significant thermal strains were developed in the rock because the rock mass modulus 
was thought to be temperature dependent. The DST heating of the drift began December 3, 1997 
and, as a result, the rock on the western side of the plate load test experienced thermal expansion, 
increasing the horizontal stress in the immediate rock area. It was expected that the thermal 
expansion would cause closure of rock fractures and increase the rock stiffness (higher rock mass 
modulus). The rock on the eastern or ambient side of the plate load test was also expected to 
experience some elevated temperatures and increased stresses, but to a lesser degree than the 
heated side. Analysis of these tests would allow measurement of in situ mechanical rock 
properties and a comparison of the influence of heating on these same properties. 
The DST plate load tests were conducted first in May and June of 1998 several months after the 
drift began to be heated, in October 2000 after the drift had experienced heating for almost three 
years, and finally in April 2003 after the rock had experienced significant cool down (heating 
was turned off January 14, 2002). The two plate load tests conducted in 1998 were loaded to 
maximum bearing pressures of 6.4 and then 11.9 MPa, but were made with a defective reaction 
frame and the flatjacks experienced premature failures, making the results unreliable (Sobolik 
and George 2001, p. 31). Design changes were made for the October 2000 test and these 
changes produced much better results. See DTNs: SN0011F3912298.022 and 
SN0011F3912298.023 and Sobolik and George 2001, pp. 33-42 for preliminary calculation and 
testing details of the 2000 tests upon which this summary is based. A third set of loading cycles 
was performed in April of 2003 after approximately 18 months of cooling had occurred in the 
heated drift (DTNs: SN0306F3912298.048 and SN0306F3912298.049). 
The plate loading tests were designed based on: the International Society of Rock Mechanics test 
standard, Suggested Methods for Determining In Situ Deformability of Rock (Brown 1981, pp. 
141-160); ASTM D 4394 (Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of 
Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid Plate Loading Method); and ASTM D 4395 
(Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using 
the Flexible Plate Loading Method). The plate-loading test conducted as part of the Drift Scale 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-165 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Test differs somewhat from the standard techniques, although the differences were considered 
appropriate by the investigators (Sobolik and George 2001, p. 25) 
During the test both sides of the niche were loaded simultaneously and reacted in opposite 
directions against a central reaction frame. The reaction frame was sandwiched on both sides by 
a flatjack and bearing plate. The reaction frame consisted of 0.914 m (36 in) square aluminum 
plates that were oriented vertically and stacked horizontally across the 2.5 m wide test niche near 
the springline. Sandia National Laboratories designed the flatjacks which had unpressurized 
dimensions of nominally 0.813 m x 0.813 m (32 in x 32 in) with the corners rounded to a 8.0 cm 
(3 in) radius and a maximum jack pressure design of 55.2 MPa (8000 psi). Each flatjack was 
placed between the aluminum reaction frame and a single steel 2.5 cm (1 in) thick, 91.4 cm (36 
in) square bearing platen, which was adjacent to a 10.1 cm (4 in) thick grout pad cast directly on 
a hand-smoothed rock bearing surface. Uniform bearing pressure from the flatjack through the 
grout to the smoothed rock was assumed. The estimated volume of rock mass (Heuze 1980, 
Table 1) involved in a 91 cm (36 in.) diameter plate-bearing test is about 26 m3 (910 ft3). 
(Sobolik and George 2001, pp. 25-28) 
Instrumentation consisted of pressure transducers, multiple point borehole extensometers 
(MPBX with C-ring or Snap-ring Geokon anchors), and type-K thermocouples. Instrumentation 
was installed in two boreholes, one extending into the ambient temperature rock and the other 
into the elevated temperature rock. Three anchors were used per borehole and connected to 
LVDTs via Invar connecting rods to measure displacement. MPBX anchor locations in the 
borehole on the ambient rock side were 2.70 m (deep), 1.31 m (mid) and 0.87 m (shallow). 
MPBX anchor locations on the heated rock side were 3.21 m (deep), 1.54 m (mid) and 0.86 m 
(shallow). It was assumed that the MPBX boreholes were centrally located behind the bearing 
plates. The thermocouples were attached to the connecting rods. Displacement measurements 
taken during the tests were not corrected for rod thermal expansion because during the short 
loading and unloading periods, the rods and measurement transducers were assumed to remain at 
a constant temperature. (Sobolik 1998, p. 84; Sobolik et. al 1999, p. 89; and Sobolik and George 
2001, p. 28-30) 
A simplified first-order analysis approach (Sobolik and George 2001, p. 34) was used to 
calculate the in situ rock deformation modulus (rock mass modulus), E. This equation is 
commonly used in foundation engineering to estimate the deflection of a footing pressed onto the 
surface of a semi-infinite isotropic elastic medium (Bowles 1982, pp. 183-185). This is a 
slightly different equation than those suggested in ASTM D 4394 or D 4395. 
w
E = B P I 
d(1 -.2 ) , (Eq. 8-40) 
where: E = deformation modulus of the isotropic, homogeneous, elastic rock 
I w = a constant dependent on the shape and stiffness of the loading platens (for square platens: 0.82 for a 
rigid plate and 1.12 for the center of a flexible plate)
P = bearing pressure applied to the rock mass
B = dimension of the bearing platens (0.914 m, the width of the metal platens)
. = Poissons ratio
d = displacement of the rock due to the applied load
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-166 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Equation 8-40 is valid for displacements of the bearing plate at its center, but actual plate 
movements are not available. The best estimate of the plate movement at its center is the 
MPBX displacement relative to the deepest available anchor, since the deepest anchor 
measurement represents the total displacement over the largest volume of rock. Calculating 
moduli at individual anchor locations may result in different moduli because of rock 
heterogeneities and the variation of rock stress with depth. 
Also, the pressure required for plots and subsequent analyses is the pressure, P, applied to the 
surface of the rock, and not the pressure measured in the flatjacks: 
P = flatjack pressure * flatjack contact area / bearing plate area 
The flatjack contact area must be measured in the field after each test because the flatjacks are 
flexible and they deform under their internal pressure. For the 1998 tests the flatjack loading 
surface dimensions were measured to be about 78 cm x 78 cm. For both the 2000 and 2003 tests 
the dimensions used in the above calculation of E was 79.4 cm x 79.4 cm. The bearing plate area 
for all tests was 91.4 cm x 91.4 cm. 
Tables 8-56 and 8-57 present some of the 2000 and 2003 plate load test results, respectively. 
However, the accuracy of the Equation 8-40 simplified approach needs further evaluation, and 
the reported results should be considered preliminary (DTN SN0011F3912298.023 and 
Sobolik and George 2001, p. 41). These issues combined with the fact that the associated DTNs 
are in the process of being corrected (CIRS #004782, CAP #683), require these results to be used 
with caution. For the 2000 test, the calculated maximum applied bearing pressure was 31.75 
MPa with no sign of rock failure in the pressure versus displacement plots. For the 2003 test, the 
calculated maximum applied bearing pressure was 31.27 MPa, again with no sign of rock failure 
in the pressure versus displacement plots. The hot rock, deep-anchor displacement transducer 
failed, so no values are reported. 
In both the 2000 and 2003 tests, the modulus measured on the hot side of the plate load test was 
generally more than twice that of the ambient temperature side. The principal investigators 
attribute this to both the difference in the original condition of the rock, and the cumulative 
effects of the entire length of the Heated Drift expanding towards the test niche. They state that 
the moduli on the hot and ambient sides of the tests are not functions of temperature and, 
accordingly, temperatures are not used in the calculation of the moduli. For completeness, the 
2000 test temperature of the ambient rock at the deep anchor position was measured to be 34.5 
C and for the hot rock, 58.6 C at the medium anchor position (DTN SN0011F3912298.022, 
Sobolik and George 2001, p. 15). For the 2003 test, the temperatures of the ambient rock at the 
deep anchor position and for the hot rock are not yet available. 
To cover the estimated range of in situ stresses from 5 to 10 MPa, a calculation was made to 
estimate rock mass modulus, E, at a bearing pressure of 5 MPa. First, anchor displacement was 
estimated from the initial loading curves on the average bearing pressure vs. displacement 
plots of the respective DTNs (SN0011F3912298.023, SN0306F3912298.049). Next this value of 
displacement was entered into Equation 8-40 to estimate the rock mass modulus, E, assuming 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-167 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
isotropic, homogeneous, elastic rock. For both the 2000 and 2003 calculation, Poissons ratio 
was assumed as 0.20 and the Iw value to be 1.05. 
Table 8-56. October 2000 Plate Load Test Results 
Pressure 
(MPa) 
Ambient 
2.70 m Anchor 
Ambient 
1.31 m Anchor 
Ambient 
0.87 m Anchor 
Hot 
1.54 m Anchor 
Hot 
0.86 m Anchor 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
5 0.31 15 0.23 20 0.25 18 0.13 35 0.09 51 
10 0.53 17 0.43 21 0.43 21 0.23 40 0.16 57 
31.75 1.69 17 1.49 20 1.21 24 0.68 43 0.55 53 
SOURCE DTN: SN0011F3912298.023 
Table 8-57. April 2003 Plate Load Test Results 
Pressure 
(MPa) 
Ambient 
2.70 m Anchor 
Ambient 
1.31 m Anchor 
Ambient 
0.87 m Anchor 
Hot 
1.54 m Anchor 
Hot 
0.86 m Anchor 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
Displ. 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa) 
5 0.22 21 0.28 16 0.22 21 0.09 51 0.06 76 
10 0.447 21 0.561 16 0.456 20 0.206 45 0.151 61 
31.27 1.096 26 1.449 20 1.306 22 0.649 44 0.459 62 
SOURCE DTN: SN0306F3912298.049 
There are some common observations that apply to both the 2000 and 2003 plate loading tests. 
In general the initial loading and unloading/reloading portions of the average pressure vs. 
displacement plots were quite linear. From the plots and tables given in the developed DTNs, it 
can be seen that the unloading/reloading moduli mostly increase with pressure. The total 
displacement measured was 2-3 times greater in ambient rock as compared to the heated rock. 
Also, for the ambient rock there is a relatively larger hysteresis loop during overall loading and 
unloading, compared to the heated rock. 
8.7.4.3 In Situ Slot Tests 
The purpose of the pressurized slot testing program was to make field tests on meter scale blocks 
of lithophysal rock in order to determine bulk thermal-mechanical rock properties (elastic rock 
mass modulus, compressive strength and thermal expansion coefficient) over a range of 
temperature and rock conditions (BSC 2002g). The test plan calls for: estimating the in situ 
stress acting normal to the slots, performing loading-unloading cycles of pressure-deformation 
history to estimate rock mass deformation moduli, estimating rock failure stress at various 
locations, estimating the tendon rock-mass strength, holding at maximum pressure to determine 
time-dependent effects on rock properties, estimating of rock mass thermal expansion, discussing 
the influence of temperature on the thermal-mechanical properties, and conducting a field postmortem 
analysis of the tested rock. Three-dimensional numerical modeling is required for both 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-168 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
test design and post-test analyses of the results because of all the complexities involved. The 
final analyses and report have not yet been issued. 
A total of three pressurized slot tests have been conducted in both the Tptpul and Tptpll 
lithophysal rock units. Two tests were carried out in the rib of the Exploratory Studies Facility 
(ESF), a 7.6 m diameter bored tunnel, and one test was conducted in the floor of the Enhanced 
Repository Characterization Block Cross Drift (ECRB), a 5.0 m diameter bored tunnel. Slot 
tests 1 and 3 were carried out under ambient temperature conditions. Slot test 2 involved testing 
at ambient conditions (about 25C) and at elevated rock temperature conditions (about 90C). 
Preliminary results are summarized in Table 8-59. 
A central borehole, 0.305 m diameter and 1.5 to 1.8 m deep, was drilled into the rock to be tested 
and instrumented prior to creation of the slots. The slots were cut vertically into the ESF rib 
(tests 1 and 2) or into the floor perpendicular to the ECRB tunnel (test 3) using a custom rock 
saw. The nominal distance between the slots (tendon length) for all tests was 1.2 m. Each test 
employed two hydraulically inflated flatjacks measuring 0.81 x 0.81 m (0.66 m2) sandwiched 
between 0.91 x 0.91 m (0.83 m2) aluminum bearing plates, the flatjack and bearing plate 
assembly having a nominal width of 3.80 cm. The jacks and plates were located within the two 
parallel slots. The pressurization sequence used was adapted based on ASTM D 4394 (Standard 
Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid 
Plate Loading Method). The flatjack pressure was increased, with two or more 
unloading/reloading cycles until gross failure of the rock occurred. Measurements of rock mass 
deformation were made in the borehole, on the rib surfaces, and around the edges of the platens 
as a function of jack pressure and time. 
Site-specific geotechnical characterization was conducted at each slot test location. The entire 
surface of one side of one slot at each test and the 0.305 m central borehole were video recorded. 
The video was then mapped onto digital images, which were then used to quantify lithophysal 
and other feature abundances and to determine the nature and interconnectivity of the visible 
fracture network. (Howard, et al 2003, p. 377). 
The Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio of the rock was analytically estimated using two 
different methods. A closed-form solution for horizontal stress change applied near an 
underground borehole, the Kirsch solution, was used to make initial estimates of rock mass 
elastic constants. Then the Kirsch solution estimates were used in JAS3D, a project baselined 
finite element modeling code, to derive the final estimates of elastic properties by trying to match 
the actual pressure/deformation history. In situ stresses were assumed to be 4.3 MPa in the 
vertical direction, 3.0 MPa horizontally parallel to the ESF main drift, and 2.0 MPa horizontally 
perpendicular to the ESF main drift. For slot tests #1 and #2, the test configuration consisted of 
two vertical slots oriented normal to the rib of the ESF tunnel (normal to maximum horizontal in 
situ stress). For slot test #3, the slots were oriented approximately 52 from the principal stress 
orientations. However, locally near the rib of the tunnel, these stresses are altered as a result of 
the stress redistribution around the tunnel. Analysis with JAS3D included excavation of the 
borehole and slots under the in situ stress conditions to account for the in situ stress conditions 
before loading was begun. To date analyses have been performed without the inclusion of 
lithophysae in the mesh; later analysis will include the mapped lithophysal cavities. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-169 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source DTNs for each slot test are given in Table 8-58. Some further details concerning slot tests 
1 and 2 can be found in Rock-Mass Deformation Modulus Testing of Lithophysal Stratigraphic 
Units at the Yucca Mountain Project (Howard et. al 2003). The feature abundance DTNs are 
being updated to include the necessary estimated lithophysal and total porosity information. 
These DTNs also include what information is available regarding mapped fractures. 
Table 8-58. Source DTN Data for the In Situ Slot Tests 
Slot Test # Data Type DTNs 
1 Slot Test Results SN0207F4102102.001, SN0208F4102102.002 
Feature Abundances SN0301F4102102.007, SN0301F4102102.008 
2 Slot Test Results SN0212F4102102.003, SN0212F4102102.004 
Feature Abundances SN0302F4102102.009, SN0302F4102102.010 
3 Slot Test Results SN0301F4102102.005, SN0301F4102102.006 
Feature Abundances SN0303F4102102.011, SN0303F4102102.012 
Table 8-59. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties From In Situ Slot Tests 
Slot 
Test 
Unit Temp. 
(C) 
Poissons 
Ratio 
Einitial 
(GPa) 
Ereload 
(GPa) 
Slot 
Area 
(m2) 
Tendon 
Length 
(m) 
Peak Flatjack 
Pressure 
(MPa) 
Estimated 
Lithophysal/ 
Total Rock 
Porosity (%) 
1 Tptpll 25 0.20 0.5 NA 2.2 1.2 6.1 12/24 
2 Tptpul 25 0.20 3.0 NA 3.4 1.2 3.4 13/24 
2 Tptpul 90 0.20 1.5 4 3.4 1.2 10.7 13/24 
3 Tptpll 25 0.33 1.0 NA 2.4 1.2 6.8 8/22 
SOURCE: DTNS LISTED IN TABLE 8-58 
A number of uncertainties impact the reported slot test results. 
 No failure stress was reported, only maximum flatjack pressure. Since the flatjack bearing 
plate area was about 25% larger than the flatjack contact area, the plate bearing stress was 
smaller than the recorded flatjack pressure. Furthermore, the applied load acted over an even 
larger bulk rock cross-sectional area within the tendon suggesting the likely tendon rock 
mass failure stress was smaller than the bearing plate pressure. Additionally, the multiaxial 
failure stress should be adjusted lower still to compensate for confining stresses existing in 
the rock, since uniaxial rock mass strength is desired. 
 The tested rock in situ stress conditions have been changed due to tunnel excavation and 
excavation of the central borehole and slots. In fact, for the two tests conducted in the tunnel 
ribs, the rock tendon was likely pre-stressed vertically to a significant percentage of the 
failure stress. Also, stress concentration in the rock around the large central borehole 
produced large stress gradients in the rock tendon, thus making it difficult to estimate a 
uniaxial rock mass strength. Post-test numerical analysis will attempt to back out a failure 
envelope for each slot test based on locations within the tendon where failure was observed. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-170 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 For slot tests 1 and 2, the in situ stresses were dominated by the vertical stress (resulting from 
the stress concentration near the tunnel wall) after the slots reduced the horizontal stress to 
close to zero. During testing, the increasing horizontal stress created a biaxial stress condition 
with failure occurring by fracturing parallel to the free face. Slot test 3, located in the floor, 
eliminated the in situ vertical stress and resulted in a test where the stress state in the tendon 
and stress paths to failure were better known. 
 The rock mass modulus values reported were estimated from the initial loading data, which 
most closely correspond to deformation from near-field damaged rock caused by tunnel 
construction and heating. Modulus values from the stiffer unload/reload data, which may 
more closely represent rock deformation away from the tunnel face, were not reported. 
Slot Test 1 
Slot test number 1 was conducted in a highly fractured Tptpll rock mass near the contact between 
the bottom of the Tptpmn and the top of the Tptpll at Station 57+77 in the South Ramp. This test 
was conducted on May 8, 2002 in the ESF right rib. The test configuration consisted of two 
vertical slots oriented normal to the rib of the tunnel, nominally 4-cm in width, an average of 
120-cm high, and an average of 1.8 m deep, which resulted in a nominal slot area of 2.2 m2. The 
nominal distance between the slots (tendon length) was 1.2 m. A 30.5 cm borehole, 
approximately 1.5-m deep, oriented in a horizontal plane and extending into the wall, 
perpendicular to the rib, was located between the slots about mid-height. Prior to test initiation, 
the rock was visibly fractured and three sections of the borehole had undergone rockfall. The 
lithophysal porosity at the location of slot test 1 was estimated to be 12 percent based on visual 
surveys of the rib surface, and video surveys of one slot and the central borehole; the total 
porosity was estimated to be 24 percent (DTN SN0301F4102102.008). This area was targeted to 
assess the expected lowest strength and shear modulus (lower bound) data representing the 
lowest quality lithophysal rock visible in the ESF. 
The test was initiated by raising the pressure in the jacks to about 2.4 MPa during the first 50 
minutes and holding this pressure for about 20 minutes. Starting at a pressure of about 2.1 MPa 
significant scaling of the rock in the borehole and on the drift wall surrounding the borehole 
began and inelastic behavior was noted. The pressure was subsequently dropped to about 1.5 
MPa, and then raised again over the next 40 minutes up to about 6.07 MPa when multiple 
fractures formed in the rock tendon parallel to the free face indicating possible rock failure in 
biaxial compression around the hole. At about the same pressure, there were clear indicators that 
the load platens were punching into the slot faces, also indicating a crushing failure of the rock 
behind the platens. Scaling, audible reports and some significant fracturing events continued 
periodically up to the maximum pressure. Substantial spalling was noted in the central borehole; 
size of rubble was about fist size. The pressure was then dropped back to about 4.2 MPa, 
increased to almost 5 MPa and held for 5 minutes, then raised again to about 5.8 MPa at which 
point the rock offered no further resistance, and the test was terminated after about 2.5 hours 
total. 
A visual observation was made to ascertain the failure mode. It was determined that failure was 
induced near the top of the right platen. Instead of failing the rock tendon, the platen pressed 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-171 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
into the adjacent rock-mass through a series of pre-existing but previously discontinuous 
fractures leading from the top of the right slot up to about 1 meter above the left slot (Howard et. 
al 2003, p. 377). Displacement from one central borehole gage showed a significant inelastic 
displacement as the flatjacks approached the maximum load, so the rock tendon was likely failed 
to some degree. 
Displacement-pressure data up to the initial 2.1-MPa point was used to determine a rock mass 
Poissons ratio and modulus value. The Kirsch solution yielded elastic estimates of 0.48 GPa for 
Youngs Modulus and 0.2 for Poissons ratio. Finite element modeling using JAS3D produced 
estimates of deformation modulus to be between 0.50 and 0.55 GPa. The more conservative 
value of 0.50 GPa was selected as the rock mass modulus. The peak flatjack pressure was 6.1 
MPa. 
Slot Test 2 
Slot test number 2 was conducted in a more competent zone of Tptpul rock with fewer fractures 
and lithophysae on the right rib of the ESF at Station 63+83. This ESF location was selected to 
represent the upper bound of rock behavior in an area composed of relatively higher quality rock 
that also lacked the pervasive fracturing of the Tptpll zone. The test, conducted first at ambient 
temperatures and later at high temperatures, was performed from October 15 through October 
30, 2002. 
The orientation of the slots and borehole were similar to slot test 1. The slots cut into the rib for 
slot test 2 were nominally 4 cm wide, 2.0 m deep and 1.7 m high, which resulted in a nominal 
slot area of 3.4 m2. After the slots were cut, the vertical borehole gages in the center borehole 
closed by approximately 2 mm. A 30.5 cm borehole, approximately 1.8 m deep, oriented in a 
horizontal plane and extending into the wall, perpendicular to the rib, was located between the 
slots about mid-height. A total of six heater holes 4-cm in diameter and 122-cm deep were 
drilled above and below the test tendon, and rod heaters were installed for the high-temperature 
test (Howard et. al 2003, p. 377). The lithophysal porosity at the location of slot test 2 was 
estimated to be 13 percent based on a visual survey of the rib, and video surveys of both slots 
and the central borehole; the total porosity was estimated to be 24 percent (DTN 
SN0302F4102102.010). 
For the first test, performed October 15, 2002, a single measurement session was conducted at 
ambient temperature. The second test was performed on October 30, 2002 and represented 
loading of a heated rock mass. The center borehole was video taped during the pressurization 
cycles to observe the borehole response to rock-mass failure. Any rubble dislodged as the result 
of spalling within the center borehole was collected, characterized in terms of particle size, and 
quantified. 
The ambient temperature test was conducted by raising the jack pressure to about 0.5 MPa, 
holding 5 minutes, then lowering the pressure to about 0.1 MPa. The second loading cycle 
increased the pressure up to about 1.8 MPa, was held for about 20 min then pressure was reduced 
to about 1.5 MPa and held for about 5 minutes. The third loading cycle raised the pressure to 
approximately 3.45 MPa where it was held for about 20 minutes. The pressure was subsequently 
dropped to about 1.8 MPa, held for 5 minutes, and then lowered to zero. The slots responded 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-172 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
elastically during this ambient temperature test phase. No significant scaling of the rock in the 
borehole or on the drift wall was observed. 
The Kirsch solution was applied to the ambient results and produced a Youngs modulus 
estimate of 2.0 GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.20 for the initial loading. Finite element modeling 
using JAS3D for the ambient test produced estimates of deformation modulus to be in the range 
of 2.0 to 3.0 GPa and 0.20 for Poissons ratio. The value of 3.0 GPa was selected as the rock 
mass modulus. 
Following completion of the ambient test, the heaters were turned on and kept on for more than 
two weeks to raise the rock tendon to about 90 C. During the heating cycle, borehole 
deformations of approximately 3 mm were recorded. Visual examination of the center borehole 
after the thermal test revealed two axial fractures that ran the length of the borehole. These 
fractures were the result of an apparent compressional failure of the rock under thermal load. 
The failure was attributed to: (1) the concentration of the vertical stress at the borehole springline 
due to creation of the tunnel and the borehole, (2) removal of the confining horizontal stress due 
to slot cutting, and (3) thermal stress in the vertical direction concentrated on the borehole wall. 
It was considered likely that the combination of (1) and (2) created a stress condition close to the 
failure stress near the springline of the borehole. Finally the addition of thermal stress (3) 
exceeded the rock strength and created the axial spalling. (Howard et. al 2003, pp. 378 and 379) 
After the tendon temperature had stabilized to around 90C, the heated pressurization test was 
initiated. Pressure in both jacks was increased (and unloaded) in four cycles to values of 1.7, 3.4, 
6.9 and 10.3 MPa over about 1 hour, then held at 10.3 MPa for about 75 minutes. During 
loading, audible reports were heard and minor spalling was recorded on video cameras located in 
the center borehole (Howard et. al 2003, pp. 379). Slot data indicated that compressive failure of 
the rock surrounding the left slot began at about 4 MPa. A significant failure of the rock to the 
right of the right slot occurred at a flatjack pressure of about 8 MPa. Creep closure of about 6 
mm was recorded in the center borehole and about 3.5 mm of creep deformation was recorded in 
the right slot during the hold period at 10.3 MPa, indicating that failure was beginning to occur. 
The pressure was then unloaded to about 7.8 MPa and then increased to 10.7 MPa when a loud 
report and a small cloud of dust was noted coming from an approximately 2 m high wedge 
block which failed in the rib to the right of the right slot. The pressure could be raised no higher, 
and after unloading a surveillance revealed that the right platen of the right jack was impacted 
into the right side of the slot about 1 cm. Also, newly opened fractures were evident, most 
having an orientation parallel in both strike and dip to pre-existing fractures that transect the 
ESF. (Howard et. al 2003, pp. 379) 
Finite element modeling using JAS3D for the heated test produced estimates of deformation 
modulus to be in the range from 1.0 to 2.0 GPa and 0.20 for Poissons ratio. The average value 
of 1.5 GPa was selected as the most appropriate rock mass modulus for average rock 
temperatures of about 90C. One unloading curve slope corresponded to a reported Youngs 
modulus of about 4 GPa. This measured reduction in modulus after heating is significant in that 
it indicates that the rock mass was damaged by thermal stresses, thus reducing the rock modulus. 
This is corroborated by the observation of fracturing in the central borehole as a result of 
elevated thermal stresses. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-173 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Slot Test 3 
Slot test number 3 was located at Station 21+25 of the ECRB in an area selected to have the most 
representative geomechanical properties of lithophysal (Tptpll) rock mass. However, once the 
slots were cut many noticeable fractures and numerous lithophysae were discovered. To avoid 
the vertical stress concentration present at the springline of the rib, the location of the slot test 
was moved to the floor of the tunnel. Otherwise, the test setup was the same as the previous slot 
tests, except that the central borehole had a vertical orientation. A 30.5 cm borehole was drilled 
approximately 1.8 m deep into the floor. The slots cut into the floor were nominally 4 cm wide, 
1.4 m deep and 1.7 m long, which resulted in a nominal slot area of 2.4 m2. The lithophysal 
porosity at the location of slot test 3 was estimated to be 8 percent based on a visual survey of the 
rib, and video surveys of both slots and the central borehole; the total porosity was estimated to 
be 22 percent (DTN SN0303F4102102.012). 
This test was conducted on December 10, 2002. Pressure in both jacks was increased, held for 
about 20 minutes and then unloaded in four cycles to values of about 0.8, 1.7, 3.3 and 5.0 MPa. 
Around 0.7 MPa, 0.4 to 0.5 mm slip displacement was registered in all the borehole and rib 
gages, likely on a fracture traversing near the borehole. When the flatjack pressure was 
increased to about 5 MPa, visible signs of compression failure were evident in the borehole 
collar and the drift invert surrounding the borehole. There was significant fracturing and vertical 
movement of rock on the floor as well as substantial rockfall into the borehole. The slot and 
tendon measurement data clearly show this failure. Analysis of the data appears to indicate that 
the rock near the left rib behaved inelastically from the outset of the test. The pressure could not 
be maintained at 5 MPa. The pressure was then reduced to about 3.9 MPa, held for 5 minutes, 
then increased up to 6.8 MPa, which was the maximum pressure that could be applied. Above 5 
MPa significant and continuous displacements were measured in borehole gages, the tendon 
displacements and in the left slot (the right slot data was not provided in the DTN). 
The Kirsch solution was applied and produced a Youngs modulus estimate of 0.7 GPa and 
Poissons ratio of 0.33 for the initial loading. Finite element modeling using JAS3D produced an 
estimate of the deformation modulus to be about 1.0 GPa and 0.33 for Poissons ratio. The value 
of 1.0 GPa was adopted as the preliminary rock mass modulus. 
8.7.5 ESF Ground Support Confirmation 
Completion of the ESF Main Loop tunnel represented a major YMP milestone and set a natural 
stage for the assessment of the new data acquired from the ESF tunnel and the evaluation of their 
impact (if any) on the methodology followed initially when the rock property data were limited. 
A series of reports was prepared with the overall objective of evaluating design methodology, 
assumptions made prior to construction and verification of these assumptions after the tunnel 
construction was completed. The ESF Ground Support Confirmation (CRWMS M&O 1998c) 
summarizes evaluation of the ground control measures introduced in the ESF tunnel during 
construction. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-174 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The specific objectives for this analysis included the following: 
 Assemble a list of design parameters to facilitate a comparison of the initial core-base 
ESF design parameters to geomechanics parameters acquired from scanline and full-
peripheral field mapping. 
 Identify significant differences between the original core-based parameters and the 
field-based parameters from tunnel mapping. 
 Revisit the original ESF ground support design analysis using field-based rock mass 
and joint properties from tunnel mapping as key design inputs. 
 Compare predicted displacements and ground support loads with the actual in situ 
performance using both tunnel mapping and construction monitoring data and 
information. 
 Demonstrate the adequacy of ESF design modeling and ground support performance 
in the ESF. 
 Compare the installed support in the ESF to the recommended support based on the 
guidelines in the ESF ground support design analysis and on the field mapping rock 
mass quality data. 
 Assess the adequacy of the installed support relative to the mapped ground 
conditions. 
The results from this analysis may serve as a base for establishing a procedure leading to 
verification of ground support performance during construction and operation of emplacement 
drifts and provide a baseline for planned inspection, and maintenance during the Operations and 
Maintenance (O&M) phase of the future repository operations. The results from this activity 
may also support Repository Design data and information needs. 
The purpose of this report was confirmation of geotechnical parameters used in rock support 
design. The range of the rock mass property values used in the design of the ESF ground support 
system were originally based on North Ramp Geologic (NRG) borehole data. Scanline data, full 
peripheral mapping, tunnel convergence measurements and ground support instrumentation 
provided a substantial volume of data and information that were used to confirm key ESF design 
parameters and hence the original basis for design. The acquired data and information also 
served to confirm the empirical and analytical design methodologies used in the design of the 
ESF ground support systems. This confirmation process identified any significant variance 
between the actual and predicted performance of the installed ground support system. This data 
and information can be incorporated into the performance confirmation baseline and may serve 
as the technical basis for assessments of the future repository, including periodic inspection and 
maintenance of the facility openings and ground support. 
8.7.6 ESF Deformation Monitoring 
During ESF construction, efforts were made to obtain information pertaining to the magnitude of 
deformation occurring as a result of tunnel excavation. The analysis of tunnel deformation data 
was presented in Deformation Monitoring Analysis (CRWMS M&O 1998a). The report presents 
an analysis of tunnel deformation in the ESF based on convergence monitoring data. 
Displacement data from 94 tape extensometer stations and 18 borehole extensometer stations 
along the ESF Main Loop (i.e., the North Ramp, Main Drift, and South Ramp) were evaluated as 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-175 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
part of this analysis. A semi-empirical convergence solution was applied to interpret the 
convergence measurements to estimate ground behavior prior to installation of the convergence 
monitoring station and to predict long-term tunnel displacement. An analytical solution that 
relates convergence to elastic modulus was applied to estimate rock mass modulus. 
The specific objectives for this analysis included the following: 
 Correlate tunnel convergence rates and magnitudes as a function of thermal mechanical 
unit and the associated rock mass properties. 
 Confirm the design assumption that limited displacements (50% to 60% of the total 
displacement) will occur prior to ground support installation. 
 Conduct a regression analysis of displacement data to address future potential 
displacement anomalies. 
 Predict long-term tunnel displacement and convergence rates. 
 Compare tunnel closure and closure rates in the ESF to the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) Site Characterization Plan tentative goals. 
 Assess long-term tunnel stability based on predicted long-term tunnel displacement and 
convergence rates. 
 Back calculate the rock mass modulus of deformation from the convergence data. 
The results from this analysis may assist in the ground support selection process and provide a 
baseline for planning inspections and maintenance during the Operations and Maintenance 
(O&M) phase of the future repository operations. The results from this activity are also available 
to support Repository Design data and information needs. 
It should be noted that the instrumentation data from monitoring in the ESF tunnel were obtained 
under ambient conditions. The predictions of long-term tunnel displacement based on the ESF 
monitored data are, therefore, not directly applicable to those underground openings, which will 
be subjected to thermal loads. 
8.7.7 Steel Sets Monitoring 
Steel sets were placed in the ESF as ground support for the tunnel. The ESF Design 
Confirmation Steel Set Loads Analysis, (CRWMS M&O 1998b) provides an assessment of the 
data collected from the field measurements. Deformations of the rock mass over time would be 
reflected by changes of loading (and strains) in the steel sets. The analysis is developed using 
mainly the steel set strain gage data, in order to assess the rock loads acting on individual sets. 
The analysis takes into account the following factors: 
 geological factors, such as depth of tunnel section, and 
 influence of jacking loads used during installation on the development of post-installation 
loads. 
In total, forty steel sets were instrumented with strain gages with the purpose of monitoring the 
steel set performance with time. Some sets were instrumented before jacking and some after 
jacking. The underlying assumption of the analysis was, that the rock mass initially relaxed 
around the excavated opening would undergo further deformation as time progressed. The data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-176 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
from four sets were not available and so the analysis was based on the remaining 36 data sets, 
however, the data for one of the 36 sets was found not to be reliable. 
The loads estimated for steel sets in the ESF Ground Support Design Analysis (CRWMS M&O 
1995), were used as input to a structural analysis (CRWMS M&O 1996), the objective of which, 
was to provide a basis for the calculations associated with sizing of steel sets and components of 
the installation setup needed to assemble and install the steel sets in the tunnel. Instrumented 
steel sets were to provide the data for an in-situ verification of the steel set performance. 
The ESF Design Confirmation Steel Set Loads Analysis (CRWMS M&O 1998b) included both 
evaluation of stresses measured in the steel and numerical modeling. Numerical modeling was 
used as a tool facilitating replication of the loading pattern imposed on the typical steel set during 
installation. Since the results of measurements indicated relatively minor stress changes in steel 
sets over time, it was reasonable to consider that steel set stresses were developed mainly as a 
result of initial jacking load used to expand the set in place. Factor of safety calculated for each 
instrumented set was used as a measure of the load imposed on the set. 
Figure 8-72 displays the minimum factors of safety obtained for all instrumented steel sets. The 
results obtained for a group of steel sets instrumented before jacking are considered a better 
indicator of the magnitude of total loads imposed upon each instrumented set. Analysis of 
measurements and numerical modeling results revealed that the maximum stresses were 
generated by the bending moment imposed during installation. 
The field-obtained set of steel set stress measurements for steel set #244, shown in Figure 8-73, 
indicates that maximum stresses induced in the steel set by jacking are about 10% of the design 
installation stress. The load does not change with time. 
In general, the data obtained from steel sets at the repository horizon indicate that no measurable 
stress buildup was observed following the steel set installation. Minor stress increases were 
recorded in the steel sets installed in the softer PTn/TSw1 units. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-177 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Lowest Factor of Safety (FS) for Individual Steel Sets
l 
0.0 
1.0 
2.0 
3.0 
4.0 
5.0 
6.0 
7.0 
8.0 
9.0 
10.0 
Factor of Safety 
Steel Sets Instrumented After Jacking Steel Sets Instrumented Before Jacking 
W6x20 SteeSets 
Steel Set Number 
Notes: Steel sets are W8 x 31, except as indicated. Steel Set #731 data was determined to be unreliable.
Source: CRWMS M&O 1998b, Figure 50, p. 124 (Visual scan analysis not included)
Figure 8-72. Factor of Safety Under Combined Loading Conditions for Instrumented Steel Sets 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-178 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Note: For legend details, see source. 
Source: CRWMS M&O 1998b, p. IV-12 
Figure 8-73. Typical Stress Data Obtained from the Field Measurements for Steel Set #244. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-179 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.8 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISTICS AT THE REPOSITORY HOST HORIZON 
8.8.1 General 
The repository host horizon (RHH) is located in the Topopah Spring Tuff Formation. 
Specifically the Topopah Spring Tuff crystal poor upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul), the Topopah 
Spring Tuff crystal poor middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), the Topopah Spring Tuff crystal 
poor lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll), and the Topopah Spring Tuff crystal poor lower 
nonlithophysal zone (Tptpln). Unless otherwise indicated, details pertaining to these 
lithostratigraphic units are provided in Figure 3 ofMongano et al. (1999) and are further 
summarized in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3). The 
nonlithophysal rocks, which comprise roughly 15 percent of the emplacement area, are hard, 
strong, jointed rock masses, whereas the lithophysal rocks, which comprise approximately 85 
percent of the emplacement area, are somewhat weaker rocks with abundant small-scale 
fractures between the lithophysae. Field observations and large-scale tests provide evidence that 
indicates strong dependence between characteristics of discontinuities and the overall 
performance of the lithostratigraphic rock units. Discussion presented below summarizes 
important aspects of joint characteristics and their contribution to the overall rock mass 
characteristics. 
8.8.2 Mapped Rock Fracture Geometry 
Developed fracture data include joint set orientation, fracture spacing, fracture trace length, and 
fracture offset from the Detailed Line Survey (DLS). Details for the current determination of 
joint set orientations, the identification of joint sets, and fracture spacing and trace length data 
are provided in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Sections 6.1.4.1, 6.1.6, and 
Attachment II). 
Extensive geotechnical mapping of fractures has been performed in the entire ESF main loop 
(CRWMS M&O 1998d) and the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) 
Cross-Drift (Mongano et al. 1999 P. 72-87). The development of fracture geometry parameters 
is based on mapping data collected from the ESF, including the main loop (which is composed of 
the North Ramp, Main Drift, and South Ramp), and the ECRB Cross-Drift. Qualified fracture 
mapping data in the ESF were collected from the following lithologic zones: Tptpul, Tptpmn, 
Tptpll, and the Tptpln. Mapping data from the ESF includes both USGS/USBR full periphery 
geologic maps (FPGMs) and the DLS. Source DTNs for the FPGMs and the DLS data are listed 
in Table 8-60. 
FPGMs and DLS activities were performed and completed for all excavated drifts. Both 
activities served to document the geologic conditions of the RHH. The FPGMs consist of 100 
meter sections of the tunnel drawn to a scale of 1:125. These maps display not only all the 
fractures over a meter in length but also have Q and RMR along with RQD and excavation rates 
plotted on them. Additionally these maps record and display all of the ground support employed 
during excavation. DLS consists of a description of orientation, trace length, small and large 
scale roughness, and end terminations for all fractures with trace lengths of greater than or equal 
to one meter which cross a tape down the drift. The DLS database consists of over 35,000 
fractures with up to 12 attributes for each fracture. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-180 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The project is currently working to produce a comprehensive summary of fracture characteristics 
based on the combined mapping data from the ESF and ECRB, boreholes, and surface outcrops. 
This will employ a hierarchical approach to develop joint sets and will address the uncertainty 
and spatial variability of fracture geometry. The basic concept of the hierarchical approach is to 
define joint sets based on their genetic evolution. For example, low (dip) angle vapor phase 
partings (vpp) and long fractures with limited truncations are the first forming fractures followed 
by shorter more truncated fractures. 
The discussion of fracturing presented in the rest of this section is based on Mongano et al. 
(1999, p. 72-87). Figure 5-2, presented earlier, shows a schematic of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
illustrating the general occurrence of fracturing and lithophysae in the various zones of the 
formation. The occurrence of fractures and lithophysae are roughly inversely proportional. The 
schematic (Figure 5-2) is demonstrated quantitatively in Figure 8-74, where the fracture density 
(fractures with trace length greater than 1 m), determined from detailed line mapping (i.e., the 
DLS), and the approximate percentage of lithophysal porosity in the ECRB Cross-Drift are 
shown. The density of fractures with trace length greater than 1 m is significantly larger in the 
Tptpmn and Tptpln (20-35 fractures/10 m), as compared to 5 fractures/10 m or less in the Tptpul 
and Tptpll (Figure 8-74). 
The fractures have relatively short continuous trace lengths (Figure 8-75), with ends often 
terminating either against other fractures or in solid rock, leaving a solid rock bridge between 
fracture tracks. The FPGMs that mapped all fracture traces with length greater than one meter 
were mapped behind the tunnel boring machine as the ESF main loop and the ECRB Cross-Drift 
were excavated. A typical FPGM showing all fractures is shown in Figure 8-76. Figure 8-77 
shows the discontinuous nature of the fractures in each set. This figure shows a photograph 
typical of the wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift within the Tptpmn. The fracture traces were painted 
during the detailed line mapping (Figure 8-77). Each fracture termination was logged as being 
against another fracture, within solid rock, or continuous. The photo shows the common 
occurrence of fractures that terminate in solid rock (T-junctions) as opposed to continuous 
structures (arrowheads). The sub-vertical fractures, in particular, often have curved surfaces 
with large-amplitude (dozens of centimeters) asperities and wavelength of meters. Fractures 
often terminate in solid rock with discontinuous interconnection to adjacent fracture tracks or 
against other fractures. 
The sub-horizontal vapor-phase partings (Figure 8-78) are relatively continuous structures seen 
throughout the Tptpmn. These continuous, but anastamosing fractures are sub-parallel to the 
foliation of the rock unit, and are filled with concentrations of vapor-phase minerals (primarily 
tridymite and cristobalite). The surfaces are rough on a small scale and, as a result of the mineral 
filling, they have cohesion (unlike the sub-vertical fractures). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-181 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: Mongano et al. 1999 Figure 13 
Note: Observe the inverse relationship within individual lithostratigraphic units. 
Figure 8-74. Composite Plot of Fracture Frequency and Lithophysal Porosity as a Function of Distance Along the ECRB Cross-Drift 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-182 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-60. Source DTNs for the Fracture Geometry from DLS and FPGM Data. 
Fracture 
Geometry 
GS971108314224.024
GS971108314224.025
GS960708314224.008
GS000608314224.004
GS960708314224.010
GS971108314224.026
GS960908314224.014
GS971108314224.028
GS970208314224.003
GS970808314224.010
GS960908314224.020
GS000608314224.006
GS960908314224.015
GS960908314224.016
GS960908314224.017
GS970108314224.002
GS970208314224.004
GS970808314224.009
GS970808314224.011
GS990408314224.001
GS990408314224.002
GS990408314224.003
GS990408314224.004
GS990408314224.005
GS990408314224.006
GS990908314224.009
MO0008SPAFRA06.004
GS971108314224.023
GS970808314224.008
Note: The fracture geometry data includes the number of joint sets, fracture orientation (strike and dip), 
fracture spacing, and trace length. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-183 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 1000 2000a. 
b. 
Source: Mongano et al. 1999, Figures 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 
Figure 8-75. Fracture Trace Length from Detailed Line Surveys as a Function of (a) Stationing Along 
the ECRB Cross-Drift and (b) Frequency Within Lithostratigraphic Units 
The nature of the fracture geometry is extremely important to estimates of the stability of the 
rock mass, particularly under seismic shaking, as well as to estimates of the support function and 
level of required ground support. Most rock mass classification schemes are based on 
experience of rock masses with continuous joint sets that create regular, blocky masses (e.g., 
Hoek 2000). In the Tptpmn, the relatively short trace lengths and non-persistent joints create 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-184 December 2003

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
relatively few kinematically removable blocks. This sparseness is evidenced by the fact that 
only a very small number of rock blocks have actually been removed in the ECRB Cross-Drift. 
Those blocks removed actually occurred under the action of the tunnel boring machine or were 
scaled out of the back and walls. 
Short-length fractures (less than 1-m trace length), coupled with the lithophysae, are the most 
important features that govern stability in the Tptpll, since they impact the rock mass strength as 
described in Section 7.4. Whereas the Tptpul tends to have little small-scale inter-lithophysal 
fracturing (Figure 8-79a), the Tptpll has abundant fracturing. Figure 8-79b, from the upper 
portion of the Tptpll, shows the intensive fracturing that exists between lithophysae. The 
fractures, which exist throughout the Tptpll, have a primary vertical orientation, and have lateral 
spacing of a few centimeters. 
Recently the USGS/USBR generated data on small-scale fractures with trace lengths less than 
1 m (DTN GS990908314224.009). These data were collected at six locations in the Tptpmn (2 
locations), Tptpll (3 locations), and Tptpln (1 location). The small-scale fracture traverses in the 
Tptpll confirm the close spacing and short trace lengths of fractures in this zone. The average 
spacing, from a combined 18 meters of traverse, is 0.05 meters and an average trace length of 
0.29 meters. The intensity and short trace lengths of fractures in this zone creates a texture that 
severely limits the potential block size in this zone. By comparing the detailed line survey 
(fracture >1m) and the small-scale surveys, this intensity is clearly due to small-scale fractures 
(<1m trace length). The detailed line survey sampled almost 880 meters of tunnel in the ECRB 
Cross-Drift. There are 300 fractures recorded over this run of tunnel that have a trace length 
greater than 1 meter. The small-scale survey in the Tptpll can be combined into 18 meters of 
horizontal sampling. There are 372 fractures recorded over 18 meters of sampling. 
In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish whether these fractures have been disturbed by 
mining, or induced by in situ stresses, or whether mining along a weakness fabric in the rock 
newly creates them. However, it is clear that the middle portion of the Tptpll has a ubiquitous 
fracture fabric that is most evident when large diameter core is removed from boreholes (see 
Figures 8-2 and 8-3). The core, although competent, has numerous fractured surfaces that break 
into small blocks when stressed. Lithophysae and occasional horizontal fractures tend to create 
blocks with dimensions on the order of about 10 cm or less on a side. Thin section analyses of 
the fracturing in the Tptpll and the Tptpmn show rims on many of the fracture surfaces within 
the rock mass away from the tunnel wall, indicating there are numerous natural fractures (i.e., 
not mining-induced) and were formed during the cooling process (Buesch 2003). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-185 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A8-186December 2003DTN: GS990408314224.004NOTE:The purpose of this figure is to illustrate the geologic structure contained on a full periphery geologic map.
The annotated information on this figure is not intended to be legible. An enlarged, legible map is availablethrough the source DTN.
Figure 8-76.Illustrative Example of a Full Periphery Geologic Map from the ESF, Tptpmn

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTE: T-junctions on fractures indicate terminations; arrowheads show continuous features. 
Figure 8-77. Fractures in Wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift in the Tptpmn 
Figure 8-78. Low-Angle Vapor-Phase Partings in Nonlithophysal Units in the ESF 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-187 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: The Tptpul (a) is characterized by a relatively few fractures in the matrix-groundmass between lithophysae 
whereas the Tptpll (b) has abundant, natural, short-length fractures that interconnect lithophysae. Spacing 
of the fractures in the Tptpll is generally less than 5 cm. 
Figure 8-79. Comparison of Lithophysae and Fracturing in the Tptpul and Tptpll 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-188 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.8.3 Rock Mass Quality Data 
Geotechnical data have been collected in the ESF and ECRB based on two empirical rock mass 
classification systems: the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute rock quality system (Q system) 
(Barton et al. 1974) and the Geomechanics Rock Mass Rating system (RMR system) 
(Bieniawski 1989). Q and RMR system ratings were assigned for each 5-meter length of tunnel 
using both rock classification systems along a scan-line attached at the rib spring-line. In 
addition, the quality designator Q was assigned for each 5-meter section over the entire tunnel 
diameter. The scanline Q and the full circumference Q sometimes differed significantly 
reflecting the large spatial variability of the rock mass. The full circumference Q will be 
reported and used in this report. 
The use of the relatively short 5-meter rating length may have the disadvantage of introducing 
variations in some evaluated parameters which may be expected to be stable; yet it has the 
advantage of capturing expected variations in more unstable parameters. For example, 
considering the Q system, one might assume the number of joint sets would be constant over a 
long reach of tunnel. Using a five-meter rating length permits evaluation of the actual 
occurrence of a particular joint set; therefore the rating value for the number of joint sets may 
vary within a ten-meter reach of tunnel. On the other hand, the five-meter rating length permits a 
description of the changes in fracture frequency represented by the rock quality designation 
(RQD). Overall, the five-meter rating length emphasizes changes in rock quality from one 
length to the next. When longer reaches of the tunnel or various stratigraphic units are 
compared, differences in the trends of the five-meter ratings and differences in the average 
ratings are meaningful. 
8.8.3.1 Measured Data from Tunnels 
The geotechnical characterization of lithostratigraphic units described in this section is based on 
Mongano et al. (1999). USGS/USBR personnel used technical procedure YMP-USGS-GP-54 to 
collect the field data needed to assess the stability of underground excavations. The procedure 
describes the methods used to choose and evaluate important rock characteristics. Data collected 
under this procedure were used to produce two standard classifications - the Norwegian 
Geotechnical Institute Q-system rating (Barton et. al. 1974) and the Geomechanics Classification 
Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniawski 1989). Summary statistics of the rock mass quality data 
for the nonlithophysal repository host horizon units are presented in Tables 8-61 and 8-62. Only 
the full-periphery geologic mapping data was used (see source DTNs in Table 8-63). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-189 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-61. Summary of the Rock Mass Quality Data for the Tptpmn 
Measure Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range 
RQD Tptpmn 791 60.54 0.60 16.96 0.28 61.00 5.40 99.00 93.60 
Jn Tptpmn 791 9.18 0.09 2.60 0.28 9.00 3.00 15.00 12.00 
Jr Tptpmn 791 1.93 0.02 0.69 0.36 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 
Ja Tptpmn 791 2.49 0.04 1.15 0.46 2.00 0.75 8.00 7.25 
JwQ Tptpmn 791 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 
SRF Tptpmn 791 2.19 0.05 1.38 0.63 2.50 0.56 10.00 9.44 
Table 8-62. Summary of the Rock Mass Quality Data for the Tptpln 
Measure Unit Count Mean Std Error Std Dev Dev/Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range 
RQD Tptpln 43 61.83 3.56 23.34 0.38 67.40 10.00 95.00 85.00 
Jn Tptpln 43 9.35 0.18 1.17 0.13 9.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 
Jr Tptpln 43 2.83 0.07 0.46 0.16 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 
Ja Tptpln 43 2.07 0.08 0.51 0.24 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 
JwQ Tptpln 43 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 
SRF Tptpln 43 0.93 0.05 0.35 0.38 0.79 0.66 2.17 1.50 
Table 8-63. Source Documents of the Rock Mass Quality Data 
Source Data (DTNs) 
Description of Data Data Tracking Number 
(DTN) 
QA Status 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 00+60 to 04+00 GS950508314224.003 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 04+00 to 26+00 GS960908314224.020 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 26+00 to 30+00 GS000608314224.006 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 30+00 to 40+00 GS960908314224.015 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 40+00 to 50+00 GS960908314224.016 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 50+00 to 55+00 GS960908314224.017 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 55+00 to 60+00 GS970108314224.002 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 60+00 to 65+00 GS970208314224.004 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 65+00 to 70+00 GS970808314224.009 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 70+00 to 75+00 GS970808314224.011 QA 
ESF Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 75+00 to 78+77 GS970808314224.013 QA 
ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 00+00 to 10+00 GS990408314224.003 QA 
ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 10+00 to 15+00 GS990408314224.004 QA 
ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 15+00 to 20+00 GS990408314224.005 QA 
ECRB Full-Periphery Geologic Mapping Data, Station 20+00 to 26+81 GS990408314224.006 QA 
ESF FPGM, Alcove 5, Heated Drift Station 0+00 to 0+60 GS970608314224.007 QA 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-190 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.8.4 Field Measured Porosity 
The distribution of rock physical properties, such as bulk density, porosity, and pore size, are 
controlled largely by variations in grain size and sorting, the abundance of volcanic glass, degree 
of welding, types and abundance of crystallization, amount and type of alteration to clay or 
zeolite, lithophysal content, and fracture characteristics. High-silica rhyolite and quartz latite 
tuffs are the two most common compositions of the rocks at Yucca Mountain. The matrix 
density of high-silica rhyolite and quartz latite is typically 2.35 and 2.40 g/cm3, respectively. 
The degree of welding in these rocks ranges from nonwelded to densely welded rock. 
The Tptpul and Tptpll comprise roughly 85 percent of the planned repository emplacement area 
(Section 5.4). The rock porosity in the lithophysal units has been shown to be the primary 
physical factor that governs elastic and strength properties (Section 8.4.2) and thermal 
conductivity (Section 8.3.3). The porosity is found in three major components: the matrix 
porosity, which averages about 10 percent in the Topopah Spring repository host horizon 
lithostratigraphic units (Section 8.2.3.2); the lithophysae porosity (cavity, 100 percent); and the 
porosity of vapor phase altered material found in rims and spots, which averages about 30 
percent in the Topopah Spring repository host horizon lithophysal units (Tptpul and Tptpll, Table 
8-3). Lithophysal porosity is defined to be the volume fraction of lithophysae within tuff, which 
can range from 0 up to 40 percent or even higher (Sections 8.2.3.3 and 8.8.5.1). Practically, tuff 
porosity is used as either lithophysal porosity or total rock porosity. 
8.8.4.1 Lithophysal Rock Porosity Along Tunnel 
Description 
Lithophysae resulting from escaping gases during cooling are found in rocks that are densely 
welded, and infrequently in rocks that are moderately welded. Lithophysae consist of a cavity, 
which is commonly coated with vapor-phase minerals on the inner wall. This is surrounded by a 
fine-grained zone, which, in turn, is surrounded by a thin, very fine-grained border. The 
engineering range of interest for a typical lithophysa diameter varies from roughly 1 cm to 1 m, 
with shapes that vary from nearly spherical to extremely oblate. The larger lithophysal cavities 
tend to be irregular or ellipsoidal features that exhibit prismatic fracturing and block interiors. 
Associated with the lithophysae are light gray to grayish-orange pink spots 1 to 5 cm in diameter. 
Some spots may represent the cross sections of rims on lithophysae, whereas others have a 
crystal or lithic clast in the core that could have acted as a nucleation site. Lithophysae 
commonly occur in concentrated zones; specific zones are distinguishable on the basis of a 
combination of lithophysae, spots, and fracture characteristics. Lithophysal zones have fewer 
fractures compared to nonlithophysal zones, and the fractures are typically irregular in profile 
and have rough surfaces with few high-angle, planar, and smooth fractures. 
Although the character of the lithophysae varies between the Tptpul and Tptpll as shown in 
Figure 8-79, the mineralogy of the matrix material within both of these units is the same as in the 
nonlithophysal units (Section 8.2.3). 
Compositionally and mineralogically the rocks in lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones are 
similar, but there can be variations in the amounts of quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite; however, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-191 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
the main difference is in the abundance of lithophysae and features formed by crystallization in 
the presence of the vapor phase (rims, spots, etc.). The upper and lower lithophysal zones share 
many characteristics, but there are also numerous distinctions (Mongano et al. 1999 p. 17-37), 
and these general characteristics are as follows. 
The lithophysal cavities vary in size and shape, with characteristics that are somewhat different 
in the Tptpul and Tptpll. The lithophysae in the Tptpul: 
 Tend to be smaller (roughly 1 to 10 cm in diameter), 
 Are more uniform in size and distribution within the unit, 
 Vary in infilling and rim thicknesses, 
 Have a volume percentage that varies consistently with stratigraphic position, and 
 Are stratigraphically predictable. 
in contrast, the lithophysae in the Tptpll: 
 Tend to be highly variable in size, from roughly 1 cm to 1.8 m in size; 
 Have shapes that are highly variable from smooth and spherical to irregular and sharp 
boundaries, which are described as simple (elliptical cross-sections and spherical to 
ellipsoidal shapes), irregular, cuspate, merged (two or more lithophysae joined into one 
large one), and extension-crack lithophysae; 
 Have infilling and rim thickness that vary greatly with vertical and horizontal spacing; 
 Have volume percentages that vary consistently with stratigraphic position; and 
 Are stratigraphically predictable. 
Variation of Features Along the ECRB Tunnel 
With a large amount of the repository located in the lower lithophysal zone, a detailed study of 
the lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift has 
recently been completed (DTN: GS021008314224.002). These characteristics are documented 
via the use of several techniques, including tape and survey measurements of lithophysae size at 
intervals across the thickness of the Tptpll within the ECRB as well as detailed mapping and 
photography of 1m x 3m panel maps along the walls of the ECRB. The data package documents 
the distributions of size, shape, and abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic 
clasts, and these data can be displayed and analyzed as (1) local variations, (2) along the tunnel 
(a critical type of variation), and (3) as values for the total zone. The results of this work are 
summarized here. More complete information will be available as part of an analysis of existing 
and new lithophysal data by being carried out by USBR/USGS. 
These measuring techniques have resulted in a quantification of the lithophysal porosity as a 
function of vertical position within the Tptpll, the mineralogy of the lithophysae rims and spots, 
and the shape and size distribution of the lithophysal porosity. Because of the variations in scale 
of the features from lengths measured in millimeters to tens of meters, a variety of methods were 
purposely used to document the features in the rocks (Table 8-64). These types of variations are 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-192 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
most easily observed in a panel map. An example of a panel map and relevant lithophysae 
statistics for the map is shown in Figure 8-80 and Table 8-65. 
Table 8-64. Methods Used to Document the Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Features in the Lower 
Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Method Location Procedure/Configuration Data Collected 
Full peripheral 
mapping 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+44 to 
23+26) 
Map visible tunnel surfaces Discontinuities >1 m, 
contacts, tunnel supports 
Detailed line surveys 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+44 to 
23+26) 
Tape line along one side of 
tunnel Discontinuities >1 m 
Small-scale fracture 
surveys 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 6 
selected locations 
(11+15 to 24+30) 
Each 6 meter long horizontal 
traverse intersects three 2 
meter long vertical traverses 
Discontinuities <1 m 
Panel maps 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 18 
selected locations 
(14+93 to 22+94) 
1 x 3 meter maps, 1:10 scale, 
overlays on photographs 
Lithophysae, rims, spots, 
lithic clasts 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 187 Traverses across tunnel, 
Tape traverses at 5 meter intervals 
(14+05 to 23+35) 
measured with tape attached 
to pole 
Lithophysae cavities only 
Angular traverses 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 22 
selected locations 
(14+60 to 22+00) 
Traverses across tunnel, laser-
prism measurements with 
geometric solutions 
Length of lithophysal cavities, 
rims, spots, stringers, lithic 
clasts, and matrix-
groundmass 
Large-lithophysae 
inventory 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+40 to 
17+55) 
528 Lithophysae with long axis 
0.5 m and greater 
Long axis, short axis, station, 
wall position 
NOTE: See Attachment VII for more explanation of these methods. 
Panel maps are 1 x 3 m and 1:10 scale maps of the left or right ribs (walls) of the tunnel, and the 
maps were created as overlays on photographs taken with low-angle illumination to accentuate 
the relief of the wall caused by cavities (and fractures). Locations of the panel maps were 
positioned to capture representative variations in the rocks along the tunnel, and not to capture 
specific features such as the largest lithophysae. Panel maps provide 2-dimensional (area) data 
for specific features or as the total of the map area (DTN: GS021008314224.002). Additionally, 
the Data files for the panel maps in the data package include 3-dimensional measurements 
(height, width, and depth) from which an equivalent ellipsoid can be calculated. The methods 
used in making panel maps and point-counting the areas of features result in values accurate to 
about 2 to 5 percent of the listed value. To test the influence of positioning the map area, the 
panel map for 16+41 on the left wall was used to compare the reported values with values from 
four alternative positions. The descriptive statistics on the area percent determined from the five 
map positions indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent 
confidence levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent 
confidence levels of less than 0.5 percent (DTN: GS021008314224.002 and Beason et al. 2003). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-193 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTE: Using the colored zones, a statistical analysis of the lithophysal cavity and rim content are made. Here, rock 
mass has 19% cavities, 5.7% rims and 3.5% spots. The panel map is located between Stations 16+41 to 16+44 on 
the left wall. 
Figure 8-80. Example Tptpll Lithophysal Panel Map and Highlighting of Lithophysal Cavities (Orange) 
and Rims (Green) in a Trimmed Map. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-194 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 8-65. Summary of Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, and Matrix-
Groundmass Based on Panel Maps in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+93 to 22+94 
Station 
(m) 
Station (m) 
(numerical) 
Panel 
Maps 
Matrix /
Groundmass 
(percent) 
Lithophysal 
Cavities 
(percent) 
Rims 
(percent) 
Spots(percent) 
Lithic Clasts 
(percent) 
14+93 1493 14+93L 69.5 13.3 13.3 3.7 0.2 
15+51 1551 15+51L 77.3 15.8 3.6 2.0 1.3 
16+10 1610 16+10R 78.2 15.3 3.6 2.8 0.1 
16+24 1624 16+24R 72.6 13.4 11.3 2.6 0.1 
16+41 1641 16+41L 71.6 19.0 5.7 3.5 0.1 
16+41 1641 16+41R 80.4 12.6 5.9 1.0 0.1 
16+56 1656 16+56L 75.6 13.2 7.3 3.7 0.1 
17+26 1726 17+26L 81.9 16.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 
17+68 1768 17+68L 83.2 13.6 2.1 0.9 0.1 
17+68 1768 17+68R 84.5 10.1 4.6 0.6 0.1 
18+05 1805 18+05L 76.7 14.0 5.6 3.5 0.2 
18+86 1886 18+86L 73.8 17.4 5.4 3.0 0.3 
19+19 1919 19+19L 83.6 12.8 2.1 1.3 0.3 
20+18 2018 20+18L 77.5 15.3 4.9 2.1 0.2 
20+69 2069 20+69L 83.8 9.2 3.9 3.0 0.2 
21+24 2124 21+24L 78.2 8.5 9.7 3.2 0.5 
22+32 2232 22+32L 62.4 5.3 7.4 24.6 0.2 
22+94 2294 22+94L 86.1 7.5 0.3 5.7 0.4 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTE: Table is from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet SEP - Panel Map Data 
In linear (tape and angular) traverses, total abundance (percent) of a type of feature is the sum of 
lengths of the features divided by the total length of the traverse. Tape traverses include the 
measured length of lithophysal cavities along the traverse, length of the traverse, and a visual 
estimate of the amount of rims and spots. The advantage of tape traverses is that these data are 
every 5 m along the tunnel and indicate variations in the lithophysal cavity abundance along the 
tunnel, but abundance values are typically greater than those documented with angular traverses 
and panel maps. An example of the estimate of percentage of lithophysal cavities within the 
Tptpll from the tape surveys is shown in Figure 8-81. 
Angular traverses consist of continuous data (specific lengths of each lithophysal cavity, rim, 
spot, lithic clast, and matrix-groundmass), and measurements are to the nearest 5 to 10 mm. 
There are currently 22 angular traverses. Abundance of lithophysal cavities determined in 
angular traverses is similar to, or slightly less than, the abundance determined with tape traverses 
(Figure 8-81). Angular traverse data was used to adjust the lithophysal cavity, rim, and spot data 
from tape traverses. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-195 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
(
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
Percent cavities from linetape and angular) s urveys 
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 
Station 
Percent 
Tape Pe rce nt Ta pe 10-m av erag e Ta pe 20-m average An gular Pe rce nt 
Source: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-81. Example of Percentage of Cavities from Top to Bottom Stations in the Tptpll in the ECRB 
Cross Drift from Line Surveys 
The large-lithophysae inventory was designed to document the large lithophysae (those with a 
minimum diameter of 50 cm) in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+00 to 17+56. The 
inventory stopped at 17+56 because of a closed bulkhead and the fieldwork to complete the 
inventory to 22+00 has been done, but the information is not yet in the record system. A few 
large lithophysae were documented (entirely or partially) in the tape and angular traverses and 
panel maps, but most were not included in these other techniques because of the scales and 
locations at which the other measurements were made. The long and short axis exposed on the 
wall of the tunnel was measured (with the same tape on a pole technique used in the tape 
traverses), and the station and position on the tunnel wall was recorded (DTN: 
GS021008314224.002). All large lithophysae have accurately surveyed station, northing, 
easting, and elevation values (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The large-lithophysae data can be 
displayed by station along the tunnel as discrete features and 5-m abundance (simply the number 
count) (Figure 8-82), or a cumulative frequency and frequency plots of axis length and area 
(Figure 8-83). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-196 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
l() i i0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 
(m) 
Abundance ofarge > 50 cm diame te r lithophys aen 5-mnte rvals 
1450 1475 1500 1525 1700 1725 1750 1775 
StationAbundance 
Abundance 
15m Run. Ave. 
17+62 
Bulkhead 
RW 
Position of large lithophysae 
Symbols 
1 - Left below equipment, 2 - Left wall, 3 - Left arch, 4 - Crown
C 
LA 
LB 
RA 
RB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
78 
LC RC 
Invert 
LW 
along the ECRB and around the tunnel (3.5 and 4.5 are left and right side of the crown) 
5 - Right arch, 6 - Right wall, 7 - Right below equipment, and 8 - Invert 
1 
Niche 5 
Position of segments in 
tunnel with view toward 
heading. 
Large lithophysae 
from 14+69 to 17+54 
Lithophysae 
Position per meter 
Position around tunnel 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
LW (2) 0.50 
1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 
C (4) 0.47 Station (m)
RW (6) 0.50 
SOURCE: DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTES: Diagram of tunnel cross-section shows the nomenclature used to identify the position of large lithophysae. 
The small inserted table lists the average number of large lithophysae per meter of tunnel for the left and 
right walls (LW and RW, positions 2 and 6, respectively) and the crown (C, position 4) from Stations 14+70 
to 17+56. 
Figure 8-82. Abundance per 5-m Intervals and Locations of Large Lithophysae in the Tptpll from 
ECRB Cross-Drift Station 14+50 to 17+56 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-197 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SOURCE: DTN: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-83. Frequency and Cumulative Frequency of the Long Axes and Areas of Large Lithophysae 
in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-198 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.8.4.2 Calculated Total Porosity Along the Tunnel 
The abundance of lithophysal cavities varies along the Cross-Drift partially from actual 
variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to collect the data (i.e., tape or 
angular traverses or panel maps). The original abundance values for lithophysal cavities from 
tape data (Figure 8-81) have been corrected using a typical traverse length, a 15-m moving 
average, and a linear equation of correlation for co-located tape and angular traverse data. 
The corrected tape traverse data for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots results in fitted 
abundance curves and indicates substantial variations along the tunnel in these features (Figure 
8-84). Using these fitted abundance curves for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots, and (by 
difference) the matrix-groundmass (and ignoring the trace amount of lithic clasts), the porosity of 
these features and the total porosity along tunnel can be calculated (Figure 8-85). The porosities 
of each of the component features are variably constrained. Lithophysal cavities have a porosity 
of 1.00 cm3/cm3. When this calculation was made the matrix-groundmass was assumed to have 
a mean porosity of 0.13 cm3/cm3 (Flint 1998) and porosities of the rims and spots were estimated 
to be 0.25 cm3/cm3. The porosity variation along the ECRB Cross-Drift is shown in Figure 8-85, 
with total porosity typically ranging from 20 to 35 percent. Recent testing of rock samples has 
produced updated estimates (DTN: GS030483351030.001, see Section 8.2.3 for more 
information): matrix-groundmass material has a mean of 0.10 cm3/cm3 total porosity and ranges 
from roughly 0.08 to 0.13 cm3/cm3. Rims and spots have a mean porosity on the order of 0.30 
cm3/cm3. Also, because the large-lithophysal inventory is (for the near future) limited to Stations 
14+50 to 17+56, with large lithophysae only from 14+70 to 17+56, the contribution of the large 
lithophysae to the total porosity along the tunnel has not been included in Figure 8-85. However, 
the large lithophysae can contribute as much as 8 percent to the total porosity in some 5-m 
sections of the tunnel (see Stations 16+05 to 16+15; Figure 8-86). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-199 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A8-200December 2003Source: DTN GS021008314224.002Figure 8-84.Abundance Curves of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots (Determined by CombiningPanel Map and Tape and Angular Traverse Data), Large-Lithophysae Based on 5-mSegments of the Tunnel, and Estimates of Lithophysae and Spots from Mongano et al. (1999)
Source: DTN GS021008314224.002NOTE:Porosity of the 5-m averaged large-lithophysae inventory is not included in the total.
Figure 8-85.Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and theTotal Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed along the ECRB Cross-Drift05101520253035401400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m)
Percent (vol.) (%)
Cavities (fitted)Rims (fitted)Spots (fitted)MGM (fitted)Total (fitted)
L-Litho (5-m)Lithostrat. contactBulkheadsEquipment05101520253035401400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m)
Abundance (length) (%)
Cavities (fitted)Rims (fitted)Spots (fitted)L-Litho (5m)Lithostrat. contactBulkheadsLithop (M)Spots (M)

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
1425 1450 1500 1525 1575 1625 1650 1675 1725 1775 
(m) 
Percent (vol.) (%) 
() ) () () 
1475 1550 1600 1700 1750 
StationCavitiesfittedRims (fittedSpotsfittedMGM-LL5 Total+LL5 L-Litho5-mLithostrat. contact Bulkheads 
Source: DTN GS021008314224.002 
Figure 8-86. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities (Including Large Lithophysae), Rims, Spots, 
Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
from Station 14+70 to 17+50 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 8-201 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9. SUPPLEMENTARY GEOTECHNICAL DATA AND DATA ENHANCING 
METHODOLOGIES 
9.1 USE OF PFC TO CHARACTERIZE LITHOPHYSAL ROCK PERFORMANCE 
9.1.1 Rock Mass Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Rock 
The representative elementary volume of lithophysal rock is on the order of cubic meters to 
cubic decameters depending on the size of lithophysae. In order to develop an adequate 
correlation between lithophysal porosity and mechanical properties of lithophysal rock, sufficient 
numbers of laboratory tests on large-size rock samples were desired. But as a consequence of the 
size of rock samples required, the lack of high-capacity equipment needed to test such large 
samples and the cost and time that would be required to produce an adequate statistical database, 
a laboratory testing effort was impractical to carry out. 
To overcome this inability to conduct adequate physical testing, a numerical approach was 
proposed to supplement the existing intact rock property database and to estimate large-scale 
mechanical properties of lithophysal rock. For this approach to be warranted, it must be 
demonstrated that conceptual and numerical models exist that are capable of representing the 
fundamental failure and deformation mechanisms of lithophysal rock. The preliminary phase of 
this effort has been completed and will be discussed in this report. 
9.1.1.1 Numerical Approach to Estimate Lithophysal Properties 
Joint sets in lithophysal rock are not as distinct as in nonlithophysal rock units (Sections 5.3.3 
and 8.8.2). The joint spacing is relatively short, typically less than 1 m, and very often of the 
order of 0.1 m. Furthermore, the lithophysal cavities vary significantly in shape and size (1mm to 
more than 1 m in diameter). As a consequence of this physical complexity, it is difficult to 
model numerically the actual internal structure of lithophysal rock. In the preliminary phase of 
numerical testing, it was decided to ignore fractures and study the effect of lithophysal cavities 
on key mechanical parameters. 
The Particle Flow Code (PFC) model and software by Itasca Consulting Group, Inc was 
considered a suitable numerical method capable of modeling the behavior of lithophysal rock. 
The PFC program incorporates a micromechanical modeling approach, which represents the 
rock matrix as a large number of rigid circular or spherical particles that are bonded together at 
their contact points with simple shear and tensile bonds that have normal and shear stiffness 
(Attachment V, Appendix C). As a rock is stressed, the bonds can fail, leading to frictional 
sliding between particles. This conceptually simple model can lead to complex constitutive 
behavior including realistic crack growth and changing distributions of loading in a specimen as 
it fails (see Figure 9-1). Of importance to the present problem is that holes of arbitrary shape, 
size and spatial distribution can be represented in the model as physical components. Thus, 
stress concentrations and fracturing between holes can be represented in a realistic way during 
loading. 
As discussed above, variability in the rock mass properties at Yucca Mountain originates from 
many sources, including rock porosity, fractures, sample size, water saturation, temperature, 
mineralogy, confining pressure, loading rate and time-dependent degradation processes. The 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
effect of each of these sources on rock mass variability could be investigated with the PFC 
model; however, only the effect of rock porosity and confining pressure was studied. 
Specifically, the goal of the study was to better understand and quantify the effect of lithophysal 
geometry on the material properties including Youngs modulus and peak strength measured 
during uniaxial compression compressive strength tests. 
Figure 9-1. Force and Moment Distributions and Broken Bonds (in magenta) in a Cemented Granular 
Material With Six Initial Holes Idealized as a Bonded-Disk Assembly in the Post-Peak Portion 
of an Uniaxial Vertical Compression Test (blue is grain-grain compression, while black and 
red are compression and tension, respectively, in the bonds) 
9.1.1.2 PFC Lithophysal Geometry Study 
The PFC model is being used to study the effect that lithophysal geometry has on material 
properties by introducing differing void geometries. The variation of modulus and strength with 
lithophysal volume fraction (ratio of volume of voids to total sample volume) is measured by 
performing uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) tests on 1-m diameter, 1:1 height to diameter 
ratio specimens of different lithophysal volume fraction. For these PFC synthetic samples, the 
void volume fraction, defined as the ratio of volume of voids over total sample volume and 
denoted in plot legends as nv, is measured. There is an inherent porosity in a bonded-particle 
system, which is approximately 0.17 and 0.36 for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively, but this 
summary neglects this matrix porosity. As a result the void porosity used in this report is the 
void volume fraction of the samples. Two general types of void geometries are considered: (1) a 
set of simple shapes and (2) true lithophysal geometries. This initial approach considers that the 
lithophysal geometries can be characterized by a shape, size and spatial distribution as follows. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Shape. Investigate three constant-size simple shapes: circle, triangle and star. 
 Size and Spatial Distribution. Construct a PFC2D material using actual shapes,
sizes and distributions of lithophysal cavities from panel maps.
All results described in this report were produced using PFC2D version 2.00-081 and PFC3D 
version 2.00-081, which are the qualified versions of the software for this project. A set of 
microproperties for the base material and void-specification procedure was developed to produce 
a PFC model for Repository Host Horizon (RHH) lithophysal tuff. The microproperties of the 
PFC2D base material used for this study are given in Table 9-1 (bf5 material) and in Attachment 
V, Tables A-1 (bf4 material) and A-4 (bf2 material). The 2:1 specimens have a specimen 
resolution of about 54 particles across a one-meter diameter specimen and the 1:1 specimens 
have a specimen resolution of about 100 particles. The 2:1 aspect ratio specimens have an 
average particle size of 17.1 mm, whereas the 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens have an average 
particle size of 9.9 mm. More details concerning the PFC model and its initial calibration to YM 
rocks and can be found in Attachment V. 
Table 9-1. PFC2D Microproperties for Lithophysal Tuff (bf5-material) 
Grains Cement 
32510 kg m.= 
( )max min 
avg 
1.5 
9.9 mm 
D D 
D 
= 
= 
1.= 
14.8 GPacE = 14.8 GPacE = 
( ) 2.1n skk = ( ) 2.1nkk s = 
0.5
= ( )mean std. dev. 
48 11 MPa 
c cs =t =  
=  
The properties of the PFC2D material are obtained by testing specimens with circular voids of 
90-mm diameter and a 41.5-mm minimum bridge length. Confinement is applied by using 
frictionless stiff walls; the velocities of the lateral walls are controlled to maintain a constant 
confining stress. Since this type of boundary condition inhibits specimen bulging and the top and 
bottom rigid boundary conditions are also frictionless, specimen aspect ratio is not a factor. The 
use of 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens is justified by noting that the modulus and strength versus void 
porosity relations are similar for both 1:1 and 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens  the 2:1 aspect-ratio 
specimens are only slightly weaker than the 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens (see Figures 9-2 and 9-3). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-4December 2003Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-2.Youngs modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC2D models of randomlydistributed circular voidsSource for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002,
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-3.Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC2Dmodels of randomly distributed circular voidsy = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 20.065e-3.9172xR2 = 0.9797y = 20.245e-4.1815xR2 = 0.977905101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa)
Lith. tuff (2002)
2:1, Dp=17.1 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=90 mmy = 54.597e-5.3977xR2 = 0.9546y = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 52.167e-5.9159xR2 = 0.94301020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa)
Lith. tuff (1985 & 2002)
2:1, Dp=17.1 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=166 mm1:1, Dp=9.9 mm, Dv=90 mm

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.1.3 Modeling of Simple Lithophysal Shapes 
An attempt has been made to develop a concise set of geometric parameters that characterize the 
lithophysal geometries and capture the geometrical aspects that most affect deformability and 
strength. A parametric study, in which a shape parameter is varied while all other geometric 
parameters are held constant, has been performed to quantify the sensitivity of material 
properties to void shape. Three void shapes are studied: a circle, a triangle and a 3-pointed star. 
An earlier study used circular voids in 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens of bf-4 material. A more 
recent study used 1:1 aspect-ratio specimens of bf-5 material. The ability of the PFC2D material 
to resolve these shapes is shown in Figure 9-4, where the geometric stencils are overlaid upon 
the PFC2D bf5-material l, having an average particle size of 9.9 mm. 
Figure 9-4. Resolution of PFC2D Specimens of Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids (240-mm 
bounding box) 
Note that the corners of the triangles and stars are rounded in the PFC2D material, and thus, do 
not induce the infinite stresses that would occur if geometry was exact. In a given specimen 
circular, triangular or star-shaped voids of constant size are distributed randomly subject to the 
constraint that the length of bridging material between any two voids must be greater than a 
minimum bridge length of 41.5 mm. The triangular-shaped voids are randomly oriented but all 
star-shaped voids have a fixed orientation. Representative 1 m height specimens are shown in 
Figure 9-5. 
Figure 9-5. PFC2D Specimens Composed of Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids with Void 
Porosities of Approximately 0.05 cm3/cm3 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
For each void shape, 40 specimens with varying degrees of void volume fraction were created 
and subjected to uniaxial vertical compression tests. Figures 9-6 and 9-7 show PFC2D and 
PFC3D models of several rock specimens showing a successive increase of voids, which were 
typical of those used to conduct the earlier numerical laboratory experiments (2:1 aspect-ratio 
specimens of bf-4 material). Particles are removed to create the circular or spherical voids with 
random location. 
Examples of triaxial compression simulations for PFC2D modeled rock specimens with sample 
void porosities (nv) of 0, 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3 are shown in Figures 9-8 to 9-10, respectively. 
The models show numerous physical features that correspond to observed laboratory response. 
The zero void samples fail through formation of conjugate shear fractures composed of 
coalescing tensile bond breakages (Figure 9-8). The response is highly elastic to the point of 
brittle failure (i.e., there is little observable hysteresis on load-unload cycles directly up to the 
yield limit). This behavior is representative of nonlithophysal rock and is a function of the 
uniformly small grain structure and cementation of grains forming the rock matrix. 
The addition of lithophysal voids results in significant decreases in both the peak strength and 
Youngs modulus. The failure mechanism in this case is a function of tensile splitting between 
adjacent lithophysal voids due to induced tensile stresses in the thin bridge material between 
voids. With voids randomly distributed, often the smallest bridge material will fail first, 
shunting load to other solid bridges, resulting in progressive failure of the weakest link. The 
resulting stress-strain behavior becomes less brittle in nature due to this progressive failure mode 
(Figures 9-9 and 9-10). 
The impact of lithophysae on direct tension strength follows the same general mechanism: the 
voids result in less area of solid rock for any given cross-section (Figure 9-11). For a constant 
applied force, the stress in the remaining solid will be higher, thus reducing the overall averaged 
tensile strength of the sample. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 9-6. PFC2D Test Specimens of Lithophysal Tuff (Void Porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3) 
Figure 9-7. PFC3D Test Specimens of Lithophysal Tuff (Void Porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.19 cm3/cm3; 
Voids Depicted as Black Spheres) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Axial Stress (Pa) 
NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Samples fail with 
typical conjugate shear fractures. Two confining pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). 
The primary impact of confinement is slightly increased peak and residual strength. 
Figure 9-8. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Nonlithophysal 
Material (nv = 0 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A)xial Stress (Pa
Axial Strain 
NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Two confining 
pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). Samples fail in an axial splitting mode which is 
most pronounced in the low confinement model at the top. Note that confinement increases peak and 
residual strength. 
Figure 9-9. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Lithophysal Material 
(nv = 0.10 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A)xial Stress (Pa
Axial Strain 
NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). Two confining 
pressures are shown: 0.1 MPa (top) and 3 MPa (bottom). Samples fail due to tensile splitting between 
adjacent voids in the low confinement model at the top. Note that confinement results in only a marginal 
increase in peak strength but a substantial increase in residual strength. 
Figure 9-10. PFC2D Simulation of Triaxial Compression Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of Lithophysal 
Material (nv = 0.20 cm3/cm3) Composed of Several Thousand Bonded Particles 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: Final sample damage state is plotted with bond failures in tension (red) and shear (blue). The effect of 
increasing lithophysal voids is to reduce the amount of solid rock that must fail in tension across any 
cross-section, thus reducing the overall tensile strength of the body. The body fails at the cross-section 
with minimum solid. 
Figure 9-11. PFC2D Simulation of Direct Pull Tensile Strength Test of 2:1 L:D Samples of 
Nonlithophysal and Lithophysal (nv = 0.10 and 0.20 cm3/cm3) Material Composed of 
Several Thousand Bonded Particles 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-12December 2003The PFC2D lithophysal rock testing results of the 40 specimens are compared with the bestavailable laboratory data in Figures 9-12 and 9-13. The minimum bridge length restrictionresults in relatively smaller maximum attainable void porosity for triangles and smaller yet forthe stars. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% and the stress-strain curves of thePFC2D specimens with void porosities of approximately 0.05 cm3/cm3 are shown in Figures 9-14and 9-15.
y = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 18.86e-4.5241xR2 = 0.984y = 19.16e-7.0437xR2 = 0.974605101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa)
Lith. tuff (2002)
circles (90 mm diam.)
triangles (139 mm diam.)
stars (197 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-12.Youngs Modulus versus Porosity for PFC2D Models Including Randomly DistributedCircular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voidsy = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 53.585e-7.1352xR2 = 0.9409y = 54.737e-11.579xR2 = 0.892701020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa)
Lith. tuff (1985 & 2002)
circles (90 mm diam.)
triangles (139 mm diam.)
stars (197 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002,
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-13.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voids

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 9-14. Damage (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) in PFC2D Specimens at an Axial Strain of 
0.5% and Void Porosities of about 0.05 cm3/cm3 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
Axial stress (MPa) 
circli) 
tri () 
(i) 
es (90 mm dam.
angles139 mm diam.
stars 197 mm dam.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 
Axial strain (%) 
Figure 9-15. Stress-strain Curves of PFC2D Specimens with Void Porosities of About 0.05 cm3/cm3 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.2 PFC Study  Conclusions and Recommendations 
The following general conclusions are drawn from the analysis: 
 Introduction of shapes with abrupt corners made the material softer and weaker than 
material with circular voids. Decreasing the convex angles and adding new concave 
angles (moving from a triangular to a star shape) further softened and weakened the 
material. This effect is seen by comparing modulus and strength values at the same void 
porosity in Figures 9-12 and 9-13 and is also evident in the curves of Figure 9-15. 
 The observed softening of modulus behavior may be explained by the following 
hypothesis. Assume that the voids are randomly distributed such that an individual void 
can be isolated from its neighbors in a fixed-size bounding box as shown in Figure 9-4. 
Each of these three systems has the same void porosity because the void areas are the 
same. However, the effective area that contributes to the modulus of the bounding-box 
region (approximated by the diameter of the bounding circle) increases as we move from 
circles to triangles to stars. Therefore, the triangles and stars produce a larger modulus 
reduction for the same void porosity. Further study can verify this hypothesis and 
explore whether stress concentrations at corners, or other mechanisms, contribute to this 
effect. 
 The weakening effect is more difficult to explain. One contributing factor may be the 
stress concentrations that develop at the void corners such that introducing and then 
decreasing the corner angles (in moving from a circular to a triangular to a star shape) 
increases the stress concentrations and thereby weakens the material. Examination of 
progressive specimen damage plots reveals that for the triangular-shaped voids most of 
the pre-peak damage leading to the formation macroscopic fractures (which is here 
termed critical damage and which is assumed to control the peak strength) initiates either 
at triangle corners or at triangle sides oriented perpendicular to the loading direction (see 
Figure 9-16). The material with star-shaped voids exhibits similar behavior; however, 
there are fewer emanations from the sides. The fact that critical damage initiates and 
grows from void boundaries suggests that the void-induced stress concentrations control 
peak strength; and as a result, any geometry change that increases these stress 
concentrations will decrease specimen strength. 
 In the peak strength versus void porosity curves of Figure 9-13 (and also for the true 
shapes of Figure 9-23), a general characteristic convex curve is evident for all modeled 
shapes. Initially, at small void porosity, there is a steep descent of the curve, but then 
with increasing porosity the slope gradually moderates. A possible explanation for this 
behavior is as follows. At very low porosity there are only a few voids. Insertion of one 
or two voids of large enough size may have a relatively significant impact on strength 
since large stress redistributions occur in the specimen. The voids act to shed vertical 
load in the rock above and below the void and results in columns of rock on either side 
of the void experiencing higher stresses. The higher stresses and stress concentrations 
may tend to enhance the initiation and progression of local tensile failures across the 
specimen. As more voids are added randomly throughout the specimen, resulting stresses 
are relatively more uniformly distributed, decreasing the above effect. 
 Residual strengths of failed lithophysal specimens are typically very low. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 When peak strength versus modulus curves are plotted as shown in Figure 9-17, the data 
for all three shapes collapse onto essentially the same curve. This suggests that the 
underlying mechanism relating modulus and strength to void geometry is the same for all 
three shapes. 
 The slope of the strength versus modulus curve is affected by the PFC2D microproperties 
as seen in Figure 9-18, which compares the curve for randomly distributed circular voids 
in the bf2- and bf4-materials. The bf4-material has smaller micro-moduli and larger 
micro-strengths than the bf2-material, and this produces a reduction and increase in the 
corresponding macro quantities; however, the relative magnitude of the reduction and 
increase becomes smaller as the void porosity increases. As more holes are added, the 
contribution of the base material to the macroproperties is lessened producing an increase 
in the slope of the curve. It may be possible to more closely match the laboratory data by 
modifying the PFC2D microproperties and including non-circular grain shapes. 
 In general, reducing PFC particle size while keeping micro-strengths the same reduces 
the material fracture toughness. Quantifying the effects of the PFC material particle size 
requires further study. 
Figure 9-16. Damage in PFC2D Specimens with Triangular-shaped Voids (blue is pre-peak, red is 
post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Showing Six Areas of Critical Damage 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-16December 2003y = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 5.9043e0.1225xR2 = 0.9635y = 6.3088e0.1171xR2 = 0.9548y = 6.3234e0.1159xR2 = 0.925801020304050600510152025modulus, E (GPa)
qu (MPa)
Lith. tuff (Price, 2002)
circles (90 mm diam.)
triangles (139 mm diam.)
stars (197 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-17.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Youngs Modulus for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular, Triangular and Star-shaped Voidsbest available lab datay = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 4.1467e0.1394xR2 = 0.9687y = 3.0821e0.0896xR2 = 0.9611010203040500510152025modulus, E (GPa)
qu (MPa)
Lith. tuff (Price, 2002)
PFC2D (2:1, bf4)
PFC2D (2:1, bf2)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-18.Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Youngs Modulus for PFC2D Models IncludingRandomly Distributed Circular Voids in bf2 and bf4 Materials

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.2.1 Modeling of True Lithophysal Geometries 
Panel maps of lithophysal features identified on the walls of the ECRB cross drift are used as 
stencils to generate a collection of one-by-one meter, two-dimensional PFC2D specimens. A 
typical panel map is shown in Figure 9-19. Each panel map defines a one-by-three meter area 
within which lithophysal cavities, rims, spots and lithic clasts have been identified as separate 
features. The lithophysal cavities (excluding the rims) are used to define the voids in the PFC2D 
specimens as follows. First, the cavity features (see Figure 9-20) are used to produce a bitmap 
image with a resolution of 100 cells per meter. Next, the location of the PFC2D specimen is 
specified relative to the panel map system. Then, all PFC2D particles with centroids lying 
within each void-cell of the bitmap are deleted. So for the synthetic panel-map models the total 
void porosity arises only from the stenciled voids. Actual panel-map rock total porosity is 
composed of natural matrix porosity and the porosity of rim/spot material in additional to the 
lithophysal voids. 
A set of three non-overlapping PFC2D specimens (left, middle and right) was then extracted 
from each panel map (see Figure 9-21). A total of 18 panel maps located from approximately 
stations 15+00 to 23+00 (Tptpll unit) were used to produce a total of 54 PFC2D stenciledlithophysae 
specimens, which were then subjected to numerical uniaxial compression testing. 
Results of the numerical uniaxial compression testing of distributed circular voids and panel map 
specimens are shown in Figures 9-22 and 9-23. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% in 
the three PFC2D specimens from panel map 14+93R are shown in Figure 9-25. The following 
general observations are made about the properties of the PFC2D stenciled-lithophysae material. 
 The damage mechanisms observed in the stenciled-lithophysae material are similar to 
those of the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shapes. Most 
importantly, the critical damage generally initiates and grows from void boundaries, and 
not from points within the solid material. This damage mechanism controls specimen 
strength for uniaxial compression testing. 
 The stenciled-lithophysae material is softer and weaker and exhibits greater property 
variability than the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape. This is 
likely the combined result of more complex shapes, the variation in individual lithophysa 
sizes and the fact that there are no limitations of minimum bridge length between 
lithophysae. Also, as discussed later under limitation number two, strength variability 
can be strongly influenced by specimen size (use of larger specimens may decrease 
variability of results). 
 The property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material is similar to that of the 
laboratory data (Figures 9-22 and 9-23), and the property variability diminishes when the 
data are plotted as strength versus modulus (see Figure 9-24). Also, the strength versus 
modulus relation is similar to that of the material with randomly distributed voids of 
simple shape (compare Figures 9-24 and 9-17) suggesting that the strength versus 
modulus curve of the PFC2D material is largely independent of void geometry. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Some of the property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material (especially low 
strength values) may arise from an inadequate sample size in that the maximum void size 
in many of the PFC2D specimens is greater than one-quarter of the specimen diameter. 
Using a larger sample dimension closer to the representative elementary volume 
dimensions would likely reduce some of this variability. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Source: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 9-19. Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 
Source: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 9-20. Cavity Features from Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 
Source: GS021008314224.002 
Figure 9-21. PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (Left, Middle and Right) Generated from 
Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
R2R20 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
E (GPa) 
Li() 
i) 
iy = 19.067e-3.6915x 
= 0.9884 
y = 16.483e -4.7287x 
= 0.6851 
th. tuff 2002circles (90 mm dam.
stencled lithophysae 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and
SN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-22. Youngs Modulus versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models Including Randomly 
Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae 
R2R20 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
qu (MPa) 
Li (
cil (i) 
iy = 52.482e-5.1493x 
= 0.9434 
y = 34.079e -5.4687x 
= 0.5505 
th. tuff1985 & 2002) 
rces90 mm dam.
stencled lithophysae 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006. 
Figure 9-23. Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Void Porosity for PFC2D Models Including 
Randomly Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
qu (MPa) 
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10152025
R2R20.156x 
R2Liff (i) 
li) 
l liy = 10.004e 0.0579x 
= 0.6479 
y = 5.9043e 0.1225x 
= 0.9635 
y = 3.8774e 
= 0.8721 
th. tuPrce, 2002circes (90 mm dam.
stenciedthophysae 
modulus, E (GPa) 
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and 
SN0305L0207502.006. 
Figure 9-24. Uniaxial Compressive Strength versus Youngs Modulus for PFC2D Models Including 
Randomly Distributed Circles and Stenciled Lithophysae 
Figure 9-25. Damage in PFC2D Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 
0.5% from Panel Map at Station 14+93R 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.2.2 Friction Angle and Cohesion of Lithophysal Rock 
Confined vertical compression tests on PFC materials with uniformly sized (16.6 cm diameter) 
circular voids were performed with the PFC2D and PFC3D programs. The bf2-particle property 
set was used, a minimum bridge length limitation of 4.15 cm was imposed and no pre-existing 
fractures were present. Tests on identical 2:1 aspect ratio 1-m diameter samples were conducted 
with confining stresses of 0, 0.1, 1, 3 and 10 MPa. For the PFC2D study, the confining tests 
were conducted on materials with 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 percent void space (see Figure 
9-6). For PFC3D, void cavity percents of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 19 were used (see Figure 9-7). 
For all tests at a given void porosity, peak strength values were plotted and then linear best fits to 
the data were made in stress space (see Attachment V, Appendix A, Tables A-5 and A-6). In 
general, all test results were a close fit to the linear model with the 10 MPa confining tests 
plotting slightly lower than the linear prediction. Both the PFC2D and PFC3D runs gave a 
consistent but interesting story concerning the effect of confining stress on lithophysal rock. At 
zero percent voids the average friction angle for the 2D and 3D tests was about 20 degrees. The 
models particle property set was not calibrated for friction angle, so the results are to be 
understood in a qualitative sense only. At 5% void porosity the friction angle dropped to about 
10 degrees, to 3 degrees at 10% porosity and essentially to zero or lower friction angle at more 
than 15% porosity. So at more than 10% void porosity, which is the lower bound of percentage 
of measured cavities in the Tptpll (see Figure 9-3), the peak strength is essentially independent of 
confining pressure. 
An explanation for this perhaps unexpected behavior is suggested by the evolving patterns of 
stress and failure behavior during loading. Testing a solid specimen with no voids resulted in a 
positive angle of internal friction, as expected. With the introduction of a few voids the effect of 
confining stress decreases, and a smaller friction angle was the result. Perhaps the stress 
redistribution around voids in the weakened rock structure acts to diminish a uniform lateral 
confining stress in the sample. The initiation and progression of localized tensile failures, 
occurring often between voids, was still the dominant mechanism leading to specimen failure. 
Testing of specimens having 10 percent or higher void porosity under sufficiently high confining 
pressures resulted in crushing of some bridge material between voids. This effect of confining 
pressure can be seen in Figure 9-26, which shows identical 10% void porosity samples being 
loaded under three different confining pressures. Under low 0.1 MPa pressure, the confining 
effect was minimal and a more or less vertical tensile failure pattern was evident. Under 
significantly higher 3 and then 10 MPa confining pressures the figure shows how confining 
stress affects the nature of failure; the predominant tensile type failure transitions to more of a 
shear and crushing type failure. As part of the transition, different critical bridges between voids 
are activated and fail. 
Finally around void porosities that are 15 percent or higher, negative friction angles result from 
the confinement tests. The negative friction angle means that slope of the ratio of strength 
increase over confinement increase is less than one. For all PFC2D and PFC3D tests, the 
strength increased with increasing confinement. For this case of 15 percent and higher void 
porosities, the voids have weakened the matrix rock structure so severely, that confinement 
stresses directly contribute to the structural failure. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Triaxial testing of specimens with increasing void porosity also leads to decreasing cohesion 
values. This overall decrease in rock strength is expected to result from the stress concentrations 
and weakened rock structure that arises as a consequence of introducing voids. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 9-26. PFC2D Specimens Showing Stress-Strain Curves and Progressive Damage During 
Testing Under Triaxial Loading Conditions (Void Porosity = 0.10 cm3/cm3, Confinement = 
0.1, 3, 10 MPa) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.3 Uncertainties in the Current PFC Work and Potential Paths of Future Study 
A number of important limitations and uncertainties are inherent in this current PFC study. These 
are described along with potential avenues of future work below. 
1. The effect on mechanical properties due explicitly to variation of size (same shape, 
same spatial distribution) and variation in bridge length between lithophysae (same 
shape, same size) has not yet been explored. The above lithophysal stencil material 
gives indications that bridge length, in particular, and possibly size of void may be 
important factors contributing to lithophysal rock behavior. 
2. The effect of specimen size on lithophysal rock properties has not been addressed in 
this work. Of particular interest would be modeling specimens with dimensions that 
approach those of a representative volume appropriate for Yucca Mountain RHH 
lithophysal rock (perhaps approaching decameter scale). The tests of samples with 
constant-size simple-shape voids likely violated REV requirements of samples and 
some further analysis of this effect needs discussion. There are a number of examples 
from the modeling of true lithophysae (panel maps) that result in surprisingly low 
strength and modulus values due to fortuitous specimen boundaries or inadequate 
sample size (see Figure 9-27  a number of lithophysae in panel maps have 
dimensions that exceed 0.5 m). Trying to scale down to the larger laboratory 
specimen size (on the order of 0.3 m) is expected to yield results with greater scatter. 
3. Some inconsistencies exist in regards to the microproperties employed as part of this 
work (use of bf2, bf4 and bf5 materials). It is believed the effect is small, but the 
results need to be rerun with consistent properties. Also, the inherent porosity 
(Section 9.1.1.2) of PFC material is much higher than matrix rock porosity. The 
effect of this on mechanical properties and their relation to porosity needs to be 
studied. 
4. Both the panel maps and the PFC2D analyses are two-dimensional slices, whereas the 
true lithophysal geometries are three-dimensional. The two-dimensional models may 
greatly underestimate strength values, since the third dimension is not available for 
support and stress redistribution. An assessment should be made of the limitations of 
this two-dimensional approach. It is a straightforward process to map true lithophysal 
geometries into the PFC3D model; however, current computing capabilities make it 
impractical to run PFC3D models of sufficient resolution to resolve the voids 
adequately. A new numerical scheme is now being developed to address such 
computational limitations. 
5. One difficulty with the current PFC approach is the sensitivity of mechanical 
properties to the bitmap resolution employed in the stenciling process. The left 
section of panel map 14+93R was analyzed to explore this sensitivity. The resolution 
of 100 cells per meter turns out to slightly overestimate the actual lithophysal volume 
fraction. The void porosities of the PFC2D specimens generated from the left section 
of panel map 14+93R decreased from 0.177 to 0.162 to 0.154 as the bitmap resolution 
increased from 100 to 200 to 400 cells per meter, respectively. More importantly, the 
uniaxial strength values for these same specimens increased from 5.5 to 11.7 to 13.3 
MPa, respectively. The large sensitivity of the UCS value of this particular specimen 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
to bitmap resolution may not be representative of most stenciled-lithophysae 
specimens, because its peak load appears to correspond with the breaking of the 
single critical bridge in the middle-left portion of the specimen (Figure 9-25, left 
specimen) and it is a low-strength extreme value (Figure 9-23, porosity of 0.177). A 
study should be performed to quantify the effect of bitmap resolution and to establish 
the optimal bitmap cell-size below which identical results are calculated. 
6. The PFC material did not model pre-existing fractures in the matrix material of the 
lithophysal rock. The effect of such fractures could be added in a smeared sense by 
reducing the stiffness and strength of the PFC base material or in a direct sense by 
adding discrete fractures to the PFC material between the voids. Such discrete 
fractures could take the form of reduced strength and stiffness of all particles and 
bonds lying within a specified thickness of each fracture surface. 
7. The effect of rims, spots and lithic clasts on the overall material properties are not 
accounted for directly by the PFC model, because it only provides a base material to 
which voids can be added. Rim and spot material are known to be much weaker than 
matrix material, for instance. One could define additional regions for rims, spots and 
lithic clasts and assign them appropriate stiffnesses and strengths; however, 
laboratory determination of the mechanical properties of these materials have not 
been carried out. 
8. In general, reducing PFC particle size while keeping micro-strengths the same 
reduces the material fracture toughness. Quantifying the effects of the PFC material 
particle size requires further study. 
9. Figure 9-11 shows localized tensile failure near the loading plates, which suggests 
localized stress due to the loading conditions. This effect needs to be discussed. 
10. For validation purposes, some boundary value problems should be modeled. PFC2D 
and PFC3D modeling of the in situ slot tests would be an example of such problems. 
Other examples that may be helpful include numerical modeling of large-size 
laboratory samples before they are tested and pre-test modeling of synthetic materials. 
Of great importance in such work would be accurate determination of lithophysal and 
fracture geometries. 
11. Physical analogues to rock lithophysae such as porous concrete could also be 
explored to give insight and more confidence in lithophysal rock behavior. 
12. If desired, further study can be conducted to better understand how void geometry 
impacts friction angle and cohesion value. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
14+93 to 14+96 Right Wall, Middle Section 16+10 to 16+13 Right Wall, Middle Section 
17+68 to 17+71 Left Wall, Middle Section 16+24 to 16+27 Right Wall, Middle Section 
20+18 to 20+21 Left Wall, Right Section 
16+41 to 16+44 Left Wall, Left Section
Figure 9-27. PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens Showing Insufficient Sample Size at the 1 m 
Scale Due to Critical Alignment of Lithophysae and Large Lithophysae 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.1.4 PFC Studies - Summary 
The PFC study provided a useful, novel methodology of enhancing our understanding of 
performance of the lithophysal rock material that otherwise would be extremely difficult to test 
within the similar range of loading conditions and material parameter values. It is also 
recognized that this promising methodology has its limitations and its validity must be confirmed 
by comparing model performance with behavior displayed by real lithophysal rock under field 
loading conditions. In addition it was also concluded that other numerical tools available should 
be employed that offer some advantages in computational routines superior to that offered by the 
PFC code. 
This PFC study is preliminary in nature, and is solely intended as a scoping analysis to determine 
the approximate mechanical behavior of lithophysal rock. Any ranges of values and other 
derived data from this study requires further verification and confirmation based on updated 
measurement data from laboratory or field tests. Since this PFC work is a preliminary scoping 
analysis, model validation was not required. 
In addition to the validation issue and limitations, several functions from FishTank were used of 
in the PFC study. FishTank is a library of modeling functions from Itasca Consulting Group, 
Inc. (distributor of PFC2D and PFC3D), and has not been formally controlled in YMP project. 
The usage of functions from FishTank should be justified or controlled based on a proper 
procedure for future use of the PFC study. 
Due to the limitations, uncertainties and novel nature of using PFC to model lithophysal rock 
behavior, a discrete element code (UDEC) was also relied on for corroborative purposes. The 
next section, Section 9.2, contains a discussion of results obtained by modeling lithophysal rock 
utilizing the UDEC code. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.2 USE OF UDEC CODE TO DERIVE ROCK MASS PARAMETERS 
9.2.1 Introduction 
The PFC program discussed in Section 9.1 was used to examine the effect of lithophysal cavities 
on the deformability of the grain matrix and the peak compressive strength of unconfined 
samples. The circular PFC particles lead to a questionable post-peak (post failure) dilation 
simulation once the bonds between particles break and particles are free to rotate. The UDEC 
program was used to overcome this potential difficulty and to examine the post-peak strength 
response of the rock mass.. UDEC uses a similar large-deformation solution procedure to solve 
the discontinuum numerical problem, but allows non-circular constituent grain shapes to be used, 
thus avoiding the potential PFC circular particle limitations. The penalty of the more complex 
particle contact logic in the UDEC program is less efficient problem solution. The UDEC 
analysis was also used to compare and contrast the UDEC and PFC simulations of pre-failure 
behavior of lithophysal rock. 
UDEC was used first to conduct a series of lithophysal rock mass uniaxial compression problems 
similar to those conducted with PFC for the case of no voids and then rock with circular 
lithophysae. As shown below, the results of the two approaches compare very favorably, in 
terms of numerical estimates of Youngs modulus and uniaxial compressive strength as functions 
of lithophysal porosity. UDEC was then used to examine the confining pressure response of the 
lithophysal rock mass, and determine the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown yield 
parameters. These parameters are then compared to values for typical rock masses from the 
literature. 
This UDEC study is preliminary in nature, and intended to supplement the testing programs and 
the PFC study. Any derived data from this study may also require further verification and 
confirmation based on measurements from laboratory or field tests. These verification and 
confirmation may serve as validation of the UDEC model. For the purpose of this report, no 
model validation is conducted beyond comparisons of the derived data with the measured ones. 
9.2.2 UDEC Model 
9.2.2.1 Model Description 
For the UDEC model, the rock mass was represented as an assembly of polygonal, elastic blocks 
(Figure 9-28) that are bonded together across their boundaries to form a coherent solid. The goal 
was to provide a rock mass in which the overall mechanical behavior of the mass was consistent 
with the material model developed for the lithophysal rock, yet allow internal fracturing to form 
and blocks to loosen and detach as the evolving stress state dictates. In other words, the fractures 
are invisible to the model until yielding (local failure for a given stress path) begins. 
Since the block boundaries can fail in tension and shear, they act as potential fracture locations 
should the stresses dictate that fracture is possible. It is important that the block assemblage 
contain blocks that are sufficiently small such that the model does not dictate where and how 
fractures can form and propagate. The rock domain is discretized into small blocks (using 
Voronoi tessellations, see Itasca 2002). The potential fractures between blocks are considered to 
behave mechanically according to a linearly elastic-perfectly plastic model. The elastic behavior 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
of potential fractures is controlled by constant normal and shear stiffness, and are consistent with 
the Youngs modulus of the intact rock blocks. The possible failure modes of the rock mass are 
controlled by the strength of the fractures. The fractures can sustain a finite tensile stress, 
whereas a Coulomb slip condition governs the onset of slip, as a function of joint cohesion and 
friction angle. If a potential fracture fails, either in tension or shear, tensile strength and 
cohesion are set to zero, whereas the friction angle is set to the residual value. This model allows 
for the formation of fractures between blocks and separation of blocks within the simulated rock 
mass specimen. 
Figure 9-28. UDEC Lithophysal Rock Specimen Composed of Many Irregular Blocks with Roughly 
Equi-Dimensional Side Lengths bonded with frictional and cohesive interfaces. 
The blocks used in the UDEC model do not represent the actual internal structure of the 
lithophysal rock mass. They are a tool in the numerical model used to simulate damage and 
fracturing of the rock mass (i.e., the potential fractures in this model do not correspond to actual 
features). Therefore, it is not possible to directly compare the potential fracture properties in the 
UDEC model to results of laboratory or field-testing on samples of lithophysal rock. In other 
words, because of the geometrical complexity of the model, a direct functional correlation 
between micro- and macro-properties (model response on a specimen-size scale) does not exist. 
9.2.2.2 Model Calibration 
Therefore, to assure that model macro-behavior (represented by an assembly of Voronoi blocks) 
will behave as a lithophysal rock mass, the model must be calibrated. Calibration was 
accomplished by numerical simulation of previously conducted laboratory tests, in which the 
micro-properties are adjusted until the desired macro-behavior was matched. For the current 
work, the calibration consisted of simulating the same laboratory test data used as a basis for the 
PFC calibration. During the numerical experiments (calibration), the model parameters (i.e., 
Voronoi block fracture properties) were varied until the resulting important mechanical macro-
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
properties of the rock mass (Youngs modulus and unconfined compressive strength) matched 
with measurements from the actual tests. The calibration used a trial-and-error approach, but 
some understanding of the model mechanics and previous experience can expedite convergence 
of the iterative process. 
The following parameters characterize the mechanical behavior of the UDEC Voronoi model and 
these micro properties are illustrated in Figure 9-29. 
 The block size scaled to the model size, or a number of blocks in the model. 
 Elastic properties of blocks (Em , .m). 
 Properties of joints, both elastic (normal stiffness, kn, and shear stiffness, ks) and plastic 
(tensile strength, tm, cohesion, cm, and friction, fm). Note that plastic joint parameters are 
functions of shear and tensile plastic strains. In the simulations presented in this report, it is 
assumed that cohesion and tensile strength soften to zero at the onset of yield. 
Figure 9-29. Micro Properties of the UDEC Voronoi Model 
The UDEC program was used in this preliminary work to generate a 1 m  1 m rock mass 
sample composed of a large number of random, irregular, and interconnected blocks with 
average dimension of 0.017 m (Figure 9-28). Following the approach explained in Attachment 
VI, these fracture mechanical micro properties were calibrated to reproduce the same lithophysal 
laboratory test data used in the PFC calibration (see details in Attachment V, Section A.5). 
Roughly, the values used were 20 GPa for Youngs modulus and 60 MPa for the uniaxial 
compressive strength. As shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3 from the PFC simulations, these values 
correspond to the lithophysal tuff with a zero percent porosity. Based on these zero-voids 
lithophysal Youngs modulus and uniaxial compressive strength values, the calibration process 
produced the micro- and fracture properties given in Table 9-2 (see the UDEC calibration result 
at zero percent porosity in Figures 9-36 and 9-37 below). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-2. Calibrated UDEC (Micro) Fracture Properties to Reproduce Nonlithophysal Rock Average In 
Situ Strength and Deformability 
Parameter Value Unit 
Intact Bulk Modulus 23.0 GPa 
Intact Shear Modulus 17.2 GPa 
Joint Normal Stiffness 2360.0 GPa/m 
Joint Shear Stiffness 1180.0 GPa/m 
Joint Cohesion 22.0 MPa 
Joint Friction 35.0 Degrees 
Joint Tension 9.0 MPa 
Residual Cohesion 0.0 MPa 
Residual Friction 15.0 Degrees 
Residual Tension 0.0 MPa 
Once the calibration process is completed, it may be possible to say that the synthetic material 
(i.e., the assembly of Voronoi blocks) behaves equivalently to the lithophysal rock mass on the 
scale for which it was calibrated. Following calibration, the model can be used to conduct 
additional simulations under biaxial compression and tension to produce the yield criteria for the 
material. These yield criteria can be compared to typical empirically derived yield criteria for 
other rock types as a means of verification of the model. 
9.2.3 UDEC Simulation of Lithophysal Rock Triaxial Response 
9.2.3.1 Simulation of Nonlithophysal Samples 
After calibration, the first step of this analysis was to examine and qualitatively validate the 
UDEC simulated rock behavior when no lithophysal holes were present in the rock. A series of 
uniaxial and triaxial simulations were run on the nonlithophysal (zero void) samples to obtain 
stress-strain curves (Figure 9-30) for different conditions of confinement (unconfined, 1-MPa, 3MPa, 
and 5-MPa confinement) and loading condition (tension and compression). Figure 9-30 
also illustrates the mode of failure for each case by a plot of displacement vectors at the final 
state of the model. Laboratory testing data on the post-peak behavior of lithophysal rock is 
inconclusive. However, the model exhibits qualitatively reasonable brittle post-peak behavior. 
The response for low confinement is brittle (see unconfined compressive strength curve in Figure 
9-30). As confinement increases the response becomes more ductile, almost perfectly plastic for 
3-MPa and 5-MPa confinements (Figure 9-30). The mode of sample failure in the case of 
unconfined compressive strength is axial splitting, similar to observations of laboratory 
experiments. The mode of failure for axial compression tests as confinement increases 
transitions to the shear band type with a reduction in post-peak brittleness, as would be 
expected. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.0E+7 
Axial stress [Pa] 
7.2E+7 
6.4E+7 
5.6E+7 
4.8E+7 
4.0E+7 
3.2E+7 
2.4E+7 
1.6E+7 
8.0E+6 
0.0E+0 
-8.0E+6 
-5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 
Axial strain 
Note: Inset figures show UDEC models and fracture condition in the failed state for each confining pressure. 
Fractures shown in red, with velocity vectors. 
Figure 9-30. Composite stress-strain curves from calibrated UDEC granular structure model for 
uniaxial and triaxial compression  nonlithophysal rock. 
(ion) 
tension 
UCS 
1 MPa confinement 
3 MPa confinement 
5 MPa confinement 
LineartensE = 19.8 GPa 
The failure envelope in the principal stress space, constructed based on numerical tests at 
different confinement levels, is shown in Figure 9-31. The failure envelope is curvilinear, as 
expected for a rock mass (similar to Hoek-Brown failure criterion). The ratio between uniaxial 
compressive and tensile strengths is larger than 10. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
s1 [MPa] 
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5 
0 
f = 35o 
C = 15.6 MPa 
sci = 59.1 MPa 
Mi = 6.2
5 4 3 2 1 0-1-2-3-4 
s3 [MPa] 
Note: Portion of curve above zero confining stress is a curve fit to the points. 
Figure 9-31. Numerical Experiment, Category 1 (seed 1, void ratio 0.000): Failure Envelope 
The volumetric deformation of the model during the experiments is illustrated in Figure 9-32, 
which shows curves of volumetric strain versus axial strain. In general, these curves are bilinear. 
Initially, while the sample behaves elastically, its volume reduces due to the Poissons effect. 
The initial slope of the curves is a function of the Poissons ratio. Thus, the Poissons ratio, ., of 
the synthetic material can be calculated from the initial slope of the curve, se, according to the 
following formula derived from elasticity theory: 
.= 1 - se (Eq. 9-1)
2 - se 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-35December 2003-0.010.000.010.020.03-0.00250.00000.00250.00500.0075Axial strainVolumetric straintensionUCS1 MPa confinement3 MPa confinement5 MPa confinement. = 0.16y = 39o 
y = 48o 
y = 35o 
Figure 9-32. Numerical Experiment, Category 1 (seed 1, void ratio 0.000): Volumetric Strain VersusAxial Strain for Different Confinements and Loading ConditionsAs the material yields and starts plastic deformation, it usually dilates (increases volume).
Consequently the curves in Figure 9-32 change in slope. Initially negative slopes, indicatingcontraction, become positive, indicating dilation. The slope of the curves during plasticdeformation is a function of the dilation angle, which is the parameter used to characterize plasticvolumetric deformation. The dilation angle, ., of the synthetic material can be calculated fromthe post-peak slope of the curve, sp, according to the following formula, which was derived fromMohr-Coulomb plastic flow equations in Itasca SoftwareCutting Edge Tools for ComputationalMechanics (Itasca 2002):
..
.
.
..
.
.
+
=
2arcsinppss.(Eq. 9-2)
The synthetic material clearly exhibits a very large dilation angle for unconfined compressivestrength. Such behavior is expected because micro damage of the material during unconfinedcompressive strength testing is predominantly tensile fracturing, which results in extremely largedilation.

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.2.3.2 Simulation of Lithophysal Samples 
Next, a series of uniaxial and triaxial compression numerical experiments were conducted on the 
same calibrated sample as described above, but circular lithophysal voids are randomly added to 
create samples of with void ratios of 10.3, 17.8 and 23.8%. These void ratios correspond to 
specific samples in the PFC shape study. Figures 9-33 to 9-35 show stress strain response for 
each of these cases. The addition of void volume results in failure due to fracturing between the 
voids in a similar fashion as that demonstrated previously for the PFC modeling. The following 
summarizes these results: 
 Reduction of compressive strength with increased void porosity 
 Reduction of Youngs modulus with increased void porosity 
 Less brittle post-peak response, leading to elastic-plastic response for the higher
confining pressures
 Reduction in tensile strength with increased void porosity 
The relationships of uniaxial compressive strength and Youngs modulus to void porosity are 
shown in Figures 9-36 and 9-37, respectively, indicating similar results to the previous PFC 
modeling, and good agreement with laboratory compression on large (12 diameter) laboratory 
testing. The correlation of uniaxial compressive strength and Youngs modulus is shown in 
Figure 9-38. The UDEC results shown are in good agreement with the PFC simulations, and 
give higher uniaxial compressive strength values than those from the laboratory tests when the 
void porosity is low (or Youngs modulus is high). It is noted that the UDEC model was 
calibrated for the 0% porosity case at a uniaxial compressive strength of 60 MPa and a Youngs 
modulus of 20 GPa, and subsequent data should be scaled if these calibrated values were 
adjusted with Youngs modulus and uniaxial compressive strength for higher porosities. 
The relationship of dilation angle to void porosity at various confining stresses for lithophysal 
tuff is shown in Figure 9-39. It is apparent that the effect of increasing lithophysal porosity is a 
reduction of dilation angle for all levels of confinement simulated. In addition, the dilation angle 
is also sensitive to the confinement, and decreases as the confining stress increases. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-36 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
i-8.0E+6 
0.0E+0 
8.0E+6 
1.6E+7 
2.4E+7 
3.2E+7 
4.0E+7 
4.8E+7 
5.6E+7 
6.4E+7 
7.2E+7 
8.0E+7 
Axial stress [Pa] 
tenson 
UCS 
1 MPa confinement 
3 MPa confinement 
5 MPa confinement 
E = 14.1 GPa 
-5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 
Axial strain 
Figure 9-33. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 10.3%. Circular 
voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. 
i-8.0E+6 
0.0E+0 
8.0E+6 
1.6E+7 
2.4E+7 
3.2E+7 
4.0E+7 
4.8E+7 
5.6E+7 
6.4E+7 
7.2E+7 
8.0E+7 
Axial stress [Pa] 
tens on 
UCS 
1 MPa confinement 
3 MPa confinement 
5 MPa confinement 
E = 11.0 GPa 
-5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 
Axial strain 
Figure 9-34. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 17.8%. Circular 
voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-37 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8.0E+7 
Axial stress [Pa] 
7.2E+7 
6.4E+7 
5.6E+7 
4.8E+7 
4.0E+7 
3.2E+7 
2.4E+7 
1.6E+7 
8.0E+6 
0.0E+0 
-8.0E+6 
-5.0E-3 0.0E+0 5.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.5E-2 
Axial strain 
tens ion 
UCS 
1 MPa confinem ent 
3 MPa confinem ent 
5 MPa confinem ent 
E = 9.6 GPa 
Figure 9-35. Stress-strain response and failure mechanisms for lithophysal porosity of 23.8%. Circular 
voids distributed randomly throughout the sample. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-39December 2003y = 52.482e-5.1493xR2 = 0.9434y = 51.78e-6.2138xR2 = 0.934401020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvqu (MPa)
Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.)
UDEC circles (90 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002,
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002, SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and SN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-36.Comparison of UDEC simulations of lithophysal porosity effects on uniaxial compressivestrength (UCS) to laboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC2D simulationsy = 19.067e-3.6915xR2 = 0.9884y = 19.684e-3.1677xR2 = 0.993805101520250.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.35void porosity, nvE (GPa)
Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.)
UDEC circles (90 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-37.Comparison of UDEC simulations of lithophysal porosity effects on Youngs modulus tolaboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC2D simulations

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A9-40December 2003y = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 5.9043e0.1225xR2 = 0.9635y = 3.2298e0.1452xR2 = 0.981801020304050600510152025modulus, E (GPa)
qu (MPa)
Laboratory measurementsPFC2D circles (90 mm diam.)
UDEC circles (90 mm diam.)
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, andSN0305L0207502.006.
Figure 9-38.Comparison of UDEC simulations of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) versus Youngsmodulus to laboratory measurements on large samples and to PFC simulationsy = 47.111e-1.4266xR2 = 0.7101y = 40.282e-2.2457xR2 = 0.7786y = 34.048e-2.637xR2 = 0.607701020304050600.000.050.100.150.200.250.30Void Porosity, nvDilation Angle (degrees)
Confining Stress = 1 MPaConfining Stress = 3 MPaConfining Stress = 5 MPaFigure 9-39.Dilation angles versus void porosity at various confining stresses from UDEC simulations forlithophysal tuff

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.2.4 Estimation of Linear and Non-Linear Failure Envelopes 
The UDEC peak strength values from the results shown in Figures 9-30 to 9-35 can be used to 
construct traditional failure envelopes for the nonlithophysal as well as lithophysal samples. 
Figure 9-40 shows the stress values plotted in principal stress space with approximate linear and 
Hoek-Brown non-linear envelopes fit to the results. Note that in each case, multiple simulations 
were made for each minimum (confining) stress level in which different random distributions of 
UDEC grain structure were used. The Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown strength parameters 
derived from the fits to this data are given in Table 9-3. As seen, the primary effect of increasing 
lithophysal porosity is a reduction in the compressive and tensile strength components, with little 
additional strength reduction when the void porosity is raised above 17.8%. There is little 
apparent impact of lithophysal porosity on friction angle. 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 
) 
Major Principal Stress (MPa) 
iiiiiiiiliiliiliiliiMinor Principal Stress (MPaUDEC Lth. Porosty=0 
UDEC Lth. Porosty=10.3% 
UDEC Lth. Porosty=17.8% 
UDEC Lth. Porosty=23.8% 
HB Enveope Ft, m =6.5 
HB Enveope Ft, m =7.9 
HB Enveope Ft, m =7.9 
HB Enveope Ft, m =5.5 
Figure 9-40. Major principal stress versus minor principal stress from UDEC simulations as well as 
Hoek-Brown non-linear failure envelope fits for various lithophysal porosities 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-41 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-3. Summary of Average Strength, Modulus Mohr Coulomb and Hoek Brown Failure Law 
Parameters As Derived from UDEC Simulations 
Lithophysal 
Porosity 
(%) 
UCS 
(MPa) 
Youngs 
Modulus 
(GPa) 
Friction 
Angle 
(degree) 
Cohesion 
(MPa) 
Tensile 
Strength 
(MPa) 
HB SigCi 
(MPa) 
HB mi 
0 58.7 19.8 36 14.9 4.4 58.5 6.6 
10 25.1 14.2 36 6.4 2.1 25.1 7.7 
17 15.5 11.2 35 4.1 1.7 16.5 7.3 
24 13.2 9.3 29 3.9 1.5 14.0 5.0 
9.2.5 Estimation of GSI as a Function of Lithophysal Porosity as Derived from UDEC 
Models 
The Hoek-Brown Geologic Strength Index (GSI), based on geotechnical characterization indices 
such as Q or RMR, is often used for estimation of equivalent Mohr-Coulomb (cohesion and 
friction angle) or Hoek-Brown (m,s) rock mass strength properties. The Mohr-Coulomb and 
Hoek-Brown strength properties are typically used as input to numerical models in which the 
rock mass mechanical constitutive model is based on these failure laws. A great deal of 
literature and case examples exist, in which these models have been compared to deformation 
measurement in a wide variety of rock types and qualities. Although little experience in 
tunneling in lithophysal tuff is available, it is instructive to use the results of the UDEC 
simulations to estimate, from the Hoek-Brown strength parameters, the approximately equivalent 
values of GSI as a function of lithophysal porosity. 
To perform such an estimate, the 0% lithophysal porosity case discussed above is assumed to 
represent the rock matrix, and the cases of 10.3, 17.8, and 23.8% lithophysal porosity are 
considered to be degraded quality rock in the same sense as fracturing is used in the typical 
case as a means of degrading intact rock strength. Using Hoeks empirically-derived relation for 
rock mass modulus, Em, based on GSI (e.g., Hoek et al. 2002, Eq. 11): 
5.0 
)
=
...
1-
D
2
..
.
..
.
s
ci 
100 
.
. 
.10
(
E GPa
(
[
)
]
(Eq. 9-3)
GSI
-
10 /40 
m 
Where D is a rock mass disturbance index, which in this case we set to zero, and solving for GSI 
we get: 
GSI
=
10
+
..
.
40
10 ln 
..
.
..
.
ln 
E
m
-
ln 5.0 
..
.
s
ci 
100 
..
.
..
.
(Eq. 9-4) 
Using Equation 9-4 with sci (58.7 MPa) for 0% porosity and the moduli from Table 9-3 we find 
the relation between GSI and porosity as shown in Table 9-4. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-42 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-4. Relation Between GSI and Porosity 
Porosity (%) 
10 61 
17 57 
24 53 
GSI 
This relationship, also shown in Figure 9-41, is preliminary in nature and is given simply to 
illustrate the possible impact of lithophysal porosity in terms of the typical rock mass 
characterization parameters used in industrial practice. 
Estimated Relation between GSI and Porosity for 
Lithophysal Tuff 
GSI 
65 
60 
55 
50 
45 
0 5 1015202530 
Porosity (%) 
Figure 9-41. Estimated relation between GSI and porosity for lithophysal tuff 
9.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations in UDEC Study 
Some uncertainties and limitations are inherent in the current UDEC study. These are described 
as follows: 
 The effect of lithophysal cavity shape and size on lithophysal rock properties has not been 
addressed in this study. In the current study, the shape of cavity is circular and the size is 
fixed at 0.09 m. In reality, both the shape and the size vary with location. These may be 
important factors that affect lithophysal rock properties and contribute to its behavior. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-43 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 The UDEC analyses are two-dimensional, whereas the true lithophysal cavities are three-
dimensional. The two-dimensional models may underestimate strength values, since the 
third dimension is not available for support and stress redistribution. The results from the 
two-dimensional UDEC analyses should be considered conservative. 
 The effect of specimen size on lithophysal rock properties has not been addressed in this 
study. The specimen size of 1 m  1 m used is small compared to that of a representative 
volume appropriate for modeling a repository drift. This may or may not affect the derived 
lithophysal rock modulus and strength properties. 
 Pre-existing fractures in the matrix material of lithophysal rock are not accounted for directly 
by the UDEC model. The effect of such fractures may be included in a smeared sense by 
reducing the contact stiffness and strength between interconnected particles. 
 Comparisons of the UDEC simulations are made to those from laboratory uniaxial 
compressive tests. Though the UDEC models were run for triaxial compressive tests, no 
comparisons have been made due to the lack of triaxial test data. To have a greater 
confidence in the UDEC models, use of the data from triaxial compressive tests to validate 
the models is warranted. This may require to conduct some laboratory triaxial tests using 
large rock specimens. 
 As indicated in Tables 8-41 and 8-42, rock mass properties vary in a large range, reflecting 
the effect of fractures. The current UDEC study uses the average values of Youngs modulus 
and uniaxial compressive strength to calibrate the UDEC fracture properties, and does not 
account for the effect of variations of rock mass quality or condition. The derived 
lithophysal properties may be sensitive to these variations. Additional analyses on this 
sensitivity is considered valuable for further understanding the effect of lithophysal porosity 
on rock mass properties. 
 The adequacy of the data derived from this UDEC study depends on whether the models 
used can be fully validated or not. Once the models are validated, they can be used to 
conduct a wide range of numerical experiments, which cover different loading conditions, 
sample sizes, void shapes, and fracture properties. The derived rock mass properties can 
supplement limited data collected from laboratory or field tests to a great degree of adequacy. 
As mentioned above, due to the lack of sufficient test data the current UDEC models cannot 
be fully validated. Therefore, further study is needed in order to generate adequate data from 
the UDEC analyses with a high level of confidence. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-44 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.3 FRACMAN FRACTURE SIMULATION 
9.3.1 Generation of Representative Rock Volumes Using FracMAN 
The detailed mapped fracture geometry from the ESF and ECRB is neither practical nor 
appropriate to input directly into the 3DEC discontinuum modeling used in both rockfall and 
ground support design analyses. Instead, geologic mapping is used to define a synthetic or 
representative rock mass, called a Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) that is sampled randomly to 
create possible rock masses in which repository host rock tunnels are simulated. 
A representative DFN simulation of the actual fracture network is constructed based on standard 
detailed line survey and full periphery geologic map data. The simulation process is summarized 
below and described in more detail in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6) 
and scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-084-V1 (Beason 2003, pp. 139-145). The source fracture 
geometry inputs are provided in Table 8-60 of Section 8.8 (also BSC 2003a, Section 4, Table 2). 
These data consist of fractures with trace lengths of one meter or greater. The premise to this 
simulation is that a 100-meter on a side cube results in a representative fracture network. 
Fractures are generated within this volume as circular disks with their radius, dip, and dip 
direction determined based on field data. The fractures are simulated, and their location, 
orientation and radius are inputs for the rockfall analyses. Individual 100-meter cubes 
simulations of fracture geometry are constructed for each lithostratigraphic unit. 
Construction of the FracMAN network starts with the low-angle fractures. Because these 
fractures form first in the cooling process their truncation by other features is minimal. To 
continue the construction of the FracMAN network, the remaining fractures, having a dip greater 
than 45 are separated into two classes. The first class includes those fractures that formed about 
the same time as the vapor-phase partings. These fractures are referred to as cooling joints and 
have long trace lengths with some truncation occurring against the vapor-phase partings and 
themselves. The second class includes the fractures that have a shorter trace length. These 
fractures are considered to be later cooling and tectonic fractures. These fractures are generated 
into a network comprised of vapor-phase partings and long, high-angle cooling fractures 
(Sections 5.3.3 and 8.8). 
This construction is significantly different from a construction with sets solely identified on the 
basis of orientation. However, observations of mineralization and truncation relations (Mongano 
et al. 1999, p. 76) suggest that the current sequential construction is more appropriate to generate 
a representative rock volume. This construction does not create a copy of the actual fracture 
geometries observed in the limited sampling afforded by the detailed line survey and the full 
periphery geologic map. The objective is to provide a generalized, representative fracture 
network for evaluation of the rock mass as a whole. The output from FracMAN is a fracture 
network whose geometry is conditioned from a careful evaluation of the detailed line survey and 
full periphery geologic map data. Special geologic features are not represented in this effort. 
For example, in a 100-meter segment of tunnel mapping there may be a 15-meter section that 
shows an increased amount of fractures from a given set. The developer may decide to represent 
this zone by developing a specific distribution for this occurrence. However, an average 
geometry can be used to describe the simulation since the fracture network developed does not 
represent a specific section of the mapped area, but is representative of the general condition of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-45 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
the rock mass. Not enough data exists to develop a simulation that represents every geologic 
variation in the rock mass. To avoid giving the impression of zones, which display anomalous 
geometries in each lithostratigraphic unit, these zones are averaged into the simulation when the 
decision is made that adding this input helps represent the rock mass correctly with the data that 
is available. Because this output is not an exact copy, a single constant fracture intensity is 
imposed for each set in each lithostratigraphic unit. Plots of cumulative fracture number against 
tunnel station display a constant slope for the most part along the sampled tunnel. Where the 
intensity is not constant, it is displayed as a change of slope in these plots. Further discussion 
can be found in BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6. 
A summary of the FracMAN results for the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll and Tptpln lithostratigraphic 
units are presented in the Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003a, Section 6.1.6 and Attachment 
II). A summary of the FracMAN fracture geometry results are given in Tables 9-5 to 9-8. 
Table 9-5. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the Detailed Line Survey versus FracMAN Output for 
the Tptpul 
Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN 
Number of Number of 
Feature fractures Proportion Feature Fractures Proportion 
Vapor-Phase Partings 123 14% Vapor-Phase Partings 466 16% 
1st Generation 
Cooling Fractures 41 5% 1st Generation Cooling 
Fractures 190 6% 
2nd Generation 
Cooling and Tectonic 
Fractures 
704 81% 2nd Generation Cooling and 
Tectonic Fractures 2298 78% 
Total 868 100% Total 2954 100% 
NOTE: Detailed line survey source DTNs: GS971108314224.024 GS990408314224.001 
Table 9-6. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the DLS versus FracMAN Output for the Tptpll 
Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN 
Feature Number of 
fractures Proportion Feature Number of 
Fractures Proportion 
Vapor-Phase Partings 20 6% Vapor-Phase Partings 647 7% 
1st Generation 
Cooling Fractures 71 24% 1st Generation Cooling 
Fractures 2494 25% 
2nd Generation 
Cooling and Tectonic 
Fractures 
209 70% 2nd Generation Cooling and 
Tectonic Fractures 6738 68% 
Total 300 100% Total 9879 100% 
NOTES: Source: DTN: GS990408314224.001, GS990408314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-46 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-7. Comparison of Data from DLS and FracMAN for the Tptpmn 
Set Orientation Proportions Trace Length (m) Spacing (m) 
Number (Strike/Dip) FracMAN DLS FracMAN DLS FracMAN DLS 
Set 1 120/84 53% 55% 1.8 2.3 0.61 0.55 
Set 2 215/68 20% 20% 1.5 1.9 1.61 1.48 
Set 3 329/14 8% 7% 2.1 2.7 6.8 4.2 
Random Random 19% 18% 1.4 1.7 N/A N/A 
SOURCE DTNS: GS971108314224.025, GS000608314224.004, GS960708314224.008 , GS960708314224.010, 
GS990408314224.001 
Table 9-8. Relative Proportions of Fractures from the Detailed Line Survey versus FracMAN Output for 
the Tptpln 
Detailed Line Survey (DLS) FracMAN 
Feature 
Number of 
fractures Proportion Feature 
Number of 
Fractures Proportion 
Vapor-Phase Partings 16 8% Vapor-Phase Partings 392 9% 
1st Generation Cooling Fractures 24 12% 1st Generation Cooling 501 11% 
Fractures 
2nd Generation Cooling and 
Tectonic Fractures 
159 80% 2nd Generation Cooling 
and Tectonic Fractures 
3487 80% 
Total 199 100% Total 4380 100% 
SOURCE: DTN GS990408314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-47 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.4 SIMULATION OF LITHOPHYSAL POROSITY SPATIAL VARIATION 
9.4.1 Introduction 
More than 80 percent of the planned repository excavated openings are planned to lie within the 
lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Formation (Tptpll). To assist in modeling the 
spatial variability of mechanical properties, a simple method of projecting the two-dimensional 
distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity to a three-dimensional distribution surrounding the 
tunnels was developed. Correlation equations for the porosity to unconfined compressive 
strength and Youngs Modulus were then developed to define the distribution of elastic 
properties and material strength. This modeling calculation is for simulation of rock in the lower 
lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpll), and is based on the data from the ECRB 
Cross-Drift (see Attachment VII). These data represent one of the best and detailed distributions 
of lithophysal cavity porosity available. The calculation involves the projection of these data to a 
vertical simulated cross section to define the vertical variability of the data, then horizontally 
away from the ECRB Cross-Drift to define the data in the third dimension. 
Four steps were used for projecting the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity data from the 
ECRB Cross-Drift. A summary of these four steps is described below and is illustrated in Figure 
9-42, with a detailed explanation (with specific examples) provided in Section 9.4.6. 
 Step 1. Lithophysal cavity porosity values are projected along the apparent dip of the 
lithostratigraphic unit to a vertical line representing a simulated stratigraphic column (Figure 
9-42a). Because the slope of the ECRB Cross Drift is very gentle and varies throughout the 
length of the tunnel, it can be considered to be horizontal so the vertical line is in effect 
perpendicular to the tunnel. For simplicity, only the values that project to the top and bottom 
of the vertical line are depicted in Figure 9-42a, but each point along the tunnel can be 
projected along the same apparent dip. 
 Step 2. The vertical line is divided into a series of sections or horizons, and these sections 
are projected along the apparent dip to form stratigraphically equivalent windows along the 
tunnel (Figure 9-42b). 
 Step 3. The distribution of values and descriptive statistics are determined for each 
window and these statistics are imparted to the correlative section on the vertical line 
(Figure 9-42c). 
 Step 4. The descriptive statistics for each section on the vertical line are then propagated 
along a horizon at right angles to the tunnel (Figure 9-42d). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-48 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
j)(a) 
Percent cavities 
Apparent 
Dip 
Proection along 
Apparent Dip 
Tunnel Profile 
Vertical Line 
(VL
Distance along tunnel 
VL(b) 
Percent cavitiesSection 1 
Section 2 
Window1 
Window2 
Distance along tunnel 
VL(c) 
Percent cavitiesSw1 
Ss1 
Sw2 
Ss2 
Ss1 = Sw1 
Ss2 = Sw2 
Distance along tunnel 
VL 
(d) 
Distance away from tunnel 
Horizons Tunnel 
Ss1 Ss1 
Ss2 Ss2 
Figure 9-42. Simplified Steps for Projecting and Distributing Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Values in a 
Tunnel into a Two-Dimensional Cross Section 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-49 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.4.2 Input Data 
Two sources of data are used for this simulation of lithophysal cavity porosity. The data 
required for the projection of lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical cross section include (1) the 
distribution of the lithophysal cavity porosity along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Attachment VII) and 
(2) the strike and dip of the top of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, 
Table 1). 
The particular distribution of the lithophysal cavity porosity used in this section comes from the 
fitted abundance curve for lithophysal cavities along the ECRB Cross-Drift. This data is 
preliminary since the large lithophysae inventory has not yet been completed, so cannot be 
included as part of the fitted data. The portion of the large lithophysae survey that has been 
completed indicates that large lithophysae may contribute as much as 8 percent more porosity in 
some 5-m sections of the tunnel (i.e., the fitted curve in Figure 9-44 below can be increased up 
to 8 percent in places). 
9.4.3 Software Used In The Calculations 
The input data, intermediate calculations, and results of the assessment of the distribution of 
lithophysal cavity porosity are stored and implemented in the Microsoft Excel file, Lithophysal 
projection to vertical plane.xls (Attachment VIII). All transfers of values, calculations, logic 
functions, and descriptive statistics are done with standard functions in Excel. There are three 
small macros embedded in the Excel file, named Prop_Distribute, Contour_Text, and 
Contour_Fill. These macros are exempt from the qualification requirements of AP-SI.1Q, 
Software Management, since they are used solely for visual display of data: 
1. The Prop_Distribute macro is an automated copy and paste function that takes the 
distributed values in a large (10184 cell) 5-m window table and makes a small (1029 
cell) compacted table of the values. The small table is effectively the large table, but 
with the null values removed. 
2. The Contour_Text and Contour_Fill macros are basically the same and they simply 
change the format of the values or cells (but not the values themselves) in the 50200 and 
2080 cell tables. The difference between these two macros is that one (Contour_Text) 
colors the text (i.e., values), and the other (Contour_Fill) changes the fill color of the 
cell and the color of the text (i.e., values). 
3. Confirmation that the macros are operating correctly can be made with simple visual 
comparisons of the large and small tables for the Prop_Distribute macro, and the input 
data table with the 50200 and 2080 cell tables for the Contour_Text and 
Contour_Fill macros. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-50 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.4.4 Geometric Relations And Conditions In The Calculation 
The simplifying assumptions used in this calculation relate to the inherent geometry of the 
problem and other initial conditions that need to be defined prior to carrying out the calculation. 
In particular, a simulation of the distributed lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical plane is 
based on six fundamental lithostratigraphic and geometric relations and conditions: 
1. Lithostratigraphic zones and subzones of the Topopah Spring Tuff are stratiform and are 
traceable across the repository area; however, some subzones might not occur across the 
entire repository area. This calculation assumes a stratiform distribution of Tptpll 
lithostratigraphic features, such as lithophysal cavity data. 
2. The ECRB Cross-Drift transects the Tptpll as a shallowly inclined tunnel; therefore, 
lithophysal cavity data represents vertical (and to some amount horizontal) variations in 
the lithostratigraphic features. 
3. These observed variations in lithophysal cavity porosity data are assumed to represent 
variations in lithostratigraphic features that are laterally continuous across the volume of 
Tptpll rock sampled. In the simulation, variations in lithophysal cavity porosity in the 
tunnel are projected along the apparent dip of the Tptpll (and lithostratigraphic features) 
to a vertical line representing a simulated stratigraphic column for the sampled volume. 
Because the tunnel is assumed to be horizontal (see Section 9.4.1), the vertical line is 
therefore perpendicular to the tunnel. 
4. The vertical line is divided into 5-m thick intervals or horizons, which are projected 
along the apparent dip to the tunnel to form a series of windows along the tunnel. The 
choice of the horizon as 5-m is arbitrary. 
5. Each window contains a uniquely defined statistical variation of lithophysal cavity 
porosity based on the population of tunnel measurements. This statistical variation of 
porosity (a realization of porosity) is obtained by sampling from the population of tunnel 
measurements. Thus, each 5-m horizon along the vertical line contains the potential 
variability in porosity of the respective window along the tunnel. 
6. The statistical variation in porosity in each 5-m thick horizon included in the simulated 
stratigraphic column is projected perpendicular and away from the tunnel along a vertical 
cross section. It is assumed that each perpendicular projection of porosity (realization) 
from window and then horizon statistical porosity data is translation invariant (the 
assumption of data stationarity). 
9.4.5 Determination Of The Apparent Dips For Input 
The three-dimensional orientation of an inclined plane can be defined by a strike and dip, but an 
apparent dip is formed where the inclined plane intersects vertical planes along a section that is 
not at a right angle to the strike of the vertical plane. The strike is the angle from north of a 
horizontal line in the inclined plane, and the dip is the angle from horizontal measured in a 
vertical plane that is 90 to the strike of the inclined plane. An apparent dip is the angle from the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-51 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
horizontal in a vertical plane of a line formed by the intersection of an inclined plane with the 
vertical plane. 
An example of these geometric relations is illustrated in Figure 9-43 with three planes. The 
inclined plane is the top contact of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift and has a strike of 270 
(Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1). The true dip is measured in a plane perpendicular to the strike 
of the inclined plane, and is illustrated with the 7 dip. The ECRB Cross-Drift is contained in a 
vertical plane that has a strike of 229. This strike is used because it is in the direction of the 
heading of the tunnel and in the area of the lithostratigraphic contact is in the direction of the 
inclination or plunge of the tunnel. For the purpose of this simulation, the tunnel is assumed to 
be horizontal. A cross section perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift forms a second vertical 
plane with a strike of 319. The apparent dip of the lithophysal zone contact is 4.6 to the 
northeast (NE) in the plane of the cross drift and 5.3 to the northwest (NW) in the cross section 
perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift. If another strike and dip were used, then the apparent 
dips will differ. For example, the top of the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift in the Geologic 
Framework Model (BSC 2002a) has a strike and dip of 345 and 5.8, respectively. The 
apparent dips are 5.2 NE in the plane of the ECRB Cross-Drift and 2.5 NW in the plane 
perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift. For the purposes of this calculation, an apparent dip of 
5 was used for projecting the data. 
AziCross section perpendicular to ECRB Cross-Drift 
Top contact of Tptpll 
muth of ECRB Cross-Drift 
NOTES: The orientation of the Tptpll contact and the ECRB Cross-Drift is based on Mongano et al. (1999, Table 1). 
The ECRB Cross-Drift is considered to be horizontal. 
Figure 9-43. Geometric Relations of Strike and Dip and the Apparent Dips in Cross Sections Parallel and 
Perpendicular to the ECRB Cross-Drift 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-52 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9.4.6 Distribution Of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity In The ECRB Cross-Drift And 
Simulated Vertical Cross Section 
The stratiform geometry of the zones in the Topopah Spring Tuff occur throughout the repository 
area (Buesch et al. 1996a and 1996b; BSC 2002a) as do many of the subzones such as the 
subzones of the Tptpmn (Buesch et al. 1996b; Buesch and Spengler 1998), although some 
subzones might not occur across the entire repository area (Buesch and Spengler 1998). 
Variations in the orientation of lithostratigraphic contacts (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1) and the 
abundance (and percent) of lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone, including 
lithophysal cavity porosity (Attachment VII), are consistent with the ECRB Cross-Drift 
transecting a dipping lithostratigraphic section (Figure 9-43). The lower lithophysal zone has not 
been divided into subzones, but the variations in features including the lithophysal cavity 
porosity are consistent with identification of 5 to 12 subzones (Figure 9-44). 
The lateral continuity of lithostratigraphic features and the projection of these features along the 
apparent dip in the ECRB Cross-Drift forms the principal component of creating a geologically 
informed calculation of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity in a vertical plane. 
Identification of a 50-m tall, vertical line (section) perpendicular to the tunnel is the first step in 
creation of the 50200-m cross section (Figure 9-44). Based on the apparent dip, the top and 
bottom of the vertical section can represent rocks from several hundred meters away from the 
centerline of the section. For example, with a 5 apparent dip, the equivalent rocks at the top and 
bottom of the vertical section are 286 m from the section (Figure 9-44). With an apparent dip of 
4.6 (Figure 9-43), the projection for the top and bottom of vertical section is 311 m. This 
projection distance is consistent with the overall stratiform characteristics of the 
lithostratigraphic section. 
The second step in creation of a cross section is to divide the vertical section into a series of 5-m 
tall sections or horizons. The projection along the apparent dip of the 5-m horizons result in a 
series of windows along the tunnel, and the position and length of each window results from 
the apparent dip. For example, with a 5 apparent dip, the equivalent window for the top 5-m 
horizon is 57 m long (Figure 9-44). Each window contains unique variations in the number of 
measurements and the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity values (Table 9-9 and Figure 945). 
The third step in creation of a simulated cross section is to distribute the descriptive statistics of 
the lithophysal cavity porosity in each window in the associated 5-m tall horizon. The statistical 
variation in porosity in each horizon is represented by sampling the actual porosity values in the 
respective window. Two methods using standard Excel functions have been used for this 
distribution; one function is Choose where the values in each window are randomly selected, 
and the other approach uses the random number generator in the analysis tool. For example, the 
first three 5-m horizons (0-5, 5-10, and 10-15 windows) in Table 9-9 are depicted as Horizons 
0, 5, and 10 and Y positions 1 to 15, respectively, in Table 9-10 and 9.4-3. Comparison of 
values in Table 9-9 and parts of Table 9-10 and 9.4-3 indicate the same values occur in all tables. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-53 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTE: The simulated cross section is at station 18+00 with an apparent dip of 5 for the stratiform features. 
Figure 9-44. Variation in Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Along the ECRB Cross-Drift and the Geometric 
Relations of Calculation Components 
Lili iili0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
i (m) 
i3 3 ) 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
indow 
Silithophysa Cavtiesn Smuated Secton 
1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 
StatonPorosty (cm /cm 
0-5 w 
5-10 w 
10-15 w 
15-20 w 
20-25 w 
25-30 w 
30-35 w 
35-40 w 
40-45 w 
45-50 w 
muated secton 
Figure 9-45. Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in the Lower Lithophysal Zone of the ECRB Cross-Drift with the 
Centerline of the Simulated Cross Section at Station 17+56 (Apparent Dip of 4.6, and 10 
Windows) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-54 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-9. Windows Containing Unique Variations of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity Values 
Station (m) Cavity fitted 0-5 Window 5-10 Window 10-15 Window 15-20 Window 
1445 2.5 null null null null 
1450 3.8 3.8 null null null 
1455 4.7 4.7 null null null 
1460 5.7 5.7 null null null 
1465 7.6 7.6 null null null 
1470 7.4 7.4 null null null 
1475 8.2 8.2 null null null 
1480 6.0 6.0 null null null 
1485 7.9 7.9 null null null 
1490 10.6 10.6 null null null 
1495 14.4 14.4 null null null 
1500 15.3 15.3 null null null 
1505 19.4 19.4 null null null 
1510 17.7 null 17.7 null null 
1515 17.0 null 17.0 null null 
1520 13.2 null 13.2 null null 
1525 13.6 null 13.6 null null 
1530 12.1 null 12.1 null null 
1535 10.2 null 10.2 null null 
1540 8.8 null 8.8 null null 
1545 11.0 null 11.0 null null 
1550 12.2 null 12.2 null null 
1552.8 12.2 null 12.2 null null 
1555 13.4 null 13.4 null null 
1560 12.0 null 12.0 null null 
1565 11.0 null 11.0 null null 
1570 11.0 null null 11.0 null 
1575 17.2 null null 17.2 null 
1580 21.0 null null 21.0 null 
1585 25.6 null null 25.6 null 
1590 22.1 null null 22.1 null 
1595 26.5 null null 26.5 null 
1600 26.9 null null 26.9 null 
1605 29.2 null null 29.2 null 
1610 24.6 null null 24.6 null 
1615 19.3 null null 19.3 null 
1620 19.0 null null 19.0 null 
1625 17.4 null null 17.4 null 
1630 20.1 null null 20.1 null 
1635 17.0 null null null 17.0 
1640 18.8 null null null 18.8 
NOTES: This table shows a portion of the lithophysal cavity porosity input data that are divided into windows 
representing 5-m tall horizons in the simulated cross section. The Cavity (fitted) column provides adjusted mapped 
lithophysal porosity values as described in Attachment VII (Section VII.5). Porosity values for each window are 
depicted in Figure 9-45. Data in the Station (m) and Cavity (fitted) columns are from Attachment VII (Section 
VII.6.6; see Attachment VIII, Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P Fit.xls, worksheet Volume Percent Stats, 
which can accessed through the TDMS using DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 or from the attached CD#1). 
These data are for a calculation with a centerline of the simulated cross section at station 17+56 and an apparent dip 
of 4.6. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-55 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The fourth step in creation of a simulated vertical cross section is to project the 5-m horizons in 
the vertical section away from the vertical section to create the cross section. For a 200-m wide 
cross section, the projection away from the central vertical section is 100 m to either side. In this 
construct, the maximum straight line projection distance for an apparent dip of 4.6 and an 
along-the-tunnel projection of 311 m is only 327 m. This projection distance is consistent with 
the overall stratiform characteristics of the lithostratigraphic section. Figure 9-46 displays two 
simulations of a 50200-m cross section using a 4.6 apparent dip, one for a center of the section 
at 1756 m and a second for a center at 2014 m. In these simulations, there is an overlap of 364 m 
along the tunnel and when projected to the vertical plane it represents an overlap of about 30 m 
of section (Figure 9-46). Each simulation is depicted with a 50200 cell table representing a 11 
m grid (sections A and C) and a 2080 cell table representing a 2.22.5 m grid (sections B and 
D). All four sections in Figure 9-46 display similar stratiform relations. 
Descriptive statistics (from standard Excel functions) for the input data in the various windows 
(Table 9-12) with the selected statistics from 5-m tall horizons in the 50200 cell and 2080 
cells indicate very good correlations. The descriptive statistics (from standard Excel functions) 
of the total Tptpll zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift is provided in Table 9-12 (first column of 
values). Descriptive statistics for the total windows in the ECRB Cross-Drift (input) data and the 
total 50200 cell and 2080 cell tables indicate very high correlations (Table 9-13). These 
correlations reinforce the technical soundness of this approach to project the distribution of 
lithophysal cavity porosity from the cross section data to a vertical plane. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-56 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-10. Display of Part of the 50200 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of 
Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline 
Station 17+56 
Table of porosity values (1x1 m grid) 
Horizon Cell Y\X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
0 1 7.6 4.7 19.4 7.6 8.2 8.2 10.6 7.6 7.9 3.8 
0 2 6.0 7.4 8.2 19.4 7.9 10.6 14.4 7.9 15.3 7.9 
0 3 6.0 15.3 15.3 7.9 7.4 6.0 4.7 3.8 15.3 7.6 
0 4 10.6 10.6 10.6 7.9 3.8 3.8 19.4 7.9 7.6 7.6 
0 5 8.2 15.3 7.9 10.6 5.7 8.2 7.4 6.0 7.9 7.6 
5 6 13.2 11.0 17.7 11.0 17.7 10.2 12.2 12.1 12.2 12.2 
5 7 11.0 12.1 12.2 10.2 12.2 8.8 12.2 11.0 12.2 12.0 
5 8 12.2 13.6 12.0 12.2 11.0 8.8 12.1 12.2 11.0 12.0 
5 9 17.7 13.6 10.2 17.0 10.2 17.0 8.8 11.0 12.2 10.2 
5 10 12.2 12.2 12.1 11.0 12.2 10.2 13.4 12.2 13.2 17.7 
10 11 26.5 26.9 22.1 25.6 19.0 21.0 17.2 26.9 17.2 26.9 
10 12 11.0 26.5 24.6 26.9 19.0 29.2 19.0 21.0 17.2 19.0 
10 13 24.6 17.4 26.9 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.3 29.2 25.6 17.4 
10 14 17.4 26.5 17.2 17.2 24.6 21.0 26.9 26.5 20.1 26.9 
10 15 22.1 17.2 19.0 17.4 26.9 26.9 21.0 11.0 17.2 21.0 
15 16 18.8 16.5 13.6 20.5 20.5 22.9 21.4 20.6 16.5 20.6 
15 17 16.8 15.5 22.9 20.5 16.5 17.0 13.6 19.1 13.6 17.0 
15 18 20.6 19.3 15.5 17.0 17.0 19.3 20.6 19.1 16.8 17.0 
15 19 20.5 13.6 23.4 16.8 23.4 16.8 20.6 22.9 15.5 20.5 
15 20 23.4 21.4 19.3 15.5 16.8 21.4 20.5 17.0 21.4 17.0 
20 21 10.7 15.5 13.0 15.5 11.0 15.3 15.3 15.3 12.8 15.3 
20 22 13.0 14.5 17.3 11.0 11.7 13.0 17.3 14.5 10.6 10.6 
20 23 15.5 15.3 11.7 15.3 14.2 14.5 10.6 14.5 10.6 11.0 
20 24 15.3 14.5 15.5 13.0 15.5 15.3 11.7 14.5 13.0 10.7 
20 25 10.7 10.6 11.0 15.5 11.0 14.5 15.3 11.0 15.3 14.5 
25 26 16.9 24.5 17.3 20.1 18.1 15.5 20.1 18.1 13.8 13.8 
25 27 18.1 25.6 14.5 17.3 18.1 20.1 21.1 17.3 14.5 14.5 
25 28 17.3 15.5 18.8 18.1 17.3 21.1 17.3 18.8 17.3 18.1 
25 29 20.1 20.1 18.1 24.5 18.8 21.1 18.1 13.8 18.1 21.1 
25 30 18.1 18.1 15.5 18.1 13.8 18.1 14.5 24.5 18.1 21.1 
30 31 12.7 13.5 8.5 12.7 13.5 8.5 8.5 12.7 11.6 10.0 
30 32 8.1 11.8 10.8 13.9 13.9 13.5 13.9 7.8 8.1 8.5 
30 33 9.7 12.7 9.7 9.7 10.8 10.0 11.8 13.9 9.7 11.6 
30 34 13.5 10.0 11.8 13.6 13.6 7.8 13.6 13.9 11.6 11.8 
30 35 7.8 10.0 10.8 13.6 10.0 8.5 13.6 7.8 10.8 8.5 
35 36 12.3 19.1 21.3 12.3 17.8 12.3 13.9 15.2 5.7 21.3 
35 37 15.2 5.7 12.3 16.6 13.9 12.3 14.4 5.7 16.6 17.8 
35 38 19.1 5.7 5.7 19.1 11.6 15.2 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 
35 39 21.3 13.9 12.3 19.1 12.3 13.9 17.8 16.6 18.0 15.2 
35 40 15.2 13.9 9.8 19.1 15.2 17.8 16.6 9.8 16.6 16.6 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-57 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-10. Display of Part of the 50200 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of 
Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline Station 17+56 
(Continued) 
Table of porosity values (1x1 m grid) 
Horizon Cell Y\X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
40 41 10.7 10.7 12.9 11.1 13.3 7.7 15.8 9.6 7.7 11.7 
40 42 7.7 13.3 10.7 13.3 10.7 10.7 11.9 15.8 6.0 11.1 
40 43 7.7 11.9 11.7 9.6 6.0 12.9 15.8 11.7 13.3 12.9 
40 44 11.9 6.0 7.7 10.7 11.1 11.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 11.1 
40 45 15.8 9.6 12.9 9.6 6.0 12.9 11.1 11.9 7.7 7.7 
45 46 12.0 16.5 17.3 17.3 16.3 16.3 13.2 15.3 16.3 11.6 
45 47 13.5 12.0 11.6 13.2 16.6 11.6 15.6 15.3 15.3 13.5 
45 48 15.6 12.0 15.3 15.6 16.6 15.2 16.6 13.5 15.3 15.6 
45 49 12.0 15.3 17.3 15.3 16.3 16.3 13.2 17.3 11.6 14.5 
45 50 16.3 16.3 13.5 13.2 17.3 13.2 16.6 15.2 16.6 13.5 
Descriptive Statistics 
Simulated "X" 
position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Mean 14.4 14.6 14.5 15.2 14.2 14.5 15.2 14.5 13.8 14.3 
Standard Error 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 
Median 13.5 13.9 13.2 15.4 13.9 14.2 14.5 14.2 13.7 13.6 
Mode 6.0 15.3 15.5 19.1 11.0 8.2 12.2 14.5 12.2 7.6 
Standard 
Deviation 5.0 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.2 5.5 4.1 5.0 
Sample Variance 24.6 28.1 22.6 20.0 23.8 28.6 17.2 30.7 17.1 25.2 
Kurtosis -0.4 0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 
Skewness 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 
Range 20.5 22.2 21.2 19.3 23.1 25.4 22.2 25.4 19.9 23.1 
Minimum 6.0 4.7 5.7 7.6 3.8 3.8 4.7 3.8 5.7 3.8 
Maximum 26.5 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 29.2 26.9 29.2 25.6 26.9 
Sum 720.3 731.0 726.9 758.6 711.3 723.6 758.2 727.1 689.7 715.6 
Count 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 
Confidence Level 
(95.0%) 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.4 
Explanation of symbols (percent lithophysal cavity porosity) 
<=5 <=10 <=15 <=20 <=25 >25 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-58 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-11. Display of Part of the 2080 Cell Table with Descriptive Statistics for Calculation of 
Lithophysal Cavity Porosity in a 50200-m Simulated Cross Section with the Centerline at 
Station 17+56 
Table of porosity values (2.5x2.5 m grid) 
Horizon Cell Y\X 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 
0 2.5 15.3 7.4 7.9 5.7 8.2 6.0 5.7 7.4 5.7 15.3 
0 5.0 7.4 8.2 8.2 10.6 8.2 8.2 3.8 6.0 14.4 10.6 
5 7.5 12.0 12.2 11.0 17.0 12.2 10.2 10.2 12.1 8.8 12.2 
5 10.0 13.4 10.2 13.6 12.0 11.0 17.0 10.2 12.2 11.0 17.7 
10 12.5 29.2 21.0 19.0 26.9 17.4 17.2 29.2 19.0 17.4 19.0 
10 15.0 24.6 29.2 25.6 25.6 11.0 19.0 19.0 17.4 21.0 17.4 
15 17.5 18.8 17.0 13.6 18.8 20.5 21.4 19.3 17.0 23.4 15.5 
15 20.0 19.1 20.6 20.5 16.8 15.5 16.8 16.8 15.5 19.1 22.9 
20 22.5 13.0 15.3 13.0 14.5 10.7 14.5 11.0 13.0 11.0 14.5 
20 25.0 15.3 14.5 15.3 17.3 11.7 11.7 10.7 10.6 15.5 17.3 
25 27.5 15.5 13.8 18.1 16.9 25.6 16.9 18.1 25.6 18.8 20.1 
25 30.0 14.5 16.9 25.6 18.1 18.1 21.1 17.3 18.1 25.6 16.9 
30 32.5 7.8 10.8 9.7 7.8 11.8 12.7 11.8 10.8 11.8 11.6 
30 35.0 9.7 11.8 12.7 13.6 8.5 9.7 9.7 10.8 12.7 7.8 
35 37.5 9.8 9.8 11.6 19.1 5.7 21.3 16.6 17.8 17.8 5.7 
35 40.0 21.3 15.2 9.8 19.1 9.8 12.3 14.4 15.2 21.3 17.8 
40 42.5 9.6 12.9 9.6 11.9 9.6 11.9 6.0 12.9 11.7 13.3 
40 45.0 9.6 11.1 11.9 10.7 9.6 9.6 10.7 6.0 11.1 11.9 
45 47.5 14.5 17.3 15.2 17.3 15.3 13.5 16.6 15.6 16.6 15.2 
45 50.0 15.3 16.6 14.5 16.5 12.0 16.5 15.6 13.2 16.5 16.6 
Descriptive Statistics 
Simulated "X" 
position 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 
Mean 14.8 14.6 14.3 15.8 12.6 14.4 13.6 13.8 15.6 15.0 
Standard Error 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 
Median 14.5 14.1 13.3 16.9 11.4 14.0 13.1 13.1 16.0 15.4 
Mode 14.5 #N/A #N/A 19.1 8.2 #N/A 10.2 10.8 #N/A #N/A 
Standard 
Deviation 5.6 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.5 5.9 4.8 5.1 4.2 
Sample Variance 31.8 25.9 26.6 27.3 23.3 20.5 34.3 22.7 26.4 17.3 
Kurtosis 1.0 2.3 0.5 0.4 1.5 -0.9 1.3 0.7 -0.5 0.3 
Skewness 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.1 -0.5 
Range 21.8 21.8 17.8 21.2 19.9 15.4 25.4 19.6 20.0 17.2 
Minimum 7.4 7.4 7.9 5.7 5.7 6.0 3.8 6.0 5.7 5.7 
Maximum 29.2 29.2 25.6 26.9 25.6 21.4 29.2 25.6 25.6 22.9 
Sum 295.8 291.7 286.4 316.3 252.4 287.7 272.6 276.5 311.4 299.5 
Count 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 
Confidence Level 
(95.0%) 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 
Explanation of symbols (percent lithophysal cavity porosity) 
<=5 <=10 <=15 <=20 <=25 >25 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-59 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
IISECTON A or B at STATION 17+ 56 
SECTON C or D at STATION 20+ 14 
NOTES: Cross section A is a 50x200 cell table representing a 1x1 m grid, and cross section B is a 20x80 cell table representing a 2.2x2.5 m grid for the 
simulated section at 17+56. Cross section C is a 50x200 cell table representing a 1x1 m grid, and cross section D is a 20x80 cell table representing a 2.2x2.5 m 
grid for the simulated section at Station 20+14. 
Figure 9-46. Two 50200-m Simulated Cross Sections of Lithophysal Cavity Porosity at Stations 17+56 and 20+14 (Apparent dip of 4.6) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-60 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-12. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Tptpll Zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift, 
Individual Windows from the Input Data, and Selective Statistics for 5-m Tall Horizons in a 
50200-m Simulated Cross Section with 11-m and 2.52.5-m Grids 
Descriptive Statistics (for Total Input and Windows) 
StatisticTotal ECRB 
Cross-Drift 
Data0-5 Window 
0-51x1 Grid0-52.5x2.5 Grid5-10 Window 
5-101x1 Grid5-102.5x2.5 Grid10-15 Window 
10-151x1 Grid10-152.5x2.5 Grid15-20 Window 
15-201x1 Grid15-202.5x2.5 Grid20-25 Window 
20-251x1 Grid20-252.5x2.5 Grid 
Mean 12.9 9.2 9.1 9.3 12.6 12.6 12.3 21.5 21.2 22.4 18.6 18.6 18.3 13.5 13.6 13.6 
Standard 
Error 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 
Median 12.7 7.7   12.2   21.0   18.8   13.6   
Mode 17.0 #N/A   12.2   #N/A   17.0   13.0   
Standard 
Deviation 5.4 4.8 4.6 4.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 5.0 4.7 4.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 
Sample 
Variance 29.6 22.7 21.1 21.9 6.2 5.5 5.9 24.8 22.2 20.8 7.7 7.0 7.0 4.2 3.9 3.8 
Kurtosis -0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 -0.6 -0.8 
Skewness 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Range 26.7 15.5   8.9   18.2   9.8   6.7   
Minimum 2.5 3.8   8.8   11.0   13.6   10.6   
Maximum 29.2 19.4   17.7   29.2   23.4   17.3   
Sum 2352.1 110.9   164.4   279.9   279.2   189.5   
Count 183 12   13   13   15   14   
Confidence 
Level 
(95.0%) 
0.8 2.7   1.3   2.7   1.4   1.1   
(NOTE: Table continued on next page) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-61 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-12 (continued). Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Tptpll Zone in the ECRB Cross-
Drift, Individual Windows from the Input Data, and Selective Statistics for 5-m Tall Horizons 
in a 50200-m Simulated Cross Section with 11-m and 2.52.5-m Grids 
Descriptive Statistics (for Total Input and Windows) 
StatisticTotal ECRBCross-Drift 
Data25-30 Window 
25-301x1 Grid25-302.5x2.5 Grid30-35 Window 
30-351x1 Grid30-352.5x2.5 Grid35-40 Window 
35-401x1 Grid35-402.5x2.5 Grid40-45 Window 
40-451x1 Grid40-452.5x2.5 Grid45-50 Window 
45-501x1 Grid45-402.5x2.5 Grid 
Mean 12.9 18.5 18.6 18.2 11.1 11.0 11.0 14.6 14.6 14.6 11.0 11.0 10.8 14.8 14.9 14.6 
Standard 
Error 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 
Median 12.7 18.1   11.6   14.8   11.4   15.3   
Mode 17.0 18.1   11.8   #N/A   #N/A   #N/A   
Standard 
Deviation 5.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 4.4 4.1 4.6 2.6 2.4 2.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 
Sample 
Variance 29.6 11.6 10.8 10.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 19.0 17.2 20.8 6.7 5.9 7.5 3.2 2.9 3.3 
Kurtosis -0.2 0.5   -1.2   0.2   0.6   -0.6   
Skewness 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.3 
Range 26.7 11.9   6.1   15.6   9.8   5.7   
Minimum 2.5 13.8   7.8   5.7   6.0   11.6   
Maximum 29.2 25.6   13.9   21.3   15.8   17.3   
Sum 2352.1 259.4   143.8   175.8   132.3   192.9   
Count 183 14   13   12   12   13   
Confidence 
Level 
(95.0%) 
0.8 1.8   1.1   2.5   1.5   1.0   
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-62 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 9-13. Comparison of Descriptive Statistics for the Total Windows from ECRB Cross-Drift (Input) 
Data and the Total 50200-m Simulated Cross Section with 11-m and 2.52.5-m Grids 
Descriptive Statistics for Total Windows 
Statistic 
ECRB 
Cross-Drift 
Data 
1x1 Grid 2.5x2.5 
Grid Statistic 
ECRB 
Cross-Drift 
Data 
1x1 Grid 2.5x2.5 
Grid 
Mean 14.7 14.5 14.5 Skewness 0.4 0.4 0.4 
Standard Error 0.4 0.0 0.1 Range 25.4 25.4 25.4 
Median 14.4 13.9 13.9 Minimum 3.8 3.8 3.8 
Mode 17.0 11.6 11.6 Maximum 29.2 29.2 29.2 
Standard 
Deviation 4.9 4.9 5.1 Sum 1928.1 145404.3 23193.6 
Sample 
Variance 24.0 24.0 25.5 Count 131.0 10000 1600 
Kurtosis 0.2 0.2 0.2 Confidence 
Level (95.0%) 0.8 0.10 0.25 
9.4.7 Limitations Of The Calculation 
The calculations of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity from the ECRB Cross-Drift to 
a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the tunnel is based on sound geologic and geometric 
relations; however, there are a few limitations to the results: 
1. The calculations exemplified in this simulation are based on the consideration that the ECRB 
Cross-Drift is horizontal. The gradient of the tunnel is 1.5 percent (0.86) from 07+73 to 
16+02 and is 0.9 percent (0.52) from 16+02 to 24+67 (Mongano et al. 1999, pp. 3 and 6). 
So, although these inclinations are small, they can be factored into the apparent dip of the 
lithostratigraphic units and features to enhance the geologic and construction conditions. 
2. Using a constant apparent dip of 4.6 from the strike and dip of 270/07 for the top contact of 
the lower lithophysal zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift (Mongano et al. 1999, Table 1) and the 
total intercept of the lower lithophysal zone in the ECRB Cross-Drift (from 14+44 to 23+26), 
the calculated thickness of the lower lithophysal zone is only 71 m. This calculated thickness 
is less than what is calculated and depicted by a variety of other methods, so the apparent dip 
of 4.6 is probably too shallow; therefore, the number and the distribution of values in each 
window along the tunnel might be over represented. 
3. The simulated cross section is constructed perpendicular to the tunnel; however, it does not 
include the apparent dip in the plane of the cross section. For example, using the features 
and data depicted in Figure 9-43, the apparent dip in the cross section is 5.3 to the 
northwest. 
Because the values in each cell in the 50200 and 2080 cell tables are independently and 
randomly allocated, locally there are a few geologically inconsistent results. While this 
allocation technique results in very high correlations of the descriptive statistics between the 
input data and resulting cross-section horizons, it is possible that locally, the minimum and 
maximum values in a window or in adjacent windows can be in adjacent cells. This extreme 
change in lithophysal cavity porosity has not been observed in the ECRB Cross-Drift as shown 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-63 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
by the gradual increase or decrease in values (although sharp changes can occur across distances 
of 5 to 10 m; Figure 9-44). One result of this random allocation of values and the potential 
juxtaposition of large and small (or mostly values of one end of the distribution or another) is the 
variation in descriptive statistics in vertical sections (X positions; Table 9-10 and 9.4-3). The 
affect of this juxtaposition of minimum and maximum values is probably greater in the 2080-
cell table that represents a 2.52.5-m grid than in the 50200-cell table that represents a 11-m 
grid. One way to minimize this affect is to filter the values in the tables and remove (or change) 
one or both of the juxtaposed values. Development of such a filter needs to focus on diminishing 
the anomalies, but maintaining the statistical integrity of the resultant calculated values. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 9-64 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10. DATA APPRAISAL 
10.1 INTRODUCTION 
The purpose of this report was collecting and analyzing data for their use in thermomechanical 
analysis of rock and design of the repository. The data originates from many sources, such as 
laboratory testing, field testing, field observations, and numerical modeling. The analysis and 
design process involves the use of these data for many different calculations and analyses 
performed by different data users. Often a single user or product requires the use of a number of 
rock parameters in a variety of combinations. 
A rock parameter summary of data seldom results in defining a singular value that represents a 
particular parameter. Most frequently, assigning a value for a parameter requires defining a 
bounded range or distribution that a parameter may assume. Under certain circumstances, the 
use of a particular distribution or a range with upper and lower bounds may result in a design 
application being acceptable or deficient. By defining a parameter range or distribution that 
incorporates uncertainty, the user becomes aware of the imprecision inherent in the data. The 
resulting uncertainty associated with each rock parameter can also be manifest as part of the 
measure of design reliability or uncertainty associated with derived parameters. The analyst or 
designer also needs to know how each parameter summary has been determined, and how 
particular rock conditions (e.g., temperature, saturation, or porosity) will affect a parameter range 
or distribution. 
Ultimately, two questions must be answered that are related to the project evaluation of data 
adequacy: are the parameter summaries proposed based on solid premises, and are the parameter 
summaries adequate for each application and product in which they will be used. The evaluation 
of each of the subsurface geotechnical parameters for their adequacy in LA products involves a 
number of issues. In this section an attempt is made to discuss approaches for uncertainty as it 
relates to the geotechnical data, spatial variation of parameters, and the conditions under which 
the data can be declared adequate. 
10.2 METHODOLOGY OF CHARACTERIZING UNCERTAINTY AND SPATIAL 
VARIATION 
Uncertainty in technical data parameters arises from measurement error, limited data, spatial 
variability or imperfect knowledge. For parameters that are based on data that are measured 
directly, and at the appropriate scale, the uncertainty treatment could include discussions of 
random and systematic measurement errors, accuracy, precision, statistical representativeness 
and related issues. Parameters with extensive datasets will have uncertainty distributions that are 
largely statistically defined. On the other hand, for cases of limited field or laboratory datasets, 
the uncertainty distribution will be based more heavily on experience and judgment, 
commensurate to the known extent of knowledge concerning the parameter. Due to limited data, 
unique geology, and the complexity of rock behavior, the characterization of rock parameter 
uncertainty normally requires professional judgment to quantify a measure of belief in rock 
parameter distributions and ranges. Both approaches must complement each other: statistical 
approaches apply best to uncertainties in data and degree-of-belief (judgment) to uncertainties in 
knowledge. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Derived or developed rock parameters use some analytical or interpretive process to arrive at 
their final determined values. This process may involve conceptual models, calculation using 
other parameters, and scaling to appropriate dimensions. Each of these methods of approaching 
the problem has an associated signature of uncertainty that needs to be characterized and 
propagated through the development of the parameter. 
Previous to the current effort, and as part of the Total System Performance Assessment, DOE 
and NRC developed five Total System Performance Assessment and Integration (TSPAI) KTI 
agreements, which in part, related to parameter uncertainty (NRC 2002, Appendix A, pp. A-34 
and A-35; TSPAI 3.38, 3.39, 3.40, 3.41, 4.01). These agreements were concerned with the 
development, implementation and documentation of written guidance to provide for a systematic 
approach to developing and documenting model parameter uncertainty and related concerns. 
Subsequently, the following documents have been issued from the DOE and the TSPA 
organization dealing with these matters: Uncertainty Analyses and Strategy [Williams 2001b, 
157389], Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model 
Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the 
License Application [BSC 2002j, 158794], Total System Performance Assessment  License 
Application Methods and Approach [BSC 2002l, 160146], and the Scientific Processes 
Guidelines Manual, Appendix A [BSC 2002k, 160313]. 
The above reports are relevant yet were not directly concerned with characterizing the 
uncertainty and variability of acquired geotechnical parameters. As a result, additional guidance 
will be prepared in an Uncertainty Analysis Guide, based on the above previously agreed upon 
uncertainty terminology and approaches, to describe the uncertainties associated with gathering 
data from the field and laboratory. In particular, an approach of determining uncertainty will be 
outlined to balance mathematical probability and statistics with projessional judgment. A major 
objective of developing the new written guidance is to ensure a repeatable and complete, yet 
simplified characterization of the uncertainties in data parameters. An example of how each of 
the geotechnical rock parameters will be finally summarized in the TDMS system is illustrated in 
Figure 10-1. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
PARAMETER SUMMARY SHEET 
DTN: 
Parameter: 
Lithostratigraphic Unit: 
Test Conditions: 
User/Product: 
Data Origin: UncertaintyEffort to Reduce 
Uncertainty LA Adequacy* 
High Med Low High Med Low F_Adq S_Adq N_Adq 
Laboratory 
Field Measurements 
Field Observations 
Computer Modeling 
Other 
Parameter Distribution 
Figure/Plot 
Parameter: 
Unit: 
Parameter Values: 
Min: 
Avg: 
Max: 
Avg-2_SD 
Avg-1_SD 
Avg+1_SD 
Avg+2_SD 
Co n fin e d C o m p r ess iv e Str e n g th 
5 0.8 m m Sp e cim e n s , Dr y , Ro o m T e m p e r at u r e , L :D=2 :1, St r a in Rat e = 10-5s-1 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
35 0 
30 0 
25 0 
20 0 
15 0 
10 0 
50 
0 
Source DTNs: 
02 4681 01 2 
) 
M il 
Sig m a 3 (M Paddle Non-Lithophy s aExample 
Remarks: 
(*) LA Adequacy Ranking: 
F_Adq - Fully Adequate 
S_Adq - Somewhat Adequate 
N_Adq - Not Adequate 
Reviewed and Approved by: 
Organization Name (Print) Signature Date 
BSC - 1 
BSC - 2 
..- 1 
..- 2 
Figure 10-1. Example of Parameter Summary Sheet 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10.2.1 Modeling Choices Affecting the Uncertainty of Spatial Variation 
Spatial variation of the subsurface rock parameters occurs largely as a result of the natural 
variation of geology. As such, it is fundamentally random or aleatoric uncertainty since the 
variability of the parameter population is dependent upon chance occurrences of geologic 
processes and features such as lithophysae. However, the current knowledge of site-specific 
geology from limited measurements and from the physical rock behavior in terms of field or 
laboratory testing might not be sufficient to accurately bracket the aleatoric uncertainty. 
Accordingly, there is a judgment aspect of the total spatial uncertainty that varies according to 
the dimensions of the rock unit chosen to be modeled and other available knowledge. 
Consequently, the current scientific activities of fracture characterization, lithophysae 
characterization and laboratory testing will lead to better characterization of the aleatoric 
uncertainty. 
The first level at which spatial variation is addressed is in the choice of rock formation or 
lithostratigraphic zone or subzone chosen by the designer or analyst for modeling purposes. 
Every rock unit currently modeled by mechanical and thermal modelers is assumed to be 
isotropic (no directional variation of property from a point) and homogeneous (no spatial 
variation vertically or horizontally within the rock unit). 
For the isotropic and homogeneous rock parameter, aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty is used in 
developing the probabilistic distribution for the rock parameter. For example, if the rock 
parameter exhibits known anisotropic behavior or is known to vary horizontally or vertically at 
some scale by applying a variogram or other approach, then the magnitude of this effect is 
incorporated into the spatial uncertainty part of the parameter distribution. 
The modeler may be able to reduce uncertainties by choosing to model a more refined 
geologic zone (e.g. the choice to model lithostratigraphic zones or subzones instead of an entire 
geologic formation) or in excluding an unrepresentative area. Obviously, with such a modeling 
change the degree of heterogeneity will be reduced, which should result in a decrease of spatial 
uncertainty. For example, this is the case when the intensely fractured zone of the ESF is 
excluded in characterizing fractures of the Tptpmn unit. If and when more coarse geologic 
units are modeled, it is the responsibility of the modeler to aggregate properly the uncertainties 
involved with combining the lithostratigraphic zones. 
10.2.2 Geostatistical Modeling of Spatial Variability Using Porosity as a Surrogate 
The philosophy and general approach of using porosity as part of a geostatistical method to 
characterize spatial heterogeneity and uncertainty of other rock parameters is discussed in the 
Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002c). Key parts of this report that 
summarize the approach are given below (see BSC 2002c, Sections 5.1 and 6.3). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Modeling Approach. A fundamental principle involved in the numerical representation of real-
world physical processes is that the relevant material properties of the modeled domain must be 
known at all positions within that domain. However, in contrast to this requirement for an 
exhaustive spatial description, the process of describing or characterizing a site invariably 
consists of collecting observations of properties or state variables at a limited number of 
locations, the exact positions of which are frequently determined by less-than-optimal external 
factors. This is particularly true for the 3-D characterization of a geologic site, such as Yucca 
Mountain. Because descriptive characterization is limited both by access (particularly to the 
subsurface) and by the availability of resources, that description is necessarily incomplete. 
Therefore, the exhaustive description of a geologic site for purposes of numerical modeling 
requires the prior assumption of some type of conceptual model for the site, which is then 
implemented to assign the necessary properties and other variables at every relevant point in 
space. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1) 
A more realistic conceptual model of rock than the isotropic, homogeneous model is one that 
makes use of the known vertical and lateral heterogeneity within geologic layers. Knowledge of 
property values at one location imposes limits on the values of those properties likely to exist at 
nearby locations. Therefore, an alternative conceptual model of filling-in a geologic 
framework with values randomly assigned from some inferred univariate distribution without 
regard for other nearby values (spatial correlation) is an unnecessary oversimplification (and 
potentially an unwarranted distortion) of the real world. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.1) 
Heterogeneity versus Uncertainty. In contrast to heterogeneity, which is an objective feature 
of the real world, uncertainty is a knowledge-based concept. Distinguishing properly between 
uncertainty (as a state of imperfect information resulting from less-than-complete observation 
and scientific judgment) and spatial heterogeneity (as a state of being, unaffected by the 
availability or lack of information) becomes critically important in the application of predictive 
engineering methods to the geologic environment. Incomplete information must be accounted 
for in predictive modeling, as must the effects of material properties that are different in different 
locations. A key attribute, therefore, of the rock properties modeling activities, has been the 
description and quantification of the effects of geologic uncertainty on the physical description 
of the Yucca Mountain site. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.2) 
Geostatistical Methods. Geostatistical methods in general are one of a variety of methods for 
distributing isolated measurements of different attributes in space, and thus for modeling spatial 
heterogeneity. A fundamental principle underlying all geostatistical techniques is the 
quantification and use of some measure of spatial correlation, which may be defined informally 
as the degree to which samples close to one another resemble each other more than do samples 
far away from each other, where close and far are defined from the data values. These 
measures of spatial correlation are usually assumed to be statistically homogeneous properties of 
the rock unit modeled, and are used in addition to any geologic heterogeneous trends discovered 
in the measured data. Furthermore, unlike many other methods for predicting the material 
property attributes of a large volume of material from direct observation of a relatively 
minuscule fraction of that volume, geostatistical methods offer a quantitative and more-or-less 
rigorous approach to the issues of knowledge-based uncertainty discussed above. (BSC 2002c, 
Section 6.3.1.3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Within the purview of geostatistical methods are two broad classes of algorithms for predicting 
attributes at unsampled locations constrained by some limited set of actual measurements: 
estimation and simulation. Geostatistical estimation is focused on the prediction of the attribute 
values most likely to be encountered at a given spatial position, and may be thought of as 
modeling the expected value of a variable of interest. Geostatistical estimation is most 
frequently described using the term, kriging, and it is simply a weighted-average interpolation 
method using some neighborhood of near-by relevant data. A common thread connecting all 
estimation methodologies (including non- geostatistical ones) is that they are interpolation 
techniques directed toward producing a model in which the estimated values grade progressively 
and generally smoothly away from the data locations and away from one another. (BSC 2002c, 
Section 6.3.1.3) 
The other broad class of geostatistical methods comprises a variety of simulation algorithms. In 
contrast with estimation, geostatistical simulation places principal emphasis on reproducing the 
input data values and the overall statistical character (including the spatial correlation 
characteristics) exhibited by the data ensemble, the total collection of input values. Models 
produced by geostatistical simulation typically do not grade smoothly between measured data 
values, but rather are more highly variable at the same time that they represent the broad 
heterogeneity structure of the measurements. These techniques are conceptually equivalent to 
the Monte Carlo simulation process frequently employed in engineering analyses. In common 
with other Monte Carlo simulation approaches, the emphasis is less on the specific predicted 
values, which are in effect simply the products of a random number generator with certain 
desirable properties, and much more on evaluation of the space of uncertainty associated with 
some performance measure computed to represent the behavior of the modeled system. (BSC 
2002c, Section 6.3.1.3) 
For the project geostatistical approach, selected major lithostratigraphic horizons are used as the 
constraining (framework) boundaries for a statistically based description of the measured rock 
material properties that have been sampled within those boundaries. First, the individual 
measured values of a material property are combined with the overall statistical character of the 
complete data set (the data ensemble) and with the spatial correlation patterns exhibited by the 
data to produce replicate exhaustive models showing the distribution of that material property 
in space. Each replicate model reproduces the measured data at the data locations, and the 
overall variability of all the values in the model reproduces the histogram of the measurements. 
Additionally, the spatial correlation structure of the model, evaluated as a whole, approximates 
the spatial correlation among the input measurements. (BSC 2002c, Section 6.3.1.4) 
Porosity-as-a-Surrogate. The rock property model approach involves the use of porosity-as-a-
surrogate for modeling the spatial variability of other, secondary material properties that are 
typically of greater interest in performance modeling than porosity itself, but which are almost 
universally undersampled at Yucca Mountain. This concept of using the more abundant porosity 
data as a surrogate for other properties is not a new YMP approach. Some rock parameters that 
have been proposed for use with the porosity as a surrogate approach include rock mass 
hydraulic conductivity, Youngs modulus and compressive strength. (BSC 2002c, Section 5.1) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Using porosity as a surrogate for various other parameters is supported by consideration of the 
physics involved in the site-specific rock units being modeled. For example, for a given rock 
type, increasing the volume of pore space must decrease the bulk density of the rock mass. The 
part of the rock that isnt there is available to hold fluids, but it contributes nothing to the total 
mass contained within a unit volume: the definition of bulk density. Again for a given rock type, 
the conduction of heat energy through the material is directly related to the density (or, inversely 
to the pore space) of the material. All else being equal, a higher porositylower density tuff will 
conduct heat less readily, leading to a lower thermal conductivity value. Note here that it is the 
total amount of void space in a rock that affects thermal conductivity, not simply the amount of 
pore space that is conducting water within the unsaturated zone. This fact has important 
implications to modeling of whole-rock thermal conductivity in the presence of large-diameter 
(up to 1 meter) lithophysal cavities. (BSC 2002c, Section 5.1) 
The concept of porosity as a surrogate is based on empirically observed correlations of porosity 
with undersampled secondary properties. A consequence of undersampling is that the spatial 
variability of the undersampled variable cannot be described confidently on a stand-alone basis, 
let alone the joint spatial continuity patterns of the two (or more) variables cannot be reproduced 
simultaneously. It is important to understand that modeling the spatial distribution of several 
material properties without considering the inter-variable correlations can lead to highly 
unrealistic input to physical-process modeling codes, which in turn can lead to highly 
unreasonable estimates of performance parameters. Simply sampling randomly from separate 
(univariate) probability density functions may easily produce such un-physical combinations as a 
low porosityhigh thermal conductivityhigh hydraulic conductivity tuff. The severity of 
neglecting cross-variable correlations in modeling spatially variable domains increases as 
physical-process modeling attempts to capture multiple coupled processes. (BSC 2002c, Section 
5.1) 
10.3 ENGINEERING ADEQUACY OF YMP DATA 
10.3.1 General 
The long-term site characterization activities designed to provide the evidence needed to assess 
the Yucca Mountain Site suitability for housing the future nuclear waste repository reached the 
important milestone. The rock property data gathered during the past are being assessed for their 
adequacy in the process of applying for the license to design and construct the repository. The 
data are assessed from the perspective of the underground design engineer, considering rock 
property data needs within the timeframe encompassing LA and postLA design stages. 
The role of design engineer of subsurface facilities at Yucca Mountain is to develop a design that 
is safe to construct and will fulfill its functional requirements over the required time period. The 
design must encompass three phases associated with the facility development, namely: 1) 
construction phase, 2) the repository operation phase until closure of the facility, and 3) phase 
extending through the postclosure time period. The result of this Report is to provide the 
designer with rock parameters and sources of information needed to accomplish not only the 
basic design task but to assist in making a reasonable prediction of the future performance of this 
underground facility. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In the following parts of this section, data variability and data adequacy are addressed 
considering the need of the design engineer. A discussion is presented that summarizes salient 
aspects of lithostratigraphic rock unit sampling and testing. Where appropriate, limitations 
encountered in the data acquisition process are discussed, and methods for the subsequent data 
enhancement are presented. 
10.3.2 Terminology 
Scientific adequacy is related to using the data in the process of developing a sufficiently 
detailed understanding of natural phenomena along with satisfactory characterization of the 
associated behaviors. The data gathering process is conducted utilizing certain rules and 
procedures that allow for the separation of other factors that may affect the quality, 
representativeness, and validity of data. Assisting in this process is the availability of standards 
that prescribe in detail methods of sample/specimen preparation, testing conditions, form of data 
reporting and methods of data interpretation. 
Adherence to standards provides the basis for communication among those involved in testing 
similar materials. It sets the basis for comparing results for similar conditions. These tasks of 
testing can be simplified if the material studied is uniform in its physical properties (e.g.. density 
and mineralogical composition) and testing conditions involve a simple testing procedure (e.g. 
uniaxial compressive loading condition). 
Common questions related to testing are, for example: (1) how many specimens must be tested to 
obtain a representative range of the parameter value, (2) what consequences might be expected if 
the test condition(s) are changed or modified, (3) will the test results be different if specimens 
are tested at dimensions other than those actually tested, and (4) if the testing procedure is not 
followed in its entirety, are the test results still useable? These, and a range of similar questions 
are commonly asked because the person examining/auditing the data wants to develop an 
opinion, not only about the quality of data itself but, also of the many other issues seemingly 
unrelated to the process of data acquisition. 
This interrogative process has a common agenda, namely, the results should allow a person not 
involved in the original data acquisition and processing to understand how the specimens were 
acquired, what testing conditions were used, if the data interpretation followed the established 
guidelines, and as a consequence, whether the results from test(s) can be used within a range of 
conditions or bounds replicated in the test. The process often also involves undocumented 
comparisons, where using personal experience as a supplement, one makes an attempt to 
benchmark the data obtained from the current tests against other data obtained elsewhere for a 
material displaying similar characteristics. The net result is the development of a certain level of 
confidence needed to apply the data for specific purposes. 
The acquired and developed data presented in the Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report of 
March 1997 (CRWMS M&O 1997d), and the new data summarized in this report reflect both the 
enhancement to the previously available data as well as an evolution of the YM Project 
understanding of the importance of data in supporting various design and performance 
confirmation activities. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10.3.3 Scientific and Engineering Adequacy 
Scientific adequacy is related to the scientific task of sufficiently understanding natural 
phenomena along with satisfactory characterization of the associated behaviors. On the other 
hand, engineers design and build projects using whatever information is available, whether the 
data are considered scientifically adequate or not. Thus, engineering adequacy is concerned with 
gathering the available relevant data and then supplementing it with sufficient knowledge and 
judgment to safely build the project at hand. Both types of adequacy are intricately tied to 
uncertainty. Science has been traditionally dominated by statistically defined uncertainties, and 
engineering by degree-of-belief uncertainties that are usually estimated as a first approximation 
by applying a suitable factor of safety. As a result, statements of adequacy for either scientific or 
engineering purposes cannot be considered complete until the significant uncertainties are 
identified and quantified. 
Since the scope of this report is limited to engineering purposes, only adequacy in the 
engineering sense will be discussed. Also, as has been discussed earlier in this Report, 
uncertainty treatments for many of the geotechnical parameters have not been finalized. As a 
result, the following discussion should be understood as a preliminary approach to define 
uncertainty and engineering adequacy. It represents the current best engineering judgment for 
LA needs. 
10.3.4 Rock Property Data Sampling  A Perspective 
Although site characterization activities date back more than two decades, for a number of years 
it was assumed that those activities would be successful if sufficient information were obtained 
for the mid-tertiary volcanic rocks at the Yucca Mountain site represented by the sequence of 
major thermal-mechanical units. Rocks of the Paintbrush Group were represented as seven 
thermal-mechanical units (Ortiz, et. al 1985): 1) Undifferentiated overburden (UO), 2) Tiva 
Canyon welded unit (TCw), 3) Upper Paintbrush nonwelded unit (PTn), 4) Topopah Spring 
welded unit, lithophysae-rich (TSw1), 5) Topopah Spring welded unit, lithophysae-poor (TSw2), 
6) Topopah Spring welded unit, vitrophyre (TSw3), 7) Calico Hills and Lower Paintbrush 
nonwelded unit (CHn). 
The construction of the ESF Main Loop tunnel and subsequent excavation of the ECRB tunnel 
provided a direct access to the most important lithostratigraphic rock units. The detailed tunnel 
mapping, field observations and in situ measurements performed in both tunnels during 
construction provided evidence that the TSw2 unit targeted for locating nuclear waste 
emplacement drifts in the future repository required more detailed characterization. This new 
realization required more detailed testing to be performed on four distinct zones within TSw2. 
Counted from the top these zones are identified as: 1) upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul, 2) middle 
nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), 3) lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll), and 4) lower nonlithophysal 
zone (Tptpln). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10.3.5 Rock Coring and Limitations of Applicability 
A large part of this Report reflects the realization that much more detailed data are required in 
order to model and characterize behavior of several lithostratigraphic zones (Tptpul, Tptpmn, 
Tptpll, and Tptpln) within the proposed repository horizon, that, previously were treated as 
mostly one large and thermomechanically uniform unit (TSw2 with a small part of TSw1, see 
Table 5-1). New 2002 rock sampling exploratory activities were directed at obtaining a 
sufficient number of larger diameter lithophysal rock samples that would be considered more 
representative of the larger intact rock behavior of lithophysal rock, and fracture samples of 
nonlithophysal rock to characterize mechanical fracture properties. 
A typical process of rock characterization begins with obtaining a minimal number of rock 
samples with a distribution and quantity allowing an engineer to produce a rough picture of the 
rock behavior and properties. Subsequently, the picture is filled in more completely by 
additional sampling and testing according to engineering judgment. These specimens, tested 
within a range of pre-defined conditions, would yield information needed to characterize the 
modeled lithostratigraphic rock units. The sampling process usually represents a simple task of 
selecting sections of diamond-drilled sections of core obtained from the exploratory drillings. 
The associated geological core log allows for making this selection within the zone of interest. 
This process is routinely completed without major problems, provided core has been obtained 
from the lithostratigraphic layer of interest. The diameter of a typical core falls in the range of 2 
in. to 4 in. 
Among the four repository horizon lithostratigraphic zones (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln), 
different structural features characterize the two nonlithophysal and two lithophysal zones (see 
Section 5.3.3). The nonlithophysal rock mass is composed of a relatively strong welded tuff 
containing sets of discontinuities. The discontinuities are identified within the nonlithophysal 
zone by mapping, and are characterized by their own set of parameters. It is the abundance and 
geometry of these discontinuities that significantly influence the overall performance of the 
nonlithophysal rock zones. In contrast, the behavior of the lithophysal rock zones is considered 
to be most strongly influenced by the presence, shape, dimensions and distribution of the 
lithophysal voids existing within the rock mass. 
The coring of nonlithophysal rock zones typically resulted in abundant cores of intact rock that 
were easily tested in the laboratory. On the other hand, coring in lithophysal rock zones was a 
much more difficult process. The lithophysae encountered during drilling, having dimensions of 
centimeters or larger, typically caused a total loss of a core when using 5 cm (2-in) barrels and 
resulted in essentially no cores containing representative lithophysae. Recent coring of larger 
diameter boreholes up to 30 cm (12-in) has resulted in limited core recovery, including some 
lithophysae. However, the remaining rock core within the drill barrel was often disturbed and 
fractured such that only a small number of intact rock cores were obtained for testing. 
This core loss within the lithophysal zones represents only one aspect of rock characterization. 
Another related issue concerns locating the retrieved core sections within the lithostratigraphic 
rock unit. Initially, the core logging procedure implemented at the time of core retrieval, did not 
consider lithophysal voids as important elements of site characterization. As a consequence, a 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
section of the core missing due to the presence of lithophysae was reported as zero recovery in 
the original core log. It was only later realized that this fact constitutes a valuable piece of 
information helpful in better characterizing the lithophysal zones of the TSw2. 
The common core logging procedure concentrates on characterizing the rock sample retrieved 
from the borehole. In the context of the void-containing strata, it is the void size and distribution 
that becomes the major characterizing parameter. A small-diameter rock sample is not capable 
of containing larger lithophysae and, thus, the recovered intact rock cores do not provide 
representative information about the lithophysal rock unit as a whole. Consequently, the solid 
rock material retrieved and tested from the lithophysal zones provides important but an 
incomplete basis for rock mass characterization. The solid portion of the rock is referred to as 
rock matrix and matrix properties are important in the overall task of characterizing the 
performance of the void-containing lithostratigraphic rock unit. 
To obtain more representative lithophysal rock samples, a large core sampling technique was 
applied, as mentioned above, in which a number of 30 cm (12 in.) diameter boreholes were 
drilled in the ESF and ECRB tunnels. The results of drilling proved that even 30 cm diameter 
boreholes were too small to obtain a representative lithophysae-containing rock volume suitable 
for test specimen preparation and testing. In particular, the presence of voids within a tested 
sample made it difficult to conduct a basic uniaxial compressive strength test according to test 
standards. The non-standard result was caused by stress redistribution around lithophysal 
cavities and within the specimen, which produced stress conditions in the rock sample that were 
not uniaxial, making the test results difficult to interpret. Furthermore, understanding the 
development of fractures within the void-containing specimen during testing becomes an 
important issue. 
10.3.6 Reducing Uncertainty and Establishing Adequacy for Mechanical Parameters of 
Lithophysal Rock 
From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that the uniqueness of lithophysal rock poses 
formidable challenges to obtaining data directly by the process of testing larger rock specimens. 
Sampling logistics are difficult to manage and applicable testing standards are inadequate when 
dealing with lithophysal rock. As a result of this and of having no available laboratory tests of 
rock containing lithophysae, at the time, the uncertainty associated with mechanical lithophysal 
rock parameters was high. The project recognized this fact and Board 2003 outlined a general 
approach (summarized in Section 7 of this report) to reduce this uncertainty. 
On the other hand, field observations provide evidence about rock performance under ambient 
and elevated temperature conditions. This, coupled with new laboratory testing, field testing and 
numerical testing of lithophysal rock has reduced the uncertainty associated with lithophysal 
rock parameters. As the assessment of uncertainty is a required part of assessment of data 
adequacy, there is a clear need to assess uncertainty based on all the available sources of 
information. Since the rock parameters are used as inputs to rockfall and ground support design, 
scoping analyses can be utilized to determine whether the current level of uncertainty of a given 
rock parameter is adequate. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The approach to reduce uncertainty in order to obtain adequate lithophysal rock data for LA has 
been largely successful. The methodology targeted obtaining missing pieces of rock property 
characterization information prior to developing a more routine method of quantifying data 
uncertainty or establishing a basis for declaring data as adequate. In defining this methodology, 
a path was established based on performing a limited number of laboratory tests on lithophysal 
rock samples. Numerical modeling techniques could then be used to extrapolate the intact rock 
characteristics into the rock mass characteristics associated with the volume, geometry and 
distribution of lithophysae. 
Over the last two years, substantial progress was made in the area of testing lithophysal rock in 
the laboratory and field, and employing numerical techniques to focus investigative efforts on 
analyzing these rock characteristics. The major steps applied using this approach are 
summarized as follows: 
 Obtain an applicable summary of rock property data based on laboratory tests performed 
on small (1-4 inch-size) specimens. For Youngs modulus data see Figures 8-11 and 812, 
and for unconfined compressive strength see Figure 8-22. 
 Supplement this initial, relatively well-documented rock property database with the 
results obtained from the laboratory tests on large core specimens containing some 
lithophysae. For Youngs modulus data see Figure 8-13 and for unconfined compressive 
strength see Figure 8-24. 
 Utilizing the Particle Flow Code (PFC), develop a numerical model of lithophysal rock 
capable of reproducing general lithophysal rock behavior. This modeling includes testing 
numerical specimens sufficiently large to simulate behavior of small portions of the rock 
mass equivalent to large-scale specimens (1 m x 1 m x 1 m). 
 Utilizing the laboratory-obtained data, calibrate the PFC numerical model such that its 
performance matches the behavior of intact rock material (no lithophysal cavities). As 
part of the calibration exercise, a series of typical triaxial tests is conducted on the 
synthetic rock specimens and analyzed. 
 Within the volume of large numerical specimens introduce different lithophysal shapes 
including circles, triangles and stars, and examine their impact on the process of rock 
fracturing and overall response to various stress regimes. 
 Vary the synthetic lithophysal porosity to examine the impact of increased porosity on 
rock performance (see Figures 9-12, 9-13, 9-17 and 9-18). 
 Obtain field pictures of the real lithophysae (see Figures 9-19 and 9-20) and stencil their 
location within bounds of the synthetic, large-scale specimens (1 m x 1 m x 1 m, see 
Figure 9-21). 
 Perform PFC analyses using numerical specimens containing this actual map of 
lithophysal voids, and compare the results with the performance of previously developed 
circular-shaped synthetic specimens (Figures 9-22 through 9-24). 
 Select and use a different numerical modeling tool (UDEC was adopted) to develop a 
parallel discontinuous synthetic rock model. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Calibrate the UDEC model performance to the same laboratory data used to calibrate the 
PFC model. Again, perform a series of typical triaxial tests on a synthetic solid rock 
numerical specimen. 
 Introduce lithophysal porosity at preselected percentages (to try to match PFC specimen 
porosities) by generating circular voids within the UDEC specimens. Conduct triaxial 
analyses (Figures 9-33 through 9-35) and compare UDEC results with the PFC numerical 
results (Figures 9-36 through 9-38). 
 Develop plots showing the relationship between lithophysal rock properties in terms of 
the numerically derived uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and Youngs modulus (E) 
as a function of the effective specimen porosity, including uncertainty bounds. Also 
develop a plot showing the relationship between UCS vs. E. 
 Develop a summary of all lithophysal rock data including laboratory, field and numerical 
results, and recommend the ranges of UCS and E parameters that can be reasonably 
assigned for the entire population of data. Produce UCS v. porosity, E v. porosity and 
UCS v. E plots that are based on the data summary and verify that all sources of data are 
appropriately illustrated in the plots. 
 Assign intervals corresponding to a convenient number of rock mass categories to use in 
rock fall analysis and ground support design. 
 Conduct scoping analyses using the above rock mass categories for rock fall and ground 
support design (BSC 2003a and BSC 2003k). 
The above approach has significantly reduced the level of uncertainty surrounding the 
mechanical rock parameters of lithophysal rock. In general this effort provides a base for the 
future procedure needed to develop a consistent methodology of assessing and quantifying data 
uncertainties. It provides a tool that could be used to assign confidence levels for various aspects 
of underground design. 
The robustness of this approach provides a strong foundation for making reasonable assessments 
of the impact of various factors that may affect the performance of the lithophysae-containing 
rock. In the context of this analysis, the conventional testing techniques combined with the 
novel numerical modeling approaches provide evidence that the existing data are likely adequate 
for LA. Although it is understood that this combined approach will have to be finished, 
documented, and supplemented by future testing and field data, the current scoping analyses 
provide convincing evidence that it is unlikely that future results would invalidate or run contrary 
to preliminary adequacy conclusions formulated at this stage. 
10.3.7 Data Adequacy and Data Users 
The issue of data adequacy must be addressed considering the end use of data. The use of data 
leads invariably to the attempt of defining in simple terms, whether the data are sufficient to 
allow engineers to design safe structures with a specified safety range, or whether science 
modeling data inputs result in a calculation dose that is within required limits. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In engineering, the typical approach to solve the problem at hand emphasizes the use of 
conservative design assumptions.. In structural engineering design terms, it may indicate that 
structural members were sized with the capacity exceeding that required by a worst combination 
of loading conditions possible. The properties of structural members are usually well defined. 
Changes in loading applied to the structure, such as thermal or seismic loads, can generally be 
handled in a straightforward manner. 
In underground design this issue is somewhat less clear. The definition of stability may assume 
different forms, depending whether one attempts to define the overall stability as satisfactory, or 
treat the localized poor roof conditions as unacceptable. Furthermore, the rock material itself 
poses a different set of challenges. Behavior of rock subjected to the local stress conditions may 
satisfy performance requirements until heat-induced stresses or seismic event-generated stresses 
are imposed, creating complex conditions that are difficult to analyze. 
10.3.8 Spatial and Temporal Variability 
Attachment IV includes a number of plots that are used to provide a visual, concise summary of 
all intact rock mechanical tests performed within the outlined bounds of the future repository. It 
is clear that attempts were made to obtain rock samples over as large an area as possible. The 
excavation of both the ESF (TBM excavation began in 1994) and the ECRB Cross-Drift (TBM 
excavation started in 1997) tunnels made access to the rock interior possible. It also allowed for 
the continuous observation of rock features over relatively long distances of the tunnel, cutting 
down through the four lithostratigraphic zones in the proximity of the proposed repository 
emplacement area. Additional exploratory information is also available from boreholes and 
extensive field mapping efforts undertaken prior, during and after tunnel construction. This 
tunnel mapping is enhanced through peripheral mapping of outcrops and provides the 
corroborative body of field data. Investigations of the mechanics of volcano eruption provide 
insight into the sequence of deposition, thickness regularity, uniformity of composition, and areal 
extent of each stratigraphic layer at the Yucca Mountain site. Results from geological mapping 
activities indicate that the Yucca Mountain volcanic tuff deposits can be characterized as 
massive, uniform, flat-bedded deposits. Results of detailed geological mapping serve as 
corroborative evidence required to provide a reasonable evidence that data obtained from the 
limited number of boreholes is, in fact, representative of properties at a particular horizon and 
throughout the entire area of interest. 
The data variability must consider the evolution of rock properties with time. Presence of 
moisture and elevated temperature may not only contribute to deteriorating properties of rock, 
but also diminishing the effectiveness of ground control components through potentially 
accelerated corrosion. The Drift Scale Test (DST) provides evidence of the tunnel performance 
under elevated temperature. Both the concrete-lined portion of that tunnel and the second 
portion including only modest ground reinforcement measures appear to perform well under 
these adverse temperature conditions. While this evidence is limited to several years only, the 
maximum test temperature maintained in this tunnel was approximately 200 deg C (BSC 2002i, 
Section 6.3.1.1 and Figure 6.3.1.1-1), which is much higher than the currently planned 
emplacement drift temperature of 65 deg C. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10.3.9 Data Adequacy Evaluation for Groups of Lithostratigraphic Rock Unit Parameters 
Provided below is an account of groups of lithostratigraphic rock unit parameters from the 
perspective of their adequacy for LA. 
10.3.9.1 Adequacy of Physical Properties 
Porosity. Partial and preliminary statistical summaries of porosity features from measured 
ECRB data are available. These preliminary results are considered adequate for the current drift 
degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. Currently, lithophysal or total 
rock porosity estimates are considered adequate to use for project work; the impact of assuming 
that the weaker rim and spot material can be modeled as matrix-groundmass will need to be 
further explored. One deficiency that has been recently discovered is that the current borehole 
geophysics-derived porosity estimates of lithophysal rock are not representative of the bulk rock; 
much of the lithophysal contributions to bulk density were systematically edited out in order to 
obtain estimates of the rock matrix density/porosity for comparison with lab-determined 
estimates of rock core material. A more comprehensive analysis of lithophysal cavity data and 
other lithostratigraphic features from borehole geophysics data, ongoing field mapping, and other 
exploratory information, is planned and will be summarized in a USBR/USGS geological report 
coming out in 2004. Geostatistical analysis of the lithophysal cavity data, including tunnel 
mapping data, has not yet been carried out by the project. 
10.3.9.2 Adequacy of Thermal Properties 
Thermal Conductivity. A large number of laboratory thermal conductivity tests have been 
conducted on small specimens from lithophysal and nonlithophysal units. Considering the 
number of specimens tested, it is deemed that the available data are sufficient for the intact rock 
thermal conductivity of these units. On the other hand, the laboratory measurements provide an 
upper bound of the effective rock mass thermal conductivity that is the ultimate interest of 
investigation. It is not appropriate to use the laboratory-measured thermal conductivity in the 
prediction of repository performance. Therefore, no further laboratory tests on small specimens 
are necessary. 
The field-measured data for rock mass or effective thermal conductivity are limited. 
Uncertainties associated with field measurements are usually high because of some unknown and 
uncontrollable field conditions. Assessment of spatial variations and uncertainty of rock mass 
thermal conductivity using these limited data requires use of assumptions. To reduce the 
uncertainties associated with the rock mass thermal conductivity and build a high confidence in 
the collected data, additional field thermal conductivity measurements are needed, particularly in 
lithophysal rock. Estimated rock mass thermal conductivity is only for the dry and fully saturated 
wet conditions, which may not cover all application needs. 
The use of analytical models is an effective means of supplementing field measurements in the 
estimation of the rock mass thermal conductivity. With this approach, a comprehensive study on 
the effect of porosity and other rock properties can be conducted. The analytical models are 
validated as being satisfactory using the existing field data, and additional field tests may not be 
required. These analytical model results, in combination with the results of laboratory and field 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
measurements of thermal conductivity, are adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and 
preliminary ground support design work. 
Heat Capacity. A limited number of laboratory heat capacity measurements have been 
conducted on small specimens from Tptrn (3 tests) and Tptpmn (7 tests) units. Since the units 
for which specimens were attained are localized in the nonlithophysal units and the number of 
specimens tested is limited, it is considered that uncertainties associated with the laboratory 
measurements for the repository units are high. To reduce the uncertainties associated with the 
intact rock heat capacity and build a higher confidence in the collected data, additional 
laboratory heat capacity measurements are needed, particularly in lithophysal rock. 
The field-measured data are also limited for rock mass heat capacity. Uncertainties associated 
with field measurements of the rock mass heat capacity are relatively high. These uncertainties 
are associated with unknown and uncontrollable field variations. In order to reduce the 
uncertainties associated with the rock mass heat capacity, additional field heat capacity 
measurements appear to be needed, particularly in lithophysal rock. 
The use of analytical models provides an effective means of supplementing the laboratory and 
field measurements of the intact and rock mass thermal conductivity, especially when the 
measurement data have high uncertainties. The analytical models based on the mineral 
summation method are available to estimate the intact rock (rock grain) heat capacity. Since the 
analytical models are based on mineralogy of the rock units measured from numerous boreholes, 
uncertainties associated with the analytical models for intact rock heat capacity are considered 
well defined (associated uncertainty is low). The rock mass heat capacity of each unit is also 
estimated from the intact rock heat capacity using the various analytical models. With these 
approaches, a comprehensive study on the effect of porosity and other rock properties can be 
conducted. The approach for validating the analytical models of intact and rock mass thermal 
behavior compares analytical results with the existing laboratory and field data. These analytical 
model results are considered adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary 
ground support design work. 
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE). Laboratory thermal expansion measurements have 
been made on small specimens taken from Tptpmn (106 tests) and Tptpll (32 tests) rock units. 
Judging by the number of specimens tested, it is considered that the available data are sufficient 
for the intact rock CTEs of these units. The uncertainties associated with the measurements are 
considered low. Therefore, no more laboratory tests on small specimens for these rock units are 
necessary. 
The only field data available of the rock mass CTE are from the SHT and DST for the Tptpmn 
unit. Laboratory measurements using large specimens from the Tptpll unit are also limited. As 
indicated above, the rock mass CTEs contain much higher uncertainties than those for the intact 
rock. To reduce the uncertainties associated with the rock mass CTEs, additional field thermal 
expansion measurements appear to be needed. The intact rock CTEs provide an upper bound for 
the rock mass CTEs. Use of a higher CTE will tend to overpredict thermally induced rock 
deformation and associated thermal stresses. This issue is being more closely examined and 
verified through on-going scoping analyses. Overall, using the intact rock values as bounding 
estimates of Tptpmn rock mass thermal expansion are considered to be conservative and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and preliminary ground support design work. 
Whether there is a need to conduct field measurements, or to develop an analytical approach, or 
to conduct numerical experiments to determine the rock mass CTEs for the Tptpll unit will be 
determined using the results from the on-going scoping analyses. 
10.3.9.3 Adequacy of Mechanical Properties 
A large number of laboratory tests to determine mechanical properties of lithostratigraphic rock 
units have been performed over the years. The majority of those were completed on 
nonlithophysal units. The recent interest in lithophysae-containing lithostratigraphic zones of the 
repository host horizon caused attempts to characterize lithophysal stratigraphic units in more 
detail. During the recent rock sampling and testing effort using large 30 cm (12 in.) coring 
techniques, it became apparent that core yield from the lithophysal units is relatively low. 
Furthermore, application of the traditional testing techniques used to determine even a simple 
uniaxial strength of lithophysal rock has encountered difficulties due to the relatively large size 
of voids in comparison to the specimen diameter. Novel, numerical methods have been applied 
to develop a better understanding of lithophysal rock response to stress. These methods, 
currently subject to much scrutiny, hold the promise of providing means of more thorough 
characterization of lithophysal lithostratigraphic rock units where other methods are insufficient. 
Data adequacy can be improved further by performing a series of in situ index tests, where a 
relative comparison of various lithostratigraphic rock unit responses to a standardized indexing 
load could be established. 
The uncertainty in terms of standard deviation and standard error of parameter values varies 
because nonlithophysal rock layers are characterized more extensively than lithophysal units. 
Computer modeling involving sensitivity analyses is designed to examine the interaction of 
various parameters and provide a more objective means of assessment as to what is considered 
conservative and satisfactory and under what circumstances. By incorporating the statistical 
variability of lithostratigraphic rock unit parameters under a range of underground operating 
conditions, a body of evidence is under development to lessen dependence on accuracy of 
experimentally determined values of parameters. Examining how the performance of 
underground excavations varies over the range of input rock parameter values and loading 
conditions leads to a strengthened understanding of the importance of various parameters. This 
enhanced engineering judgment can then be applied to the issues of the characterization 
adequacy of parameters and reduction of uncertainties in design. 
It is recognized that the current type of analyses are based on the base case approach whereby the 
rock response to various loads is examined without considering the benefits of ground control 
measures and maintenance. These two design elements are within the realm of engineering 
domain and must be considered, especially for the pre closure period of repository operation. 
10.3.9.4 Adequacy of Mechanical Fracture Properties 
The performance of relatively strong nonlithophysal units is related to the presence of joints 
within the rock mass. To date, testing activities leading to a better characterization of joints have 
been performed on a very limited scale. The level of uncertainty in the area of defining joint 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
parameters is relatively high. The issue of joint characterization in the context of recently 
increasing interest in lithophysal units is somewhat more complex. 
While characterization of joints occurring in nonlithophysal strata is a relatively straightforward 
task, characterizing a smaller and more intricate jointing pattern contributing to the behavior of 
lithophysal rock units requires a new and non-standard approach. Extensive numerical analyses 
of drift degradation patterns related to the impact of jointing on drift stability (BSC 2003a) have 
been performed over the past several years. The results indicate that, even under the most severe 
loading combinations, the drifts remain stable with relatively few blocks separated from the 
otherwise stable rock. 
The preliminary statistical summaries of joint sets from measured ESF and ECRB data are 
available. These preliminary results are adequate for the current drift degradation analysis and 
preliminary ground support design work. A more comprehensive analysis, including aspects of 
representativeness and spatial variability across Yucca Mountain, is currently continuing and will 
be summarized in a USBR/USGS geological report due in 2004. Geostatistical analysis of the 
fractures has been carried out as a part of the FracMAN model of fractures. These data will be 
updated when the more comprehensive fracture data becomes available. 
10.4 DATA APPRAISAL CONSIDERING LA AND POST-LA ACTIVITIES 
Data appraisal at the current Project stage was performed to assess the adequacy of the data to 
support the License Application Process. The data were assessed using an engineering approach. 
The major emphasis was placed on verifying the quality and completeness of data available, and 
on identifying potential gaps in the data that would require immediate, extensive remediation 
measures, whether in terms of additional laboratory tests or field work. Potential areas of 
concern are associated with fulfilling the need for data completeness. Other concerns are related 
to the meaningful interpretation of data and their subsequent use in the design. Future 
characterization activities will lead to acquisition of additional geotechnical data and the further 
development of novel numerical approaches to enhance understanding of the rock mass 
performance. This overall data appraisal is further discussed in terms of LA and post-LA Project 
Phases. 
10.4.1 LA Phase 
The LA Project Phase includes the current period where evidence contained in LA documents is 
presented for a review and thorough evaluation by a number of reviewers representing all parties 
involved in any and all aspects of the future repository design. The site characterization 
activities contributed to a body of knowledge about mechanical and thermal properties of intact 
rock and rock mass that is targeted as a host of the future repository. The body of evidence 
characterizing the nonlithophysal TSw2 units is adequate to support the preliminary design 
associated with LA. Work on the development of additional details characterizing behavior and 
performance of lithophysal units is continuing, and new approaches designed to better 
characterize these units are being used successfully. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
10.4.2 Post-LA Phase 
The post-LA Project Phase extends in time and includes the repository design, construction and 
operation until closure. The major source of data complementing the existing rock property 
database will be obtained from the detailed recordkeeping required at every stage of repository 
operation. Routine inspections of the existing drifts, both containing the nuclear waste and under 
development, will provide an increasing bulk of evidence associated with performance of 
subsurface structures. Performance Confirmation activities and periodical assessments will aid 
in maintaining focus on continuing comparisons and evaluation of the subsurface facility 
performance. These activities will result in an increasing body of evidence regarding 
lithostratigraphic rock unit performance, reducing uncertainty in data, and increasing confidence 
in the implemented design. 
10.5 FURTHER DATA ENHANCEMENTS 
As the site activities progress, the amount of supplementary data will increase as well. This 
process will continue during the entire operational period of the repository. The additional 
sources of data and confidence building activities are listed below. 
 As new tunnel sections and niches are constructed in the future, additional data will be 
collected and analyzed in comparison to the existing understanding. 
 In the context of lithostratigraphic rock unit variability, the tunnel excavation itself 
becomes the best possible probe because the areas of extrapolated rock parameters are 
revealed and the tunnel diameter is large in comparison to voids dimensions. The tunnel 
mapping process provides the detailed observation of the features of interest in the rock 
mass. 
 The tunnel excavation provides the direct evidence regarding the feasibility of tunnel 
construction. 
 The overall tunnel stability with relatively minor ground control/roof support measures 
provides reassuring evidence that maintaining the tunnel stable and functional over 
extended time periods should be achievable. 
 Numerical modeling involving bounding analyses provides an assessment of extreme 
cases related to the rock parameters and data quality. Results of these analyses will assist 
designers in evaluating what if scenarios and the consequences of adopting less or 
more conservative rock parameter data under a particular set of circumstances. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 10-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
11. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
11.1 INTRODUCTION 
The current Report presents the results of laboratory and field experiments and of numerical 
modeling approaches used over the course of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 
Program. At the current stage, the nature of the YM Project is becoming aligned with 
accomplishing design, construction, and operation goals. The overall intent of the range of data-
oriented efforts reported in the SGPR is based on a premise that there should be one source 
document for all geotechnical rock parameters used in design. 
Analyses and discussions presented in this document are detailed to a degree necessary for a 
design engineer to develop the understanding needed to use these data with confidence in design 
of subsurface structures at the Yucca Mountain site. In contrast to man-made materials 
commonly used in civil construction projects, rock in its natural environment presents substantial 
challenges in predicting performance under uncertain loading conditions, complex material 
behaviors, and complicated rock fracture and porosity feature geometries. Successful design of 
underground structures requires appropriate and satisfactory conceptual models, sufficient 
understanding of the significant rock behaviors, and adequate characterization of the associated 
mechanical and thermal model parameters. In particular, limited data, uncertainties associated 
with in situ loading conditions, conceptual modeling, measurements, rock behaviors, and the 
process of determining site-specific rock parameters are challenging. 
License Application requires an adequate summary of thermomechanical properties needed for 
subsurface design, pre-closure repository safety analysis, and repository performance after 
permanent closure. A related issue is the development of rock behavioral models and 
approaches to adequately capture: (1) the sample size (scale) dependency of rock properties, and 
prediction of parameters at the rock mass scale, (2) the spatial variation or heterogeneity of rock 
parameters across the repository storage volume, and (3) the predicted temporal variation of rock 
behavior and parameters over the post-closure period of 10,000 years. 
The methodology of resolving these issues was developed progressively from a series of 
Geotechnical Review Panel meetings held in 2001 and 2002, and from work proposals prepared 
and reviewed by its participants. The Review Panel consisted of BSC personnel, as well as 
geomechanics experts from SNL, USBR, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), UNLV, UNR, New 
England Research (NER), and consultants from the Itasca Consulting Group and Nick Barton 
and Associates. The approach for resolving these issues is summarized in Resolution Strategy for 
Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME) (Board 
2003). 
The approach consists of utilizing a combination of analyses, studies, and calculations to 
maximize use of site-specific data: (1) evaluation and geotechnical analysis of the existing 
extensive geologic and geotechnical characterization data from surface and underground 
mapping; (2) additional laboratory and in situ thermomechanical testing, primarily of lithophysal 
rocks, to provide information for confirmation of the material models and property ranges to be 
used in design and performance sensitivity studies; (3) development, calibration, and validation 
of numerical models capable of representing the thermomechanical behavior of lithophysal and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
nonlithophysal rocks; (4) use of the validated numerical models to supplement the material 
properties database and explore the impact of geologic variability (porosity, lithophysae shape 
and distribution, and fracture density) on the geomechanical response, primarily of lithophysal 
rocks; and (5) numerical model sensitivity studies to further explore the impact of parameter 
uncertainty on pre-closure ground support and post-closure drift degradation and seismic 
stability issues. 
In this report, the data have been compiled from many sources and the important testing details 
and limitations are presented, including descriptions of methods used in data acquisition and 
analysis. The purpose of this format of presentation is to provide to the designer all significant 
rock behavior and parameter-related knowledge in an unbiased fashion, to create a basis for 
developing a better understanding of rock property data, and consequently, to facilitate the 
informed/correct use of these properties in various areas of design work at the Yucca Mountain 
Project. 
11.2 DATA SUMMARY AND STATUS 
The scope of work for the SGPR was defined in Section 1.4. The status of completed work in 
relation to this scope is outlined below and is further summarized in Table 11-2. 
 Compiling all relevant subsurface geotechnical data from the Technical Data 
Management System (TDMS) needed to summarize the identified rock parameters. 
Status: Collection of data is substantially complete. Numerous data tracking numbers 
were examined for consistency of information and, if inconsistencies were found, 
condition reports were submitted to correct them. Some minor rock parameter data have 
not been summarized yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 
 Evaluating and sorting the above TDMS data according to significant rock material 
conditions (e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, fracture set) and method of 
testing. 
Status: Data obtained from TDMS sources, representing different testing methods, test 
specimen dimensions, and rock material conditions were extracted, grouped and 
qualitatively analyzed in a consistent manner. 
 Performing computations and analyses of the compiled data to determine the developed 
rock parameters required for LA, using Yucca Mountain Project-approved software and 
procedures. 
Status: Calculations and analyses for derived parameters are substantially complete. 
Some rock parameters (see list in Section 11.3) have not been derived yet and will appear 
in the next revision of the SGPR. 
 Performing the appropriate statistical data analyses of the acquired and developed 
parameter database. 
Status: The SGPR reports simple statistical summaries for all parameters, if sufficient 
data are available. More complete statistical analysis using appropriate software and 
standards will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
 Providing comprehensive reference tables of intact rock mechanical parameters by 
combining all the qualified and analyzed test data in one central location. 
Status: These tables are complete and can be found in the SGPR. The tables are based 
on qualified data, corrected qualified data (where errors were found and reported), and 
currently unqualified but expected-to-be-qualified data. 
 Describing and demonstrating the range of applicability of the novel use of numerical 
modeling techniques, which when used in combination with limited data, enhance 
engineers understanding of rock behavior, processes, and descriptions. 
Status: The preliminary use of advanced modeling methods was used to better 
understand mechanical properties of lithophysal rock, and to geostatistically describe 
fracturing and lithophysal spatial characterizations in unsampled portions of rock within 
the planned repository host horizon. Preliminary modeling of time degradation of 
mechanical parameters will be summarized in the next revision of the SGPR. A proposal 
of an empirical approach for rock mass characterization of lithophysal rock will also 
appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 
 Developing a combined statistical and judgment-based approach for assessment of data 
uncertainty, variability, and representativeness that will be used to produce 
recommended statistical values, ranges and distributions for subsurface rock parameters. 
Status: This work has been initiated. An Uncertainty Analysis Guide is being prepared 
that outlines the methodology dealing with the uncertainties and variabilities associated 
with the data. This guidance is necessary to ensure that uncertainty determination and 
documentation is carried out as objectively and consistently as possible, and that the final 
parameter summaries yield complete and certifiable data. The document will also outline 
how parameter data characterizations will be prepared, approved, and submitted to the 
TDMS system in consideration with other Total System Performance Assessment and 
Integration (TSPAI) KTI agreements and other project and NRC documents concerned 
with parameter uncertainty. 
 Providing a preliminary definition and assessment of data adequacy for license 
application. 
Status: A general discussion of the adequacy of reported geotechnical parameters for 
underground design purposes is given in the SGPR. In general, the laboratory test 
results, field test results, field mapping, numerical modeling, and construction records 
indicate that no major inconsistencies in results have been identified that would cause 
major concerns for designers of subsurface structures. The totoality of data indicates that 
the data for nonlithophysal strata are largely adequate for LA design, while equivalent 
data are not available for lithophysal units. Numerical modeling and empirical 
approaches are under development to provide the necessary parameter information for 
lithophysal rock. Furthermore, the field evidence obtained from the ESF and the 
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift shows that 
openings developed in the lithophysal rock units remain stable with minimal ground 
support. Scoping analyses have recently been completed (BSC 2003a and BSC 2003 k) 
that provide a practical basis for assessing the impact the data variability may have on 
performance of openings located within a particular lithostratigraphic unit. Laboratory 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
static fatigue testing and numerical modeling of the temporal degradation of rock 
parameters are also being carried out. 
 Proposing additional characterization work needed for LA submittal. 
Status: A description of recommendations and planned future work is provided in the 
next section, Section 11.3. 
Physical Rock Properties and Rock Mass Characteristics 
For nonlithophysal rock, field characterization resulted in a database of meter-scale fracture 
geometry data obtained from mapping the ESF and ECRB tunnels. Evaluation of this database 
of tunnel full-periphery structure maps produced a statistical database, by fracture set, of fracture 
geometry data, such as fracture orientation, spacing, and trace length (SGPR Section 8.8.2). The 
program also collected rock quality data for rock classification purposes for lithostratigraphic 
units (Section 8.8.3) and mapped smaller-scale fractures in the ESF and ECRB tunnels. The 
knowledge of fracture geometry and rock quality data is adequate. 
For repository host horizon lithophysal rock, the primary aspect of field characterization to map 
the shape, size and abundance of lithophysae, spots and rims, which has been substantially 
carried out (Section 8.8.4) and is considered adequate for LA design purposes. The impact of the 
assumption that the weaker rim and spot material can be mechanically modeled as matrix-
groundmass material will be addressed in the next revision of the SGPR. For all 
lithostratigraphic zones, an additional field characterization activity involved the geophysical 
logging of boreholes to indirectly determine vertical variation of bulk density and porosity. This 
geophysical data will be further evaluated and summarized, and then compared to mapped 
lithophysal data in the next revision of the SGPR. Also, records related to the original core 
logging are still available, and it may be possible to attempt developing correlations between the 
proportion of core retrieved with the rock type, core depth, and drillhole location. 
Laboratory Rock Testing 
A relatively large number of laboratory tests has been performed on intact core samples of 
nonlithophysal rock (Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4). The mechanical and thermal behavior of 
nonlithophysal rock is adequately understood and adequate parameter summaries exist, 
excluding the uncertainty descriptions that will follow in the next revision of the SGPR. Recent 
direct shear testing of five fractures has provided important information to help characterize the 
mechanical behavior of fractures by fracture set in nonlithophysal rock (Section 8.6). Although 
the available experimental testing results of fractures may not form an adequate basis to develop 
mechanical parameter distribution or range information, it is possible to use professional 
judgement for producing the ranges of parameters needed for LA products. 
Until recently, the YMP effort to develop a better understanding of the behavior of lithophysal 
rock has been limited. This changed with the determination that most of the repository would 
reside in lithophysal rock, and that nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock behaviors were 
substantially different. The changes in the concept of ground support from reliance on robust 
concrete liners (installed just behind the tunnel boring machine), to fully grouted rock bolts, to 
ungrouted rock bolts has resulted in an increased need for better understanding of the mechanical 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
behavior of lithophysal rock. Several important mechanical and thermal rock properties are 
strongly dependent on rock porosity and lithophysal rock sample size (e.g., the mechanical, 
elastic, and rock strength parameters and thermal conductivity). Additional site-specific testing 
at the laboratory scale was undertaken to better characterize rock parameter dependencies on 
porosity and size, and results are presented in Sections 8.3 and 8.4. However, these laboratory 
results alone do not provide the necessary characterization of lithophysal rock parameters, and 
other methods explained below were developed to supply this information. 
In Situ Mechanical Field Testing 
The next step beyond laboratory testing was gathering as much in situ site-specific rock behavior 
information as possible. This program extends from small-scale borehole testing of thermal and 
mechanical behaviors to meter-scale mechanical and thermal testing of rock blocks (e.g., Single 
Heater Test, plate loading tests, slot tests) to drift-scale tests in both repository host horizon 
nonlithophysal (Drift Scale Test) and lithophysal rock (planned for the future). In particular, in 
situ testing in lithophysal rock helped confirm models and ranges of rock behavior. Rock mass 
scale testing under thermal loading conditions of both nonlithophysal and lithophysal rock was 
also required to validate numerical models and empirical approaches needed for better 
characterization of rock mass behavior. Reports relating to thermal and mechanical in situ rock 
testing are now being prepared, and preliminary results are reported in Sections 8.3 and 8.7. 
Qualified mechanical field tests results are not yet available, and so, at the present time, 
mechanical field test data may be inadequate for engineering design purposes. In situ test data 
also include information gathered from tunnel boring machine pressure and mining rate data, as 
well as periodic surveying of the ESF and ECRB tunnels and drifts to study tunnel deformation 
over time. This information along with final field test results will be included in the next 
revision of the SGPR. 
Characterization of Rock Mass 
The rock mass behavior of nonlithophysal rock is controlled largely by the geometry of fractures 
that separates the relatively strong and stiff pieces of intact rock. The rock mass mechanical 
parameters of the repository host horizon nonlithophysal rock have been developed from an 
established empirical approach and are summarized in Sections 8.5 and 8.8. Rock mass 
mechanical parameters for lithostratigraphic units outside of the repository host horizon will be 
included in the next revision of the SGPR. Even though the repository host horizon fracture 
geometry is well known along the two mapped tunnels, this information, alone, was considered 
inadequate to be directly utilized as a fracture model for the repository site. As a result it was 
determined that a statistically representative fracture model of the repository site was required 
for meeting design and modeling needs. Preliminary model results have been developed using 
the FracMAN program and are reported in Section 9.3. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau 
of Reclamation personnel are performing more comprehensive geostatistical modeling using 
FracMAN, making use of all available and appropriate site-specific geologic data. 
Geostatistical approaches were applied to the tunnel fracture database, the borehole fracture data, 
and outcrop fracture measurements as a basis for development of statistically representative 
fracture volumes using the FracMAN software program (Section 9.3). These fracture volumes 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
contain fracture geometry data by repository host horizon units that adequately capture the 
ranges of fracture geometry parameters expected at the site. 
The rock mass behavior of lithophysal rock is controlled largely by stress conditions and open 
voids within the rock that can lead to failure of the bulk lithophysal rock. However, because of 
the scarcity of mechanical test results on rocks containing representative lithophysae (due to the 
impracticality of conducting these laboratory and field tests), it was necessary to supplement this 
testing with numerical modeling of lithophysal rock. By these means, significant behavioral 
mechanisms could be studied along with a full range of sample dimensions facilitating 
investigation of the sample-size effect and the effect that lithophysal geometry (shape, size, and 
spatial distribution) has on rock properties. A preliminary effort to develop, calibrate and 
validate these numerical models using the site-specific laboratory and field-testing results of 
lithophysal rock is provided in Sections 9.1 and 9.2. 
To extrapolate the intact mechanical behavior to a larger scale, additional testing using numerical 
models capable of representing lithophysal rock behavior was performed. Two- and three-
dimensional numerical modeling has the advantage of allowing a rock sample to be created and 
tested at any scale, plus holes of any size and shape can then be placed at any location within 
the rock sample. These numerical approaches can reproduce observed complex rock behavior, 
such as the development of interlithophysae fracturing. This approach provides a methodology 
for representing and understanding the basic mechanical response of lithophysal rocks through 
back-analysis of actual testing. More thorough lithophysal rock numerical modeling is planned 
and results will appear in the next revision of this report. The conceptual, analytical, and 
numerical modeling of thermal behavior of a lithophysal rock mass is relatively well developed 
and is summarized in Section 8.3. 
In addition to characterizing lithophysal rock mechanical behavior, it is necessary to model the 
variation of rock porosity in the field before the spatial variability of rock thermomechanical 
parameters can be adequately quantified. A preliminary simulation of lithophysal porosity has 
been completed and is described in Section 9.4. A more formal geostatistical approach is 
planned that would result in building a model of lithophysae volumes that are representative of 
the repository layout. The geostatistical analysis will consider the mapped tunnel lithophysal 
data, the borehole geophysical data, and mapped borehole lithophysal data. Like the fracture 
volumes, these lithophysal volumes will describe the spatial variation of lithophysal cavities 
expected across the site at various scales. These results will then be translated into a spatial 
variation of mechanical and thermal properties across the site, as described in Section 10.2. 
11.3 GEOTECHNICAL DATA RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLANNED FUTURE 
WORK 
This report provides the foundation of a living document that will evolve as the various design 
and construction activities get underway. The need for additional rock property data will 
gradually diminish as further testing, modeling and confirmation activities are carried out. Then 
as underground facilities are designed and built, additional information will be obtained. In this 
way, the rock parameter database and general level of understanding will continue to expand 
with the maturation of the project. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The role of the Performance Confirmation (PC) program, particularly the geotechnical 
instrumentation program during repository construction, is essential in assuring continuous rock 
property database enhancement. The PC Program will serve the multiple functions of recording 
the current data, evaluating the performance of underground structures, designing and 
implementing new tests, refining numerical modeling techniques to achieve better agreement 
between prediction and real field performance, and reporting any discrepancies observed during 
the course of subsurface facility development and operation. 
Work is already underway for the next revision of this report. At this time a number of data 
items that require additional work have been identified. Some relatively major items are 
discussed first followed by lists of planned work. 
TDMS Data Issues 
During the course of preparing this document, it became apparent that information deposited in 
the TDMS alone was insufficient to reveal the overall data correctness, necessary context, and 
variability. This was due to inconsistencies in data presentation and the potential of multiple 
data interpretations. A substantial additional effort was directed at attempting to collect all the 
relevant supporting TDMS data, and performing additional analyses to provide an improved 
source of information about the intact rock and rock mass properties. As the primary task during 
preparation of this SGPR was to gather and organize the data, it should be understood that the 
current scope did not include the task of data validation, which must be performed to resolve any 
inconsistencies and questions pertaining to the issues of data completeness, transparency, and 
reliability. 
As a consequence, a number of data problems have surfaced (e.g., errors, omissions, unqualified 
data) that point out that a new approach to the design data management may be warranted. The 
current submission and storage of data in the TDMS provides a relatively large number of 
options that, in effect, causes incomplete and sometimes incorrect data to be entered into the 
system. The data often does not contain a standard level of description necessary for the user to 
pass any judgment regarding the quality of the data. It appears that, once data are entered, no 
requirement exists that would cause the data originator to verify if the TDMS representation is 
correct. The process of data retrieval is not standardized; and any data use often requires 
additional processing, which often is performed in different ways by different users. In effect, 
the same parameter summary retrieved from the TDMS by two different persons may result in 
two different, and possibly conflicting, data descriptions. There are currently multiple DTNs that 
summarize similar information and the use of similar but different DTNs by different users is not 
accounted for. As a result, inconsistencies of inputs may exist between different design 
products, and should the need arise to verify or update parameter values, not all impacted 
products/users will receive notification. 
It is suggested that a GIS-type relational database, including spatial coordinates as one of the key 
parameters, be considered. Development of this new database and verification and summary of 
data therein should be accomplished with active participation of personnel well versed in rock 
property testing and rock parameter usage in design. This relational database should then be 
locked down and become the sole source of all appropriate acquired and derived subsurface rock 
parameters. Future revisions of this report will point to further contextual information and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
limitations in the data, higher-level derivations of parameters, and judgment-based descriptions 
of parameters including uncertainties and spatial and temporal variability. 
Data Uncertainty 
There are still outstanding issues regarding uncertainties in the data, and how uncertainties in 
rock parameters should properly be addressed and carried over into design. Although the 
statistical data approach is relatively well-established and documented in standards and 
textbooks, by itself it is known to be inadequate for characterizing rock behavior, and must be 
utilized in conjunction with professional judgment. Since there is no standard way of treating 
both the objective and subjective aspects of uncertainty in geotechnical engineering, a 
recommended approach is being outlined that utilizes mathematical probability and statistics, as 
well as professional judgment. If project approval is obtained, this methodology may be 
established in the suggested Uncertainty Analysis Guide, mentioned earlier (Section 10.2 and 
11.2), and can be applied to the parameter summaries in the next revision of the SGPR. 
Time-Dependent Behavior of Rock Parameters 
The time-dependent strength properties (i.e., static fatigue) need to be determined for both 
nonlithophysal and lithophysal rocks. Laboratory static fatigue testing of lithophysal tuff cores is 
now being conducted. Again, since the resulting rock-testing database will be limited (number 
of rock samples tested and loading time duration), numerical modeling is being used to 
understand and enhance the time-related mechanical behavior of lithophysal rock. For 
nonlithophysal rock, the temporal variation in mechanical rock mass behavior is assumed to 
substantially relate to the degradation of the fracture strength parameters. A summary of 
laboratory static fatigue testing, as well as time-dependent numerical modeling and residual 
fracture strength data will be provided in the next revision of the SGPR. 
Data Not Included or Developed in this Version of the SGPR: 
The following parameters represent project-acquired data that are available in the TDMS system, 
but have not yet been included in this report. These parameters will appear in the next revision 
of the SGPR: 
 Rock grain density 
 Geophysics' based density and porosity 
 RQD, Jn, Jr, Ja, JwQ, SFR measurements needed for lithostratigraphic units other than 
Tptpmn and Tptpln 
 RMR measured rock mass characterization data 
 Rotary fracture data for units outside of the repository host horizon 
 ESF ground support confirmation and continued deformation monitoring data, steel set 
measurement/modeling results 
 Schmidt hammer results 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The following derived parameters have been developed and will be reported in the next revision 
of the SGPR or will be developed for the next version: 
 Mohr-Coulomb parameters calculated for all lithostratigraphic units 
 Intact Hoek-Brown parameters calculated for units outside of the repository host horizon 
 Rock mass elastic and strength properties for lithostratigraphic units other than Tptpmn 
and Tptpln 
 A geostatistical estimate of porosity across the site based on geophysics borehole data 
 Incorporate available corroborative data (UNR and UNLV research, NRC Apache Leap 
results) 
 Time-dependent effect on mechanical rock parameters from preliminary modeling results 
 Latest fracture geometry statistics of repository host horizon units from FracMAN 
Recommended Future Work Products: 
Table 11-1 presents a list of data-associated products that will develop needed parameter 
information, improved physical understanding of rock behavior, and models of the spatial and 
temporal variations of rock properties. Preliminary results from some of these modeling efforts 
have been reported in this version of the SGPR, however, separate modeling reports are required 
to properly document and validate these models. 
Table 11-1. Suggested Reports, Analyses and Models to Support and Complement Data Effort 
Product Governing 
Procedure 
Start Finish 
Uncertainty Analysis Guide AP-3.11Q 
SGPR: Version 00B AP-3.12Q 
Rock Mass Characterization of Lithophysal Rock Using 
Empirical Methods 
AP-3.12Q 
Mechanical Lithophysal Rock Behavior Using PFC and UDEC AP-SIII.10Q 
Representative Fracture Parameters Using FracMAN AP-SIII.10Q 
Representative Spatial Variation of Lithophysae AP-SIII.10Q 
Time Degradation of Rock Mass Properties AP-SIII.10Q 
Barton Report Calculation and Analysis AP-3.12Q 
Particle Flow Code (PFC) Software Qualification AP-SI.1Q 
The following potential activities shown in Table 11-2 are being discussed to support and 
complement the data effort and reduce uncertainties associated with the data. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 11-2. Future Work Tasks and Subtasks Related to Data 
Primary Tasks to be Completed Status 
and 
Planned Subtasks 
Can be 
Completed 
in Rev 00B 
Work 
Required 
Beyond 
LA 
1. Collect all relevant existing subsurface 
geotechnical data from the TDMS needed to 
summarize the identified rock parameters. 
Collection of existing data is substantially complete. Numerous 
data tracking numbers were examined for consistency of 
information and, if inconsistencies were found, condition reports 
were submitted to correct them. Some minor rock data and 
Yes No 
parameters have not been summarized yet and will appear in the 
next revision of the SGPR. 
2. Perform evaluation of the TDMS data Data obtained from TDMS sources representing different testing 
according to significant rock material conditions methods, test specimen dimensions, and rock material conditions Yes No 
(e.g., porosity, temperature, saturated or dry, were extracted, grouped, and qualitatively analyzed in a 
fracture set) and method of testing consistent manner. 
3. Perform calculations and analyses of the Derived data calculations and analyses are substantially 
TDMS acquired data to determine the required complete. Some minor rock data and parameters have not been Yes No 
developed rock parameters, using Yucca derived yet and will appear in the next revision of the SGPR. 
Mountain Projectapproved software and 
procedures. 
4. Perform the appropriate statistical data The SGPR reports simple statistical summaries for all parameters, 
analyses of the acquired and developed parameter if sufficient data are available. More complete statistical analysis Yes No 
database. using appropriate software and standards will be included in the 
next revision of the SGPR. 
5. Provide comprehensive reference tables of These Excel tables are complete and can be found in the SGPR. 
intact rock mechanical parameters by combining The tables are based on qualified data, corrected qualified data Yes No 
all the qualified and analyzed test data. (when errors were found and reported), and currently unqualified 
but expected-to-be-qualified data. They will be updated. 
6. Describe and demonstrate the range of 
applicability of preliminary, novel numerical 6a. Modeling of Lithophysal Rock Mechanical Behavior Using Yes Yes 
modeling techniques, which when used in PFC and UDEC 
combination with limited data, enhance engineers 
understanding of rock behavior, processes, and 6b. Modeling of Time Degradation of Rock Properties Using Yes Yes 
descriptions. PFC 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
7. Develop a statistical and judgment-based 7a. Uncertainty Analysis Guide Yes No 
approach for assessment of data uncertainty, 
variability, and representativeness that will be 7b. Geostatistical Simulation of the Spatial Variation of Fracture No Yes 
used to produce recommended statistical values, Geometry Using FracMAN 
ranges, and distributions for subsurface rock 
parameters. Create Parameter Summary Sheets 7c. Geostatistical Simulation of the Spatial Variation of No Yes 
and DTNs for all parameters. Lithophysae 
7d. Assign Uncertainty information to all parameters Yes No 
8. Provide a definition and assessment of data 8. After Parameter Summary Sheets and DTNs are issued for all 
adequacy for all LA products using these lithostratigraphic units, each LA project using these parameters Yes No 
subsurface geotechnical parameters. will carry out an adequacy assessment for each parameter, which 
will then be summarized. 
9. Propose additional work needed for LA 
submittal and any remaining issues needed to 
close KTI RDTME 3.04 
9a. Technical Review of all relevant TDMS: 
 
physical and mechanical data 
 
TDMS summary of above data 
No Yes 
9b. Place technically reviewed data in project GIS relational 
database 
No Yes 
9c. Do Calculation/Analysis of October 2002 Barton Report Yes No 
9d. Produce Rock Mass Characterization of Lithophysal Rock 
Using Empirical Methods Yes Yes 
9e. Reanalysis of geophysical- derived density and porosity data 
to account properly for lithophysae 
Yes No 
9f. Map lithophysae in a number of additional boreholes and 
correlate data with geophysical-derived data 
No Yes 
9g. Conduct more triaxial tests on nonlithophysal rock No Yes 
9h. Conduct more UCS tests on large sample-size lithophysal 
rock and properly quantified lithophysal porosity before each test 
No Yes 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9i. Direct shear tests (peak, residual, normal stiffness) on rock No Yes 
fractures by joint set 
9j. Plate-loading test analysis and report No Yes 
9k. Slot test analysis and report for the 3 slot tests Yes No 
9l. Additional large-scale in situ field testing No Yes 
9m. Large-scale in situ fracture roughness measurements No Yes 
9n. Index testing on spot/rim material, lab testing on disturbed No Yes 
samples 
9o. Limited index testing along the tunnels (Schmidt hammer, No Yes 
geophysical, dilatometer, other?) 
9p. Develop rock mass parameters for the intensively fractured No Yes 
zone 
9q. Perform a qualified site-specific Q vs. RMR correlation for Yes No 
use in rock mass calculations 
9r. Quantify and evaluate effect of tunnel size on rock mass Yes Yes 
characterization data sets 
9s. Numerical predictive modeling of site-specific lab/field tests 
for validation of lithophysal modeling (in update of Modeling of No Yes 
Lithophysal Rock Mechanical Behavior report) 
9t. Analysis of ESF/ECRB tunnel deformation monitoring, steel 
sets monitoring, ESF ground Support confirmation, Tunnel No Yes 
Boring Machine pressure and mining rate data, Drift Scale Test, 
and any other construction records to augment site-specific rock 
mass mechanical data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9u. Digitally map the ESF and ECRB tunnels No Yes 
9v. Identify key geotechnical and design parameters that will be Yes No 
part of the performance confirmation program 
9w. Continued revisions of Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Yes Yes 
Report and associated DTNs 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 11-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
12. REFERENCES
12.1 CODES, STANDARDS, CRITERA, REQUIREMENTS, GUIDANCE, AND 
PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 60 Subpart G. 1998. Energy: Quality Assurance. Readily available. 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
40 CFR 197. 2001. Protection of Environment: Public Health and Environmental Radiation 
Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
AP-2.14Q, Rev. 3, ICN 0. Document Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030827.0018. 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030807.0002. 
AP-3.11Q, Rev. 4, ICN 0. Technical Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030827.0015. 
AP-3.12Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Design Calculations and Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030827.0013. 
AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 2. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030627.0002. 
AP-16.1Q, Rev. 7, ICN 0. Condition Reporting and Resolution. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030925.0002. 
AP-17.1Q, Rev. 3, ICN 1. Records Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20031117.0004. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 5, ICN 2. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030902.0003. 
AP-SIII.10Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20031126.0002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
AP-SIII.2Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Qualification of Unqualified Data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030422.0008. 
AP-SIII.3Q, Rev. 2, ICN 0. Submittal and Incorporation of Data/Technical Information to the 
Technical Data Management System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030902.0001. 
AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Control of the Electronic Management of Information. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
DOC.20030929.0004. 
ASTM D 2845-83. 1983. Standard Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities 
and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for 
Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. 
ASTM D 2938-95. 1995. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact 
Rock Core Specimens. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and 
Materials. TIC: 242992. 
ASTM D 3148-96. 1997. Standard Test Method for Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core 
Specimens in Uniaxial Compression. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for 
Testing and Materials. TIC: 247128. 
ASTM D 3967-95. 1995. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock 
Core Specimens. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and 
Materials. TIC: 247125. 
ASTM D 4394-84. 1985. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of 
Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Rigid Plate Loading Method. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 
American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. 
ASTM D 4395-84. 1985. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of 
Deformation of Rock Mass Using the Flexible Plate Loading Method. Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 231530. 
ASTM D 4971-89. 1989. Standard Test Method for Determining the In Situ Modulus of 
Deformation of Rock Using the Diametrically Loaded 76-mm (3-in.) Borehole Jack. 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials. TIC: 245311. 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. Public Law No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776. Readily available. 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2002. Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report. 
NUREG-1762. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 253064. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final
Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Public Law No. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201. Readily available.
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. Public Law No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330. 
Readily available.
TP-202, Rev. 01. Measurement of Thermal Conductivity of Geologic Specimens Using the 
Guarded Heat-Flow Meter Method. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.19981103.0396. 
TP-203, Rev. 01. Measurement of Thermal Expansion of Geologic Supplies Using a Push Rod 
Dilatometer. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19971121.0264. 
TP-204, Rev. 00. Measurement of Specific Heat of Geologic Samples by Adiabatic Pulse 
Calorimetry. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19981103.0401. 
YMP-USGS-GP-54, Rev. 0. Rock Mass Classification, Manual or Electronic. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19980608.0238. 
YMP-USGS-GP-56, R0. Method for Performing Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Tests on 
Rock Specimens Under Constant Normal Force with Allowance for Elevated Temperature. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020930.0328. 
12.2 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES 
Albin, A.L.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Lee, A.C.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; and Barr, 
D.L. 1997. Geology of the Main Drift - Station 28+00 to 55+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, 
Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone SPG42AM3. Denver, Colorado: 
Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970625.0096. 
Altman, W.D.; Donnelly, J.P.; and Kennedy, J.E. 1988. Qualification of Existing Data for 
High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories: Generic Technical Position. NUREG-1298. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 200652. 
Arnold, B.W.; Altman, S.J.; Robey, T.H.; Barnard, R.W.; and Brown, T.J. 1995. Unsaturated-
Zone Fast-Path Flow Calculations for Yucca Mountain Groundwater Travel Time Analyses 
(GWTT-94). SAND95-0857. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19960327.0336. 
Bandis, S.C.; Lumsden, A.C.; and Barton, N.R. 1983. "Fundamentals of Rock Joint 
Deformation." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics 
Abstracts, 20, (6), 249-268. [New York, New York]: Pergamon Press. TIC: 224201. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Barr, D.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Singleton, W.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; Lee, A.C.; Beason, S.C.; and 
Eatman, G.L.W. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp  Stations 4+00 to 28+00, Exploratory 
Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0496. 
Barton, N. 1982. Modelling Rock Joint Behavior from In Situ Block Tests: Implications for 
Nuclear Waste Repository Design. ONWI-308. Columbus, Ohio: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Battelle Memorial Institute. ACC: HQS.19880517.2252. 
Barton, N. and Bandis, S. 1990. "Review of Predictive Capacities of JRC-JCS Model in 
Engineering Practice." Rock Joints, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Rock Joints, 
Loen, Norway, 4-6 June 1990. Barton, N. and Stephansson, O., eds. Pages 603-610. 
Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 103532. 
Barton, N. and Choubey, V. 1977. "The Shear Strength of Rock Joints in Theory and Practice." 
Rock Mechanics, 10, (1-2), 1-54. [New York, New York]: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 218374. 
Barton, N.; Lien, R.; and Lunde, J. 1974. "Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the 
Design of Tunnel Support." Rock Mechanics, 6, (4), 189-236. New York, New York: Springer-
Verlag. TIC: 219995. 
Barton, N.R.; Bandis, S.; and Bakhtar, K. 1985. "Strength, Deformation, and Conductivity 
Coupling of Rock Joints." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & 
Geomechanics Abstracts, 22, (3), 121-140. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 
217135. 
Beason, S.C. 2003. Collection of Underground Site Characterization Data. Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-084-V1. ACC: MOL.20030728.0204. 
Beason, S.C.; Turlington, G.A.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Ryter, D.; and Barr, D.L. 1996. 
Geology of the North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca 
Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970106.0449. 
Berryman, James G. 1995. "Mixture Theories for Rock Properties." AGU Reference Shelf 3,
Rock Physics and Phase Relations A Handbook of Physical Constants. Ahrens, T.J. Pages 205-
228. [Washington, D.C.]: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239165. 
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. New York, New York: John
Wiley & Sons. TIC: 226350. 
Board, M. 2003. Resolution Strategy for Geomechanically-Related Repository Design and 
Thermal-Mechanical Effects (RDTME). REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20030708.0153. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th Edition. New York, New York: 
McGraw-Hill. TIC: 247039. 
Boyd, P.J.; Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1996. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of 
the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes UE25 NRG-2, 2A, 2B, and 3: Data Report. 
SAND94-1902. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19970102.0002. 
Boyd, P.J.; Price, R.H.; Noel, J.S.; and Martin, R.J. 1996. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of 
the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes UE25 NRG-4 and -5: Data Report. SAND942138. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970102.0004. 
Brodsky, N.S.; Riggins, M.; Connolly, J.; and Ricci, P. 1997. Thermal Expansion, Thermal 
Conductivity, and Heat Capacity Measurements for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, UE25 NRG-5, 
USW NRG-6, and USW NRG-7/7A. SAND95-1955. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia 
National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980311.0316. 
Brown, E.T., ed. 1981. Rock Characterization Testing & Monitoring, ISRM Suggested 
Methods. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 209865. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-
GS-000002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020530.0078. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative 
Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System 
Performance Assessment for the License Application. TDR-WIS-PA-000008 REV 00, ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020904.0002. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model Report. 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020423.0151. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report. MDL-
NBS-GS-000004 REV 00 ICN 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020429.0086. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Scientific Processes Guidelines Manual. MIS-WIS-MD-
000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0176. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Test Plan for: Rock Modulus Testing. SITP-02-SSD-001 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020225.0260. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon 
Model Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020923.0167. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Thermal Testing Measurements Report. ANL-NBS-HS-
000041 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20021004.0314. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 
02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030709.0003. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift Scale THM Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000017 REV 00 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031014.0009. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and THC Seepage) 
Models. MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20030804.0004. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Ground Control for Emplacement Drifts for LA. 800-
K0C-TEG0-00100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
ENG.20031016.0001. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Heat Capacity and Thermal Expansion Coefficients 
Analysis Report. ANL-NBS-GS-000013 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030820.0002. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM). 
MDL-NBS-HS-000007 REV 01A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20030912.0022. TBV-5467 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Q-List. TDR-MGR-RL-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030930.0002. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Scoping Analysis on Sensitivity and Uncertainty of 
Emplacement Drift Stability. 800-K0C-TEG0-00600-000-000. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031125.0002. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Two-Dimensional Repository Thermal Design 
Calculations. 000-00C-WIS0-00300-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030630.0004. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Underground Layout Configuration. 800-P0C-MGR0-
00100-000-00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031002.0007. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Ventilation Model and Analysis Report. ANL-EBS-MD-
000030 REV 03 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20030804.0003. 
Buesch, D. 2003. "Fractures in Thin Sections with Rims as Cooling Joints in Tptpmn and Tptpll 
for AMR." E-mail from D. Buesch to D. Kicker, June 2, 2003. ACC: MOL.20030610.0067. 
Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1998. "Character of the Middle Nonlithophysal Zone of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain." High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, 
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. 
Pages 16-23. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 
Buesch, D.C.; Nelson, J.E.; Dickerson, R.P.; Drake, R.M., II; Spengler, R.W.; Geslin, J.K.;
Moyer, T.C.; and San Juan, C.A. 1996. Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Units Within the
Central Block of Yucca Mountain, Nevada: A Three-Dimensional Computer-Based Model,
Version YMP.R2.0. Open-File Report 95-124. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970618.0573. 
Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed Stratigraphic
Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush
Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 94-469. Denver, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970205.0061. 
Bulmer, M.G. 1979. Principles of Statistics. 3rd Edition. New York, New York: Dover. 
TIC: 245835. 
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C. 1959. Conduction of Heat in Solids. 2nd Edition. Oxford,
Great Britain: Oxford University Press. TIC: 206085. 
Cikanek, E.M.; Blakely, R.J.; Grant, T.A.; and Safley, L.E. 2003. Data Qualification and Data
Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound
Hardness, and Rock Triaxial Creep. TDR-MGR-GE-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030730.0005. 
Cikanek, E.M.; Grant, T.A.; and Blakely, R.J. 2003. Data Qualification and Data Summary 
Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive 
Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion. TDR-MGR-GE-000003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030214.0007. 
Cikanek, E.M.; Safley, L.E.; and Grant, T.A. 2003. Data Qualification and Data Summary 
Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on Poisson's Ratio and Young's Modulus. TDR-MGR-GE-
000004 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030627.0001. 
CRWMS M&O 1995. ESF Ground Support Design Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-0200-00002 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960409.0355. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
CRWMS M&O 1996. ESF Ground Support - Structural Steel Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-
0200-00003 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19961114.0137. 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Ambient Characterization of the Drift Scale Test Block. BADD00000-
01717-5705-00001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19980416.0689. 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Determination of Available Volume for Repository Siting. BCA000000-
01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19971009.0699. 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Yucca Mountain Site Geotechnical Report. B00000000-01717-5705-
00043 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19971017.0736; MOL.19971017.0737. 
CRWMS M&O 1998. Deformation Monitoring Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-5705-00005 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981014.0002. 
CRWMS M&O 1998. ESF Design Confirmation Steel Set Loads Analysis. BABEE0000-01717-
5705-00006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981014.0001. 
CRWMS M&O 1998. ESF Ground Support Confirmation. BABEE0000-01717-5705-00003 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980727.0308. 
CRWMS M&O 1998. Geology of the Exploratory Studies Facility Topopah Spring Loop. 
BAB000000-01717-0200-00002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19980415.0283. 
CRWMS M&O 1998. Repository Subsurface Waste Emplacement and Thermal Management 
Strategy. B00000000-01717-0200-00173 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19980918.0084. 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Single Heater Test Final Report. BAB000000-01717-5700-00005 REV 
00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000103.0634. 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01 ICN 
01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001003.0111. 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1988. Site Characterization Plan Yucca Mountain Site, 
Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0199. Nine volumes. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: HQO.19881201.0002. 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2003. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. 
DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030422.0003. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Duan, F. 2003. "A White Paper by Nick Barton." E-mail from F. Duan to D. Kicker, May 28, 
2003, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20030603.0132; MOL.20030219.0058. 
Eatman, G.L.W.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Barr, D.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; and
Beason, S.C. 1997. Geology of the South Ramp - Station 55+00 to 78+77, Exploratory Studies
Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S.
Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.19980127.0396. 
Flint, L.E. 1998. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties, Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4243. Denver, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980429.0512. 
Geslin, J.K.; Moyer, T.C.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging of New and
Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, August 1993 to February 1994. Open-File
Report 94-342. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19940810.0011. 
GoldSim Technology Group. 2002. GoldSim, Graphical Simulation Environment, User's
Guide. Version 7.40. Redmond, Washington: Golder Associates. TIC: 253564. 
Goodman, R.E. 1980. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. New York, New York: John Wiley &
Sons. TIC: 218828. 
Halliday, D.; Resnick, R.; and Merrill, J. 1988. Fundamentals of Physics. 3rd Edition
Extended. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 234765. 
Heuze, F.E. 1980. "Scale Effects in the Determination of Rock Mass Strength and
Deformability." Rock Mechanics, 12, (3-4), 167-192. [New York, New York]: Springer-
Verlag. TIC: 218372. 
Heuze, F.E. and Amadei, B. 1985. "The NX-Borehole Jack: A Lesson In Trials and Errors." 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 22, (2),
105-112. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 218975. 
Hoek, E. 2000. [Practical] Rock Engineering, [2000 Edition]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 
RocScience. TIC: 253544. 
Hoek, E.; Carranza-Torres, C.; and Corkum, B. 2002. "Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion  2002
Edition." [5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of
Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC 2002, July 7-10, University of Toronto]. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Rocscience. Accessed March 17, 2003. TIC: 253954. 
http://www.rocscience.com/Anon/ResearchPapers/NARMS.pdf
Hoek, E.; Kaiser, P.K.; and Bawden, W.F. 2000. Support of Underground Excavations in Hard
Rock. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 252991. 
Holman, J.P. 1997. Heat Transfer. 8th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 
239954. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Howard, C.L.; Schuhen, M.D.; George, J.T.; Lee, M.Y.; Taylor, R.S.; and Bronowski, D.R. 
2003. "Rock-Mass Deformation Modulus Testing of Lithophysal Stratigraphic Units at the 
Yucca Mountain Project." Soil and Rock America 2003, 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil 
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, June 22-26, 
2003, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Culligan, P.J.; Einstein, H.H.; and Whittle, A.J., eds. 
Vol 1, 375-380. Essen, Germany: Verlag Glckauf GmbH. TIC: 255152. 
Incropera, F.P. and DeWitt, D.P. 2002. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 5th 
Edition. [New York, New York]: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 254280. 
Itasca Consulting Group. [2002]. Itasca SoftwareCutting Edge Tools for Computational 
Mechanics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca Consulting Group. TIC: 252592. 
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. 1979. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 3rd Edition. New 
York, New York: Chapman and Hall. TIC: 218325. 
Kalia, H. 2001. "Description of the Field Measurements of Thermal Conductivity in the 
Topopah Spring Lower Lithophysal Unit (Tptpll)." Memorandum from H. Kalia (BSC) to 
Distribution, July 23, 2001, PROJ.07/01.045, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010822.0260. 
Kaviany, M. 1991. Principles of Heat Transfer in Porous Media. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 240655. 
Klavetter, E.A. and Peters, R.R. 1986. Estimation of Hydrologic Properties of an Unsaturated, 
Fractured Rock Mass. SAND 84-2642. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. TIC: 202727. 
Lappin, A.R. 1980. Thermal Conductivity of Silicic Tuffs: Predictive Formalism and 
Comparison with Preliminary Experimental Results. SAND80-0769. Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19890327.0052. 
Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Haupt, R.W. 1992. Anisotropy of the Topopah 
Spring Member Tuff. SAND91-0894. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19920522.0041. 
Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1993. "The Influence of Strain Rate and 
Sample Inhomogeneity on the Moduli and Strength of Welded Tuff." International Journal of 
Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts, 30, (7), 15071510. [New 
York, New York]: Pergamon. TIC: 254873. 
Martin, R.J., III.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1993. Unconfined Compression 
Experiments on Topopah Spring Member Tuff at 22 C and a Strain Rate of 10{superscript -9} 
s{superscript -1}: Data Report. SAND92-1810. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19930728.0088. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Martin, R.J., III; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1995. Creep in Topopah Spring Member 
Welded Tuff. SAND94-2585. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.19950502.0006. 
Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. "Creep and Static Fatigue of Welded 
Tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada." International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining 
Sciences, 34, (3/4), 382. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 250241. 
Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. Creep Properties of the Paintbrush 
Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND95-1759. Albuquerque, 
New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971017.0661. 
Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; and Price, R.H. 1997. The Effects of Confining Pressure on 
the Strength and Elastic Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Boreholes USW NRG6 
and USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND95-1887. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia 
National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971017.0662. 
Martin, R.J.; Noel, J.S.; Boyd, P.J.; Riggins, M.; and Price, R.H. 1997. Thermal Expansion of 
the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW SD-12 at Pressures 30 MPa: Data Report. 
SAND95-1904. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19971017.0680. 
Martin, R.J.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1994. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of 
the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-6: Data Report. SAND93-4020. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19940811.0001. 
Martin, R.J.; Price, R.H.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1995. Bulk and Mechanical Properties of 
the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: Data Report. SAND94-1996. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19950316.0087. 
MathSoft. 2001. Mathcad, User's Guide with Reference Manual, Mathcad 2001 Professional. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MathSoft. TIC: 252786. 
Mellor, M. and Hawkes, I. 1971. "Measurement of Tensile Strength by Diametral Compression 
of Discs and Annuli." Engineering Geology, 5, 173-225. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 
Elsevier. TIC: 253847. 
Mongano, G.S.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Beason, S.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Albin, A.L.; and 
Lung, R.C. 1999. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca 
Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. [Deliverable SPG42GM3]. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20000324.0614. 
Mostyn, G. and Douglas, K. 2000. "Strength of Intact Rock and Rock Masses." GeoEng2000, 
An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 19-24 November 2000, 
Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 1, 1389-1421. Lancaster, 
Pennsylvania: Technomic. TIC: 254732. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging of New and 
Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, July 1994 to November 1994. Open-File Report 
95-102. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 224224. 
Munsell Color Company 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1994 Revised Edition. New 
Windsor, New York: GretagMacbeth. TIC: 238646. 
Nimick, F.B. 1989. Thermal-Conductivity Data for Tuffs from the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-0624. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: NNA.19890515.0133. 
Nimick, F.B. 1990. The Thermal Conductivity of Seven Thermal/Mechanical Units at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-1387. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: NNA.19891213.0201. 
Nimick, F.B. 1990. The Thermal Conductivity of the Topopah Spring Member at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. SAND86-0090. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: NNA.19890516.0183. 
Nimick, F.B. and Connolly, J.R. 1991. Calculation of Heat Capacities for Tuffaceous Units 
from the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND88-3050. Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19910308.0017. 
Nimick, F.B.; Price, R.H.; Van Buskirk, R.G.; and Goodell, J.R. 1985. Uniaxial and Triaxial 
Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff from USW G-4, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
SAND84-1101. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19980602.0332. 
Olsson, W.A. 1982. Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressure on the Mechanical 
Behavior of Bullfrog Tuff. SAND81-1664. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0498. 
Olsson, W.A. 1987. Rock Joint Compliance Studies. SAND86-0177. Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870511.0131. 
Olsson, W.A. and Brown, S.R. 1997. Mechanical Properties of Fractures from Drillholes 
UE25-NRG-4, USW-NRG-6, USW-NRG-7, USW-SD-9 at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND951736. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970224.0064. 
Olsson, W.A. and Jones, A.K. 1980. Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuffs from the 
Nevada Test Site. SAND80-1453. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: NNA.19870406.0497. 
Ortiz, T.S.; Williams, R.L.; Nimick, F.B.; Whittet, B.C.; and South, D.L. 1985. A Three-
Dimensional Model of Reference Thermal/Mechanical and Hydrological Stratigraphy at Yucca 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Mountain, Southern Nevada. SAND84-1076. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980602.0331. 
PBT. 1993. Elastic Wave Velocity Measurements on Plug Core Samples from Borehole UE-25 
UZ#16, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Job #93004. Golden, Colorado: PBT. ACC: 
NNA.19931019.0042. 
Price, R.H. 1983. Analysis of the Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units from Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada Test Site. SAND82-1315. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0181. 
Price, R.H. 1986. Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of Topopah Spring Tuff. 
SAND85-0709. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
NNA.19891106.0125. 
Price, R.H. 1993. "Strength-Size-Porosity Empirical Model for Yucca Mountain Tuff." EOS, 
Transactions (Supplement), 74, (43), 571. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 210057. 
Price, R.H. and Bauer, S.J. 1985. "Analysis of the Elastic and Strength Properties of Yucca 
Mountain Tuff, Nevada." Research & Engineering Applications in Rock Masses, Proceedings of 
the 26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, South Dakota, June 26-28, 1985. 
Ashworth, E., ed. Pages 89-96. Boston, [Massachusetts]: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 218790. 
Price, R.H. and Jones, A.K. 1982. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Tests Series on Calico 
Hills Tuff. SAND82-1314. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
NNA.19900810.0480. 
Price, R.H. and Nimick, K.G. 1982. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Tram Tuff. SAND821055. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: HQS.19880517.1699. 
Price, R.H.; Boyd,, P.J.; Noel, J.S.; and Martin, R.J., III. 1994. "Relationship Between Static 
and Dynamic Rock Properties in Welded and Nonwelded Tuff." Rock Mechanics Models and 
Measurements Challenges from Industry, Proceedings of the 1st North American Rock 
Mechnaics Symposium, the University of Texas at Austin, 1-3 June 1994. Nelson, P.P. and 
Laubach, S.E., eds. Pages 505-529. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 254896. 
Price, R.H.; Connolly, J.R.; and Keil, K. 1987. Petrologic and Mechanical Properties of 
Outcrop Samples of the Welded, Devitrified Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. 
SAND86-1131. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
NNA.19870601.0013. 
Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J., III.; Boyd, P.J.; and Noel, J.S. 1994. "Mechanical and Bulk Properties 
in Support of ESF Design Issues." High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of 
the Fifth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26, 1994. 4, 19871992. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 210984. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Price, R.H.; Martin, R.J., III; and Boyd, P.J. 1993. "Characterization of Porosity in Support of 
Mechanical Property Analysis." High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the 
Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 1847-1853. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. 
Price, R.H.; Nimick, F.B.; Connolly, J.R.; Keil, K.; Schwartz, B.M.; and Spence, S.J. 1985. 
Preliminary Characterization of the Petrologic, Bulk, and Mechanical Properties of a 
Lithophysal Zone Within the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. SAND84-0860. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0156. 
Price, R.H.; Nimick, K.G.; and Zirzow, J.A. 1982. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test 
Series on Topopah Spring Tuff. SAND82-1723. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0063. 
Price, R.H.; Spence, S.J.; and Jones, A.K. 1984. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah 
Spring Tuff from USW GU-3, Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada. SAND83-1646. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0252. 
Regulatory Guide 1.28, Rev. 3. 1985. Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and 
Construction). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Readily available. 
Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 1988. 
Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Some 
Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open-File Report 87-649. [Denver, Colorado]: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
Sobolik, S.; George, J.T.; Riggins, M.; and Finley, R.E. 1998. Installation & Conduct of Plate 
Loading Test. Scientific Notebook 1-WA-0347-T2. ACC: MOL.19990505.0093. 
Sobolik, S.R. and George, J.T. 2001. Drift Scale Test: Determination of the In Situ Rock Mass 
Modulus in the DST Plate Loading Test Niche. SN-SNL-SCI-021-V1 and V2. ACC: 
MOL.20010605.0094. 
Sobolik, S.R.; Finley, R.E.; and Ballard, S. 1999. "Thermal-Mechanical Measurements in the 
Drift Scale Test, Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Rock Mechanics for Industry, Proceedings of the 
37th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vail, Colorado, USA, 6-9 June, 1999. Amadei, B.; 
Kranz, R.L.; Scott, G.A.; and Smeallie, P.H.; eds. 2, 735-742. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. 
Balkema. TIC: 245246. 
Sun, Y. 2002. Ground Control Methodology for Emplacement Drifts. TDR-GCS-GE-000002 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20021118.0097. 
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
TIC: 223837. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Torquato, S. 1987. "Thermal Conductivity of Disordered Heterogeneous Media from the 
Microstructure." Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 4, (3-4), 151-204. [London, England]: 
Freund Publishing House. TIC: 249565. 
Weast, R.C., ed. 1974. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 55th Edition. Pages F-109, 
F-112. Cleveland, Ohio: CRC Press. TIC: 237649. 
Williams, N.H. 2003. "Contract No. DE-AC28-01RW12101  Root Cause Determination for 
Corrective Action Report BSC(B)-03-C-107." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to J.D. Ziegler 
(DOE/ORD), September 5, 2003, NHW/MAJ:dsf  0905038679, with enclosure. ACC: 
MOL.20031107.0027. 
Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract #: DE-AC08-01NV12101 -- Thermal Test Progress Report 
#6." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to S.P. Mellington (DOE/YMSCO), April 19, 2001, 
PROJ.04/01.030, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010612.0531. 
Williams, N.H. 2001. "Contract No. DE-AC08-01RW12101  Uncertainty Analyses and 
Strategy Letter Report, REV 00, Activity #SA011481M4." Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to 
S.J. Brocoum (DOE/YMSCO), November 19, 2001, JM:cs-1116010483, with enclosure. ACC: 
MOL.20020109.0064. 
12.3 SOFTWARE 
Software Code: GoldSim. V7.50.100. PC WINDOWS 2000. 10344-7.50.100-00. 
Software Code: PFC2D. V2.0. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. 10828-2.0-00. 
Software Code: PFC3D. V.2.0. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. PC. 10830-2.0-00. 
Software Code: UDEC. V3.1. PC WINDOWS 2000/NT 4.0. 10173-3.1-00. 
12.4 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY TRACKING NUMBER 
GS000608314224.004. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 35+00 to Station 
40+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/20/2000. 
GS000608314224.006. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 26+00 to 30+00, 
North Ramp and Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps (Drawings OA-46-
222 through OA-46-226) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 06/28/2000. 
GS021008314224.002. Lithophysal Data Study from the Tptpll in the ECRB from Stations 
14+44 to 23+26. Submittal date: 01/28/2003. 
GS030283114222.001. Direct Shear Data from Selected Samples of the Topopah Spring Tuff. 
Submittal date: 02/20/2003. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
GS030483351030.001. Bulk Density, Rock-Particle Density, Porosity Properties of Core 
Samples of Spot, Rim & Matrix-Groundmass from 17 Boreholes in the Upper & Lower 
Lithophysal Zones of the Topopah Spring Tuff from the ESF & ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal 
date: 04/24/2003. 
GS921283114220.006. Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Intact Rock Core 
Test Specimens. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. 
GS921283114220.008. Uniaxial Compression and Elastic Properties of Intact Rock Core 
Specimens from UE-25 NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. 
GS921283114220.009. Triaxial Compression and Elastic Properties of Intact Rock Core Test 
Specimens from UE-25 NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/03/1992. 
GS921283114220.010. Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens from UE-25 
NRG#1. Submittal date: 12/04/1992. 
GS940408312232.010. Elastic Wave Velocity Measurements in Plug Core Samples from 
Borehole UE-25 UZ #16, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 02/10/1994. 
GS950508314224.003. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data - Full Periphery Map Data from 
North Ramp of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Stations 0+60 to 4+00. Submittal date: 
05/24/1995. 
GS960708314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 30 + 00 to Station 35 
+ 00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 
GS960708314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to Station 
45+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 
GS960908314224.014. Provisional Results - ESF Main Drift, Station 50+00 to Station 55+00. 
Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
GS960908314224.015. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Stations 30+00 to 40+00, 
Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings 
Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
GS960908314224.016. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to 50+00, 
Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings 
Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
GS960908314224.017. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Stations 50+00 to 55+00, 
Main Drift of the ESF, Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings 
Report. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
GS960908314224.020. Analysis Report: Geology of the North Ramp - Stations 4+00 to 28+00 
and Data: Detailed Line Survey and Full-Periphery Geotechnical Map - Alcoves 3 (UPCA) and 
4 (LPCA), and Comparative Geologic Cross Section - Stations 0+60 to 28+00. Submittal date: 
09/09/1996. 
GS970108314224.002. Geotechnical Data for Station 55+00 to 60+00, Main Drift of the ESF, 
Full Periphery Geotechnical Maps and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 
01/31/1997. 
GS970208314224.003. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of 
the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. 
GS970208314224.004. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of 
the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. 
GS970608314224.007. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for the Exploratory Studies 
Facility, Main Drift, Alcove 5 (DWFA): Heated Drift and Cross Drift Full Periphery 
Geotechnical Map (Drawing OA-46-300) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal 
date: 06/24/1997. 
GS970808314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 65+00 to Station 
70+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/18/1997. 
GS970808314224.009. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 65+00 to Station 
70+00, South Ramp of the ESF; Full-Periphery Geotechnical Maps (Drawings 0A-46-269 
through 0A-46-274) and Rock Mass Quality Ratings Report. Submittal date: 08/18/1997. 
GS970808314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 70+00 to Station 
75+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. 
GS970808314224.011. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 70+00 to Station 
75+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. 
GS970808314224.013. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 75+00 to Station 
78+77, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/25/1997. 
GS971108314224.023. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 10 + 00 to Station 18 + 
00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
GS971108314224.024. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 18+00 to Station 
26+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
GS971108314224.025. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 26+00 to Station 
30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
GS971108314224.026. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 45+00 to Station
50+00, Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
GS971108314224.028. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 55+00 to Station
60+00, Main Drift and South Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
GS990408314224.001. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18, ECRB
Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990408314224.002. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85, ECRB
Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990408314224.003. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station -0+10 to 10+00, ECRB Cross
Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990408314224.004. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 10+00 to 15+00, ECRB Cross
Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990408314224.005. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 15+00 to 20+00, ECRB Cross
Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990408314224.006. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 20+00 to 26+81, ECRB Cross
Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
GS990908314224.009. Detailed Line Survey Data for Horizontal and Vertical Traverses,
ECRB. Submittal date: 09/16/1999. 
LL980411104244.061. DST Baseline REKA Probe Measurements for Thermal Conductivity
and Diffusivity. Submittal date: 04/24/1998. 
LL980902104244.070. DST Baseline REKA Probe Measurements for Thermal Conductivity
and Diffusivity. Submittal date: 09/03/1998. 
LL990205304243.032. Effect of Radiation on Strength of Topopah Springs Tuff. Submittal
date: 02/08/1999. 
MO0007RIB00077.000. In Situ Rock Conditions. Submittal date: 07/18/2000. 
MO0008SPAFRA06.004. Fracture Geometry Data for the Lithostratigraphic Units of the
Repository Host Horizon. Submittal date: 08/28/2000. 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal date: 
12/18/2000. 
MO0204RIB00121.000. Rock Thermal Expansion Coefficient. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
MO0204RIB00122.000. 
MO0204RIB00123.000. 
MO0204RIB00124.000. 
MO0204RIB00125.000. 
MO0204RIB00126.000. 
MO0204RIB00127.000. 
MO0204RIB00128.000. 
MO0204RIB00129.000. 
MO0204RIB00133.000. 
04/03/2002. 
MO0204RIB00134.000. 
MO0204RIB00135.000. 
MO0204RIB00136.000. 
MO0204RIB00137.000. 
MO0204RIB00138.000. 
MO0204RIB00139.000. 
MO0204RIB00140.000. 
MO0204RIB00141.000. 
MO0204RIB00142.000. 
MO0204RIB00143.000. 
MO0204RIB00144.000. 
MO0204RIB00145.000. 
MO0204RIB00146.000. 
MO0204RIB00149.000. 
Rock Triaxial Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Rock Triaxial Creep. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Dynamic Poisson's Ratio. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Rock Dynamic Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Intact Rock Poisson's Ratio. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Intact Rock Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
In Situ Rock Deformation Modulus. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
In Situ Rock Young's Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2002.
Rock Tensile Strength (Brazilian Method). Submittal date: 
Intact Rock Cohesion. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Tensile Strength (Direct Pull). Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Intact Rock Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Uniaxial Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Joint Cohesion. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Joint Dilation Angle. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Joint Normal Stiffness. Submittal date: 04/04/2002. 
Rock Joint Peak Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/03/2002.
Rock Joint Peak Shear Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Rock Joint Residual Friction Angle. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Rock Joint Residual Shear Strength. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Rock Joint Shear Stiffness. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
Schmidt Rebound Hardness. Submittal date: 04/03/2002.
Rock Thermal Capacitance. Submittal date: 04/03/2002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
MO0204RIB00150.000. Rock Thermal Conductivity for Underground Design. Submittal date: 
04/03/2002. 
MO0210RIB10000.000. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial Compressive Strength, 
Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, and Cohesion. Submittal date: 02/24/2003. 
MO0301SETSTTST.000. Tensile Strength Testing of Topopah Spring Tuff. Submittal date: 
01/09/2003. 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Intact Rock Properties Data on Poisson's Ratio and Young's 
Modulus. Submittal date: 04/03/2003. 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. Data Summary For Intact Rock Properties Data On Tensile Strength. 
Submittal date: 07/15/2003. 
MO0306MWDDDMIO.001. Drift Degradation Model Inputs and Outputs. Submittal date: 
06/23/2003. URN-1111 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial Compressive 
Strength. Submittal date: 08/05/2003. 
SN0011F3912298.022. Plate-Loading Measured Displacement and Test Pressure Data (with 
Results from 10/16/2000 through 10/17/2000). Submittal date: 11/30/2000. 
SN0011F3912298.023. Plate-Loading Rock Mass Modulus Data (with Results from 10/16/2000 
through 10/17/2000). Submittal date: 11/30/2000. 
SN0108SD821723.001. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Data on Samples from USW 
G-1 (VA Supporting Data). Submittal date: 08/09/2001. 
SN0203L2210196.007. Thermal Expansion and Thermal Conductivity of Test Specimens from 
the Drift Scale Test Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. VA 
Supporting Data. Submittal date: 03/06/2002. 
SN0206F3504502.011. Revised Data for Changes in Temperature at Each Thermocouple 
Location for ECRB Thermal K Test 1 (Two-Hole Test). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. 
SN0206F3504502.012. Revised Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal 
Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 1 (Two-Hole Test). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. 
SN0206F3504502.013. Revised Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal 
Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 3 (Three-Hole Test, with Results from 1/22/2002 
through 4/9/2002). Submittal date: 06/07/2002. 
SN0207F4102102.001. Rock Modulus Slot Test #1, Location 57+70 in the ESF. Submittal 
date: 07/22/2002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SN0208F3504502.019. Thermal Conductivity, Volumetric Heat Capacity and Thermal 
Diffusivity Data for ECRB Thermal K Test 2 (Six-Hole Test). Submittal date: 08/30/2002. 
SN0208F3912298.039. Rock Mass Thermal Expansion Coefficients Determined from the Drift 
Scale Test Heating Phase MPBX Measurements. Submittal date: 08/06/2002. 
SN0208F4102102.002. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 in the 
ESF. Submittal date: 08/27/2002. 
SN0208L01B8102.001. Thermal Expansion Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #1 (Test 
Dates: August 3, 2002 through August 16, 2002). Submittal date: 08/28/2002. 
SN0208L0207502.001. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #1 (Test Dates: July 
31, 2002 through August 16, 2002). Submittal date: 08/20/2002. 
SN0208T0503102.007. Thermal Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Rev 3. 
Submittal date: 08/26/2002. 
SN0209L01A1202.001. Thermal Conductivity Laboratory Data (Including Densities and 
Porosities) Generated in FY02 on the Topopah Springs Lower Lithophysal (TPTPLL) 
Lithostratigraphic Unit. Submittal date: 09/23/2002. 
SN0211L01B8102.002. Thermal Expansion Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #2 (Test 
Dates: October 20, 2002 through October 25, 2002). Submittal date: 11/13/2002. 
SN0211L0207502.002. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #2 (Test Dates: 
October 22, 2002 through October 25, 2002). Submittal date: 11/13/2002. 
SN0212F4102102.003. Rock Modulus Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the ESF. Submittal 
date: 12/04/2002. 
SN0212F4102102.004. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in the 
ESF. Submittal date: 12/17/2002. 
SN0301F4102102.005. Rock Modulus Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the ECRB. Submittal 
date: 01/08/2003. 
SN0301F4102102.006. Rock Mass Mechanical Properties, Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in the 
ECRB. Submittal date: 01/14/2003. 
SN0301F4102102.007. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 in 
the ESF. Submittal date: 01/23/2003. 
SN0301F4102102.008. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #1, Location 57+77 
in the ESF. Submittal date: 01/23/2003. 
SN0302F4102102.009. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 in 
the ESF. Submittal date: 02/14/2003. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SN0302F4102102.010. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #2, Location 63+83 
in the ESF. Submittal date: 02/14/2003. 
SN0302L0207502.003. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Room Temperature Batch 
#4, Set 1 (Test Dates: 01/21/03 through 01/23/03). Submittal date: 02/25/2003. 
SN0303F4102102.011. Abundance of Lithophysal Features at Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 in 
the ECRB. Submittal date: 03/12/2003. 
SN0303F4102102.012. Lithophysal Porosity Summary Report for Slot Test #3, Location 21+25 
in the ECRB. Submittal date: 03/12/2003. 
SN0303T0503102.008. Revised Thermal Conductivity of the Non-Repository Layers of Yucca 
Mountain. Submittal date: 03/19/2003. 
SN0305L0207502.004. Mechanical Properties of Lithophysal Tuff, Batch #4, Set 2 (Test Dates: 
March 5, 2003 through March 13, 2003). Submittal date: 05/01/2003. 
SN0305L0207502.006. Porosity of Laboratory Mechanical Properties Test Specimens for Batch 
#1 and Batch #2. Submittal date: 05/20/2003. 
SN0306F3912298.048. Plate-Loading Measured Displacement and Test Pressure Data for 2003 
(with Results from 4/30/2003). Submittal date: 06/25/2003. 
SN0306F3912298.049. Plate-Loading Rock Mass Modulus Data for 2003. Submittal date: 
06/25/2003. 
SN0306L0207502.008. Revised Mechanical Properties of Welded Tuff from the Lower 
Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff, Batch #3 (Test Dates: March 6, 2003 through 
April 18, 2003). Submittal date: 06/20/2003. 
SN0307T0503102.009. Thermal Conductivity Model for the Non-Repository Layers of Yucca 
Mountain. Submittal date: 07/21/2003. 
SN0307T0510902.003. Updated Heat Capacity of Yucca Mountain Stratigraphic Units. 
Submittal date: 07/15/2003. 
SNF35110695001.010. Goodman Jack Measurements in the Single Heater Test Block. 
Submittal date: 05/25/1999. 
SNL01A05059301.005. Laboratory Thermal Conductivity Data for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, 
NRG-5; USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. 
SNL01B05059301.006. Laboratory Thermal Expansion Data for Boreholes UE25 NRG-4, 
NRG-5; USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SNL01C12159302.002. Laboratory Measurements of Heat Capacity/Thermal Capacitance, for 
Boreholes UE25 NRG-4 and NRG-5. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. 
SNL02000000011.000. Matrix Compressive Tests of the Topopah Spring Member in USW GU3. 
Submittal date: 09/23/1992. 
SNL02030180001.001. Matrix Compressive Tests to Characterize Tuffs from UE-25A#1 and 
the Laser Drift in G-Tunnel. Submittal date: 08/20/1985. 
SNL02030193001.001. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from 
Depth 22.2 ft. to 328.7 ft. Submittal date: 05/17/1993. 
SNL02030193001.002. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from 
Depth 22.2 ft. to 427.0 ft. Submittal date: 06/25/1993. 
SNL02030193001.003. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE-25 NRG-2 Samples from 
Depth 150.5 ft. to 200.0 ft. Submittal date: 07/07/1993. 
SNL02030193001.004. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-6 Samples from 
Depth 462.3 ft. to 1085.0 ft. Submittal date: 08/05/1993. 
SNL02030193001.005. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE-25 NRG#3 Samples from 
Depth 15.4 ft. to 297.1 ft. Submittal date: 09/23/1993. 
SNL02030193001.006. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#2A Samples 
from Depth 90.0 ft. to 254.5 ft. Submittal date: 10/13/1993. 
SNL02030193001.007. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#3 Samples from 
Depth 263.3 ft. to 265.7 ft. Submittal date: 10/20/1993. 
SNL02030193001.008. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole USW NRG-6 Sample 416.0 
ft. Submittal date: 10/20/1993. 
SNL02030193001.009. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-5 Samples from 
Depth 781.0 ft. to 991.9 ft. Submittal date: 11/18/1993. 
SNL02030193001.010. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-2B Samples from 
Depth 2.7 ft. to 87.6 ft. Submittal date: 11/18/1993. 
SNL02030193001.012. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-5 Samples from 
Depth 847.2 ft. to 896.5 ft. Submittal date: 12/02/1993. 
SNL02030193001.013. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-2B Samples from 
Depth 2.7 ft. to 87.6 ft. Submittal date: 12/02/1993. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SNL02030193001.014. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-4 Samples from 
Depth 378.1 ft. to 695.8 ft. Submittal date: 01/31/1994. 
SNL02030193001.015. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole UE25 NRG-4 Samples from 
Depth 527.0 ft. Submittal date: 02/16/1994. 
SNL02030193001.016. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples 
from Depth 18.0 ft. to 472.9 ft. Submittal date: 03/16/1994. 
SNL02030193001.017. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples 
from Depth 18.0 ft. to 495.0 ft. Submittal date: 03/21/1994. 
SNL02030193001.018. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples 
from Depth 344.4 ft. Submittal date: 04/11/1994. 
SNL02030193001.019. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples 
from Depth 507.4 ft. to 881.0 ft. Submittal date: 06/29/1994. 
SNL02030193001.020. Mechanical Properties Data for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A Samples 
from Depth 554.7 ft. to 1450.1 ft. Submittal date: 07/25/1994. 
SNL02030193001.021. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Static Elastic 
Properties, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & Porosity) for Drillhole USW NRG-7/7A 
Samples from Depth 345.0 ft. to 1408.6 ft. Submittal date: 02/16/1995. 
SNL02030193001.022. Mechanical Properties Data for Drill Hole USW NRG-6 Samples from 
Depth 5.7 ft. to 1092.3 ft. Submittal date: 02/27/1995. 
SNL02030193001.023. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Static Elastic 
Properties, Unconfined Strength, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & Porosity) for Drillhole 
USW SD-12 Samples from Depth 16.1 ft. to 1300.3 ft. Submittal date: 08/02/1995. 
SNL02030193001.024. Elevated Temperature Confined Compression Tests (Ultrasonic 
Velocities, Static Elastic Properties, Unconfined Strength, Triaxial Strength, Dry Bulk Density & 
Porosity) for Drillhole USW SD-9 Samples from Depth 52.6 ft. to 2222.9 ft. Submittal date: 
09/05/1995. 
SNL02030193001.026. Mechanical Properties Data (Ultrasonic Velocities, Elastic Moduli and 
Fracture Strength) for Borehole USW SD-9. Submittal date: 02/22/1996. 
SNL02030193001.027. Summary of Bulk Property Measurements Including Saturated Bulk 
Density for NRG-2, NRG-2A, NRG-2B, NRG-3, NRG-4, NRG-5, NRG-6, NRG-7/7A, SD-9, 
and SD12. Submittal date: 08/14/1996. 
SNL02030193001.028. Confined Compression Experiments at 150 Degrees C on TSW2 from 
Borehole USW SD-9. Submittal date: 09/05/1996. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SNL02033084002.001. Parameter Effects on Matrix Compressive Properties of the Topopah 
Spring Member at Busted Butte. Submittal date: 08/28/1987. 
SNL02040687003.001. Mechanical Property Data to Analyze the Response of Samples of Unit 
TSW2 to High Temperature and/or Low Strain Rates. Submittal date: 09/30/1992. 
SNL02072983001.001. Laboratory Comparison of Mechanical Compressive Data from Matrix 
Compressive Tests Using Busted Butte Outcrop Samples. Submittal date: 01/03/1985. 
SNL02072983003.001. Laboratory Comparison of Mechanical Compressive Data from Matrix 
Compressive Tests Using the Busted Butte Outcrop Samples. Submittal date: 01/03/1985. 
SNL02100196001.001. Unconfined Compression Tests on Specimens from the Drift Scale Test 
Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 
05/14/1997. 
SNL02112293001.001. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures on Samples 
from NRG-4 and NRG-6 Drillholes. Submittal date: 08/18/1994. 
SNL02112293001.002. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures from NRG7. 
Submittal date: 03/10/1995. 
SNL02112293001.003. Results from Shear Stress Experiments on Natural Fractures from NRG4 
& NRG-6. Submittal date: 03/13/1995. 
SNL02112293001.005. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillhole USW 
SD-9. Submittal date: 07/15/1996. 
SNL02112293001.006. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillhole USW 
SD-7 and ESF-TMA-MPBX-3 at Elevated Temperature. Submittal date: 07/30/1996. 
SNL02112293001.007. Mechanical Properties of Fractures in Specimens from Drillholes USW 
NRG-7/7A and USW SD-12. Submittal date: 08/08/1996. 
SNL22080196001.001. Thermal Properties of Test Specimens from the Single Heater Test Area 
in the Thermal Testing Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 08/15/1996. 
SNL22080196001.002. Unconfined Compression Tests on Specimens from the Single Heater 
Test Area in the Thermal Testing Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 
08/22/1996. 
SNL22080196001.003. Posttest Laboratory Thermal and Mechanical Characterization for 
Single Heater Test (SHT) Block. Submittal date: 08/26/1998. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
SNL22100196001.006. Laboratory Measurements of Thermal Conductivity as a Function of 
Saturation State for Welded and Nonwelded Tuff Specimens. Submittal date: 06/08/1998. 
SNSAND80145300.000. Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuffs from the Nevada Test 
Site. Submittal date: 01/04/1985. 
SNSAND81166400.000. Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressure on the Mechanical 
Behavior of Bullfrog Tuff. Submittal date: 11/30/1998. 
SNSAND82048100.000. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Bullfrog Tuff. Submittal date: 
11/30/1998. 
SNSAND82105500.000. Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Tram Tuff. Submittal date: 
11/30/1998. 
SNSAND82131400.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Calico Hills Tuff. 
Submittal date: 04/24/1992. 
SNSAND82131500.000. Analysis of Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units from 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. Submittal date: 02/10/1997. 
SNSAND83164600.000. Experimental Data of Fully Saturated and Wet Samples; Static 
Mechanical Properties of GU-3 760.9 Samples; Ultrasonic Velocity Data; and Dynamic Elastic 
Model of GU-3 760.9 Samples Compression Test. Submittal date: 04/24/1992. 
SNSAND84086000.000. Petrological, Mineralogical, Mechanical and Bulk Properties of 
Lithophysal Tuff. Submittal date: 04/24/1992. 
SNSAND84110100.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring 
Tuff from USW G-4, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 02/01/1986. 
SNSAND85070300.000. Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on the Topopah Spring 
Member from USW G-2, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 09/24/1987. 
SNSAND85070900.000. Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff. Submittal date: 12/16/1998. 
SNSAND86113100.000. Petrologic and Mechanical Properties of Outcrop Samples of the 
Welded, Devitrified Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff. Submittal date: 
06/11/1987. 
SNSAND91089400.000. Anisotropy of the Topopah Spring Member Tuff. Submittal date: 
01/08/1999. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
UN0106SPA013GD.004. Drift Scale Thermal Test (DST) REKA Probe Developed Data for 
Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity for the Period 05/01/1998 to 04/30/2001 (Heated 
Measurements for Boreholes 151, 152, and 153). Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
UN0201SPA013GD.007. DST REKA Probe Developed Data for Thermal Conductivity and 
Diffusivity for the Period 05/01/2001 to 12/31/2001 (Heated Measurements for Boreholes 151 
and 152). Submittal date: 01/07/2002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 12-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
13. ATTACHMENTS 
A list of attachments is provided in Table 13-1, including the number, title, and total pages for 
each attachment. 
Table 13-1. List of Attachments 
Attachment 
Number Attachment Title 
Number of 
Pages 
I Histograms of Intact Mechanical Rock Tests 83 
II MathCAD Worksheets to Develop Intact Rock Hoek-Brown Parameters 32 
III Alternate Rock Mass Property Calculation From Hoek Tunnel Method 6 
IV Spatial Plots of Subsurface Rock Parameters 27 
V Lithophysal Rock Modeling Using PFC 152 
VI Lithophysal Rock Modeling Using UDEC 6 
VII Description of Lithophysal Abundance and Lithophysal Characteristics in the ECRB 
Cross Drift 44 
VIII Electronic Computer Files Supporting Calculations 4 
IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 51 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 13-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A 13-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT I
HISTOGRAMS OF INTACT MECHANICAL ROCK TESTS
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT I 
HISTOGRAMS OF INTACT MECHANICAL ROCK TESTS 
I.1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: YOUNGS MODULUS 
3111350 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 1 3.33% 
15 0 3.33% 
20 2 10.00% 
25 12 50.00% 
30 15 100.00% 
35 0 100.00% 
40 0 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
0 5 20 25 35 40 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
10 15 30 45 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
30 
Figure I-1. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3111350 
3121130 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 1 33.33% 
40 2 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mil0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 20 30 35 40 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
dde Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-3 
25 45 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
3 
Figure I-2. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3121130 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3121150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
0 5 15 20 30 40 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
10 25 35 45 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
15 
4 
3 
3 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
66.67% 
80.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
30 
Figure I-3. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3121150 
3121170 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 1 50.00% 
40 1 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-7 
40 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-4. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3121170 
3231150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 1 6.25% 
35 4 31.25% 
40 9 87.50% 
45 2 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
16 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 38mm 
Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
25 35 45 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-5. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3231150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3231350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 5 10 20 30 35 40 
l) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 38mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
15 25 45 50 More 
Young's Moduus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
2 
8 
2 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
14.29% 
28.57% 
85.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
14 
Figure I-6. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3231350 
3331350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 4 18.18% 
35 13 77.27% 
40 5 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
22 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
0 5 10 25 30 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lthophysal 42mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
15 20 35 40 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-7. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3331350 
3411150 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 1 25.00% 
40 0 25.00% 
45 2 75.00% 
50 1 100.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 30 35 40 45 50 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
20 25 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
4 
Figure I-8. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3411150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3411170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
Mili0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-7 
30 35 40 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
4 
Figure I-9. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3411170 
3412130 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 1 50.00% 
20 0 50.00% 
25 0 50.00% 
30 0 50.00% 
35 0 50.00% 
40 1 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-3 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-10. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3412130 
3412150 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 0 .00% 
40 3 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 20 25 30 40 45 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
10 15 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
3 
Figure I-11. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3412150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3421130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-3 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
4 
Figure I-12. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3421130 
3412170 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 0 .00% 
40 3 75.00% 
45 1 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-7 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
4 
Figure I-13. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3412170 
3412180 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 1 25.00% 
40 1 50.00% 
45 1 75.00% 
50 0 75.00% 
Mi0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-8 
15 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 1 100.00% 
4 
Figure I-14. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3412180 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3421150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
0 5 10 20 25 35 40 45 50 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
15 30 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
1 
3 
1 
5 
15 
14 
1 
1 
0 
.00% 
2.44% 
9.76% 
12.20% 
24.39% 
60.98% 
95.12% 
97.56% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
41 
Figure I-15. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3421150 
3421170 
Mil 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 
(
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysa50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-7 
35 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 0 .00% 
40 2 50.00% 
45 2 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
4 
Figure I-16. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3421170 
3421190 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 1 16.67% 
35 3 66.67% 
40 2 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 10 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-9 
15 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-17. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3421190 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3422150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
4 
Figure I-18. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3422150 
3521150 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 1 11.11% 
40 2 33.33% 
45 5 88.89% 
50 1 100.00% 
Middll 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 5 10 20 30 40 45 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
e Non-Lithophysa82mm 
Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
15 25 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
9 
Figure I-19. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3521150 
3621150 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 1 9.09% 
35 4 45.45% 
40 4 81.82% 
45 1 90.91% 
50 1 100.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 5 10 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
15 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
11 
Figure I-20. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3621150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3921150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
Miii0 
1 
2 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle Non-Lthophysal 228.6mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
2 
Figure I-21. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 3921150 
4121120 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 1 50.00% 
35 0 50.00% 
40 1 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
li0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 20 30 40 45 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-2 
15 25 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-22. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 4121120 
4121140 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 1 50.00% 
35 0 50.00% 
40 1 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
li0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 20 25 40 
l) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-4 
15 30 35 45 50 More 
Young's Moduus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-23. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 4121140 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4121160 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
li0 
1 
2 
0 5 15 25 30 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-6 
10 20 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00%
More 
Figure I-24. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 4121160 
4121150 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 2 20.00% 
25 1 30.00% 
30 0 30.00% 
35 4 70.00% 
40 3 100.00% 
45 0 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
li0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 5 15 20 35 40 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Non-Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
10 25 30 45 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
Figure I-25. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 4121150 
1421150 
Bi
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 
(
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 40 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
12.50% 
37.50% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
87.50% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
8 
Figure I-26. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 15 20 25 45 50 
(
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lthophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 40 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-27. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1431150 
1721150 
Bi
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 5 10 30 35 40 45 
l () 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1015 20 25 50 More 
Young's ModuusGpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
4 
5 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
40.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
10 
Figure I-28. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1721150 
1813250 
Bi
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 25 30 40 45 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 290mm 
Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 1020 35 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
3 
Figure I-29. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1813250 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
il 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Upper Lthophysa290mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa100% 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
33.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-30. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1821150 
1831150 
Bi
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 15 20 30 40 45 
l () 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 290mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 25 35 50 More 
Young's ModuusGpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
2 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-31. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 1831150 
2121150 
Bi
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
0 5 25 30 35 40 45 
(
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 15 20 50 More 
Young's Modulus Gpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
8 
3 
10 
5 
0 
0 
.00% 
3.57% 
3.57% 
3.57% 
7.14% 
35.71% 
46.43% 
82.14% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
28 
Figure I-32. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2121150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
50
.00% 
l-7 
0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 15 20 35 40 45 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1025 30 50 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-33. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2121170 
2421150 
Bi
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 10 15 20 25 40 45 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1030 35 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
3 
1 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
37.50% 
75.00% 
87.50% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
8 
Figure I-34. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2421150 
2431150 
Bi
-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-35. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2431150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 5 15 25 30 35 40 50 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysa 127mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1010 20 45 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-36. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2631150 
2831150 
Bi
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 5 10 15 30 35 40 45 50 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 290mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1020 25 More 
Young's Modulus (Gpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
33.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
3 
Figure I-37. Histogram Of Unconfined Compressive Strength Youngs Modulus Condition 2831150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: UNCONFINED 
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH POROSITY LESS THAN 11% 
3421150 4421150 Porosity less than 11% 
Bin FrequencyCumulative % 
0 0 .00%
20 0 .00%
40 0 .00%
60 0 .00%
80 0 .00%
100 1 4.55%
120 2 13.64% 
140 1 18.18% 
160 1 22.73% 
180 5 45.45% 
200 2 54.55% 
220 2 63.64% 
240 3 77.27% 
260 3 90.91% 
280 1 95.45% 
More 1 100.00% 
mean 191.8 
st dev 53.67 
Mil 
ii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 120 160 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ddle and Lower Non-Lithophysa50.8mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 10-5 
40 80 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 
Porosity less than 11% 
Figure I-38. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Conditions 3421150, 4421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: UNCONFINED 
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 
3111350 
Bin 
0 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
40 1 3.33% 
60 3 13.33% 
80 2 20.00% 
100 1 23.33% 
120 1 26.67% 
140 4 40.00% 
160 4 53.33% 
180 5 70.00% 
200 2 76.67% 
220 5 93.33% 
240 2 100.00% 
260 0 100.00% 
280 0 100.00% 
Mii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 
i(
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ddle Non-Lthophysal 25.4mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfned Compressive Strength Mpa) 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
More 0 100.00% 
30 
Figure I-39. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 
3121130 
Bin 
Mi-3 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 200 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-40. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
Mii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 120 200 240 280 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 160 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
5 
5 
8 
4 
4 
1 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
3.33% 
6.67% 
6.67% 
10.00% 
26.67% 
43.33% 
70.00% 
83.33% 
96.67% 
100.00% 
30 
Figure I-41. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121150 
3121170 
Bin 
Mii-7 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 280 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-42. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 
3231150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
40 0 .00% 
60 0 .00% 
80 1 6.25% 
100 1 12.50% 
120 1 18.75% 
140 2 31.25% 
160 2 43.75% 
180 4 68.75% 
200 0 68.75% 
220 1 75.00% 
240 2 87.50% 
260 0 87.50% 
280 1 93.75% 
More 1 100.00% 
16 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Figure I-43. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.5:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
14.29% 
21.43% 
28.57% 
35.71% 
42.86% 
50.00% 
64.29% 
71.43% 
85.71% 
85.71% 
85.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
14 
Figure I-44. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231350 
3331350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
40 0 .00% 
60 0 .00% 
80 3 13.64% 
100 2 22.73% 
120 3 36.36% 
140 2 45.45% 
160 4 63.64% 
180 4 81.82% 
200 1 86.36% 
220 1 90.91% 
240 1 95.45% 
260 1 100.00% 
280 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
22 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 41.9mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.42:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Figure I-45. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 
3411150 
Bin 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
4 
Figure I-46. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 0 .00%
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
25.00% 
25.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-47. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 
3412130 
Bin 
Mi-3 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-48. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 
3412150 
Bin 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
3 
Figure I-49. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 0 .00%
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-50. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 
3412180 
Bin 
Mi-8 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-51. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 
3421130 
Bin 
Mi-3 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
4 
Figure I-52. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
1 
2 
2 
1 
7 
2 
5 
3 
4 
4 
5 
4 
1 
1 
.00% 
2.38% 
7.14% 
11.90% 
14.29% 
30.95% 
35.71% 
47.62% 
54.76% 
64.29% 
73.81% 
85.71% 
95.24% 
97.62% 
100.00% 
42 
Figure I-53. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 
3421170 
Bin 
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-54. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 
3421190 
Bin 
Mi-9 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
16.67% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
6 
Figure I-55. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
Mii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-56. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 
3521150 
Bin 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 82.6mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
3 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
11.11% 
11.11% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
88.89% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
9 
Figure I-57. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 
3621150 
Bin 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
7 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
9.09% 
18.18% 
81.82% 
81.82% 
90.91% 
90.91% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
11 
Figure I-58. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3921150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 0 .00%
Mil 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
) 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ddle Non-Lithophysa228.6mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MpaFrequency 
100% 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-59. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 
4121120 
Bin 
-2 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-60. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 
4121140 
Bin 
-4 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
2 
Figure I-61. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
1 
0 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
10.00% 
10.00% 
30.00% 
40.00% 
60.00% 
80.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-62. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 
4121160 
Bin 
-6 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-63. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 
4421150 
Bin 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 120 160 200 240 280 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
3 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
10.00% 
10.00% 
20.00% 
50.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
10 
Figure I-64. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4431150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
ii0 
1 
2 
3 
0 280 
i) 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
40 80 120 160 200 240 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 
100% 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-65. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4431150 
1431150 
Bin 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 240 
(
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 200 280 
Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa) 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
Figure I-66. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1431150 
1421150 
Bin 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
i () 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfned Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
12.50% 
37.50% 
50.00% 
62.50% 
87.50% 
87.50% 
87.50% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
8 
Figure I-67. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 1 90.00%
-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 
i) 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
1 
Figure I-68. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1613150 
1631150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
20.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 240 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 280 
Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
5 
Figure I-69. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1631150 
1621150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
20 1 50.00% 
40 0 50.00% 
60 0 50.00% 
80 0 50.00% 
100 0 50.00% 
120 0 50.00% 
140 0 50.00% 
160 1 100.00% 
180 0 100.00% 
200 0 100.00% 
220 0 100.00% 
240 0 100.00% 
260 0 100.00% 
280 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 120 160 200 240 
i) 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-70. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1621150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 9 90.00%
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
0 
i () 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfned Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-71. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1721150 
1813250 
Bin 
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 290mm 
Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
33.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-72. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1813250 
1821150 
Bin 
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 290mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
3 
Figure I-73. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1821150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 3 50.00%
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 290mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-74. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 1831150 
2121150 
Bin 
ili-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 280 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lthophysa 25.4mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
3 
0 
1 
3 
6 
2 
4 
5 
5 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
10.00% 
10.00% 
13.33% 
23.33% 
43.33% 
50.00% 
63.33% 
80.00% 
96.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
30 
Figure I-75. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2121150 
2121170 
Bin 
-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
iiFrequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfned Compressve Strength (Mpa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
2 
Figure I-76. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2121170 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00%
20 0 .00%
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
3 
2 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6.67% 
13.33% 
20.00% 
33.33% 
40.00% 
60.00% 
73.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
15 
Figure I-77. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2421150 
2431150 
Bin 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
0 120 200 280 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 160 240 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
3 
9 
11 
10 
10 
7 
5 
1 
2 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
1.69% 
1.69% 
6.78% 
22.03% 
40.68% 
57.63% 
74.58% 
86.44% 
94.92% 
96.61% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
59 
Figure I-78. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2431150 
2512150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
40 0 .00% 
60 1 25.00% 
80 0 25.00% 
100 0 25.00% 
120 0 25.00% 
140 0 25.00% 
160 0 25.00% 
180 2 75.00% 
200 1 100.00% 
220 0 100.00% 
240 0 100.00% 
260 0 100.00% 
More 
280 0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 120 240 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 127mm 
Ambient Saturaton Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 160 200 280 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
4 
Figure I-79. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2512150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
5 
3 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
8.33% 
8.33% 
8.33% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
iAmbi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Lower Lthophysal 127mm 
ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 
12 
Figure I-80. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2531150 
2631150 
Bin 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 127mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressive StrengthMpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
4 
3 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
5.88% 
11.76% 
17.65% 
23.53% 
47.06% 
64.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
17 
Figure I-81. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2631150 
2813250 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
40 2 100.00% 
60 0 100.00% 
80 0 100.00% 
100 0 100.00% 
120 0 100.00% 
140 0 100.00% 
160 0 100.00% 
180 0 100.00% 
200 0 100.00% 
220 0 100.00% 
240 0 100.00% 
260 0 100.00% 
More 
280 0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
iAmbi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Lower Lthophysal 290mm 
ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 160 200 240 280 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (Mpa100% 
2 
Figure I-82. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2813250 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2831150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
20 1 33.33% 
40 2 100.00% 
60 0 100.00% 
80 0 100.00% 
100 0 100.00% 
120 0 100.00% 
140 0 100.00% 
160 0 100.00% 
180 0 100.00% 
200 0 100.00% 
220 0 100.00% 
240 0 100.00% 
260 0 100.00% 
280 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
3 
Ambi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 160 200 240 280 
i) 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 290mm 
ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 1040 80 120 
Unconfned Compressive Strength (MpaFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-83. Unconfined Compressive Strength Strength Condition 2831150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: POROSITY 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
0 
0 
1 
ity (%) 
0% 
2 Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
No Data 
PorosFrequency10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-84. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 
3121130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
Ratiiini0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confng Pressure = 0 
More 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency 
3 
Figure I-85. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 
3121150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
11 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
78.57% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
Ratiiini0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
0 6 12 18 24 36 More 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confng Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
30 
Porosity (%) 
14 
Figure I-86. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3121170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
iRatiii0 
0.5 
1 
1.5 
2 
2.5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 More 
i) 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning pressure = 0 
MPa. 
Porosty (%
Frequency 
2 
Figure I-87. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 
3231150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
i0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1 
0 
ity (%) 
Frequency 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lithophysal, 38mm, Ambient Saturaton, Room 
Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5mm, Confining 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
Poros
0 
3331350 
Figure I-88. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 
Middle Non-Lithophysal, 41mm, Ambient Saturation, Room 
Temp, LD Ratio = 2.4 to 3.0, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Frequency 
1 
100% 
0.9 
90% 
0.8 
80% 
0.7 
70% 
0.6 
60% 
0.5 
50% 
0.4 
40% 
0.3 
30% 
20%
0.2 
10% 
0 
0.1 
0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Figure I-89. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 
No Data 
0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3411150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
Miliii0 
1 
0 
iddle Non-Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room 
Temp, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
0 
Figure I-90. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411150 
3411170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
ilLD Ratiii0 MPa. 
0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9 
1 
0 
ity (%) 
Middle Non Lthophysa, 50/57/60, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning Pressure = 
PorosFrequency 
0 
Figure I-91. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 
3412130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
iiii0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9 
1 
0 
ity (%) 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 
150 C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confning 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
PorosFrequency 
0 
Figure I-92. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 
150 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain RAte = 10^-5, Confining 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
1 100% 
0.8 80% 
0.6 60% 
No Data 0.4Frequency 
40% 
0.2 20% 
0 0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
0 
Figure I-93. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 
3412170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
l/iiiini0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9 
1 
0 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Middle Non Lithophysa, 50/5760, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 150 
C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confng Pressure 
= 0 MPa. 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
0 
Figure I-94. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 
3412180 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
iiii0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1 
0 
i0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturaton, Temp = 
150 C, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-8, Confning 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
0 
Figure I-95. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-35 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-3, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
3421130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0.9 
90% 
0.8 
80% 
0.7 
70% 
0.6 
60% 
0.5 
50% 
0.4 
40% 
0.3 
30% 
0.2 
20% 
0.1 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency 
Figure I-96. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 
No Data 
0 
3421150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
0 6 18 24 30 36 More 
ity (%) 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
Mpa. 
12 
PorosFrequency 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
3 
16 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
14.29% 
90.48% 
95.24% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
21 
Figure I-97. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-7, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
3421170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
Frequency 
1 
100% 
0.9 
90% 
0.8 
80% 
0.7 
70% 
0.6 
60% 
0.5 
50% 
0.4 
40% 
0.3 
30% 
0.2 
20% 
0.1 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Figure I-98. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-36 December 2003 
0 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3421190 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
LD Ratiii0 MPa. 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 6 18 24 30 36 More 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-9, Confning Pressure = 
12 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency 
6 
Figure I-99. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 
3422150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
l0 MPa. 
0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1 
0 
i0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Temp = 150 C, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
0 
Figure I-100. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 
Middle non Lithophysal, 82mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5 , Confining Pressure 
= 0 MPa. 
3521150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Frequency 
1 
100% 
0.9 
90% 
0.8 
80% 
0.7 
70% 
0.6 
60% 
0.5 
50% 
0.4 
40% 
0.3 
30% 
20%
0.2 
0.1 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Figure I-101. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-37 December 2003 
No Data 
0 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 127 mm, Saturated, Room Temp, Ld 
Ratio - 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
0.8 
80% 
60%
0.6 
No Data 0.4 
40% 
0.2 
20% 
0% 
0 
0 
Porosity (%) 
0 
Frequency 
Figure I-102. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 
3631150
Bin Frequency Cumulative % Middle Non Lithophysal, 127mm, Ambient Saturation, Room
Temp, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining 
Pressure = 0 MPa.
1 100% 
0.8 80% 
0.6 60% 
No Data 0.4Frequency 
40% 
0.2 20% 
0 0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
0 
Figure I-103. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3631150 
3921150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
Middle Non liRatiii0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1 
0 
i0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
thophysal, 228.6mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 
0 MPa. 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
0 
Figure I-104. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-4, Confining Pressure = 
0 MPa. 
4121140 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
1 
100% 
0.8 
80% 
0.6 
60% 
0.4 
40% 
0.2 
20% 
0 
0% 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Figure I-105. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 
Frequency 
Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 1^-2, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
No Data 
0 
4121120 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Frequency 
1 
100% 
0.9 
90% 
0.8 
80% 
0.7 
70% 
0.6 
60% 
0.5 
50% 
0.4 
40% 
0.3 
30% 
0.2 
20% 
10%
0.1 
0%
0 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Figure I-106. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 
No Data 
0 
4121150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
15 5 100.00% 
18 0 100.00% 
21 0 100.00% 
24 0 100.00% 
27 0 100.00% 
30 0 100.00% 
33 0 100.00% 
36 0 100.00% 
More 
39 0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
Rati0 MPa. 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 6 12 18 24 36 More 
ity (%) 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
30 
PorosFrequency 
5 
Figure I-107. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-39 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Lower Non Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-6, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
4121160 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
1 
100% 
0.8 
80% 
0.6 
60% 
0.4 
40% 
0.2 
20% 
0%
0 
0 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency 
Figure I-108. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 
No Data 
0 
4421150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
80.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
Ratii0 
0.5 
1 
1.5 
2 
2.5 
3 
3.5 
4 
4.5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
i0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower non Lithophysal, 41mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain RAte = 10^-5, Confning Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
More 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
5 
Figure I-109. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4421150 
1421150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
2 Upper Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Rato = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
0 Mpa. 
18 24 More 
Porosity (%) 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
14.29% 
42.86% 
85.71% 
85.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
7 
Figure I-110. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-40 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1613150 
Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 195/200 C, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
0 MPa. 
1
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency
No Data 
0 
Figure I-111. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1613150 
Frequency 
1621150 
Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 
1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
1 
100% 
80% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Frequency 
Figure I-112. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1621150 
1631150 
Upper Lithophysal, 127mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
80% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Figure I-113. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1631150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-41 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1721150 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 24 30 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lthophysal, 267/238mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
18 36 More 
Porosty (%
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
3 
3 
1 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
30.00% 
60.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-114. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1721150 
1813250 
/
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 6 18 24 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 195200 C, 
LD Ratio <1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
12 30 More 
Porosity (%) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-115. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1813250 
1821150 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 6 12 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD=2.0, 
Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
18 24 More 
Porosity (%) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-116. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1821150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-42 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1831150 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 
i (%) 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Ambent Sat, Room Temp, L:D = 1.7 
to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Press = 0 MPa. 
30 36 More 
Porosty10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
3 
0 
1 
1 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
16.67% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-117. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831150 
1831250 
0 
1 
2 
0 6 12 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal, 290mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio <1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Press. = 0 MPa. 
18 24 More 
Porosity (%) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
1 
Figure I-118. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831250 
2121150 
i0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
0 6 12 24 30 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 
1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
18 36 More 
Porosity (%) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
3 
6 
11 
4 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
11.54% 
34.62% 
76.92% 
92.31% 
92.31% 
96.15% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
26 
Figure I-119. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-43 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2121170 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 6 12 18 24 36 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, L:D Ratio = 
1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
30 More 
Porosty (%
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-120. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121170 
2131150 
Frequency 
Bin 
Lower Lithophysal, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
80% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Frequency
Figure I-121. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2131150 
2411150 
Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
50% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Figure I-122. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2411150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-44 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2412150 
Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 150 C, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4mm, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
1 
100% 
50% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency
No Data 
0 
Figure I-123. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2412150 
2421150 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
ity (%) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Saturated, Room Temperature, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
0 MPa. 
More 
Poros20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
87.50% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
8 
Frequency
Figure I-124. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2421150 
2431150 
Lower Lithophysal, 50/57/60mm, Ambient Saturation, Room 
Temp, LD Ratio, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
50% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Figure I-125. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2431150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-45 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2512150 
Lower Lithophysal, 82mm, Dry Saturation, Temp = 150 C, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 
MPa. 
1 
100% 
50% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Frequency
No Data 
0 
Figure I-126. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2512150 
2531150 
Frequency
Lower Lithophysal, 82mm, Ambient Saturation, Room Temp, LD 
Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
1 
100% 
50% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Frequency 
Figure I-127. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2531150 
2613150 
Lower Lithophysal, 127mm, Dry Saturation, 195/200 C, LD Ratio = 1.7 
to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa, 
1 
100% 
80% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0 
0% 
No Data 
Porosity (%) 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
No Data 
0 
Figure I-128. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2613150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-46 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2813250 
io 
0 
1 
2 
0 6 18 24 36 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Dry Saturation, 195/200 C, LD Rat< 1.7, Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
12 30 More 
Porosty (%
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-129. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2813250 
2821150 
0 
1 
2 
0 6 18 24 36 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio, 
Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
12 30 More 
Porosty (%
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
1 
Figure I-130. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2821150 
2831150 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 6 18 24 36 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
Lower Lithophysal, 290mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio, 
Strain Rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa. 
12 30 More 
Porosty (%
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-131. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2831150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-47 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.5 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH DATA: POISSONS RATIO 
1421150 
Bin 
l-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
io 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Rat10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
12.50% 
25.00% 
37.50% 
62.50% 
62.50% 
75.00% 
87.50% 
87.50% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
8 
Frequency 
Figure I-132. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1421150 
1431150 
Bin 
Upper Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
1 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
No Data 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
Figure I-133. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1431150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-48 December 2003 

n Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bi
il 
Ambii-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.2 0.35 
0% 
Upper Lthophysa38mm 
ent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
1 
Figure I-134. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1621150 
1631150 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 127mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
Figure I-135. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1631150 
1721150 
Bin 
ii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 0.2 0.35 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Upper Lthophysal 267mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
6 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
60.00% 
80.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-136. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1721150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-49 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1813250 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 Upper Lithophysal 290mm 
0.05 Dry Temp=195C L:D = <1.3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5
1
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
No Data 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
Figure I-137. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1813250 
1821150 
Bin 
il-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Upper Lthophysa 290mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-138. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1821150 
2121150 
Bin 
ii-5 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
0 
Poiio 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lthophysal 25.4mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.25 0.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More 
sson's Rat10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
3 
14 
3 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
12.50% 
70.83% 
83.33% 
83.33% 
95.83% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
24 
Figure I-139. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-50 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
0 
Poiio 
0% 
Upper Lithophysal 290mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.40.450.5 More 
sson's RatFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0.00% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
0.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
1 
Figure I-140. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 1831150 
2121170 
Bin 
l-7 
0 
1 
2 
0 
io 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysa 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.050.1 0.15 0.20.250.3 0.35 0.4 0.450.5 More 
Poisson's Rat10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-141. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2121170 
2421150 
Bi
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 0.2 0.35 
Poi0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
sson's Ratio 
Frequency 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
0.1 0 .00% 
0.15 1 6.67% 
0.2 6 46.67% 
0.25 6 86.67% 
0.3 0 86.67% 
0.35 1 93.33% 
0.4 1 100.00% 
0.45 0 100.00% 
0.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
15 
Figure I-142. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2421150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-51 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
i-5 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
0 0.15 0.2 
0% 
Lower Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
1 
43 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
1.79% 
78.57% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
56 
Figure I-143. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2431150 
2631150 
Bi
il 
i-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 0.15 0.35 
0% 
Lower Lthophysa127mm 
Ambent Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
n Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
1 
0 
8 
4 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
6.67% 
6.67% 
60.00% 
86.67% 
86.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
15 
Figure I-144. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 2631150 
3121170 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 0 .00% 
12 2 100.00% 
15 0 100.00% 
18 0 100.00% 
21 0 100.00% 
24 0 100.00% 
27 0 100.00% 
30 0 100.00% 
33 0 100.00% 
36 0 100.00% 
More 
39 0 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
iRatiii0 
0.5 
1 
1.5 
2 
2.5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 More 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lthophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-7, Confning pressure = 0 
MPa. 
Porosty (%
Figure I-145. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-52 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3111350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 0 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 3:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
1 
0.05 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (Mpa) 
Frequency 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
No Data 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
Figure I-146. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3111350 
3121130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
27 
30 
33 
36 
39 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
Ratiiini0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 24 30 36 
i0% 
20% 
40% 
60% 
80% 
100% 
Middle Non-Lithophysal, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
o = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-3, Confng Pressure = 0 
18 More 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
3 
Figure I-147. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121130 
3121170 
Bin 
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.15 0.35 0.4 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-148. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3121170 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-53 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3231150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 38.1mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
12 
3 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
75.00% 
93.75% 
93.75% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
16 
Figure I-149. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231150 
3231350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
0.1 0 .00% 
0.15 1 7.14% 
0.2 10 78.57% 
0.25 1 85.71% 
0.3 1 92.86% 
0.35 0 92.86% 
0.4 1 100.00% 
0.45 0 100.00% 
0.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
14 
Miil-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
0 0.35 0.4 
io 
0% 
ddle Non-Lthophysa 38.1mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.5:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's RatFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-150. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3231350 
3331350 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
0.1 0 .00% 
0.15 6 27.27% 
0.2 15 95.45% 
0.25 1 100.00% 
0.3 0 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
0.45 0 100.00% 
0.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
22 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 41.9mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2.42:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Figure I-151. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3331350 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-54 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3411150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
liii0 
1 
0 
iMiddle Non-Lithophysa, 50/57/60mm, Dry Saturation, Room 
Temp, LD Rato = 1.7 to 2.4, Stran Rate = 10^-5, Confning 
Pressure = 0 MPa. 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
Porosty (%) 
Frequency 
No Data 
0 
Figure I-152. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 341150 
3411170 
Bin 
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 0.2 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-153. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3411170 
3412130 
Bin 
Mi-3 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Figure I-154. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412130 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-55 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3412150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 0.2 0.35 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-155. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412150 
3412170 
Bin 
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.2 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
1 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-156. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412170 
3412180 
Bin 
Mii-8 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Dry 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25.00% 
50.00% 
75.00% 
75.00% 
75.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-157. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3412180 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-56 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3421130 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
Mi-3 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 0.2 0.4 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-158. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421130 
3421150 
Bin 
Mii-5 
0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
24 
26 
28 
0 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
2 
3 
25 
10 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
4.88% 
12.20% 
73.17% 
97.56% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
41 
Figure I-159. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421150 
3421170 
Bin 
Mi-7 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.2 0.35 
Poi0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
sson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
4 
Figure I-160. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421170 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-57 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3421190 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
0.05 1 20.00% 
Miili-9 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 
i) 
0% 
ddle Non-Lthophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Unconfined Compressve Strength (MpaFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
20.00% 
80.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
5 
Frequency 
Figure I-161. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3421190 
3422150 
Bin 
Middle Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated 150C Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
1 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
No Data 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
Figure I-162. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3422150 
3521150 
Bin 
Mi-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 0.15 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 82.6mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
11.11% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
9 
Figure I-163. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3521150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-58 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3621150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
Mii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 127mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
5 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
55.56% 
88.89% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
9 
Figure I-164. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3621150 
3921150 
Bin 
Mii-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.2 0.35 0.4 
Poiio 
0% 
ddle Non-Lithophysal 228.6mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Stran Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
sson's RatFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
2 
Frequency 
Figure I-165. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 3921150 
4121120 
Bin 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-2 
1 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 
0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
One Data Point, 0.31 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
Figure I-166. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121120 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-59 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4121140 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 0 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-4 
1 
0.05 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 0% 
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
One Data Point, 0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
Figure I-167. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121140 
4121160 
Bin 
-6 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
3 
Figure I-168. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121150 
4121150 
Bin 
-5 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 0.15 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 25.4mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 100.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 100% 
Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
5 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
50.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-169. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4121160 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-60 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4431150 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
0.1 0 .00% 
0.15 0 .00% 
0.2 1 50.00% 
0.25 1 100.00% 
0.3 0 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
0.45 0 100.00% 
0.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
2 
0 
1 
2 
0 0.2 0.35 0.4 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Ambient Saturation Room Temp L:D = 2:1 Strain Rate = 10-5 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency
Figure I-170. Histogram of Unconfined Compressive Strength Condition 4431150 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-61 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
TRIAXIAL DATA: YOUNGS MODULUS 
3121151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
5 0 .00% 
10 0 .00% 
15 0 .00% 
20 0 .00% 
25 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
35 3 50.00% 
40 1 66.67% 
45 2 100.00% 
50 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 45 50 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 
25 35 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
6 
Figure I-171. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 3121151 
3121153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 5 20 25 30 35 40 50 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 
10 15 45 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-172. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 3121153 
3421153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 5 15 20 25 30 35 50 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
10 MPa 
10 40 45 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
3 
6 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
23.08% 
46.15% 
92.31% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
13 
Figure I-173. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 3421153 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-62 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3422163 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 5 15 20 30 40 45 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 
to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 
MPa 
10 25 35 50 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
33.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-174. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 3422163 
1421153 3421153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 5 15 20 30 35 40 50 
0% 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room 
Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, 
Confining pressure = 10 MPa. 
10 25 45 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
2421153 4421153 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
4 
8 
2 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
22.22% 
44.44% 
88.89% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
18 
Figure I-175. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 1421153, 2421153, 3421153, 4421153. 
1421151 3421151 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 5 15 20 30 35 40 50 
0% 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining 
pressure = 5 MPa. 
10 25 45 More 
Young's Modulus 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
4421151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
4 
5 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
10.00% 
10.00% 
10.00% 
50.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-176. Histogram of Triaxial Youngs Modulus Condition 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-63 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
TRIAXIAL DATA: POISSONS RATIO 
3121151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0.05 0 .00% 
0.1 0 .00% 
0.15 0 .00% 
0.2 3 50.00% 
0.25 2 83.33% 
0.3 1 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
0.45 0 100.00% 
0.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
6 
Figure I-177. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 3121151 
3121153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-178. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 3121153 
3421153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
10 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
3 
5 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
30.00% 
80.00% 
80.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-179. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 3421153 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-64 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3422163 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 
to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 
MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
50.00% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-180. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 3422163 
1421153 3421153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 
0% 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room 
Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, 
Confining pressure = 10 MPa. 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
2421153 4421153 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
6 
6 
3 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
83.33% 
94.44% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
18 
Figure I-181. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 1421153, 2421153, 3421153, 4421153. 
1421151 3421151 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 
0% 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining 
pressure = 5 MPa. 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 More 
Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
4421151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
0.45 
0.5 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
5 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
30.00% 
80.00% 
90.00% 
90.00% 
90.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
10 
Figure I-182. Histogram of Triaxial Poissons Ratio Condition 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-65 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
TRIAXIAL DATA: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 
3121151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
50 0 .00% 
100 1 16.67% 
150 0 16.67% 
200 1 33.33% 
250 1 50.00% 
300 2 83.33% 
350 1 100.00% 
400 0 100.00% 
450 0 100.00% 
500 0 100.00% 
550 0 100.00% 
600 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 200 300 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 5 MPa 
100 400 500 600 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Figure I-183. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3121151 
3121153 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 200 300 400 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD= 1.7 to 
2.4, Stran rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 MPa 
100 500 600 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
450 
500 
550 
600 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
16.67% 
83.33% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-184. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3121153 
3421153 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 300 400 
Frequency 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Room Temp, LD 
= 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 
10 MPa 
100 200 500 600 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
450 
500 
550 
600 
More 
0 
1 
0 
4 
7 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
7.14% 
7.14% 
35.71% 
85.71% 
92.86% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
14 
Figure I-185. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3421153 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-66 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3422163 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 100 200 500 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Tptpmn, 60mm Diameter, Saturated, Temp = LD = 1.7 
to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining Pressure = 10 
MPa 
300 400 600 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
50 0 .00% 
100 0 .00% 
150 0 .00% 
200 0 .00% 
250 4 66.67% 
300 1 83.33% 
350 1 100.00% 
400 0 100.00% 
450 0 100.00% 
500 0 100.00% 
550 0 100.00% 
600 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-186. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Condition 3422163 
1421153 3421153 
l 
= 10 MPa. 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 100 200 500 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Tptpu Tptpmn Tptpll Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room 
Temp, LD ratio 1.7 to 2.4, Strain Rate = 10^-5, 
Confining pressure 
300 400 600 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
Cumulative % 
2421153 4421153 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
50 1 5.26% 
100 0 5.26% 
150 4 26.32% 
200 7 63.16% 
250 4 84.21% 
300 3 100.00% 
350 0 100.00% 
400 0 100.00% 
450 0 100.00% 
500 0 100.00% 
550 0 100.00% 
600 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
19 
Figure I-187. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Conditions 1421153, 2421153, 
3421153,4421153 
1421151 3421151 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Tptpul Tptpmn Tptpln, 57mm, Saturated, Room Temp, 
LD Ratio = 1.7 to 2.4, Strain rate = 10^-5, Confining 
pressure = 5 MPa. 
Triaxial Compressive Strength 
Cumulative % 
4421151 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
50 0 .00% 
100 1 10.00% 
150 2 30.00% 
200 3 60.00% 
250 2 80.00% 
300 1 90.00% 
350 1 100.00% 
400 0 100.00% 
450 0 100.00% 
500 0 100.00% 
550 0 100.00% 
600 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
10 
Figure I-188. Histogram of Triaxial Compressive Strength Conditions 1421151, 3421151, 4421151 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-67 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.9 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH : INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH 
14214 
il0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
0 5 
il() 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper Lthophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More 
Indirect Tense Strength Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
2.5 2 10.53% 
59 
57.89% 
7.5 3 73.68% 
10 3 89.47% 
12.5 1 94.74% 
15 1 100.00% 
17.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
19 
Figure I-189. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 14214 
24214 
l 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
0 5 10 15 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Lithophysa50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 More 
Indrect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
2.5 0 .00% 
5 2 8.33% 
7.5 9 45.83% 
10 4 62.50% 
12.5 8 95.83% 
15 1 100.00% 
17.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
24 
Figure I-190. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 24214 
34214 
Milil0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 5 
i) 
Frequency 
0% 
dde Non-Lthophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More 
Indrect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
2.5 0 .00% 
5 1 7.69% 
7.5 2 23.08% 
10 2 38.46% 
12.5 2 53.85% 
15 4 84.62% 
17.5 2 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
13 
Figure I-191. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 34214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-68 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
44214 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
00 
.00% 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 5 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More 
Indirect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
2.5 
5 
7.5 
10 
12.5 
15 
17.5 
0 
2 
3 
6 
1 
1 
0 
0 
.00% 
15.38% 
38.46% 
84.62% 
92.31% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
13 
Figure I-192. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 44214 
14214 24214 
0 0 .00% 
2.5 2 4.65% 
5 11 30.23% 
7.5 12 58.14% 
10 7 74.42% 
12.5 9 95.35% 
15 2 100.00% 
17.5 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
il 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
0 5 15 
iil) 
Frequency 
0% 
Upper and Lower Lthophysa50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 17.5 More 
Indrect Tense Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
43 
Figure I-193. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214 
34214 44214 
0 0 .00% 
2.5 0 .00% 
5 3 11.54% 
7.5 5 30.77% 
10 8 61.54% 
12.5 3 73.08% 
15 5 92.31% 
17.5 2 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
Mii0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 5 
) 
Frequency 
0% 
ddle and Lower Non-Lthophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More 
Indirect Tensile Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
26 
Figure I-194. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 34214, 44214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-69 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
14214 34214 
24214 44214 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
2.5 2 2.90% 
5 14 23.19% 
7.5 17 47.83% 
10 15 69.57% 
12.5 12 86.96% 
15 7 97.10% 
17.5 2 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
All0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
0 5 
iil) 
Frequency 
0% 
50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
2.5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 More 
Indrect Tense Strength (Mpa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
69 
Figure I-195. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214, 34214, 44214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-70 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.10 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH: POROSITY 
14214 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 0 .00% 
12 2 10.53% 
15 4 31.58% 
18 7 68.42% 
21 3 84.21% 
24 3 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
l0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 3 6 9 15 18 24 
i0% 
Upper Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
12 21 More 
Porosty 
Frequency10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
19 
Figure I-196. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 14214 
24214 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 2 8.33% 
12 11 54.17% 
15 9 91.67% 
18 2 100.00% 
21 0 100.00% 
24 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
l0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 24 More 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
21 
Porosity 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
24 
Figure I-197. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 24214 
34214 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 1 7.69% 
12 9 76.92% 
15 1 84.62% 
18 1 92.31% 
21 1 100.00% 
24 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
Mil 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 
iFrequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle Non-Lithophysa50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
More 
Porosty 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
13 
Figure I-198. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 34214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-71 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 3 6 9 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Lower Non-Lithophysal 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
12 15 18 21 24 More 
Porosity 
3 
6 
9 
12 
15 
18 
21 
24 
0 
1 
6 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
7.69% 
53.85% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
More 
13 
Figure I-199. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Condition 44214 
14214 24214 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
9 2 4.65% 
12 13 34.88% 
15 13 65.12% 
18 9 86.05% 
21 3 93.02% 
24 3 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
l0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 
Frequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Upper and Lower Lithophysa 50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
More 
Porosity 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
43 
Figure I-200. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 24214 
34214 44214 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 1 3.85% 
9 7 30.77% 
12 15 88.46% 
15 1 92.31% 
18 1 96.15% 
21 1 100.00% 
24 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
Mil 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 
iFrequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
ddle and Lower Non-Lithophysa50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
Porosty 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
26 
Figure I-201. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 34214, 44214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-72 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
14214 34214 
24214 44214 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
3 0 .00% 
6 1 1.45% 
9 9 14.49% 
12 28 55.07% 
15 14 75.36% 
18 10 89.86% 
21 4 95.65% 
More 
24 3 
0 
100.00% 
100.00% 
All0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
24 
26 
28 
30 
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 
iFrequency 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
50.8mm 
Saturated Room Temp L:D = 0.75:1 
Porosty 
100% 
69 
Figure I-202. Histogram of Indirect Tensile Strength Conditions 14214, 34214, 24214, 44214 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-73 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.11 DYNAMIC ELASTIC DATA: YOUNGS MODULUS 
Tac O13T7N1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
) 
0% 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPaFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 4 40.00% 
18 2 60.00% 
24 4 100.00% 
30 0 100.00% 
36 0 100.00% 
42 0 100.00% 
48 0 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
10 
Figure I-203. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N1 
Tac O 13T7N2 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 2.1 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynam ic Young's M odulusG Pa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin F re quency C u m ulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 3 60.00% 
24 2 100.00% 
30 0 100.00% 
36 0 100.00% 
42 0 100.00% 
48 0 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
M ore 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-204. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N2 
Tac O13T7N3 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
i () 
Frequency 
0% 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 4.1 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynam c Young's ModulusGPa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 3 60.00% 
24 2 100.00% 
30 0 100.00% 
36 0 100.00% 
42 0 100.00% 
48 0 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-205. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N3 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-74 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tac O13T7N4 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
iFrequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 6.9 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamc Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
3 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
60.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
5 
Figure I-206. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tac O13T7N4 
Tpc_un O13T7N1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tpc_un, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 3.0 to 
4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
16.67% 
33.33% 
33.33% 
66.67% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
6 
Figure I-207. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tpc_un O13T7N1 
Tpcpmn O43T1N0 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambent Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
28.57% 
85.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
7 
Figure I-208. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-75 December 2003 

Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tpcpmn O43T1N1 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambent Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
14.29% 
42.86% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
7 
Figure I-209. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N1 
Tpcpul O43T1N0 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's ModulusGPa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
25.00% 
75.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
8 
Figure I-210. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tpcpul O43T1N0 
Tpcpul O43T1N1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 
6 
12 
18 
24 
30 
36 
42 
48 
54 
More 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
.00% 
85.71% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
100.00% 
7 
Figure I-211. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition, Tpcpul O43T1N1 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-76 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tptpmn 31211N0 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
0 6 12 24 36 42 48 54 
() 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 
to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
18 30 More 
Dynamic Young's ModulusGPa10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 0 .00% 
24 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
36 0 .00% 
42 28 93.33% 
48 1 96.67% 
54 1 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
30 
Figure I-212. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition 31211N0 
Tptpmn 34111N0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tptpmn, 60mm, Dry, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 0 .00% 
24 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
36 0 .00% 
42 1 20.00% 
48 4 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-213. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition 34111N0 
Tptpmn 34211N0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tptpmn, 60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 
1.7 to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
0 0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 0 .00% 
24 0 .00% 
30 0 .00% 
36 0 .00% 
42 2 33.33% 
48 4 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-214. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition 34211N0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-77 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tptpul 
Bi11C3T1N1 
umulative % n Freq0 
uency 
0 .00% 
6 0 .00% 
12 0 .00% 
18 0 .00% 
24 0 .00% 
30 2 33.33% 
36 1 50.00% 
42 3 100.00% 
48 0 100.00% 
54 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 
Frequency 
0% 
Cumulative % 
Tptpul, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
42 48 54 More 
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
6 
Figure I-215. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Youngs Modulus Condition 113T1N1 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-78 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
I.12 DYNAMIC ELASTIC DATA: POISSONS RATIO 
Tac O13T7N1 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
>0 0 
io 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
ive % 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 More 
Dynamic Poisson's RatFrequency 
100% 
Cumulat
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 1 10.00% 
00 
10.00% 
0.05 0 10.00% 
0.1 0 10.00% 
0.15 2 30.00% 
0.2 0 30.00% 
0.25 0 30.00% 
0.3 4 70.00% 
0.35 3 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
10 
Figure I-216. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N1 
Tac O13T7N2 
iiConfi0 
1 
2 
3 
>0 0 
i0% 
ive % 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD rato 3.0 to 4.0, 
ning Pressure = 2.1 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 More 
Dynamc Poisson's Ratio 
Frequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulat
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 1 20.00% 
00 20.00% 
0.05 1 40.00% 
0.1 1 60.00% 
0.15 0 60.00% 
0.2 0 60.00% 
0.25 0 60.00% 
0.3 2 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-217. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N2 
Tac O13T7N3 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
>0 0 0.4 
io 
0% 
lTac, 25mm, Ambient Saturaton, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 4.1 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's RatFrequency 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumuative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 2 40.00% 
00 40.00% 
0.05 0 40.00% 
0.1 1 60.00% 
0.15 0 60.00% 
0.2 0 60.00% 
0.25 0 60.00% 
0.3 0 60.00% 
0.35 1 80.00% 
0.4 1 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-218. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N3 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-79 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tac O13T7N4 
Bin Frequency Cumulative %
>0 0 0.00%
00 
0.00% 
0 
1 
2 
>0 0 0.15 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tac, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 3.0 to 4.0, 
Confining Pressure = 6.9 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
0.05 0 0.00% 
0.1 1 20.00% 
0.15 1 40.00% 
0.2 0 40.00% 
0.25 1 60.00% 
0.3 1 80.00% 
0.35 1 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-219. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tac O13T7N4 
Tpc_un O13T7N1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
>0 0 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tpc_un, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 3.0 to 
4.0, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 1 16.67% 
00 16.67% 
0.05 0 16.67% 
0.1 0 16.67% 
0.15 2 50.00% 
0.2 2 83.33% 
0.25 1 100.00% 
0.3 0 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-220. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tpc_un O13T7N1 
Tpcpmn O43T1N0 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
>0 0 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 
2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 0.00% 
0.05 1 14.29% 
0.1 1 28.57% 
0.15 3 71.43% 
0.2 1 85.71% 
0.25 0 85.71% 
0.3 0 85.71% 
0.35 1 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
7 
Figure I-221. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-80 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tpcpmn O43T1N1 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tpcpmn, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 
0.00% 
0.05 1 14.29% 
0.1 1 28.57% 
0.15 2 57.14% 
0.2 2 85.71% 
0.25 0 85.71% 
0.3 0 85.71% 
0.35 1 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
7 
Figure I-222. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tpcpmn O43T1N1 
Tpcpul O43T1N0 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
>0 0 0.35 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa 
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 0.00% 
0.05 0 0.00% 
0.1 0 0.00% 
0.15 3 37.50% 
0.2 1 50.00% 
0.25 2 75.00% 
0.3 0 75.00% 
0.35 1 87.50% 
0.4 1 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
8 
Figure I-223. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tpcpul 043T1N0 
Tpcpul O43T1N1 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tpcpul, 60mm, Ambient Saturation, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confning Pressure = 0 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 0.00% 
0.05 0 0.00% 
0.1 0 0.00% 
0.15 4 57.14% 
0.2 0 57.14% 
0.25 2 85.71% 
0.3 0 85.71% 
0.35 0 85.71% 
0.4 1 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
7 
Figure I-224. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tpcpul 043T1N1 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-81 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tptpmn 31211N0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tptpmn, 25mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 
to 2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 
0.00% 
0.05 7 23.33% 
0.1 4 36.67% 
0.15 5 53.33% 
0.2 3 63.33% 
0.25 0 63.33% 
0.3 6 83.33% 
0.35 0 83.33% 
0.4 5 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
30 
Figure I-225. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 31211N0 
Tptpmn 34111N0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm, Dry, Room Temp, LD ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 0.00% 
0.05 0 0.00% 
0.1 1 20.00% 
0.15 1 40.00% 
0.2 1 60.00% 
0.25 0 60.00% 
0.3 2 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
5 
Figure I-226. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 31211N0 
Tptpmn 34211N0 
i0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tptpmn, 60mm, Saturated, Room Temp, LD Ratio = 
1.7 to 2.4, Confinng Pressure = 0 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 0 0.00% 
00 0.00% 
0.05 0 0.00% 
0.1 0 0.00% 
0.15 2 33.33% 
0.2 1 50.00% 
0.25 0 50.00% 
0.3 3 100.00% 
0.35 0 100.00% 
0.4 0 100.00% 
More 0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-227. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tptpmn 34211N0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-82 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tptpul 113T1N1 
Bin Frequency Cumulative % 
>0 
0 
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
More 
0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 0.15 0.2 0.4 
Frequency 
0% 
Tptpul, 25mm, Ambient Saturation, LD Ratio = 1.7 to 
2.4, Confining Pressure = 0.7 MPa 
>0 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.35 More 
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
Cumulative % 
0.00% 
0 0.00% 
0 0.00% 
0 0.00% 
0 0.00% 
0 0.00% 
4 66.67% 
0 66.67% 
2 100.00% 
0 100.00% 
0 100.00% 
6 
Figure I-228. Histogram of Dynamic Elastic Data Poissons Ratio Condition, Tptpul 113T1N1 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A I-83 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT II
MATHCAD WORKSHEETS TO DEVELOP INTACT ROCK
HOEK-BROWN FAILURE ENVELOPE
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT II 
MATHCAD WORKSHEETS TO DEVELOP INTACT ROCK 
HOEK-BROWN FAILURE ENVELOPE 
II.1 HOEK-BROWN FIT OF TPTPMN DATA 
MathCAD worksheet for calculating the Hoek-Brown failure envelope for the Tptpmn unit is presented in Figure II1. 
Complete results of curve fitting (Answer(try)) for the Tptpmn unit are presented in Table II-1. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock (Continued) 
Inputs for Calculation 
.
. 
. 
...
. 
. 
Tensile DataUCS Data6 MPa10 MPa15 MPa 
MUCS0MSDUCSUCS 
... 
MT - := 11MUCS := 117.38 M6 := 194.9 M10 := 258.6 M15 := 258.9 
SD4.16SD20.67SD29.6SD49.1SD50.4:=:=:=:=:=TUCS61015 
+
+
+
+ 
MT 0MTSDT 0
.......
. 
. 
.
0 
Inputs x := 6 Inputs y := M6 SD1x := 6 SD1y := M6 SD6 
+
- 
10 M10 10 
M10 SD10 
. 
..
. 
.
15 
M15 
..
. 
M15 SD15 
+ 
15 
MTSDT 0 
MUCS SDUCS
0 
......
. 
. 
...
. 
.
MTSDT 0 
SD2x := 6 SD2y := M6 SD6 SD3x := SD3y := 
MTSDT 0 
10 M10 SD10 
-
-
-
- 
. 
...
. 
. 
MSD1515 
.. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
.. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
. 
..
. 
. 
. 
..
. 
. 
- 
15 
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
=
try 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
0 -13.879 143.6 232.43 320.41 322.2 -12.557 122.92 202.82 271.6 272.2 
1 -15.437 132.97 217.21 295.38 296.58 -11.377 115.59 192.33 254.23 254.38 
2 -1.115 77.512 137.81 163.85 161.63 -7.543 100.29 170.43 217.95 217.15 
3 -10.806 116.7 193.92 256.87 257.09 -9.412 95.943 164.2 207.62 206.55 
4 -10.475 113.81 189.78 250.01 250.05 -18.714 149.39 240.7 333.89 335.97 
5 -7.485 90.589 156.53 194.91 193.5 -10.148 107.67 180.99 235.44 235.1 
6 -13.22 123.05 203.02 271.93 272.53 -18.963 150.49 242.27 336.43 338.56 
7 -6.652 93.059 160.07 200.77 199.52 -12.711 118 195.78 259.95 260.25 
8 -13.915 127.98 210.07 283.59 284.5 -12.747 135.33 220.59 300.96 302.3 
9 -11.472 121.26 200.45 267.67 268.17 -8.275 96.93 165.61 209.96 208.95 
10 -8.84 114.05 190.13 250.58 250.64 -10.415 110.15 184.54 241.34 241.15 
11 -11.409 130.27 213.35 289 290.04 -9.095 103.72 175.34 226.08 225.5 
12 -7.479 95.099 162.99 205.61 204.49 -7.103 93.207 160.28 201.12 199.88 
13 -11.096 126.48 207.93 280.05 280.86 -12.106 131.55 215.18 292.03 293.14 
14 -14.39 140.19 227.55 312.41 314.02 -8.576 112.44 187.81 246.76 246.71 
15 -3.53 81.089 142.93 172.35 170.35 -6.87 109.12 183.07 238.9 238.65 
((
rows try) = 500 cols try) = 18 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock (Continued) 
u1 
vx u
2 
vx u0 + 1 Equation that will best fit data 
u
0 
u1 u1 u2 1u2 u2 Derivative of fit equation with
vx + 1 vx + 1 u1  vx 
repsect to compressiveu0 u0 u0 
vxu2 
+ 1 strength term, u0 
u
0 
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.Fvx u) :=. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
..
( 
.
. 
u1 
uvx 
u2 
+ 1 ln vx 
u2 
+ 1 Derivative of fit equation with 
0u
0
 
repsect to exponent, u1u0 
...
. 
. 
. 
u1 
.
.
 
u
2 vx 
vx + 1 u1 Derivative of fit equation with 
u0 u2 repsect to Hoek-Brown mi, u2 
 
.
. 
+ 1 
u
vx 
 
0
.. 
.. 
.
. 
.. 
.. 
 
 
.
. 
 
 
122 
...
 
.
. 
vg := .47 Initial guess vector for genfit equation 
+ 
.. 
.. 
 
 
30 
 
- 
.. 
.. 
 
.. 
.. 
Application of genfit to data and guess vectorPgenfit vx vyF):= vg,,
(
.
.
,
. 
.
.
. 
113.023

P 0.474 Results of genfit routine 
.
. 
.
. 
...
. 
....
29.49 
...................
. 
= 
where u0 = UCS 
c := Pa := Pm := P
, 
01 2 u1 = alpha 
u2 = Hoek-Brown Parameter 
Uniaxial Compressive Strength c = 113.023MPa 
Alpha a = 0.474 
Hoek-Brown Parameter m = 29.49 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock (Continued) 
t 
c-
m 
.0001+:=t 3.833 Sets plotting limits and analysis limits for the fit equation 
gr() ,( )0:=Equation describing best fit line 
r t ,36..:=Plotting Rangesi 0 8..:=Plot of one line of data and 
best fit Hoek-Brown parameters 
20 15 10 5 0 50 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
Data From Gold SIM 
Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope 
Hoek-Brown Failure Envelope 
Minor Principal Stress (MPa) 
Major Principal Stress (MPa)
Confined Test Results 
Unconfined Test Results 
Tensile Data 
( ) 
vxj tryij 5+,.
vy j tryij 1+,.
j0 8...for 
vx0 0.
vx1 6.
vx2 10.
vx3 15.
vx4 tryi0,.
vx9 tryi5,.
vy 4 0.0.
vy 9 0.0.
P genfit ,vg,F,( ).
Pans ij,Pj.
j0 2...for 
i 0 499...for 
Pansreturn 
:=Calculation Loop that looks at all 
lines of data and calculates as 
shown above, the results for all lines 
of data, each line consisting of 16 
points 
-=
F r P 
.1 
10 15 20 
Answer try 
vx vy 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock (Continued) 
20 15 10 5 0 50 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
300 
320 
Sigma 3 (MPa) 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
SDa ():=( ) 0.011=
SDMi ( ):=( ) 6.65=
SDc ():=MPa( ) 15.993=
Ma ():=( ) 0.473=( ) 
0 1 2 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
135.571 0.479 38.438 
127.148 0.477 35.203 
64.566 0.417 57.886 
110.433 0.473 28.451 
134.03 0.478 37.952 
103.784 0.47 25.833 
138.856 0.479 39.886 
109.711 0.472 28.265 
134.052 0.479 37.885 
113.023 0.474 29.49 
115.823 0.475 30.577 
120.384 0.476 32.38 
99.24 0.466 24.1 
131.601 0.479 36.831 
129.09 0.478 35.884 
97.059 0.453 27.664 
=
MMi ( ):=( ) 33.866=
Mc ():=MPa( ) 119.563=
Mi ( ) 2<>
:=
A ( ) 1<>
:=
C ( ) 0<>
:=
Results of the best fit routine for all data 
10 15 20 25 
stdev Astdev A 
stdev Mi stdev Mi 
stdev Cstdev C 
mean Amean A Answer try 
mean Mi mean Mi 
mean Cmean C 
Answer try 
Answer try 
Answer try 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-1 MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Hot, Saturated Middle Non-Lithophysal Intact 
Rock (Continued) 
20 15 10 5 0 50 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
300 
320 
Hoek Brown Failure Envelope 
Sigma 3 (MPa) 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
Solid Blue Lines Indicate Standard 
Devaition of Results, Blue Bars are 
One SD of Input Data 
Red Lines Indicate Mean Results, 
Red Dots Mean Input 
10 15 20 25 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) 
Indirect 
Tensile 
Strength 
Unconfined 
Compressive 
Strength 
6 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
15 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
Indirect 
Tensile 
Strength 
Unconfined 
Compressive 
Strength 
6 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
15 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
Unconfined 
Minor 
Stress 
6 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
15 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
Unconfined 
Minor 
Stress 
6 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
15 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
-13.879 143.6 232.43 320.41 322.2 -12.557 122.92 202.82 271.6 272.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.437 132.97 217.21 295.38 296.58 -11.377 115.59 192.33 254.23 254.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.1153 77.512 137.81 163.85 161.63 -7.5425 100.29 170.43 217.95 217.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.806 116.7 193.92 256.87 257.09 -9.4124 95.943 164.2 207.62 206.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.475 113.81 189.78 250.01 250.05 -18.714 149.39 240.7 333.89 335.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.4848 90.589 156.53 194.91 193.5 -10.148 107.67 180.99 235.44 235.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.22 123.05 203.02 271.93 272.53 -18.963 150.49 242.27 336.43 338.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.6523 93.059 160.07 200.77 199.52 -12.711 118 195.78 259.95 260.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.915 127.98 210.07 283.59 284.5 -12.747 135.33 220.59 300.96 302.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.472 121.26 200.45 267.67 268.17 -8.2746 96.93 165.61 209.96 208.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.8399 114.05 190.13 250.58 250.64 -10.415 110.15 184.54 241.34 241.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.409 130.27 213.35 289 290.04 -9.0947 103.72 175.34 226.08 225.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.4788 95.099 162.99 205.61 204.49 -7.1029 93.207 160.28 201.12 199.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.096 126.48 207.93 280.05 280.86 -12.106 131.55 215.18 292.03 293.14 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.39 140.19 227.55 312.41 314.02 -8.5765 112.44 187.81 246.76 246.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.5305 81.089 142.93 172.35 170.35 -6.8697 109.12 183.07 238.9 238.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.541 135.66 221.06 301.73 303.08 -10.414 116.97 194.31 257.52 257.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.329 152.87 245.67 341.91 344.13 -7.8596 112.7 188.2 247.39 247.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.446 103.81 175.46 226.28 225.7 -9.0163 88.538 153.59 190.04 188.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.5296 108 181.47 236.24 235.92 -1.0443 84.505 147.82 180.46 178.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.296 134.75 219.76 299.58 300.88 -13.197 129.12 211.7 286.29 287.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.3452 86.869 151.2 186.07 184.44 -9.8116 111.81 186.91 245.26 245.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.39 139.84 227.04 311.57 313.16 -7.1955 103.91 175.61 226.54 225.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.941 133.74 218.32 297.21 298.45 -6.6421 75.979 135.61 160.21 157.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.805 125.17 206.04 276.93 277.66 -12.673 118.05 195.85 260.07 260.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.1249 98.605 168.01 213.93 213.03 -16.321 146.42 236.46 326.99 328.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.378 128.11 210.25 283.89 284.8 -7.6676 73.096 131.48 153.37 150.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.9834 97.967 167.1 212.42 211.48 -10.409 113.92 189.93 250.26 250.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.14 133.41 217.85 296.43 297.66 -12.293 124.24 204.71 274.73 275.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2314 104.4 176.31 227.7 227.16 -9.3989 117.16 194.58 257.97 258.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.08 125.89 207.09 278.65 279.43 -12.157 132.81 216.98 295.01 296.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.4574 91.763 158.21 197.69 196.36 -5.2312 100.22 170.32 217.76 216.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.2206 106.41 179.19 232.46 232.05 -13.482 131.02 214.43 290.79 291.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.3342 119.46 197.88 263.42 263.81 -10.978 109.18 183.16 239.04 238.8 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.143 120.06 198.73 264.83 265.25 -19.151 137.34 223.47 305.7 307.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1692 89.019 154.28 191.18 189.68 -12.071 115.79 192.62 254.72 254.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2589 87.598 152.25 187.8 186.22 -11.054 110.54 185.1 242.26 242.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.008 132.07 215.92 293.25 294.4 -15.164 128.42 210.7 284.62 285.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.153 115.9 192.78 254.98 255.15 -10.436 105.47 177.84 230.24 229.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.9599 113.48 189.31 249.23 249.25 -16.088 135.23 220.44 300.71 302.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5894 96.168 164.52 208.15 207.1 -12.275 124.65 205.31 275.71 276.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.2026 107.76 181.12 235.66 235.33 -8.5052 111.29 186.17 244.03 243.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.609 134.21 218.99 298.31 299.59 -9.2545 110.75 185.4 242.75 242.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.134 120.43 199.26 265.7 266.15 -11.676 119.41 197.8 263.29 263.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.4319 82.904 145.53 176.66 174.78 -14.988 135.15 220.33 300.53 301.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.194 132.49 216.52 294.24 295.41 -14.159 127.73 209.71 283 283.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.611 140.78 228.39 313.79 315.43 -13.706 131.62 215.28 292.2 293.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.5862 106.12 178.77 231.77 231.34 -8.7165 113.84 189.83 250.09 250.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.677 143.21 231.87 319.5 321.27 -1.2983 81.753 143.88 173.92 171.97 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1282 106.15 178.82 231.84 231.41 -13.846 132.12 215.99 293.37 294.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.564 127.87 209.91 283.32 284.22 -13.572 129.99 212.95 288.34 289.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.2256 92.974 159.95 200.57 199.31 -12.586 141.06 228.79 314.45 316.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.738 129.64 212.44 287.51 288.51 -6.7759 99.068 168.67 215.03 214.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.205 122.47 202.19 270.55 271.12 -11.055 110.61 185.2 242.43 242.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.193 114 190.06 250.47 250.53 -12.246 138.25 224.77 307.83 309.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.629 123.48 203.63 272.94 273.58 -9.9828 112.05 187.26 245.83 245.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.668 120.86 199.87 266.72 267.19 -13.565 122.32 201.97 270.2 270.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.012 123.02 202.97 271.85 272.46 -16.658 136.01 221.57 302.57 303.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.5262 88.45 153.47 189.83 188.29 -9.6253 62.28 115.99 127.68 124.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.1637 108.62 182.35 237.7 237.43 -11.691 130.58 213.8 289.75 290.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.3528 107.33 180.5 234.64 234.28 -2.9897 66.714 122.34 138.21 135.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.363 122.4 202.08 270.37 270.94 -11.226 117.02 194.38 257.63 257.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1651 99.891 169.85 216.99 216.17 -9.5374 99.102 168.72 215.12 214.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.2206 49.2 97.263 96.619 92.625 -6.3105 75.069 134.31 158.05 155.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.6979 93.422 160.59 201.63 200.41 -17.981 138.38 224.96 308.15 309.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2597 108.13 181.65 236.54 236.23 -10.252 105.77 178.27 230.95 230.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.726 131.21 214.69 291.22 292.31 -10.69 109.43 183.51 239.62 239.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.9566 94.375 161.95 203.89 202.73 -11.844 131.07 214.5 290.9 291.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.446 82.457 144.89 175.6 173.69 -11.999 121.89 201.35 269.17 269.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8349 117.21 194.65 258.08 258.33 -7.0144 99.316 169.03 215.62 214.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.175 116.13 193.1 255.5 255.69 -11.839 117.23 194.68 258.12 258.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.709 97.582 166.55 211.51 210.54 -9.0378 96.718 165.31 209.46 208.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.7972 109.67 183.86 240.19 239.98 -4.6312 92.436 159.18 199.29 198 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.085 113.06 188.71 248.23 248.23 -7.4339 102.3 173.3 222.71 222.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.0676 102.87 174.12 224.06 223.43 -6.3188 113.46 189.28 249.18 249.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.8508 111.44 186.38 244.38 244.28 -9.8156 123.65 203.87 273.33 273.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.713 85.545 149.31 182.93 181.21 -14.201 145.44 235.05 324.7 326.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.135 128.85 211.31 285.64 286.6 -14.102 125.34 206.3 277.35 278.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.5871 103.53 175.07 225.63 225.04 -12.412 135.85 221.34 302.19 303.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.331 120.66 199.59 266.25 266.71 -14.575 133 217.25 295.45 296.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.744 114.92 191.38 252.66 252.77 -14.708 149.03 240.19 333.06 335.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.152 119.78 198.33 264.17 264.58 -11.187 130.94 214.3 290.58 291.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.232 117.36 194.86 258.42 258.68 -10.924 118.16 196.01 260.32 260.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8203 109.26 183.27 239.22 238.98 -9.5256 115.03 191.53 252.91 253.02 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.664 121.03 200.12 267.14 267.62 -10.084 107.02 180.06 233.91 233.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.43 116.87 194.16 257.27 257.5 -10.609 128.57 210.92 285 285.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.372 105.65 178.1 230.65 230.19 -8.9372 116.01 192.93 255.23 255.4 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.9142 96.606 165.15 209.19 208.16 -13.527 134.3 219.11 298.52 299.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.674 103.27 174.7 225.02 224.41 -15.499 146.14 236.06 326.35 328.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.769 131.99 215.81 293.07 294.21 -11.557 119.37 197.75 263.2 263.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.8629 101.93 172.77 221.83 221.14 -12.73 140.32 227.73 312.7 314.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.146 106.88 179.87 233.58 233.2 -15.014 127.97 210.05 283.56 284.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.543 115.67 192.45 254.43 254.58 -12.4 128.2 210.39 284.12 285.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.859 110.96 185.7 243.25 243.11 -11.451 129.03 211.57 286.07 287.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1 Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) 
-20.383 139.29 226.26 310.29 311.85 -13.87 131.33 214.86 291.51 292.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-21.997 159.49 255.11 356.82 359.2 -14.434 137.5 223.7 306.07 307.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.8601 102.54 173.65 223.28 222.62 -12.111 102.08 172.98 222.18 221.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.1069 88.118 152.99 189.04 187.48 -13.031 123.97 204.33 274.09 274.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.486 114.75 191.13 252.24 252.34 -9.1067 124.85 205.6 276.19 276.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.113 130.37 213.49 289.24 290.29 -13.439 142.47 230.81 317.75 319.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.4247 103.69 175.3 226.01 225.42 -16.153 140.61 228.14 313.38 315.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.0487 117.12 194.52 257.86 258.1 -9.4798 113.57 189.44 249.44 249.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1729 94.447 162.06 204.07 202.9 -1.0019 62.991 117.01 129.37 126.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.166 117.84 195.55 259.57 259.86 -11.504 114.68 191.03 252.08 252.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.624 104.81 176.89 228.66 228.14 -21.948 157.14 251.77 351.61 353.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.534 153.72 246.88 343.85 346.1 -13.087 115.31 191.93 253.58 253.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.474 107.96 181.41 236.14 235.82 -10.447 112.26 187.57 246.35 246.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.453 128.29 210.51 284.32 285.24 -3.9156 89.164 154.49 191.52 190.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.98 120.17 198.89 265.09 265.52 -16.099 175.8 277.93 387.58 389.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.0629 99.803 169.73 216.78 215.95 -12.756 116.23 193.24 255.75 255.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.9816 108.81 182.63 238.16 237.89 -8.1177 103.11 174.46 224.62 224 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.567 110.11 184.48 241.23 241.04 -12.16 127.01 208.68 281.29 282.14 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.2682 87.635 152.3 187.89 186.3 -8.8826 115.96 192.87 255.12 255.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.352 130.74 214.02 290.11 291.18 -15.342 145.64 235.34 325.17 327.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.6897 115.37 192.01 253.71 253.85 -15.65 127.5 209.38 282.44 283.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.7819 109.21 183.19 239.09 238.85 -4.2111 77.923 138.4 164.83 162.64 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.213 113.61 189.49 249.53 249.56 -13.839 135.77 221.22 301.99 303.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.781 136.32 222.01 303.3 304.7 -13.812 133.9 218.54 297.58 298.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.496 105.43 177.79 230.14 229.67 -13.396 136.76 222.63 304.32 305.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.589 144.08 233.11 321.53 323.35 -11.6 117.59 195.2 258.99 259.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.2817 117.66 195.3 259.15 259.43 -18.7 152.2 244.71 340.37 342.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.259 125.52 206.55 277.78 278.53 -8.7547 102.75 173.94 223.76 223.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.844 76.636 136.55 161.78 159.5 -6.7954 96.791 165.41 209.63 208.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.713 134.4 219.26 298.77 300.05 -11.717 119.54 197.99 263.61 264 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.706 118.97 197.17 262.24 262.6 -7.2764 92.882 159.82 200.35 199.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.041 127.58 209.5 282.64 283.52 -10.789 114.31 190.5 251.21 251.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.8332 106.44 179.23 232.53 232.12 -11.944 130.3 213.39 289.08 290.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.252 100.83 171.2 219.22 218.46 -8.362 94.66 162.36 204.57 203.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.848 143.37 232.09 319.86 321.65 -10.189 116.85 194.14 257.22 257.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.184 118.84 196.99 261.95 262.3 -9.5363 103.49 175.01 225.54 224.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.28 130.06 213.04 288.5 289.53 -5.1608 79.818 141.11 169.33 167.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.086 157.45 252.21 352.29 354.65 -10.521 110.82 185.5 242.92 242.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.573 145.84 235.63 325.64 327.55 -15.624 125.38 206.35 277.44 278.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.2363 100.62 170.9 218.72 217.95 -10.088 122.04 201.57 269.53 270.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.937 125.66 206.75 278.1 278.87 -11.56 127.27 209.06 281.92 282.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.161 117.3 194.78 258.29 258.55 -9.1469 94.76 162.5 204.81 203.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.092 147.5 238 329.5 331.49 -10.281 120.73 199.69 266.42 266.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.756 165.72 263.94 370.04 372.37 -12.505 124.13 204.56 274.48 275.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.9688 108.78 182.58 238.08 237.81 -7.974 110.38 184.88 241.89 241.72 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.0349 102.37 173.4 222.87 222.2 -9.6202 100.52 170.75 218.48 217.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.3 135.49 220.82 301.33 302.67 -11.388 121.76 201.17 268.87 269.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4157 112.96 188.56 247.99 247.98 -5.5596 87.446 152.03 187.44 185.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.4981 92.464 159.22 199.36 198.07 -15.549 134.02 218.71 297.85 299.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.5548 95.49 163.55 206.54 205.45 -6.7632 71.126 128.66 148.69 146.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.776 149.74 241.2 334.69 336.79 -8.7749 102.03 172.92 222.07 221.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.763 140.53 228.03 313.19 314.82 -13.865 137.14 223.19 305.23 306.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2503 95.737 163.9 207.13 206.05 -11.765 121.17 200.32 267.47 267.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.389 135.91 221.42 302.32 303.69 -11.632 122.45 202.16 270.51 271.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.148 156.38 250.68 349.89 352.22 -7.3445 98.1 167.29 212.74 211.8 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.871 152.32 244.89 340.65 342.85 -9.0349 114.28 190.45 251.12 251.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.545 134.98 220.09 300.13 301.44 -12.953 131.45 215.03 291.79 292.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.608 162.24 259.02 362.8 365.19 -7.0642 83.646 146.59 178.42 176.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.9969 102.99 174.29 224.35 223.72 -3.8831 85.824 149.71 183.59 181.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.207 119.24 197.56 262.89 263.26 -8.2182 107.82 181.21 235.81 235.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.367 119.15 197.43 262.67 263.04 -11.146 120.24 198.99 265.26 265.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.0157 105.63 178.07 230.6 230.14 -10.124 105.02 177.2 229.17 228.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.865 124.74 205.42 275.91 276.62 -9.0416 94.275 161.81 203.66 202.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.066 129.73 212.58 287.74 288.75 -7.1279 96.495 164.99 208.93 207.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.735 115.19 191.76 253.29 253.42 -9.2967 123.85 204.16 273.81 274.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.061 105.83 178.35 231.07 230.62 -10.09 128.62 210.98 285.09 286.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.6423 101.03 171.48 219.69 218.94 -9.1615 108.95 182.82 238.48 238.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.561 125.83 206.99 278.5 279.27 -11.566 121.81 201.23 268.97 269.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.7887 83.249 146.02 177.48 175.62 -6.0776 97.084 165.83 210.33 209.33 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.6262 115.27 191.87 253.47 253.6 -2.5129 75.664 135.16 159.47 157.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1212 109.01 182.9 238.62 238.36 -15.134 140.73 228.32 313.67 315.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.263 142.63 231.03 318.13 319.87 -7.8453 104.92 177.06 228.93 228.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.492 114.39 190.61 251.38 251.46 -10.444 123.76 204.03 273.6 274.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.161 120.51 199.38 265.9 266.36 -7.6087 104.36 176.26 227.6 227.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.441 98.823 168.32 214.45 213.56 -17.461 160.88 257.09 359.87 362.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.916 127.29 209.09 281.97 282.83 -14.768 156.8 251.28 350.83 353.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.172 114.51 190.78 251.67 251.76 -9.9715 112.32 187.64 246.47 246.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.918 144.68 233.96 322.92 324.77 -6.4906 92.344 159.04 199.07 197.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.6643 82.764 145.33 176.33 174.43 -12.39 120.32 199.1 265.45 265.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.9304 90.265 156.07 194.14 192.71 -8.192 103.36 174.82 225.22 224.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.047 120.67 199.6 266.27 266.73 -9.3343 94.805 162.57 204.91 203.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.3205 93.662 160.93 202.2 200.99 -6.4288 91.518 157.86 197.11 195.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.09 138.33 224.88 308.02 309.53 -7.8226 109.32 183.36 239.37 239.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.5312 90.495 156.4 194.68 193.27 -15.66 150.25 241.93 335.89 338 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.2939 111.18 186.01 243.77 243.64 -10.339 112.77 188.29 247.54 247.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.212 111.56 186.56 244.68 244.58 -10.419 113.73 189.67 249.83 249.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.15 108.31 181.91 236.97 236.67 -8.8583 106.05 178.67 231.6 231.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.512 128.69 211.09 285.28 286.22 -11.489 119.25 197.57 262.91 263.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.456 137.87 224.22 306.93 308.42 -7.4526 92.69 159.54 199.89 198.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.1011 103.44 174.93 225.4 224.8 -11.19 121.63 200.98 268.55 269.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.7818 105.32 177.63 229.88 229.39 -15.018 146.91 237.16 328.14 330.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.0769 95.784 163.97 207.24 206.16 -11.688 102.7 173.87 223.65 223 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.31 138.48 225.11 308.39 309.91 -11.766 125.49 206.51 277.7 278.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.504 105.34 177.65 229.91 229.43 -16.715 144.96 234.37 323.59 325.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4219 114.23 190.39 251.02 251.09 -11.261 136.09 221.68 302.75 304.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) 
-11.626 124.72 205.4 275.86 276.57 -21.008 173.01 274.14 383.43 385.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.499 144.13 233.18 321.65 323.47 -7.597 109.05 182.97 238.73 238.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.6648 78.888 139.78 167.12 164.99 -9.8611 123.26 203.31 272.4 273.02 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.532 161.2 257.54 360.55 362.94 -11.594 136.89 222.82 304.63 306.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.4557 80.344 141.86 170.58 168.54 -15.553 125.68 206.78 278.16 278.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.8551 118.54 196.55 261.22 261.56 -12.75 115.75 192.57 254.63 254.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.1494 109.58 183.73 239.98 239.76 -8.8354 101.43 172.05 220.64 219.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.185 122.59 202.35 270.83 271.41 -14.791 151.04 243.06 337.71 339.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.027 90.012 155.71 193.54 192.1 -7.5237 99.621 169.47 216.35 215.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.1008 81.562 143.61 173.47 171.5 -5.499 98.177 167.4 212.92 211.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.6494 116.79 194.05 257.08 257.31 -15.63 141.02 228.73 314.35 316 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.8196 107.41 180.62 234.84 234.48 -4.8176 92.236 158.89 198.82 197.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.62 136.81 222.71 304.45 305.88 -9.8371 116.06 193.01 255.36 255.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.026 142.19 230.41 317.11 318.83 -7.6189 108.69 182.45 237.87 237.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.0392 121.01 200.09 267.08 267.57 -8.2639 86.244 150.31 184.59 182.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-20.181 141.43 229.32 315.32 316.99 -11.336 122.96 202.89 271.71 272.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5726 114.97 191.45 252.77 252.88 -3.7411 91.216 157.43 196.39 195.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.936 129.3 211.96 286.71 287.7 -11.093 110.23 184.66 241.52 241.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.8725 95.599 163.71 206.8 205.71 -16.472 151.77 244.11 339.39 341.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.5863 74.128 132.96 155.82 153.39 -14.266 123.96 204.31 274.07 274.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.434 106.58 179.43 232.86 232.45 -5.6445 87.247 151.75 186.97 185.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.0668 88.808 153.98 190.68 189.16 -14.536 126.98 208.64 281.22 282.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.693 117.74 195.41 259.33 259.62 -18.968 144.35 233.49 322.15 323.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.144 155.48 249.4 347.86 350.17 -8.239 101.7 172.45 221.29 220.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.289 124.21 204.67 274.66 275.34 -15.663 137.82 224.15 306.82 308.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.5747 70.331 127.52 146.8 144.13 -16.541 166.32 264.8 371.25 373.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.719 115.05 191.55 252.95 253.07 -6.5452 90.673 156.65 195.11 193.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.922 113.99 190.04 250.43 250.49 -20.013 154.84 248.48 346.4 348.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.107 114.8 191.2 252.36 252.46 -13.907 139.92 227.15 311.76 313.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.1667 77.746 138.14 164.41 162.2 -3.2754 79.502 140.66 168.58 166.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.787 129 211.52 285.99 286.96 -10.182 129.1 211.67 286.23 287.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.8494 108.39 182.02 237.15 236.85 -12.051 116.42 193.52 256.21 256.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2382 107.09 180.15 234.06 233.69 -10.258 117.75 195.42 259.36 259.64 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.5183 126.24 207.58 279.47 280.27 -19.94 139.44 226.47 310.63 312.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.318 139.17 226.09 310.01 311.57 -10.826 122.8 202.66 271.33 271.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.214 118.4 196.36 260.9 261.23 -12.256 125.02 205.83 276.58 277.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.6511 80.473 142.05 170.89 168.85 -12.64 133.18 217.51 295.87 297.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.034 124.5 205.09 275.35 276.05 -2.8564 85.052 148.6 181.76 180.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.8588 105.2 177.45 229.58 229.09 -9.9102 114.88 191.31 252.54 252.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.972 142.92 231.46 318.82 320.58 -5.4268 101.08 171.56 219.82 219.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.5101 72.592 130.76 152.17 149.64 -8.429 96.232 164.61 208.3 207.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.6174 108.26 181.83 236.84 236.54 -7.0217 86.524 150.71 185.25 183.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.673 108.08 181.58 236.43 236.12 -8.7055 110.07 184.42 241.14 240.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.1134 96.83 165.47 209.72 208.71 -8.7513 99.596 169.43 216.29 215.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-2.7142 87.052 151.47 186.51 184.88 -10.322 113.34 189.12 248.91 248.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.0591 113.04 188.68 248.19 248.19 -7.7321 108.52 182.21 237.47 237.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4604 113.22 188.94 248.62 248.63 -4.1286 76.302 136.07 160.98 158.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.6941 79.976 141.33 169.71 167.64 -14.867 126.92 208.55 281.08 281.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.612 131.83 215.58 292.69 293.82 -2.0603 80.742 142.43 171.53 169.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.13 157.59 252.41 352.61 354.96 -13.823 156.18 250.39 349.43 351.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.802 134.55 219.48 299.12 300.41 -17.827 150.87 242.81 337.31 339.45 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.218 90.31 156.13 194.24 192.82 -13.563 132.68 216.8 294.71 295.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.511 128.79 211.24 285.52 286.47 -9.252 95.578 163.68 206.75 205.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.5702 104.47 176.41 227.85 227.32 -1.5184 59.144 111.5 120.24 116.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.141 122.74 202.57 271.18 271.77 -16.185 143.76 232.65 320.77 322.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.912 116.38 193.46 256.1 256.3 -4.3219 81.924 144.12 174.33 172.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.25 119.58 198.05 263.7 264.1 -9.1049 97.326 166.18 210.9 209.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.3691 93.872 161.23 202.7 201.5 -14.159 116.92 194.24 257.4 257.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.809 115.1 191.63 253.08 253.2 -9.9723 122.13 201.7 269.74 270.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.008 148.64 239.63 332.16 334.2 -8.4611 103.98 175.7 226.68 226.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.6293 89.541 155.03 192.42 190.95 -14.078 127.15 208.88 281.61 282.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.365 137.2 223.26 305.35 306.8 -6.4068 106.21 178.89 231.98 231.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.662 124.36 204.89 275.02 275.71 -6.382 89.756 155.34 192.93 191.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.342 138.9 225.69 309.36 310.9 -11.131 125.96 207.18 278.81 279.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.304 112.03 187.24 245.8 245.74 -14.594 138.83 225.6 309.21 310.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.109 126.78 208.35 280.75 281.58 -9.1487 111.71 186.78 245.04 244.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.263 144.55 233.79 322.63 324.48 -12.156 127.07 208.77 281.44 282.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.7435 104.15 175.95 227.09 226.53 -14.164 148.95 240.07 332.88 334.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.002 130.12 213.13 288.64 289.67 -5.8347 88.645 153.75 190.29 188.77 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.5592 102.45 173.52 223.07 222.41 -9.1274 111.51 186.49 244.57 244.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.783 142.54 230.9 317.91 319.65 -10.733 117.85 195.57 259.6 259.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.365 106.95 179.96 233.74 233.35 -6.6337 104.6 176.59 228.16 227.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.281 126.08 207.34 279.08 279.87 -12.649 118.49 196.49 261.12 261.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.3148 103.24 174.64 224.93 224.32 -12.746 149.92 241.46 335.13 337.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.249 124.95 205.73 276.42 277.14 -8.2272 105.09 177.29 229.32 228.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.391 125.11 205.96 276.79 277.52 -10.319 117.58 195.19 258.96 259.24 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.3907 67.923 124.07 141.08 138.26 -10.447 121.97 201.46 269.36 269.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.7418 86.58 150.79 185.39 183.73 -12.637 126.03 207.28 278.97 279.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.489 164.03 261.56 366.58 368.95 -12.497 131.14 214.59 291.06 292.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.509 147.38 237.82 329.22 331.2 -12.084 118.6 196.64 261.37 261.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.708 132.55 216.62 294.4 295.58 -9.8643 110.86 185.56 243.03 242.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.895 97.82 166.89 212.07 211.12 -1.5562 78.756 139.59 166.81 164.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.916 143.64 232.48 320.5 322.29 -12.727 128.26 210.47 284.25 285.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.712 126.43 207.85 279.92 280.73 -9.6761 108.44 182.09 237.27 236.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.445 125.76 206.89 278.32 279.09 -18.51 149.27 240.53 333.61 335.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.494 141.67 229.66 315.87 317.57 -11.999 118.83 196.96 261.91 262.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.331 139.79 226.98 311.47 313.06 -18.531 153.84 247.05 344.13 346.38 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.49 109.87 184.14 240.67 240.47 -10.983 120.38 199.19 265.6 266.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.902 148.16 238.95 331.05 333.07 -9.8315 119.06 197.3 262.46 262.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.3905 90.123 155.86 193.8 192.37 -11.946 134.64 219.6 299.32 300.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.3527 101.28 171.84 220.28 219.54 -17.953 131.69 215.39 292.37 293.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.729 143.92 232.88 321.15 322.96 -12.409 128.7 211.11 285.3 286.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.4425 101.22 171.75 220.13 219.39 -11.103 113.19 188.9 248.54 248.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.3811 110.01 184.34 241 240.81 -20.431 141.77 229.81 316.12 317.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.726 136.27 221.94 303.18 304.57 -7.7864 96.02 164.31 207.8 206.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) 
-7.6785 101.59 172.28 221.02 220.3 -6.6548 109.49 183.59 239.76 239.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8595 113.39 189.17 249.01 249.02 -7.0171 95.323 163.31 206.14 205.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.432 145.27 234.81 324.3 326.18 -7.8959 104.68 176.7 228.34 227.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.879 151.89 244.27 339.66 341.84 -1.001 74.683 133.75 157.14 154.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2691 110.67 185.28 242.56 242.4 -11.549 127.85 209.89 283.28 284.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.614 138.56 225.21 308.56 310.08 -19.802 168.41 267.73 375.32 377.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.6161 91.831 158.31 197.85 196.53 -11.109 126.39 207.8 279.84 280.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.6331 100.02 170.04 217.3 216.48 -10.079 114.65 190.98 252 252.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.3753 103.85 175.52 226.38 225.8 -12.006 125.25 206.17 277.14 277.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.034 111.97 187.15 245.65 245.58 -5.1817 91.401 157.69 196.83 195.48 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.38 120.47 199.32 265.81 266.26 -18.636 140.05 227.35 312.08 313.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.811 154.16 247.51 344.85 347.11 -15.972 140.15 227.49 312.31 313.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.615 187.75 292.44 397.82 398.19 -13.516 146.38 236.39 326.89 328.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.5792 97.372 166.25 211.01 210.03 -13.075 119.99 198.63 264.67 265.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.379 132.31 216.27 293.82 294.99 -13.866 167.15 265.96 372.88 375.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.3623 111.61 186.64 244.8 244.71 -13.873 150.75 242.64 337.03 339.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.333 124.32 204.83 274.93 275.61 -6.8145 93.726 161.02 202.35 201.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.037 137.68 223.96 306.5 307.97 -16.373 133.24 217.59 296.01 297.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.673 135.06 220.2 300.32 301.64 -14.088 148.83 239.9 332.6 334.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.318 115.85 192.7 254.85 255.01 -21.325 153.23 246.18 342.73 344.96 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.459 130.49 213.66 289.52 290.57 -17.274 144.73 234.04 323.05 324.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.78 148.28 239.12 331.33 333.35 -13.248 126.18 207.49 279.33 280.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.676 117.52 195.1 258.82 259.09 -11.302 125.41 206.39 277.5 278.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.969 138.14 224.62 307.59 309.09 -11.523 133.91 218.56 297.6 298.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.7931 105.21 177.47 229.61 229.12 -10.895 139.59 226.68 310.98 312.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.794 135.07 220.22 300.35 301.67 -13.563 118.76 196.87 261.76 262.1 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.876 137.63 223.88 306.38 307.85 -11.856 118.08 195.89 260.13 260.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.141 152.58 245.26 341.24 343.45 -10.276 110.71 185.34 242.65 242.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.1115 73.836 132.54 155.12 152.67 -12.53 136.6 222.4 303.94 305.35 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.566 129.98 212.93 288.32 289.34 -16.03 142.1 230.28 316.9 318.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.1159 84.279 147.5 179.92 178.13 -9.832 111.12 185.94 243.64 243.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.237 112.2 187.48 246.2 246.14 -13.295 132.62 216.71 294.55 295.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.54 123.63 203.84 273.29 273.94 -10.467 122.54 202.28 270.7 271.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.0718 91.251 157.48 196.48 195.12 -12.363 101.68 172.42 221.24 220.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.977 93.973 161.38 202.94 201.75 -10.116 112.91 188.5 247.89 247.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.674 78.25 138.86 165.61 163.43 -14.248 135.44 220.75 301.21 302.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.406 133.52 218 296.69 297.92 -12.122 128.51 210.83 284.85 285.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.077 154.66 248.23 346.01 348.29 -11.39 103.16 174.53 224.74 224.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.2432 100.95 171.36 219.49 218.74 -11.281 121.68 201.05 268.67 269.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.502 136.68 222.52 304.13 305.55 -13.795 113.76 189.71 249.9 249.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.781 131.97 215.79 293.03 294.17 -9.5039 110.94 185.68 243.22 243.08 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.91 123.28 203.34 272.46 273.08 -14.79 129.92 212.84 288.17 289.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.984 121.59 200.93 268.47 268.99 -9.5446 127.69 209.65 282.89 283.78 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.932 108.68 182.44 237.85 237.58 -15.014 149.63 241.04 334.45 336.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.187 122.72 202.54 271.13 271.72 -13.039 139.01 225.86 309.63 311.18 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.031 148.43 239.33 331.67 333.7 -13.117 116.48 193.61 256.35 256.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.074 109.64 183.81 240.11 239.9 -15.226 127.57 209.48 282.61 283.49 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.551 142.39 230.69 317.57 319.3 -17.212 145.99 235.85 326 327.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.115 128.08 210.21 283.82 284.73 -8.3694 100.37 170.53 218.12 217.32 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.196 151.5 243.71 338.76 340.93 -8.453 113.65 189.55 249.63 249.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8176 94.993 162.84 205.36 204.23 -8.6581 102.63 173.77 223.49 222.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.2247 87.88 152.65 188.47 186.9 -12.637 131.49 215.09 291.89 293 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.53 136.96 222.92 304.79 306.22 -9.2556 104.25 176.1 227.34 226.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.37 155.33 249.18 347.52 349.81 -6.7555 104.27 176.13 227.39 226.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.021 151.21 243.3 338.09 340.24 -7.7138 100.13 170.2 217.56 216.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.6 129.85 212.75 288.02 289.03 -15 133.6 218.12 296.88 298.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.3003 100.88 171.27 219.34 218.58 -20.444 154.34 247.77 345.28 347.54 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.221 112.88 188.45 247.81 247.79 -13.032 132.73 216.87 294.82 296 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.595 130.19 213.23 288.82 289.85 -19.369 152.74 245.49 341.62 343.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4218 114.14 190.25 250.79 250.86 -11.69 126.76 208.32 280.69 281.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.72 126.63 208.14 280.39 281.21 -10.894 119.31 197.66 263.06 263.44 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.2596 101.53 172.2 220.88 220.16 -12.922 121.54 200.85 268.33 268.85 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.74 169.96 269.9 378.2 380.32 -15.954 143.14 231.77 319.33 321.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.705 124.45 205.02 275.24 275.94 -11.993 115.65 192.42 254.38 254.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.995 107.3 180.46 234.57 234.21 -10.286 126.32 207.7 279.67 280.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.773 133.63 218.15 296.94 298.18 -8.0175 112.51 187.92 246.92 246.88 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.778 130.77 214.07 290.19 291.26 -14.112 132.4 216.39 294.03 295.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.345 125.91 207.11 278.69 279.47 -7.3461 92.036 158.6 198.34 197.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.0072 54.624 105.03 109.5 105.84 -10.646 116.72 193.96 256.93 257.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1432 89.332 154.73 191.92 190.44 -14.174 137.43 223.59 305.9 307.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.032 81.371 143.33 173.02 171.04 -9.692 106.78 179.72 233.34 232.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.3819 85.986 149.94 183.98 182.29 -18.776 136.48 222.23 303.66 305.07 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.362 113.14 188.82 248.42 248.42 -8.0299 84.116 147.26 179.54 177.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.98 134.46 219.35 298.91 300.2 -11.855 129.59 212.37 287.39 288.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.71 107.93 181.37 236.07 235.75 -12.373 120.97 200.03 266.98 267.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.47 139.65 226.78 311.14 312.72 -13.167 124.61 205.24 275.61 276.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.819 131.85 215.61 292.74 293.88 -12.002 121.98 201.48 269.38 269.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5979 109.72 183.93 240.32 240.11 -6.7914 99.716 169.6 216.57 215.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4481 122.84 202.71 271.41 272.01 -13.416 123.87 204.18 273.85 274.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.719 140.93 228.6 314.14 315.79 -16.388 146.99 237.27 328.32 330.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.674 118.31 196.23 260.69 261.01 -8.5802 105.73 178.21 230.83 230.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.526 124.06 204.46 274.32 274.99 -9.2596 107.44 180.66 234.9 234.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.816 135.56 220.91 301.49 302.84 -14.683 121.43 200.69 268.08 268.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-21.331 164.84 262.7 368.24 370.6 -7.4681 104.77 176.83 228.56 228.04 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.985 127.77 209.76 283.08 283.97 -11.049 96.433 164.9 208.78 207.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.1755 91.001 157.12 195.88 194.51 -8.833 102.12 173.05 222.29 221.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-2.141 85.17 148.77 182.04 180.3 -7.8663 99.528 169.33 216.13 215.28 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.994 112.1 187.33 245.95 245.89 -8.5908 110.26 184.7 241.59 241.41 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.915 127.18 208.93 281.7 282.56 -7.3141 100.12 170.18 217.53 216.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.068 129.22 211.85 286.53 287.5 -5.7395 106.48 179.29 232.63 232.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.8131 93.516 160.72 201.85 200.63 -11.301 116.63 193.82 256.71 256.92 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.701 128.9 211.39 285.76 286.72 -8.5325 112.55 187.98 247.02 246.99 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.6761 115.22 191.8 253.35 253.48 -10.798 121.23 200.41 267.61 268.11 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-21.851 177.7 280.47 390.04 391.4 -13.691 142.08 230.25 316.84 318.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.7057 112.36 187.71 246.58 246.54 -4.8538 105.57 177.99 230.47 230 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) 
-5.5483 90.848 156.9 195.52 194.13 -7.4067 94.491 162.12 204.17 203.01 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.661 134.56 219.5 299.15 300.44 -18.629 163.49 260.78 365.43 367.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-1.1147 69.614 126.5 145.1 142.38 -15.488 171.1 271.48 380.22 382.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.669 114.55 190.84 251.76 251.85 -9.2054 106.75 179.67 233.27 232.87 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.379 121.87 201.32 269.12 269.65 -6.6611 111.75 186.84 245.13 245.05 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.3 158.87 254.23 355.45 357.82 -7.7127 99.212 168.88 215.38 214.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.575 121.31 200.52 267.79 268.29 -8.3436 111.02 185.79 243.4 243.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.921 127.35 209.17 282.1 282.97 -10.717 98.357 167.65 213.35 212.43 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.9041 101.78 172.56 221.47 220.76 -8.4391 97.782 166.83 211.98 211.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.5738 111.07 185.86 243.51 243.39 -2.6085 82.974 145.63 176.82 174.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.0587 100.43 170.63 218.27 217.48 -13.563 121.45 200.72 268.13 268.63 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.9195 91.947 158.48 198.13 196.81 -15.92 133.07 217.35 295.62 296.83 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.186 118.45 196.43 261.03 261.35 -12.23 122.16 201.73 269.8 270.35 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.0984 71.608 129.35 149.84 147.24 -13.076 138.64 225.32 308.75 310.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.96 129.47 212.2 287.11 288.1 -12.04 130.87 214.21 290.43 291.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1773 98.021 167.17 212.55 211.61 -19.781 147.15 237.51 328.7 330.68 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.996 111.37 186.29 244.23 244.12 -11.552 111.85 186.98 245.38 245.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.7098 91.012 157.14 195.91 194.53 -10.584 101.9 172.73 221.76 221.06 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4188 101.16 171.67 220 219.25 -13.644 127.4 209.24 282.22 283.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.57 120.09 198.78 264.91 265.33 -9.284 109.82 184.06 240.54 240.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.343 126.53 208 280.16 280.98 -15.24 123.14 203.14 272.14 272.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.7822 101.37 171.98 220.51 219.78 -17.16 136.16 221.78 302.91 304.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.246 129.51 212.26 287.2 288.2 -8.0488 102.94 174.22 224.22 223.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5396 104.88 177 228.83 228.32 -10.195 119.13 197.4 262.63 263 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.7623 96.125 164.46 208.05 206.99 -6.8581 102.43 173.48 223.01 222.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.7434 106.99 180.01 233.82 233.44 -4.1785 97.225 166.03 210.66 209.67 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.4824 108.87 182.71 238.31 238.04 -12.17 123.72 203.97 273.51 274.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.1557 93.179 160.24 201.06 199.81 -8.9972 124.09 204.5 274.38 275.05 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.432 118.92 197.1 262.13 262.49 -19.953 153.49 246.56 343.34 345.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.2667 84.659 148.04 180.83 179.05 -21.403 155.9 249.99 348.8 351.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.7578 118.13 195.97 260.27 260.57 -12.087 107.19 180.3 234.31 233.94 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.1529 97.028 165.75 210.19 209.19 -12.171 126.85 208.45 280.91 281.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.552 159.95 255.77 357.84 360.23 -7.4108 107.18 180.28 234.28 233.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.615 119.83 198.41 264.3 264.71 -14.163 134.88 219.95 299.9 301.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.215 112.15 187.4 246.07 246.01 -9.4169 116.25 193.28 255.81 256 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.9211 114.62 190.95 251.94 252.03 -12.687 125.61 206.68 277.99 278.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.891 135.75 221.19 301.94 303.3 -10.007 111.46 186.42 244.44 244.34 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.5148 68.891 125.46 143.38 140.62 -15.324 131.72 215.43 292.44 293.57 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-2.8165 65.103 120.04 134.39 131.39 -3.7732 88.284 153.23 189.43 187.89 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.366 158.19 253.26 353.94 356.3 -10.345 98.873 168.39 214.57 213.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.404 141.2 228.99 314.77 316.44 -16.601 123.42 203.54 272.79 273.42 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.121 158.35 253.49 354.31 356.68 -6.7151 100.74 171.06 219 218.23 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.04 133.79 218.38 297.32 298.57 -9.4991 118.29 196.19 260.63 260.95 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.122 122.66 202.45 270.99 271.57 -10.162 104.57 176.55 228.09 227.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.9845 93.367 160.51 201.5 200.27 -11.891 117.48 195.03 258.71 258.98 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.662 143.02 231.6 319.05 320.82 -13.919 141.31 229.14 315.03 316.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4095 97.691 166.7 211.77 210.81 -16.422 142.74 231.19 318.38 320.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.47 128.38 210.65 284.54 285.47 -9.2532 108.2 181.74 236.7 236.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.3568 104.09 175.87 226.96 226.39 -6.2152 84.784 148.22 181.12 179.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.7195 87.921 152.71 188.57 187 -10.665 110.31 184.78 241.72 241.55 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.3771 117.91 195.65 259.73 260.02 -16.317 146.56 236.66 327.33 329.27 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-17.664 145.54 235.21 324.95 326.84 -13.669 131.32 214.85 291.48 292.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.0552 107.6 180.89 235.29 234.94 -2.8464 65.724 120.93 135.86 132.9 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.237 123.17 203.18 272.2 272.81 -10.066 111.92 187.08 245.53 245.46 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.9843 82.303 144.67 175.23 173.31 -11.193 111.26 186.13 243.96 243.84 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.536 134.79 219.82 299.69 300.99 -6.2308 106.62 179.49 232.96 232.56 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.085 132.86 217.05 295.11 296.31 -11.857 123.36 203.46 272.66 273.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-15.552 140.39 227.83 312.86 314.49 -6.5339 108.51 182.19 237.43 237.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.656 138.73 225.46 308.98 310.51 -7.8076 89.489 154.96 192.29 190.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.345 116.55 193.71 256.52 256.73 -11.25 125.18 206.06 276.95 277.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.663 162.21 258.98 362.73 365.12 -13.886 130.81 214.12 290.29 291.36 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.822 118.22 196.09 260.46 260.77 -3.7056 86.934 151.3 186.23 184.6 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.491 139.15 226.05 309.95 311.5 -8.2102 91.651 158.05 197.43 196.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.455 115.44 192.11 253.87 254.01 -12.502 141.63 229.6 315.78 317.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.7762 115.5 192.2 254.03 254.17 -13.412 120.23 198.97 265.23 265.66 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.84 112.79 188.32 247.59 247.57 -8.2687 109.78 184.02 240.47 240.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.91 96.339 164.77 208.56 207.51 -15.679 141.93 230.03 316.49 318.19 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.677 122.28 201.91 270.09 270.65 -2.8997 95.193 163.12 205.84 204.72 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.058 130.43 213.57 289.38 290.43 -11.123 104.99 177.15 229.09 228.59 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.859 119.66 198.16 263.89 264.3 -6.5603 98.629 168.05 213.99 213.09 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8615 106.68 179.57 233.1 232.7 -13.71 126.66 208.19 280.47 281.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.3388 106.26 178.97 232.1 231.67 -14.094 124.96 205.75 276.44 277.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.6231 120.8 199.79 266.59 267.06 -12.131 117.38 194.9 258.48 258.75 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.756 134.07 218.79 297.98 299.25 -14.36 124.54 205.14 275.44 276.13 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.8401 107.84 181.24 235.86 235.54 -6.1504 109.96 184.28 240.89 240.7 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.1453 98.988 168.56 214.84 213.97 -15.091 116.34 193.4 256.01 256.21 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-4.9298 94.911 162.72 205.17 204.03 -12.241 102.83 174.05 223.95 223.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.685 126.26 207.6 279.51 280.31 -17.529 132.33 216.29 293.87 295.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.4144 103.58 175.13 225.73 225.14 -14.724 137.96 224.36 307.17 308.65 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.556 143.45 232.21 320.04 321.83 -14.497 119 197.22 262.33 262.69 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.5617 106.36 179.11 232.34 231.92 -12.787 132.2 216.1 293.55 294.71 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.4432 94.057 161.5 203.14 201.95 -9.9873 120.9 199.93 266.82 267.3 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-12.221 118.72 196.81 261.65 261.99 -6.6845 97.411 166.3 211.1 210.12 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5735 100.7 171 218.9 218.13 -13.118 130.62 213.86 289.84 290.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1313 121.38 200.62 267.96 268.46 -6.8496 72.446 130.55 151.82 149.29 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.038 147.79 238.41 330.18 332.18 -3.0171 92.674 159.52 199.85 198.58 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-3.2694 83.911 146.97 179.05 177.23 -13.375 133.36 217.77 296.3 297.52 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.609 76.913 136.95 162.43 160.17 -7.1574 99.427 169.19 215.89 215.03 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.856 102.2 173.16 222.48 221.8 -11.277 119.88 198.48 264.41 264.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.733 129.32 211.99 286.77 287.75 -9.3532 85.677 149.5 183.24 181.53 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.34 138.09 224.53 307.45 308.94 -12.224 124.83 205.57 276.14 276.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.0663 98.279 167.54 213.16 212.24 -21.37 146.09 235.99 326.23 328.15 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.082 136.45 222.19 303.59 304.99 -11.864 114.2 190.34 250.94 251 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8047 105.93 178.5 231.32 230.88 -16.091 133.31 217.7 296.18 297.4 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.875 119.73 198.26 264.06 264.46 -9.8389 119.63 198.11 263.8 264.2 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-1. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpmn (File=Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls) (continued) 
-8.5763 123.43 203.55 272.81 273.44 -8.8849 98.436 167.77 213.53 212.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-18.507 134.19 218.95 298.26 299.53 -20.321 163.22 260.41 364.87 367.26 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.3889 112.58 188.03 247.1 247.07 -5.8388 112.65 188.11 247.25 247.22 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.575 147.91 238.59 330.46 332.47 -11.159 122.2 201.8 269.91 270.47 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.8791 107.55 180.82 235.17 234.82 -5.7767 85.36 149.04 182.49 180.76 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.709 109.36 183.41 239.46 239.22 -13.2 150.13 241.77 335.62 337.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.1489 98.504 167.87 213.7 212.79 -8.6785 97.569 166.53 211.48 210.51 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.2006 113.28 189.03 248.77 248.78 -15.431 144.24 233.34 321.91 323.73 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.1643 89.824 155.44 193.09 191.64 -14.269 116.17 193.17 255.62 255.81 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-5.434 79.376 140.47 168.28 166.18 -17.058 146.84 237.06 327.97 329.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.953 139.43 226.46 310.62 312.18 -9.5959 110.41 184.92 241.96 241.79 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-21.837 160.59 256.68 359.24 361.63 -10.939 123.58 203.78 273.18 273.82 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-11.758 115.54 192.26 254.12 254.27 -5.9791 94.143 161.62 203.34 202.16 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4828 121.08 200.19 267.25 267.74 -7.297 88.997 154.25 191.13 189.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.824 119.92 198.54 264.51 264.93 -16.091 141.5 229.43 315.49 317.17 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-10.309 116.5 193.64 256.4 256.6 -7.2964 99.305 169.01 215.6 214.74 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.7355 118.64 196.7 261.47 261.81 -1.2691 86.251 150.32 184.61 182.93 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-19.53 147.63 238.19 329.81 331.81 -12.149 105.94 178.52 231.35 230.91 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.59 137.04 223.04 304.99 306.42 -6.5877 99.975 169.97 217.19 216.37 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-7.3119 107.51 180.77 235.08 234.73 -14.06 129.68 212.5 287.61 288.62 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-6.4699 95.38 163.39 206.28 205.18 -13.149 129.37 212.06 286.88 287.86 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-13.626 137.55 223.77 306.19 307.66 -14.742 120.57 199.46 266.05 266.5 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-16.187 159.35 254.91 356.5 358.89 -1.6795 83.511 146.4 178.1 176.25 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-14.167 145.16 234.66 324.06 325.93 -5.6602 98.719 168.17 214.21 213.31 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-9.4424 110.51 185.06 242.19 242.02 -20.919 144.93 234.33 323.53 325.39 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
-8.5992 104.02 175.77 226.79 226.22 -7.5523 114.45 190.7 251.53 251.61 0 6 10 15 0 6 10 15 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
II.2 HOEK-BROWN FIT OF TPTPLN DATA 
MathCAD worksheet for calculating the Hoek-Brown failure envelope for the Tptpln unit is presented in Figure II-2. 
Complete results of curve fitting (Answer(try)) for the Tptpln unit are presented in Table II-2. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 
Inputs for Calculation 
.
. 
.
.
. 
. 
Tensile DataUCS Data5 MPa10 MPa 
MSDUCSUCS 
..
. 
MT - := 7.92MUCS := 155.51 M5 := 216.4 M10 := 265.6 
+
+
+ 
SDT := 2.55 SDUCS := 30.35 SD5 := 64 SD10 := 21.7 
.
. 
MT 0MTSDT 0
.
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
0 MUCS
Inputs x := Inputs y := SD1x := SD1y :=
5 M5 5 M5SD5
0 
+
- 
..
. 
10 M10 10 M10 SD10 
.
.
. 
. 
MTSDT 0 
+ 
0 MUCS SDUCS MT SDT 0 
.
.
. 
. 
SD2x := SD2y := SD3x := SD3y := 
M5SD5 MTSDT 0 
.. 
. 
. 
.
. 
5 
10 M10 SD10 
-
-
- 
.
.
. 
. 
.
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
.
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
.
.
. 
. 
.
.
. 
. 
-
.. 
. 
. 
.
.
.. 
. 
. 
.
. 
try 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
0 -9.834 194.02 297.61 293.13 -8.988 163.64 233.57 271.41 0 
1 -10.835 178.4 264.68 281.97 -8.235 152.88 210.88 263.72 0 
2 -1.137 96.971 93.317 223.75 -5.781 130.42 163.56 247.66 0 
3 -7.87 154.51 214.33 264.89 -6.98 124.03 150.11 243.1 0 
4 -7.658 150.27 205.38 261.85 -13.01 202.52 315.53 299.21 0 
5 -5.744 116.17 133.57 237.47 -7.45 141.25 186.37 255.4 0 
6 -9.412 163.84 233.99 271.56 -13.185 204.13 318.94 300.36 0 
7 -5.207 119.8 141.2 240.07 -9.086 156.42 218.35 266.25 0 
8 -9.857 171.08 249.25 276.73 -9.11 181.87 272 284.45 0 
9 -8.296 161.21 228.44 269.67 -6.251 125.48 153.16 244.13 0 
10 -6.614 150.62 206.12 262.1 -7.62 144.9 194.06 258.01 0 
11 -8.255 174.44 256.33 279.13 -6.777 135.46 174.17 251.26 0 
12 -5.74 122.79 147.5 242.21 -5.498 120.02 141.66 240.22 0 
13 -8.055 168.88 244.61 275.16 -8.7 176.32 260.29 280.48 0 
14 -10.162 189.01 287.06 289.55 -6.445 148.25 201.13 260.41 0 
15 -3.134 102.22 104.29 227.5 -5.348 143.39 190.88 256.93 0 
= 
((
rows try) = 496 cols try) = 14 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 
u1 
vx u
2 
vx u+ 1 Equation that will best fit data
0u0 
u1 u1 u2 1u2 u2 Derivative of fit equation with
vx + 1 vx + 1 u1  vx 
repsect to compressive
uuu u
0 0 
vx2 
+ 1 strength term, u0 
u
0 
Fvx u) :=
( 
.
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.u1. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.
. 
0 u0 u0 
repsect to exponent, u1 
 
u1 
u
vx
...
. 
. 
. 
2 
Derivative of fit equation with
. 
.
 
1+vxu
u0 
1u2 repsect to Hoek-Brown mi, u2 
vx + 1 
u
 
.
. 
 
0 
.. 
.. 
 
.
. 
.. 
.. 
 
 
 
150 
.
. 
 
...

. 
. 
uu22 Derivative of fit equation with1ln1++uvxvx 
Initial guess vector for genfit equation.47:=vg 
.
. 
+ 
.. 
.. 
27 
 
 
 
Application of genfit to data and guess vectorPgenfit vx vyF):= vg,, 
- 
.. 
.. 
 
(
.. 
..
.
. 
139.387
,
. 
. 
.
. 
P 0.48 Results of genfit routine 
 
.
. 
.
. 
29.369 
...
. 
...
. 
...................
. 
= 
where u0 = UCS 
c := P a := Pm := P
0 1 2 u1 = alpha 
, 
u2 = Hoek-Brown Parameter 
Uniaxial Compressive Strength c = 139.387
Alpha a = 0.48
Hoek-Brown Parameter m = 29.369 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 
t := 
-c+ .0001 t - = 4.746Sets plotting limits and analysis limits for the fit equation
m
() := F r P)0 
Equation describing best fit line
gr( , 
r := t , .1 .. 36 Plotting Ranges
i := 0.. 7
20 15 10 5 0 50 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
Sigma 3 (MPa) 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
Plot of one line of data and 
best fit Hoek-Brown parameters 
( ) 
vxj try.
vy j try.
j0 6...for 
vy7 0.0.
vx3 tryi0,.
vy3 0.0.
vx2 10.
vx7 tryi4,.
vx0 0.
vx1 5.
P ,vg,F,( ).
Pans ij,Pj.
j0 2...for 
i 0 494...for:=
Calculation Loop that looks at all 
lines of data and calculates as 
shown above, the results for all lines 
of data, each line consisting of 12 
points 
10 15 20 
Answer try 
ij 4 +,
ij 1 +,
genfit vx vy 
Pans return 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 
20 15 10 5 0 50 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
300 
320 
Sigma 3 (MPa) 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
SDa ():=( ) 0.056=
SDMi ( ):=( ) 7.224=
SDc ():=( ) 29.625=
Ma ():=( ) 0.483=
MMi ( ):=( ) 29.973=
Mc ():=( ) 153.901=
( ) 
0 1 2 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
186.542 0.471 26.859 
168.75 0.475 27.756 
74.416 0.456 65.411 
134.152 0.481 29.586 
182.874 0.473 27.158 
120.641 0.485 30.177 
193.381 0.472 26.361 
132.549 0.481 29.789 
183.345 0.472 26.997 
139.387 0.48 29.369 
145.133 0.478 29.106 
=Mi ( ) 2<>
:=
A ( ) 1<>
:=
C ( ) 0<>
:=
Results of the best fit routine for all data 
10 15 20 25 
stdev Astdev A 
stdev Mi stdev Mi 
stdev Cstdev C 
mean Amean A 
mean Mi mean Mi 
mean Cmean C 
Answer try Answer try 
Answer try 
Answer try 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure II-2. MathCAD Hoek-Brown Calculations for Lower Non-Lithophysal Intact Rock (Continued) 
20 15 10 5 0 50 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
220 
240 
260 
280 
300 
320 
Tptpln Hoek Brown Failure Envelope 
Sigma 3 (MPa) 
Sigma 1 (MPa) 
Solid Blue Lines Indicate Standard 
Devaition of Results, Blue Bars are 
One SD of Input Data 
Red Lines Indicate Mean Results, 
Red Dots Mean Input 
10 15 20 25 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) 
Indirect 
Tensile 
Strength 
Unconfined 
Compressive 
Strength 
5 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
Indirect 
Tensile 
Strength 
Unconfined 
Compressive 
Strength 
5 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Major 
Stress 
Unconfined 
Minor 
Stress 
5 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
Unconfine 
d Minor 
Stress 
5 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
10 MPa 
Confined 
Minor 
Stress 
-9.8336 194.02 297.61 293.13 -8.9884 163.64 233.57 271.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.835 178.4 264.68 281.97 -8.2348 152.88 210.88 263.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.1373 96.971 93.317 223.75 -5.7814 130.42 163.56 247.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8703 154.51 214.33 264.89 -6.9797 124.03 150.11 243.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6584 150.27 205.38 261.85 -13.01 202.52 315.53 299.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7443 116.17 133.57 237.47 -7.4496 141.25 186.37 255.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.412 163.84 233.99 271.56 -13.185 204.13 318.94 300.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2075 119.8 141.2 240.07 -9.0864 156.42 218.35 266.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.8569 171.08 249.25 276.73 -9.1097 181.87 272 284.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2955 161.21 228.44 269.67 -6.2514 125.48 153.16 244.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6135 150.62 206.12 262.1 -7.6205 144.9 194.06 258.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2553 174.44 256.33 279.13 -6.7766 135.46 174.17 251.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7404 122.79 147.5 242.21 -5.4984 120.02 141.66 240.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0553 168.88 244.61 275.16 -8.6999 176.32 260.29 280.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.162 189.01 287.06 289.55 -6.4449 148.25 201.13 260.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.134 102.22 104.29 227.5 -5.348 143.39 190.88 256.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7007 182.35 273.01 284.79 -7.6196 154.91 215.17 265.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.765 207.63 326.31 302.87 -5.9851 148.64 201.95 260.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6402 135.58 174.43 251.35 -6.7264 113.16 127.24 235.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.8157 141.74 187.41 255.75 -1.0541 107.24 114.81 231.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.048 181.01 270.19 283.83 -9.3972 172.75 252.78 277.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.6919 110.71 122.09 233.57 -7.2349 147.33 199.18 259.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.521 188.49 285.95 289.18 -5.5581 135.74 174.76 251.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.515 179.54 267.08 282.78 -5.2009 94.72 88.629 222.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.7863 166.94 240.53 273.77 -9.0622 156.49 218.5 266.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.8656 127.94 158.34 245.89 -11.408 198.15 306.34 296.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5969 171.26 249.64 276.86 -5.8618 90.487 79.844 219.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7054 127.01 156.37 245.22 -7.6162 150.42 205.71 261.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7218 179.05 266.07 282.43 -8.8198 165.58 237.66 272.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2237 136.46 176.27 251.98 -6.9711 155.19 215.76 265.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.6836 168.01 242.79 274.54 -8.7329 178.17 264.2 281.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.0814 117.9 137.19 238.71 -4.2813 130.31 163.33 247.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8571 139.41 182.49 254.09 -9.5794 175.55 258.67 279.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9298 158.57 222.88 267.79 -7.9797 143.48 191.07 257 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4466 159.44 224.72 268.41 -13.32 184.82 278.23 286.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8242 113.87 128.72 235.83 -8.6779 153.18 211.52 263.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2414 111.78 124.34 234.33 -8.0282 145.47 195.26 258.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9992 177.08 261.9 281.02 -10.659 171.72 250.6 277.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0914 153.34 211.86 264.05 -7.6334 138.03 179.58 253.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.3296 149.78 204.36 261.51 -11.257 181.72 271.68 284.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4531 124.37 150.81 243.33 -8.8078 166.19 238.94 273.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.9161 141.38 186.65 255.5 -6.3992 146.57 197.58 259.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7441 180.22 268.53 283.27 -6.8787 145.77 195.9 258.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1612 159.98 225.86 268.8 -8.4253 158.49 222.71 267.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.0649 104.89 109.87 229.41 -10.546 181.61 271.44 284.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3956 177.69 263.2 281.46 -10.014 170.71 248.47 276.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.938 189.87 288.88 290.17 -9.7233 176.43 260.52 280.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0909 138.98 181.59 253.78 -6.5345 150.31 205.48 261.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.99 193.44 296.41 292.72 -1.3375 103.2 106.33 228.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.798 139.02 181.68 253.81 -9.8129 177.15 262.05 281.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9927 170.91 248.89 276.61 -9.6372 174.03 255.47 278.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.931 119.67 140.94 239.98 -9.0067 190.28 289.74 290.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.03 173.51 254.38 278.47 -5.2874 128.62 159.77 246.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.043 162.99 232.2 270.95 -8.0293 145.57 195.49 258.5 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8395 150.55 205.98 262.06 -8.7892 186.15 281.04 287.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.3957 164.47 235.32 272.01 -7.3442 147.68 199.92 260 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4206 160.62 227.19 269.25 -9.6329 162.77 231.74 270.79 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.279 163.8 233.9 271.53 -11.628 182.87 274.11 285.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.8134 113.03 126.97 235.23 -7.1158 74.607 47.731 207.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.8908 142.65 189.32 256.41 -8.435 174.9 257.31 279.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.6594 140.75 185.32 255.05 -2.7491 81.118 60.66 212.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2259 162.88 231.97 270.87 -8.1381 154.98 215.32 265.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8216 129.83 162.32 247.24 -7.0596 128.67 159.88 246.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.9282 120.33 142.32 240.45 -12.505 186.35 281.45 287.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2419 141.93 187.8 255.89 -7.5162 138.47 180.51 253.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.0961 175.81 259.23 280.12 -7.7962 143.84 191.82 257.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.4041 121.73 145.26 241.45 -8.533 175.62 258.82 279.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7194 104.23 108.5 228.94 -8.6317 162.13 230.39 270.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9693 155.26 215.91 265.42 -5.4414 128.99 160.54 246.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4673 153.67 212.55 264.28 -8.5295 155.29 215.96 265.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.808 126.44 155.18 244.82 -6.7401 125.17 152.51 243.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.5862 144.19 192.57 257.51 -3.8836 118.88 139.27 239.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.048 149.17 203.06 261.06 -5.7116 133.37 169.77 249.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1187 134.21 171.54 250.37 -4.9915 149.75 204.29 261.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6205 146.78 198.03 259.36 -7.2375 164.71 235.83 272.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.9382 108.77 118.01 232.18 -10.04 196.71 303.3 295.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3574 172.35 251.93 277.64 -9.9768 167.2 241.08 273.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.1654 135.18 173.58 251.06 -8.8955 182.64 273.62 285 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4828 160.32 226.57 269.04 -10.28 178.45 264.78 282 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8305 151.91 208.83 263.02 -10.366 201.99 314.43 298.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) 
-9.3684 159.03 223.86 268.12 -8.1136 175.42 258.4 279.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7807 155.48 216.36 265.58 -7.9455 156.65 218.84 266.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9599 143.59 191.3 257.08 -7.0521 152.06 209.16 263.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4178 160.87 227.74 269.44 -7.4087 140.3 184.38 254.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.5465 154.76 214.85 265.07 -7.7441 171.95 251.08 277.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.8702 138.29 180.13 253.28 -6.6758 153.5 212.18 264.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.661 125.01 152.16 243.79 -9.6083 180.35 268.8 283.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4245 134.8 172.78 250.79 -10.875 197.75 305.48 295.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.485 176.96 261.66 280.94 -8.3497 158.44 222.59 267.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.6951 132.83 168.63 249.38 -9.0989 189.19 287.44 289.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4486 140.1 183.95 254.58 -10.562 171.06 249.2 276.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7018 153 211.14 263.81 -8.8878 171.41 249.94 276.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2651 146.08 196.56 258.86 -8.2816 172.61 252.49 277.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-14.29 187.69 284.27 288.61 -9.8283 175.99 259.61 280.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-18.91 217.36 346.83 309.82 -10.189 185.06 278.72 286.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.3418 133.72 170.51 250.02 -8.7035 133.04 169.08 249.54 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1438 112.55 125.94 234.88 -9.2912 165.18 236.82 272.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6659 151.65 208.29 262.84 -6.7842 166.49 239.57 273.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7048 174.59 256.64 279.24 -9.5522 192.35 294.1 291.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.3476 135.41 174.08 251.23 -11.299 189.62 288.34 289.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1065 155.13 215.62 265.33 -7.0228 149.91 204.63 261.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8266 121.84 145.49 241.52 -1.0024 75.651 49.77 208.5 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3773 156.19 217.85 266.08 -8.3157 151.55 208.08 262.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7537 137.05 177.53 252.4 -17.303 213.91 339.56 307.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.547 208.88 328.94 303.76 -9.3271 152.47 210.03 263.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0191 141.68 187.28 255.71 -7.6406 148 200.6 260.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2831 171.53 250.2 277.05 -3.4003 114.08 129.17 235.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.2586 159.61 225.07 268.53 -11.263 241.42 397.53 327.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.8253 129.7 162.04 247.15 -9.1153 153.82 212.87 264.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7042 142.93 189.92 256.61 -6.1508 134.56 172.27 250.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.3558 144.83 193.92 257.96 -8.7345 169.65 246.24 275.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.3057 111.84 124.45 234.37 -6.6408 153.43 212.05 264.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2189 175.13 257.78 279.62 -10.774 197.01 303.92 295.27 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.157 152.56 210.21 263.49 -10.973 170.36 247.74 276.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2159 143.51 191.13 257.02 -3.6014 97.576 94.579 224.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8522 149.97 204.75 261.64 -9.8085 182.51 273.36 284.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.413 183.33 275.08 285.49 -9.791 179.77 267.57 282.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6724 137.97 179.46 253.06 -9.5246 183.96 276.42 285.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.289 194.72 299.1 293.64 -8.3772 155.83 217.09 265.83 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8962 155.93 217.31 265.9 -12.999 206.64 324.23 302.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.1593 167.47 241.64 274.15 -6.5589 134.02 171.14 250.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.852 95.686 90.639 222.83 -5.3 125.28 152.73 243.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.369 180.51 269.13 283.47 -8.4518 158.69 223.13 267.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.7229 157.84 221.34 267.27 -5.6102 119.54 140.65 239.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.9375 170.49 248 276.31 -7.8594 151.01 206.94 262.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.6757 139.45 182.58 254.12 -8.5963 174.49 256.43 279.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.516 131.21 165.23 248.23 -6.3074 122.15 146.14 241.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.101 193.68 296.89 292.89 -7.4758 154.73 214.79 265.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3891 157.66 220.96 267.14 -7.0589 135.12 173.46 251.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.091 174.12 255.67 278.91 -4.2349 100.36 100.39 226.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.9662 214.36 340.51 307.68 -7.688 145.88 196.12 258.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.572 197.3 304.54 295.48 -10.956 167.26 241.21 274 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.5844 130.91 164.58 248.01 -7.4114 162.35 230.86 270.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5922 167.67 242.07 274.3 -8.3516 170.04 247.06 275.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4581 155.39 216.19 265.52 -6.81 122.3 146.45 241.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.613 199.74 309.67 297.22 -7.5344 160.43 226.8 269.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.396 226.52 366.15 316.37 -8.9552 165.42 237.33 272.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.0552 142.88 189.81 256.57 -6.0586 145.24 194.78 258.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.4546 133.47 169.98 249.84 -7.1125 130.76 164.26 247.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4634 182.1 272.49 284.61 -8.2415 161.95 229.99 270.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9819 149.01 202.74 260.96 -4.497 111.56 123.87 234.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.1077 118.93 139.36 239.44 -10.908 179.94 267.93 283.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0708 123.37 148.71 242.62 -5.2792 87.596 73.877 217.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.789 203.03 316.61 299.57 -6.5719 132.98 168.94 249.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.046 189.5 288.08 289.9 -9.8252 184.53 277.61 286.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2358 123.73 149.47 242.88 -8.4824 161.08 228.17 269.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.452 182.72 273.79 285.06 -8.3975 162.96 232.14 270.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.619 212.79 337.19 306.56 -5.654 127.2 156.78 245.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.12 206.82 324.61 302.29 -6.7383 150.95 206.82 262.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.905 181.35 270.91 284.08 -9.2412 176.17 259.98 280.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.936 221.41 355.36 312.72 -5.4734 105.98 112.16 230.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.43 134.38 171.91 250.5 -3.378 109.18 118.87 232.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7643 158.24 222.19 267.55 -6.2152 141.48 186.85 255.57 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5895 158.11 221.9 267.46 -8.087 159.71 225.28 268.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.4422 138.25 180.06 253.26 -7.4348 137.37 178.2 252.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.112 166.31 239.2 273.32 -6.7426 121.59 144.96 241.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.3975 173.65 254.68 278.57 -5.5145 124.84 151.82 243.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8248 152.3 209.66 263.3 -6.9057 165.01 236.46 272.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.3944 138.55 180.67 253.47 -7.4125 172.01 251.22 277.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.551 131.51 165.84 248.44 -6.8193 143.13 190.34 256.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.6305 167.92 242.58 274.47 -8.3551 162.01 230.13 270.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.5807 105.4 110.94 229.77 -4.8349 125.71 153.64 244.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.8352 152.41 209.89 263.38 -2.3938 94.259 87.668 221.81 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7935 143.21 190.51 256.81 -10.64 189.8 288.72 290.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) 
-9.4393 192.59 294.6 292.11 -5.9759 137.22 177.88 252.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6692 151.12 207.17 262.46 -7.6388 164.88 236.18 272.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0966 160.11 226.13 268.89 -5.8239 136.4 176.15 251.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.4192 128.26 159.01 246.12 -12.157 219.41 351.15 311.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9402 170.07 247.12 276.01 -10.405 213.4 338.49 306.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.1037 151.3 207.55 262.59 -7.337 148.08 200.76 260.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.501 195.59 300.94 294.26 -5.1029 118.75 138.99 239.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.2271 104.68 109.44 229.26 -8.8817 159.83 225.53 268.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6714 115.7 132.57 237.13 -6.1984 134.92 173.04 250.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.024 160.34 226.6 269.05 -6.9298 122.36 146.59 241.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.9926 120.69 143.06 240.7 -5.0628 117.54 136.44 238.45 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.912 186.27 281.28 287.59 -5.9614 143.68 191.49 257.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.1345 116.03 133.28 237.38 -10.98 203.78 318.21 300.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.6214 146.4 197.23 259.09 -7.5718 148.74 202.15 260.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7675 146.97 198.42 259.49 -7.6229 150.16 205.14 261.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7283 142.2 188.37 256.08 -6.6253 138.87 181.36 253.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6826 172.12 251.45 277.48 -8.3059 158.25 222.21 267.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.204 185.59 279.85 287.11 -5.7236 119.26 140.06 239.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1401 135.04 173.29 250.96 -8.1154 161.75 229.58 270.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9352 137.8 179.11 252.94 -10.565 198.88 307.87 296.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.5103 123.8 149.62 242.93 -8.4332 133.95 170.99 250.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4697 186.5 281.77 287.76 -8.4829 167.42 241.54 274.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.3159 137.83 179.16 252.96 -11.665 196.02 301.83 294.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9858 150.89 206.69 262.3 -8.1605 182.98 274.35 285.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.3934 166.28 239.14 273.3 -14.909 237.29 388.83 324.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.875 194.79 299.25 293.69 -5.8165 143.28 190.65 256.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.2274 98.992 97.535 225.19 -7.2665 164.14 234.62 271.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.6117 219.87 352.12 311.62 -8.3729 184.16 276.82 286.08 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7256 101.13 102 226.72 -10.91 167.71 242.14 274.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2627 157.21 220.02 266.82 -9.1116 153.12 211.4 263.89 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.2274 144.06 192.29 257.41 -6.6106 132.09 167.07 248.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4736 163.16 232.56 271.07 -10.419 204.94 320.65 300.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.0926 115.33 131.79 236.87 -5.7693 129.44 161.48 246.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.1207 102.92 105.75 228 -4.4572 127.31 157.02 245.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4915 154.64 214.6 264.98 -10.96 190.22 289.61 290.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6005 140.87 185.58 255.14 -4.0078 118.59 138.66 239.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.6678 184.05 276.59 286 -7.2512 153.58 212.36 264.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.23 191.95 293.25 291.65 -5.8305 142.75 189.54 256.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7411 160.84 227.67 269.41 -6.2446 109.79 120.16 232.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-14.115 190.83 290.89 290.85 -8.2082 163.71 233.71 271.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4424 151.98 208.98 263.07 -3.2803 117.09 135.51 238.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.158 173.02 253.33 278.12 -8.0535 145.01 194.3 258.09 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.0443 123.53 149.05 242.73 -11.506 206.02 322.92 301.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.6208 92.002 82.983 220.19 -10.082 165.17 236.8 272.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6327 139.65 183 254.26 -4.5525 111.27 123.26 233.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1181 113.56 128.07 235.61 -10.255 169.61 246.14 275.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7978 156.04 217.55 265.98 -13.188 195.11 299.92 293.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.315 211.47 334.41 305.61 -6.2286 132.49 167.92 249.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.1786 165.54 237.57 272.77 -10.981 185.52 279.7 287.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.8459 86.428 71.478 216.21 -11.552 227.41 368.03 317.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8142 152.09 209.21 263.15 -5.1382 116.3 133.83 237.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5823 150.53 205.93 262.04 -13.977 210.52 332.41 304.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4234 151.72 208.44 262.89 -9.852 188.6 286.2 289.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.135 172.57 252.39 277.8 -7.4714 172.72 252.7 277.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.259 142.3 188.59 256.16 -8.6648 154.11 213.47 264.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2281 140.39 184.57 254.79 -7.5201 156.05 217.58 265.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0474 168.52 243.86 274.9 -13.918 187.9 284.72 288.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.115 187.51 283.9 288.48 -7.8825 163.47 233.21 271.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4917 157.01 219.6 266.67 -8.7958 166.73 240.08 273.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.5568 101.32 102.4 226.85 -9.0412 178.7 265.33 282.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.2933 165.97 238.47 273.08 -2.6516 108.04 116.49 231.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6256 137.62 178.73 252.81 -7.2979 151.83 208.68 262.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.2533 193.02 295.51 292.42 -4.4099 131.58 166.01 248.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.4645 89.747 78.314 218.58 -6.3504 124.46 151 243.4 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.8296 142.12 188.2 256.02 -5.446 110.2 121.03 233.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7852 141.86 187.66 255.84 -6.5275 144.77 193.8 257.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.148 125.34 152.85 244.03 -6.5568 129.4 161.41 246.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-2.5461 110.98 122.65 233.76 -7.5609 149.59 203.94 261.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7538 149.14 203.01 261.05 -5.9033 142.5 189.01 256.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0104 149.41 203.57 261.24 -3.5455 95.196 89.618 222.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.9256 100.59 100.87 226.33 -10.468 169.52 245.96 275.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.663 176.73 261.16 280.77 -2.0348 101.72 103.23 227.14 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.995 214.57 340.94 307.83 -9.7983 212.49 336.56 306.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.071 180.73 269.59 283.63 -12.402 204.69 320.11 300.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.4946 115.76 132.71 237.18 -9.6313 177.98 263.81 281.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.239 172.27 251.77 277.59 -6.8772 123.5 148.98 242.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3618 163.38 233.02 271.23 -11.319 194.25 298.1 293.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.215 154.04 213.33 264.55 -3.6762 103.45 106.86 228.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4311 158.75 223.25 267.91 -6.7831 126.06 154.38 244.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.372 120.99 143.71 240.92 -10.013 154.84 215.02 265.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8716 152.17 209.38 263.21 -7.3376 162.49 231.14 270.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.559 201.42 313.22 298.42 -6.371 135.83 174.95 251.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.1927 114.63 130.33 236.37 -9.9611 169.85 246.66 275.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.145 184.61 277.78 286.41 -5.0486 139.1 181.85 253.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2 Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) 
-9.0551 165.76 238.04 272.93 -5.0325 114.95 131 236.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2125 187.11 283.04 288.19 -8.0772 168.11 243 274.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5496 147.66 199.89 259.99 -10.293 187.01 282.85 288.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0634 169.31 245.53 275.47 -6.8111 147.19 198.89 259.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.026 195.41 300.56 294.13 -8.7322 169.74 246.44 275.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2665 136.08 175.48 251.71 -10.017 201.87 314.17 298.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.9127 174.21 255.86 278.97 -4.6767 113.32 127.57 235.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7921 133.59 170.24 249.93 -6.7975 146.9 198.27 259.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4938 192.45 294.31 292.01 -7.8232 156.21 217.9 266.1 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9494 140.19 184.15 254.65 -5.1955 136.74 176.88 252.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4511 168.28 243.35 274.73 -9.0468 157.14 219.87 266.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.3363 134.74 172.67 250.75 -9.1091 203.3 317.19 299.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.071 166.63 239.86 273.55 -6.221 137.46 178.39 252.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.805 166.86 240.35 273.71 -7.559 155.81 217.06 265.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.4319 82.892 64.254 213.68 -7.6405 162.25 230.64 270.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.9574 110.29 121.2 233.27 -9.0394 168.21 243.21 274.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.176 224.04 360.92 314.6 -8.9497 175.71 259.02 280.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.882 199.56 309.3 297.1 -8.6862 157.3 220.2 266.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.661 177.79 263.4 281.53 -7.2685 145.94 196.26 258.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9267 126.79 155.91 245.07 -1.5925 98.798 97.13 225.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.499 194.07 297.73 293.17 -9.097 171.48 250.11 277.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.0873 168.8 244.44 275.1 -7.1483 142.38 188.76 256.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9168 167.81 242.36 274.39 -12.867 202.34 315.16 299.08 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.872 191.18 291.62 291.1 -8.6315 157.63 220.91 267.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.124 188.42 285.82 289.13 -12.882 209.05 329.31 303.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6684 144.49 193.19 257.72 -7.9831 159.92 225.72 268.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.136 200.72 311.74 297.92 -7.2476 157.98 221.63 267.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.0358 115.49 132.13 236.99 -8.5981 180.85 269.85 283.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.6593 131.87 166.61 248.7 -12.487 176.53 260.74 280.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.02 194.48 298.6 293.47 -8.8933 172.14 251.49 277.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.359 131.78 166.41 248.63 -8.0594 149.36 203.46 261.2 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9597 144.69 193.63 257.87 -14.332 191.33 291.95 291.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.0962 183.25 274.92 285.44 -5.9382 124.15 150.35 243.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.8688 132.33 167.57 249.02 -5.2091 143.92 192 257.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9851 149.65 204.07 261.41 -5.4431 123.12 148.19 242.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.481 196.46 302.77 294.88 -6.0084 136.86 177.12 252.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.773 206.18 323.27 301.83 -1.0012 92.818 84.674 220.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2479 145.65 195.65 258.55 -8.3445 170.89 248.85 276.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.0247 186.61 281.99 287.84 -13.808 230.49 374.51 319.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.5339 118 137.4 238.78 -8.0635 168.75 244.34 275.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4811 130.02 162.72 247.38 -7.4057 151.5 207.98 262.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.3159 135.64 174.56 251.39 -8.6361 167.07 240.81 273.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0156 147.57 199.69 259.92 -4.2487 117.36 136.08 238.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.5142 160.05 226 268.85 -12.955 188.81 286.63 289.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.391 209.52 330.3 304.22 -11.182 188.95 286.93 289.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.26 259.65 435.8 340.08 -9.6012 198.09 306.2 296.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.805 126.13 154.53 244.6 -9.3192 159.34 224.51 268.34 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.154 177.43 262.65 281.27 -9.8257 228.63 370.58 317.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9477 147.04 198.58 259.55 -9.8299 204.51 319.74 300.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.8453 165.7 237.92 272.89 -5.3123 120.78 143.26 240.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.877 185.32 279.28 286.92 -11.442 178.79 265.51 282.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4239 181.47 271.16 284.16 -9.9677 201.7 313.8 298.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5582 153.26 211.69 263.99 -15.317 208.16 327.43 303.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.206 174.76 257 279.36 -12.033 195.67 301.1 294.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.055 200.89 312.11 298.05 -9.4301 168.43 243.67 274.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7869 155.72 216.87 265.75 -8.1869 167.3 241.28 274.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.8916 186 280.71 287.4 -8.3281 179.78 267.6 282.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2231 137.64 178.77 252.82 -7.9268 188.12 285.18 288.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.1398 181.49 271.2 284.18 -9.6317 157.54 220.71 267.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.867 185.25 279.12 286.86 -8.5406 156.53 218.59 266.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.313 207.2 325.41 302.56 -7.5314 145.71 195.78 258.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.2024 91.574 82.094 219.89 -8.9708 183.73 275.92 285.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.918 174.01 255.43 278.83 -11.219 191.82 292.97 291.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.5068 106.91 114.11 230.85 -7.2479 146.33 197.07 259.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5066 147.91 200.41 260.17 -9.4602 177.88 263.59 281.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7 164.69 235.78 272.16 -7.6538 163.09 232.4 271.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.1762 117.15 135.61 238.17 -8.8644 132.46 167.86 249.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.7694 121.14 144.02 241.03 -7.4294 148.95 202.61 260.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2215 98.055 95.579 224.52 -10.07 182.03 272.33 284.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2534 179.21 266.4 282.55 -8.7103 171.86 250.89 277.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.571 210.27 331.87 304.75 -8.2426 134.63 172.42 250.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.5888 131.38 165.58 248.35 -8.1734 161.82 229.74 270.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.5925 183.85 276.17 285.86 -9.7801 150.2 205.23 261.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.1315 176.94 261.61 280.92 -7.0382 146.06 196.51 258.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.214 164.17 234.69 271.79 -10.419 173.92 255.23 278.76 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9836 161.7 229.48 270.03 -7.0643 170.64 248.33 276.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9506 142.74 189.52 256.47 -10.562 202.87 316.28 299.46 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.1133 163.35 232.95 271.21 -9.2963 187.28 283.4 288.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.539 201.11 312.57 298.2 -9.346 154.19 213.65 264.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7633 144.14 192.46 257.47 -10.699 170.47 247.96 276.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.909 192.24 293.86 291.86 -11.992 197.53 305.02 295.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.0675 171.22 249.54 276.83 -6.3121 130.53 163.79 247.74 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.679 205.62 322.07 301.43 -6.3658 150.03 204.87 261.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9582 122.64 147.17 242.1 -6.4971 133.85 170.79 250.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) 
-3.6105 112.2 125.21 234.63 -9.0395 176.23 260.11 280.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9707 184.26 277.03 286.15 -6.8795 136.24 175.81 251.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.481 211.24 333.93 305.45 -5.2742 136.27 175.88 251.84 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.213 205.18 321.16 301.12 -5.8915 130.19 163.07 247.49 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.296 173.83 255.04 278.7 -10.554 179.34 266.66 282.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.908 131.29 165.38 248.28 -14.344 209.79 330.88 304.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7738 148.9 202.5 260.88 -9.2916 178.05 263.95 281.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.6521 174.32 256.09 279.05 -13.48 207.44 325.92 302.73 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9857 150.75 206.4 262.2 -8.4344 169.28 245.45 275.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.0923 169.09 245.06 275.31 -7.9265 158.35 222.41 267.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.2418 132.24 167.39 248.96 -9.2215 161.61 229.3 269.97 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.344 232.78 379.33 320.85 -11.17 193.34 296.19 292.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8057 165.9 238.33 273.03 -8.6279 152.97 211.08 263.78 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9908 140.71 185.24 255.02 -7.5382 168.64 244.12 274.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.053 179.37 266.73 282.66 -6.0865 148.36 201.35 260.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.1296 175.17 257.89 279.66 -9.9831 177.56 262.92 281.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5758 168.03 242.83 274.56 -5.6551 118.3 138.04 238.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.0089 63.366 27.222 199.72 -7.768 154.55 214.4 264.91 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8076 114.33 129.69 236.15 -10.023 184.95 278.49 286.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.1499 102.64 105.16 227.8 -7.1584 139.95 183.63 254.47 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.3804 109.41 119.37 232.64 -13.053 183.55 275.55 285.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5863 149.28 203.31 261.15 -6.0945 106.67 113.61 230.68 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.2584 180.6 269.31 283.54 -8.5397 173.44 254.22 278.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8087 141.64 187.19 255.68 -8.8707 160.78 227.53 269.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9329 188.22 285.38 288.99 -9.3782 166.12 238.8 273.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.437 176.76 261.23 280.79 -8.6339 162.27 230.67 270.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4585 144.27 192.73 257.56 -5.2974 129.57 161.78 247.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0026 163.53 233.33 271.33 -9.5376 165.03 236.51 272.41 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.7313 190.09 289.34 290.33 -11.452 198.99 308.1 296.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7855 156.88 219.32 266.58 -6.4472 138.4 180.36 253.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6911 165.33 237.12 272.62 -6.882 140.92 185.67 255.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.732 182.2 272.7 284.68 -10.349 161.46 228.97 269.85 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-15.325 225.23 363.42 315.45 -5.7335 136.99 177.39 252.36 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.2617 170.76 248.58 276.51 -8.025 124.75 151.62 243.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.2446 116.78 134.84 237.91 -6.6091 133.11 169.22 249.58 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-2.1009 108.22 116.85 231.79 -5.9895 129.3 161.2 246.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9898 147.75 200.08 260.05 -6.454 145.06 194.39 258.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5779 169.9 246.77 275.89 -5.6345 130.17 163.03 247.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3147 172.9 253.09 278.03 -4.6145 139.51 182.71 254.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.8252 120.47 142.61 240.55 -8.1859 154.41 214.12 264.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.361 172.43 252.09 277.69 -6.4167 148.42 201.48 260.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.1483 152.34 209.74 263.33 -7.865 161.17 228.36 269.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-16.579 244.24 403.47 329.05 -9.7134 191.78 292.9 291.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2421 148.15 200.91 260.33 -4.0318 138.17 179.89 253.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.4895 116.55 134.37 237.75 -5.6941 121.9 145.62 241.57 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4157 180.75 269.63 283.64 -12.95 223.24 359.22 314.02 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-1.1367 85.376 69.32 215.45 -10.868 234.45 382.86 322.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7824 151.35 207.66 262.63 -6.8473 139.9 183.54 254.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.154 162.1 230.32 270.31 -5.2132 147.25 199.01 259.69 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4633 216.44 344.9 309.17 -5.8908 128.83 160.22 246.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.7223 161.28 228.59 269.72 -6.2956 146.18 196.75 258.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5821 170.15 247.3 276.07 -7.8132 127.58 157.57 245.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.3702 132.6 168.16 249.22 -6.3568 126.74 155.8 245.03 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0829 146.25 196.9 258.98 -2.4666 104.99 110.09 229.48 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.4979 130.62 163.99 247.81 -9.6315 161.49 229.03 269.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.732 118.17 137.76 238.9 -11.147 178.55 265 282.07 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3905 157.09 219.76 266.73 -8.7791 162.52 231.21 270.61 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7789 88.303 75.335 217.55 -9.3198 186.72 282.23 287.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.528 173.26 253.85 278.29 -8.658 175.32 258.2 279.77 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8294 127.09 156.53 245.28 -13.792 199.23 308.61 296.86 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.909 146.69 197.83 259.29 -8.3466 147.4 199.33 259.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.5952 116.79 134.87 237.92 -7.7283 132.78 168.53 249.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9838 131.69 166.24 248.57 -9.6832 170.23 247.45 276.12 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9967 159.49 224.82 268.45 -6.8976 144.41 193.02 257.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5742 168.95 244.76 275.21 -10.708 163.97 234.27 271.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-3.9842 132.01 166.9 248.8 -11.958 183.09 274.57 285.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.712 173.32 253.97 278.33 -6.1066 134.31 171.74 250.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4213 137.16 177.75 252.48 -7.4796 158.08 221.85 267.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2786 124.3 150.67 243.29 -5.3405 133.55 170.16 249.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.5517 140.25 184.26 254.69 -3.5793 125.92 154.07 244.44 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.3846 143.02 190.11 256.67 -8.7407 164.82 236.06 272.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.8857 119.98 141.57 240.19 -6.7142 165.37 237.21 272.65 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6315 157.77 221.2 267.22 -13.929 208.54 328.24 303.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.604 107.47 115.28 231.25 -15.436 212.08 335.7 306.05 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2005 156.62 218.76 266.39 -8.6883 140.55 184.9 254.9 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1734 125.63 153.47 244.23 -8.7414 169.41 245.74 275.54 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.266 218.04 348.27 310.31 -5.6967 140.53 184.86 254.89 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.3862 159.12 224.03 268.18 -10.016 181.21 270.61 283.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7698 147.83 200.24 260.11 -6.9826 153.86 212.94 264.42 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.6655 151.46 207.9 262.71 -9.0715 167.6 241.92 274.25 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5629 182.48 273.29 284.88 -7.3598 146.82 198.11 259.39 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.1185 84.314 67.15 214.7 -10.762 176.57 260.83 280.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.094 215.44 342.79 308.45 -7.5754 128.34 159.17 246.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.506 190.49 290.17 290.61 -11.591 164.38 235.12 271.94 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-2. Data Generated from GoldSim for Tptpln (File=Correct Tptpln.xls) (continued) 
-9.9886 215.69 343.31 308.63 -5.2481 131.07 164.93 248.13 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.297 179.61 267.23 282.83 -7.0351 156.84 219.24 266.55 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.3491 163.26 232.77 271.14 -7.4589 136.7 176.79 252.15 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.0653 120.25 142.15 240.39 -8.5628 155.66 216.74 265.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.336 193.17 295.82 292.52 -9.8594 190.65 290.5 290.72 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9779 126.6 155.51 244.93 -11.474 192.75 294.93 292.22 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.2939 171.67 250.5 277.15 -6.878 142.03 188.01 255.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.3041 136 175.31 251.65 -4.9243 107.65 115.66 231.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.2509 112.25 125.33 234.67 -7.7797 145.14 194.56 258.18 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.3171 156.29 218.07 266.16 -11.405 198.37 306.78 296.24 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.293 196.87 303.63 295.17 -9.6994 175.98 259.57 280.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7513 141.15 186.17 255.34 -2.6442 79.664 57.734 211.37 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5069 164.01 234.35 271.68 -7.3975 147.5 199.53 259.87 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.7741 104.01 108.03 228.78 -8.1172 146.52 197.48 259.17 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.9746 181.08 270.34 283.88 -4.9344 139.71 183.13 254.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.048 178.24 264.34 281.85 -8.5414 164.3 234.95 271.88 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.909 189.3 287.66 289.76 -5.1309 142.48 188.97 256.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.627 186.87 282.54 288.02 -5.9518 114.56 130.17 236.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.853 154.3 213.87 264.73 -8.1538 166.96 240.56 273.79 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.631 221.36 355.26 312.68 -9.8382 175.24 258.01 279.7 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5187 156.74 219.02 266.48 -3.2557 110.81 122.29 233.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.5853 187.47 283.81 288.45 -6.2101 117.73 136.85 238.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.6456 152.66 210.41 263.56 -8.953 191.12 291.49 291.06 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.5727 152.75 210.62 263.63 -9.535 159.69 225.24 268.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.892 148.77 202.21 260.78 -6.2476 144.36 192.92 257.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9365 124.62 151.33 243.51 -10.992 191.56 292.43 291.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4261 162.71 231.6 270.75 -2.6834 122.93 147.79 242.31 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.6693 174.67 256.82 279.3 -8.0724 137.32 178.09 252.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.1813 158.87 223.5 268 -5.148 127.98 158.41 245.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9863 139.8 183.31 254.37 -9.7256 169.14 245.17 275.35 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.0045 139.18 182.01 253.93 -9.9719 166.64 239.9 273.56 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.1144 160.53 227.02 269.19 -8.7162 155.51 216.44 265.6 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.1155 180.02 268.1 283.12 -10.142 166.02 238.58 273.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.2531 141.51 186.92 255.59 -4.8822 144.62 193.48 257.82 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.1685 128.51 159.52 246.29 -10.612 153.98 213.21 264.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.0822 122.52 146.92 242.01 -8.786 134.14 171.39 250.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4313 168.55 243.91 274.92 -12.203 177.46 262.7 281.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.699 135.24 173.71 251.11 -10.376 185.74 280.16 287.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.562 193.79 297.13 292.97 -10.23 157.89 221.45 267.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7938 139.33 182.32 254.03 -9.1352 177.27 262.29 281.16 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.7175 121.27 144.28 241.12 -7.3472 160.68 227.32 269.3 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.7736 157.47 220.57 267 -5.2283 126.19 154.65 244.64 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4429 131.01 164.81 248.09 -9.3466 174.96 257.43 279.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8 161.38 228.81 269.8 -5.335 89.533 77.871 218.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.224 200.17 310.58 297.53 -2.769 119.23 140.01 239.66 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-2.95 106.37 112.97 230.46 -9.5111 178.97 265.89 282.38 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4657 96.092 91.485 223.12 -5.5336 129.15 160.88 246.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.9018 133.23 169.47 249.67 -8.1707 159.18 224.17 268.23 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.382 173.05 253.4 278.14 -6.9419 108.96 118.41 232.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.4889 185.92 280.53 287.34 -8.7751 166.46 239.5 273.43 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.7584 127.46 157.33 245.55 -15.385 197.68 305.33 295.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.27 183.51 275.45 285.62 -8.5453 150.84 206.58 262.26 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9499 138.7 181 253.58 -11.259 178.9 265.74 282.32 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.5524 158.97 223.72 268.07 -7.2523 158.81 223.38 267.96 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4447 164.39 235.15 271.95 -6.6423 127.69 157.82 245.71 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-12.865 180.19 268.46 283.24 -14.235 222.85 358.4 313.75 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.6826 148.47 201.59 260.57 -4.6794 148.56 201.78 260.63 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.634 200.34 310.95 297.66 -8.0953 162.59 231.36 270.67 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.9976 141.08 186.01 255.28 -4.6389 108.49 117.44 231.98 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.808 143.73 191.61 257.18 -9.399 203.61 317.84 299.99 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.2271 127.8 158.03 245.78 -6.5102 126.42 155.14 244.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8443 149.5 203.76 261.3 -10.831 194.96 299.6 293.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.8211 115.05 131.21 236.67 -10.084 153.74 212.7 264.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-4.4146 99.709 99.032 225.7 -11.89 198.77 307.64 296.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.523 187.89 284.69 288.75 -7.0971 145.28 194.87 258.29 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-16.514 218.98 350.25 310.98 -7.9552 164.62 235.63 272.11 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-8.4776 152.81 210.74 263.67 -4.7708 121.39 144.55 241.21 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.0248 160.94 227.88 269.49 -5.6234 113.84 128.65 235.8 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.8813 159.25 224.31 268.27 -11.258 190.94 291.12 290.93 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-7.5524 154.22 213.71 264.68 -5.623 128.97 160.5 246.62 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.5466 157.36 220.33 266.92 -1.3067 109.8 120.18 232.92 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-13.6 199.94 310.09 297.36 -8.7272 138.72 181.04 253.59 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.583 184.38 277.3 286.24 -5.1658 129.95 162.58 247.33 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.6331 141.02 185.89 255.24 -9.9501 173.57 254.51 278.51 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-5.0894 123.21 148.37 242.5 -9.3668 173.12 253.55 278.19 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-9.6721 185.13 278.88 286.78 -10.387 160.2 226.31 268.95 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-11.321 217.15 346.38 309.67 -1.7064 105.78 111.74 230.04 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-10.019 196.31 302.44 294.77 -4.5628 128.11 158.69 246.01 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.9989 145.42 195.17 258.39 -14.81 195.97 301.74 294.53 0 5 10 0 5 10 
-6.4594 135.9 175.09 251.58 -5.7877 151.21 207.36 262.52 0 5 10 0 5 10 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
II.3 OUTPUT RESULTS OF MATHCAD FITTING ROUTINE 
The results of the MathCAD fitting routine for the Tptpmn unit are listed in Table II-3. 
The result of the MathCAD fitting routine for the Tptpln unit are listed in Table II-4. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-3. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn 
Fitted Fitted 
Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined 
Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Fitted 
Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown 
Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
1 135.571 0.479 38.438 
2 127.148 0.477 35.203 
3 64.566 0.417 57.886 
4 110.433 0.473 28.451 
5 134.03 0.478 37.952 
6 103.784 0.47 25.833 
7 138.856 0.479 39.886 
8 109.711 0.472 28.265 
9 134.052 0.479 37.885 
10 113.023 0.474 29.49 
11 115.823 0.475 30.577 
12 120.384 0.476 32.38 
13 99.24 0.466 24.1 
14 131.601 0.479 36.831 
15 129.09 0.478 35.884 
16 97.059 0.453 27.664 
17 129.092 0.479 35.788 
18 135.196 0.479 38.202 
19 101.019 0.469 24.71 
20 71.836 0.399 68.786 
21 134.294 0.478 38.123 
22 103.773 0.466 26.398 
23 124.956 0.477 34.243 
24 109.088 0.471 28.066 
25 124.646 0.477 34.195 
26 125.567 0.476 34.606 
27 105.153 0.471 26.352 
28 110.09 0.473 28.307 
29 131.414 0.479 36.787 
30 114.609 0.474 30.098 
31 131.907 0.479 36.976 
32 101.061 0.462 25.167 
33 121.976 0.476 33.074 
34 117.884 0.476 31.401 
35 131.284 0.477 36.984 
36 106.783 0.471 27.031 
37 103.706 0.47 25.796 
38 132.736 0.478 37.381 
39 114.482 0.474 30.072 
40 127.23 0.477 35.242 
41 114.238 0.474 29.987 
42 113.476 0.473 29.755 
43 125.513 0.478 34.374 
44 123.118 0.477 33.479 
45 109.77 0.468 31.964 
46 132.599 0.478 37.338 
47 138.29 0.479 39.74 
48 113.857 0.474 29.794 
49 82.205 0.451 63.301 
50 122.368 0.476 33.236 
51 131.501 0.478 36.873 
52 120.436 0.475 32.467 
53 117.918 0.474 31.607 
54 119.92 0.475 32.316 
55 128.915 0.478 35.743 
56 121.089 0.476 32.678 
57 124.636 0.477 34.162 
58 132.032 0.478 37.206 
59 81.107 0.45 17.89 
60 122.836 0.476 33.435 
61 84.822 0.443 28.354 
62 122.897 0.477 33.405 
63 104.107 0.47 25.934 
64 69.751 0.411 13.748 
65 119.333 0.472 32.43 
66 111.035 0.473 28.691 
67 123.467 0.477 33.643 
68 116.418 0.474 30.862 
69 106.592 0.471 26.972 
70 112.306 0.473 29.254 
71 120.073 0.476 32.285 
72 101.92 0.469 25.075 
73 105.537 0.467 26.929 
74 111.715 0.473 28.991 
75 112.22 0.472 29.265 
76 120.907 0.476 32.567 
77 118.98 0.473 32.082 
78 129.775 0.478 36.233 
79 122.92 0.476 33.45 
80 129.524 0.478 36.149 
81 134.395 0.479 37.921 
82 128.171 0.478 35.521 
83 121.072 0.476 32.7 
84 115.885 0.475 30.606 
85 117.596 0.475 31.307 
86 125.703 0.477 34.557 
87 114.624 0.474 30.145 
88 118.938 0.475 31.861 
89 127.569 0.477 35.311 
90 128.478 0.478 35.607 
91 124.266 0.476 34.012 
92 120.752 0.476 32.658 
93 124.977 0.477 34.236 
94 123.177 0.477 33.486 
95 137.444 0.478 39.501 
96 149.922 0.48 44.147 
97 106.72 0.471 27.058 
98 110.177 0.472 28.404 
99 123.006 0.477 33.404 
100 138.536 0.48 39.577 
101 125.194 0.476 34.422 
102 118.865 0.476 31.773 
103 54.56 0.413 54.451 
104 119.659 0.476 32.187 
105 133.494 0.476 37.74 
106 136.774 0.479 38.898 
107 113.963 0.474 29.845 
108 112.194 0.47 30.03 
109 150.086 0.481 42.091 
110 112.026 0.472 29.22 
111 110.131 0.473 28.331 
112 121.816 0.476 33 
113 106.29 0.469 27.036 
114 140.199 0.48 40.263 
115 124.498 0.476 34.161 
116 98.09 0.462 24.537 
117 127.561 0.478 35.274 
118 137.282 0.479 39.203 
119 124.193 0.477 33.936 
120 133.303 0.479 37.551 
121 137.175 0.478 39.147 
122 117.717 0.475 31.332 
123 73.97 0.425 40.105 
124 129.667 0.478 36.173 
125 110.07 0.472 28.41 
126 124.039 0.477 33.926 
127 121.686 0.475 33.012 
128 102.485 0.47 25.301 
129 132.627 0.478 37.322 
130 114.925 0.474 30.293 
131 109.14 0.47 28.206 
132 136.486 0.479 38.533 
133 137.745 0.479 39.468 
134 115.127 0.474 30.326 
135 129.209 0.478 35.906 
136 110.17 0.473 28.337 
137 136.393 0.479 38.733 
138 146.737 0.481 42.175 
139 113.513 0.474 29.689 
140 105.943 0.471 26.71 
141 131.229 0.479 36.721 
142 104.802 0.469 26.388 
143 116.889 0.473 31.192 
144 89.207 0.46 20.068 
145 128.7 0.476 35.9 
146 140.779 0.48 40.587 
147 112.422 0.473 29.263 
148 131.73 0.478 37.047 
149 130.038 0.476 36.231 
150 135.652 0.478 38.553 
151 135.505 0.479 38.515 
152 126.116 0.475 34.463 
153 98.301 0.456 25.838 
154 117.15 0.475 31.145 
155 122.893 0.477 33.381 
156 109.539 0.472 28.136 
157 113.374 0.473 29.771 
158 116.793 0.475 30.977 
159 122.741 0.477 33.304 
160 120.598 0.476 32.446 
161 109.251 0.471 28.137 
162 126.723 0.477 34.977 
163 95.543 0.464 22.673 
164 88.579 0.444 35.235 
165 127.731 0.477 35.374 
166 126.733 0.477 34.905 
167 122.317 0.477 33.143 
168 116.143 0.475 30.734 
169 132.549 0.477 37.115 
170 143.885 0.481 41.491 
171 117.031 0.475 31.069 
172 121.828 0.475 33.061 
173 104.001 0.466 28.36 
174 101.644 0.469 24.967 
175 111.752 0.473 28.97 
176 97.88 0.463 23.715 
177 126.756 0.476 35.108 
178 122.219 0.473 34.873 
179 115.724 0.474 30.561 
180 116.301 0.475 30.815 
181 111.227 0.473 28.797 
182 126.886 0.478 34.958 
183 118.791 0.475 31.847 
184 116.232 0.475 30.753 
185 128.927 0.477 35.808 
186 103.3 0.466 26.585 
187 134.375 0.479 37.959 
188 127.976 0.477 35.529 
189 128.014 0.478 35.37 
190 150.719 0.48 43.099 
191 129.361 0.477 36.031 
192 103.639 0.465 28.257 
193 150.518 0.482 43.861 
194 107.352 0.47 27.391 
195 120.503 0.476 32.483 
196 109.728 0.47 28.413 
197 138.942 0.48 39.673 
198 99.828 0.467 24.289 
199 66.915 0.405 60.784 
200 131.509 0.478 36.886 
201 104.422 0.467 26.426 
202 129.189 0.478 35.91 
203 128.27 0.476 35.79 
204 107.963 0.472 27.463 
205 134.549 0.477 38.31 
206 106.106 0.465 28.81 
207 122.925 0.476 33.563 
208 126.671 0.475 35.091 
209 77.847 0.447 49.059 
210 101.734 0.467 25.159 
211 111.892 0.473 29.134 
212 133.488 0.478 37.806 
213 131.278 0.477 36.782 
214 133.456 0.479 37.679 
215 121.867 0.473 32.622 
216 107.249 0.471 27.257 
217 136.685 0.478 38.973 
218 130.056 0.478 36.247 
219 79.961 0.422 24.499 
220 131.634 0.479 36.849 
221 116.085 0.475 30.716 
222 116.128 0.475 30.698 
223 135.168 0.478 38.542 
224 133.441 0.479 37.609 
225 124.768 0.477 34.148 
226 110.929 0.472 28.79 
227 99.827 0.462 34.929 
228 113.908 0.474 29.812 
229 125.086 0.476 34.367 
230 90.257 0.458 20.686 
231 102.23 0.468 25.282 
232 113.002 0.474 29.47 
233 102.944 0.469 25.489 
234 94.266 0.456 34.713 
235 114.618 0.474 30.113 
236 99.106 0.463 25.076 
237 107.692 0.469 27.765 
238 91.313 0.455 44.304 
239 157.887 0.483 46.758 
240 144.42 0.48 42.071 
241 115.232 0.474 30.407 
242 115.876 0.474 30.704 
243 68.186 0.399 44.903 
244 135.545 0.479 38.53 
245 103.516 0.467 26.317 
246 112.403 0.473 29.294 
247 109.568 0.47 28.362 
248 121.889 0.477 32.977 
249 129.111 0.478 35.846 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-3. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpmn (continued) 
Fitted Fitted 
Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined 
Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Fitted 
Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown 
Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
250 112.328 0.472 29.335 
251 124.793 0.476 34.259 
252 111.138 0.472 28.837 
253 134.808 0.48 38.05 
254 128.243 0.478 35.573 
255 122.483 0.477 33.208 
256 137.949 0.479 39.496 
257 129.354 0.477 35.943 
258 113.297 0.472 29.762 
259 111.083 0.473 28.726 
260 132.722 0.479 37.218 
261 109.972 0.472 28.326 
262 125.282 0.477 34.427 
263 129.391 0.477 35.99 
264 118.528 0.475 31.755 
265 124.41 0.476 34.123 
266 72.319 0.436 51.991 
267 110.383 0.47 28.743 
268 149.177 0.481 43.371 
269 135.324 0.479 38.358 
270 124.747 0.476 34.304 
271 69.637 0.436 44.736 
272 138.085 0.48 39.465 
273 120.778 0.476 32.58 
274 139.557 0.479 40.137 
275 132.741 0.478 37.387 
276 148.302 0.48 43.512 
277 118.624 0.476 31.702 
278 135.924 0.479 38.576 
279 112.764 0.469 33.37 
280 119.898 0.474 32.471 
281 138.408 0.479 39.751 
282 111.263 0.473 28.788 
283 128.666 0.476 35.999 
284 119.601 0.476 32.106 
285 109.785 0.471 28.293 
286 108.676 0.471 27.821 
287 127.849 0.477 35.457 
288 75.056 0.449 74.963 
289 122.503 0.477 33.227 
290 154.84 0.481 45.296 
291 113.059 0.472 29.626 
292 111.391 0.473 28.823 
293 118.103 0.475 31.508 
294 106.134 0.469 26.97 
295 132.722 0.477 37.558 
296 148.619 0.48 43.642 
297 169.053 0.482 45.757 
298 112.633 0.473 29.398 
299 151.284 0.482 43.845 
300 133.674 0.479 37.565 
301 112.964 0.473 29.529 
302 137.583 0.478 39.484 
303 143.737 0.481 41.566 
304 136.799 0.477 39.112 
305 139.622 0.479 40.2 
306 139.278 0.479 40.072 
307 124.543 0.477 34.039 
308 138.162 0.48 39.452 
309 125.44 0.478 34.332 
310 129.615 0.478 36.135 
311 130.473 0.477 36.713 
312 134.092 0.478 37.943 
313 109.417 0.47 28.251 
314 138.142 0.479 39.626 
315 102.468 0.469 25.327 
316 125.421 0.477 34.425 
317 126.063 0.478 34.617 
318 101.251 0.467 25.096 
319 107.799 0.471 27.518 
320 110.941 0.472 28.765 
321 133.472 0.479 37.569 
322 131.542 0.477 36.85 
323 115.102 0.474 30.331 
324 128.024 0.477 35.53 
325 124.538 0.477 34.059 
326 129.309 0.478 36.066 
327 127.523 0.478 35.186 
328 131.754 0.478 36.888 
329 133.332 0.479 37.524 
330 134.808 0.478 38.276 
331 121.863 0.476 33.101 
332 145.804 0.48 42.611 
333 117.808 0.475 31.362 
334 134.985 0.479 38.128 
335 103.505 0.47 25.721 
336 113.412 0.471 30.119 
337 123.753 0.477 33.721 
338 132.423 0.476 37.289 
339 128.531 0.477 35.637 
340 134.1 0.478 38 
341 130.336 0.476 36.493 
342 125.777 0.477 34.594 
343 143.268 0.479 41.603 
344 123.602 0.477 33.661 
345 125.94 0.477 34.63 
346 115.286 0.474 30.427 
347 157.775 0.482 46.229 
348 123.215 0.477 33.537 
349 120.201 0.476 32.315 
350 126.047 0.477 34.776 
351 133.985 0.479 37.867 
352 112.931 0.474 29.451 
353 58.651 0.424 58.223 
354 117.004 0.475 31.108 
355 99.079 0.465 24.248 
356 115.008 0.471 30.668 
357 103.309 0.47 25.63 
358 134.411 0.479 37.97 
359 117.984 0.475 31.483 
360 134.509 0.479 38.017 
361 129.61 0.478 36.165 
362 109 0.471 27.945 
363 126.306 0.477 34.782 
364 145.603 0.48 42.441 
365 115.75 0.475 30.55 
366 119.223 0.476 31.916 
367 131.062 0.477 36.874 
368 137.253 0.477 38.829 
369 115.789 0.475 30.628 
370 101.428 0.466 25.154 
371 81.655 0.438 38.126 
372 114.963 0.475 30.248 
373 117.275 0.475 31.199 
374 121.194 0.475 32.861 
375 87.019 0.449 47.98 
376 123.852 0.476 33.867 
377 121.527 0.477 32.831 
378 161.376 0.481 46.297 
379 113.026 0.469 29.943 
380 97.919 0.463 23.76 
381 150.519 0.481 43.967 
382 82.757 0.45 74.226 
383 114.466 0.474 30.043 
384 120.212 0.475 32.473 
385 131.767 0.478 36.594 
386 119.618 0.476 32.076 
387 116.499 0.475 30.878 
388 104.424 0.469 26.131 
389 90.33 0.452 34.612 
390 117.201 0.474 28.854 
391 116.204 0.473 30.976 
392 123.433 0.477 33.689 
393 109.326 0.472 28.015 
394 132.658 0.478 37.365 
395 125.599 0.475 34.705 
396 115.314 0.474 30.501 
397 101.308 0.467 24.984 
398 117.832 0.475 31.446 
399 118.466 0.475 31.668 
400 127.674 0.477 35.402 
401 122.014 0.474 33.444 
402 119.654 0.475 32.236 
403 115.74 0.475 30.542 
404 104.004 0.468 26.055 
405 106.307 0.466 27.554 
406 119.726 0.476 32.158 
407 112.645 0.473 29.412 
408 138.363 0.478 39.655 
409 123.527 0.473 33.835 
410 116.323 0.475 30.812 
411 115.67 0.474 30.55 
412 136.009 0.479 38.283 
413 130.032 0.478 36.293 
414 117.761 0.475 31.382 
415 123.287 0.477 33.572 
416 126.552 0.478 34.814 
417 104.854 0.469 26.411 
418 77.272 0.396 27.478 
419 131.239 0.477 36.578 
420 134.619 0.477 38.414 
421 132.232 0.478 36.865 
422 128.822 0.478 35.747 
423 117.205 0.475 31.19 
424 109.605 0.472 28.154 
425 143.916 0.481 41.749 
426 123.379 0.476 33.698 
427 121.589 0.477 32.86 
428 99.497 0.466 24.237 
429 103.773 0.469 25.871 
430 134.64 0.478 38.113 
431 140.398 0.479 40.493 
432 82.736 0.446 29.048 
433 120.894 0.476 32.574 
434 101.606 0.468 25.07 
435 123.867 0.476 33.848 
436 130.754 0.479 36.491 
437 127.359 0.477 35.302 
438 117.69 0.474 31.497 
439 123.97 0.477 33.851 
440 148.124 0.481 43.07 
441 105.127 0.466 28.691 
442 118.904 0.475 31.833 
443 131.164 0.479 36.626 
444 121.181 0.476 32.769 
445 115.066 0.475 30.292 
446 122.358 0.476 33.275 
447 104.273 0.463 35.941 
448 121.028 0.476 32.673 
449 113.074 0.473 29.606 
450 120.076 0.475 32.351 
451 119.096 0.475 32.035 
452 122.325 0.477 33.18 
453 131.848 0.478 37.037 
454 112.874 0.473 29.509 
455 111.667 0.472 29.081 
456 103.473 0.468 25.997 
457 131.829 0.478 37.142 
458 123.914 0.476 33.887 
459 133.636 0.478 37.835 
460 122.522 0.476 33.276 
461 111.541 0.473 28.901 
462 112.074 0.473 29.183 
463 119.132 0.475 31.939 
464 101.76 0.468 25.053 
465 116.679 0.47 38.654 
466 107.826 0.467 32.96 
467 93.695 0.464 21.846 
468 114.81 0.474 30.207 
469 111.509 0.473 28.977 
470 133.88 0.479 37.774 
471 125.218 0.475 34.648 
472 128.109 0.476 35.744 
473 122.825 0.476 33.525 
474 122.877 0.477 33.388 
475 114.756 0.474 30.142 
476 150.162 0.48 44.096 
477 116.38 0.473 30.987 
478 137.25 0.478 39.289 
479 101.383 0.466 25.06 
480 132.322 0.479 37.03 
481 102.801 0.466 25.703 
482 131.377 0.478 36.805 
483 107.319 0.471 27.314 
484 116.787 0.472 31.215 
485 127.773 0.477 35.392 
486 143.946 0.479 41.722 
487 109.08 0.471 28.039 
488 109.281 0.472 28.011 
489 133.179 0.478 37.571 
490 111.933 0.473 29.068 
491 76.495 0.433 60.267 
492 129.498 0.476 36.245 
493 121.801 0.475 33.17 
494 121.877 0.476 33.086 
495 116.087 0.474 30.797 
496 131.613 0.478 36.977 
497 97.011 0.459 57.746 
498 125.033 0.476 34.348 
499 130.385 0.476 36.68 
500 113.19 0.473 29.558 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-4. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln 
Fitted Fitted 
Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined 
Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Fitted 
Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown 
Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
1 186.542 0.471 26.859 
2 168.75 0.475 27.756 
3 74.416 0.456 65.411 
4 134.152 0.481 29.586 
5 182.874 0.473 27.158 
6 120.641 0.485 30.177 
7 193.381 0.472 26.361 
8 132.549 0.481 29.789 
9 183.345 0.472 26.997 
10 139.387 0.48 29.369 
11 145.133 0.478 29.106 
12 154.56 0.476 28.667 
13 104.518 0.741 17.998 
14 178.161 0.47 27.462 
15 172.033 0.472 28.202 
16 92.46 0.852 17.245 
17 172.866 0.47 27.893 
18 180.372 0.468 30.319 
19 115.209 0.486 30.509 
20 83.574 0.787 21.695 
21 183.824 0.474 26.87 
22 118.427 0.484 32.051 
23 161.975 0.472 29.623 
24 131.355 0.481 29.919 
25 163.556 0.476 28.002 
26 158.532 0.472 32.56 
27 123.434 0.484 30.087 
28 133.426 0.482 29.616 
29 177.767 0.472 27.377 
30 142.582 0.479 29.282 
31 178.818 0.471 27.343 
32 112.017 0.55 26.212 
33 157.87 0.476 28.458 
34 149.417 0.477 28.881 
35 177.191 0.474 27.44 
36 126.803 0.483 29.982 
37 120.561 0.484 30.248 
38 180.437 0.472 27.236 
39 142.464 0.479 29.165 
40 168.805 0.475 27.853 
41 141.908 0.479 29.241 
42 139.701 0.478 29.864 
43 165.25 0.471 28.318 
44 160.003 0.473 28.651 
45 124.956 0.47 40.75 
46 180.265 0.473 27.117 
47 192.279 0.473 26.391 
48 141.071 0.479 29.301 
49 99.902 0.453 74.676 
50 158.655 0.476 28.427 
51 177.943 0.473 27.28 
52 151.476 0.473 30.913 
53 148.787 0.477 29.372 
54 153.719 0.478 28.56 
55 172.224 0.47 28.011 
56 156.072 0.476 28.528 
57 163.524 0.476 28.037 
58 179.059 0.474 27.134 
59 78.294 0.504 31.483 
60 155.035 0.47 31.825 
61 94.1 0.495 34.197 
62 159.865 0.476 28.299 
63 121.344 0.485 30.167 
64 142.059 0.472 36.143 
65 135.314 0.481 29.542 
66 161.038 0.476 28.223 
67 146.023 0.477 29.315 
68 126.339 0.483 30.01 
69 137.665 0.479 29.634 
70 153.972 0.477 28.605 
71 117.011 0.485 30.432 
72 122.101 0.485 31.413 
73 136.657 0.48 29.53 
74 137.305 0.479 29.786 
75 155.617 0.474 28.758 
76 141.841 0.471 35.996 
77 174.312 0.474 27.422 
78 156.951 0.473 30.362 
79 173.783 0.475 27.432 
80 183.831 0.471 27.154 
81 170.899 0.474 27.715 
82 156.07 0.477 28.466 
83 145.155 0.477 29.236 
84 148.859 0.478 28.859 
85 165.714 0.475 27.988 
86 142.715 0.479 29.185 
87 151.561 0.477 28.768 
88 169.605 0.475 27.696 
89 171.564 0.473 27.726 
90 155.708 0.469 33.143 
91 155.408 0.477 28.5 
92 164.198 0.475 28.097 
93 160.4 0.475 28.358 
94 190.482 0.473 26.466 
95 216.566 0.471 25.132 
96 126.551 0.483 30.012 
97 133.625 0.481 29.668 
98 160.019 0.473 28.519 
99 192.896 0.468 26.65 
100 164.213 0.475 28.321 
101 151.309 0.475 29.04 
102 61.167 0.472 60.951 
103 153.181 0.478 28.58 
104 181.654 0.473 27.187 
105 188.962 0.472 26.626 
106 141.349 0.48 29.244 
107 128.367 0.47 37.732 
108 215.914 0.464 25.575 
109 136.879 0.48 29.831 
110 133.42 0.482 29.624 
111 157.627 0.477 28.368 
112 125.171 0.486 30.082 
113 196.085 0.468 26.596 
114 163.124 0.475 28.146 
115 109.896 0.493 30.485 
116 169.371 0.473 28.003 
117 190.205 0.472 26.571 
118 162.541 0.475 28.147 
119 181.678 0.472 27.136 
120 187.687 0.471 27.915 
121 149.028 0.477 28.93 
122 71.348 1.118 12.023 
123 174.057 0.474 27.483 
124 133.361 0.481 29.73 
125 162.253 0.476 28.131 
126 151.746 0.47 32.559 
127 118.097 0.485 30.329 
128 180.006 0.472 27.369 
129 143.378 0.479 29.137 
130 129.706 0.48 31.162 
131 188.032 0.468 27.109 
132 191.151 0.473 26.412 
133 143.523 0.478 29.346 
134 173.114 0.473 27.648 
135 133.594 0.482 29.606 
136 187.767 0.469 27.161 
137 209.899 0.463 25.913 
138 140.245 0.479 29.464 
139 124.921 0.484 29.966 
140 177.341 0.472 27.398 
141 122.468 0.486 30.058 
142 146.486 0.477 29.603 
143 92.001 0.495 31.359 
144 171.3 0.474 28.007 
145 197.624 0.47 26.172 
146 138.173 0.48 29.426 
147 178.361 0.474 27.248 
148 170.379 0.473 30.111 
149 184.483 0.472 28.07 
150 186.394 0.472 26.784 
151 163.006 0.474 30.023 
152 92.555 0.853 16.995 
153 147.832 0.478 29.006 
154 159.832 0.475 28.357 
155 132.18 0.482 29.718 
156 140.217 0.479 29.351 
157 146.849 0.476 29.312 
158 159.474 0.474 28.493 
159 155.027 0.476 28.641 
160 131.114 0.482 30.007 
161 167.875 0.475 27.824 
162 104.198 0.493 30.584 
163 101.556 0.47 42.404 
164 169.645 0.473 27.98 
165 166.653 0.472 28.81 
166 158.629 0.475 28.441 
167 145.68 0.478 29.184 
168 164.726 0.467 37.256 
169 203.134 0.464 26.818 
170 147.681 0.478 28.925 
171 154.584 0.474 30.464 
172 117.438 0.476 36.368 
173 116.356 0.487 30.318 
174 136.834 0.481 29.456 
175 101.58 0.698 19.814 
176 166.516 0.474 28.755 
177 139.58 0.464 44.513 
178 144.741 0.478 29.294 
179 146.219 0.479 28.969 
180 135.779 0.481 29.524 
181 168.196 0.473 27.973 
182 150.971 0.477 29.003 
183 145.92 0.478 29.112 
184 170.305 0.472 29.069 
185 116.96 0.481 33.294 
186 184.021 0.47 27.071 
187 170.454 0.475 27.649 
188 170.486 0.47 28.068 
189 215.239 0.469 26.446 
190 170.31 0.472 29.579 
191 116.957 0.476 36.216 
192 217.354 0.452 26.688 
193 127.953 0.481 30.059 
194 154.865 0.477 28.563 
195 130.762 0.481 30.906 
196 192.75 0.467 27.216 
197 112.666 0.489 30.337 
198 73.39 0.968 15.422 
199 176.604 0.471 28.202 
200 121.001 0.487 30.49 
201 172.906 0.472 27.761 
202 168.485 0.473 29.302 
203 129.041 0.483 29.795 
204 184.179 0.473 26.961 
205 120.251 0.472 36.637 
206 159.954 0.477 28.222 
207 153.304 0.468 37.887 
208 93.073 0.463 57.405 
209 116.475 0.487 30.333 
210 137.128 0.48 29.525 
211 181.847 0.473 27.158 
212 175.186 0.473 28.614 
213 181.96 0.472 27.124 
214 144.583 0.47 37.574 
215 127.546 0.483 29.926 
216 188.597 0.473 26.693 
217 174.723 0.472 27.637 
218 178.111 0.47 27.555 
219 145.742 0.479 29.011 
220 145.706 0.478 29.137 
221 184.531 0.472 27.504 
222 181.915 0.471 27.229 
223 163.749 0.474 28.146 
224 134.911 0.482 29.58 
225 115.168 0.468 43.414 
226 141.183 0.479 29.282 
227 154.682 0.467 35.056 
228 93.937 0.499 30.737 
229 110.32 0.717 18.826 
230 139.356 0.48 29.355 
231 118.939 0.486 30.191 
232 108.706 0.469 42.675 
233 142.541 0.478 29.35 
234 111.087 0.49 31.303 
235 125.937 0.48 32.056 
236 108.117 0.462 53.117 
237 235.879 0.44 24.956 
238 205.349 0.471 25.633 
239 144.023 0.479 29.093 
240 145.322 0.479 29.057 
241 186.455 0.473 26.756 
242 118.259 0.483 32.143 
243 138.206 0.48 29.413 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table II-4. Results of MathCAD General Fit Routine for Tptpln (continued) 
Fitted Fitted 
Unconfined Hoek-Brown Unconfined 
Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Fitted 
Hoek-Brown Unconfined Hoek-Brown 
Fitted Fit Parameter Fit of Data Compressive Fitted Fit Parameter 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
Set Strength, sc Exponent a mi 
244 131.389 0.48 30.5 
245 157.736 0.475 28.492 
246 171.859 0.472 28.272 
247 137.792 0.479 29.624 
248 158.839 0.472 31.439 
249 135.335 0.48 29.73 
250 185.054 0.466 27.273 
251 170.97 0.474 27.747 
252 158.921 0.474 28.509 
253 191.45 0.472 26.572 
254 167.153 0.47 31.717 
255 138.734 0.479 30.246 
256 135.326 0.481 29.577 
257 180.525 0.469 27.446 
258 132.962 0.482 29.718 
259 164.879 0.476 27.943 
260 160.356 0.463 36.962 
261 150.663 0.477 28.869 
262 163.001 0.476 28.105 
263 85.931 0.46 59.992 
264 129.914 0.478 32.804 
265 214.508 0.466 25.779 
266 185.922 0.472 26.87 
267 163.664 0.476 28.098 
268 81.724 0.471 51.292 
269 191.865 0.47 26.559 
270 155.417 0.477 28.547 
271 194.797 0.472 26.366 
272 180.498 0.473 27.134 
273 213.523 0.469 25.322 
274 150.983 0.477 28.756 
275 186.434 0.47 27.372 
276 129.156 0.464 42.527 
277 153.124 0.476 28.996 
278 192.415 0.472 26.478 
279 135.805 0.481 29.52 
280 171.599 0.474 27.808 
281 152.731 0.476 28.888 
282 132.486 0.482 29.739 
283 131.659 0.542 24.116 
284 168.601 0.473 28.758 
285 90.679 0.449 90.547 
286 158.803 0.474 28.644 
287 224.911 0.466 25.847 
288 137.909 0.48 30.392 
289 136.048 0.481 29.504 
290 149.796 0.477 28.916 
291 124.885 0.484 30.322 
292 180.513 0.474 27.028 
293 214.326 0.469 25.171 
294 250.318 0.454 26.42 
295 138.567 0.48 29.46 
296 220.102 0.459 25.272 
297 181.717 0.469 27.738 
298 139.098 0.479 29.523 
299 190.832 0.474 26.407 
300 203.788 0.463 26.368 
301 188.311 0.472 27.025 
302 195.125 0.472 26.228 
303 194.299 0.472 26.317 
304 163.291 0.474 28.178 
305 192.007 0.468 26.747 
306 165.115 0.472 28.215 
307 173.97 0.474 27.468 
308 175.725 0.475 27.347 
309 182.879 0.473 27.202 
310 130.316 0.481 30.985 
311 192.018 0.473 26.378 
312 124.309 0.534 22.516 
313 165.091 0.475 28.05 
314 166.479 0.472 28.119 
315 115.594 0.486 30.577 
316 128.52 0.483 29.925 
317 135.043 0.48 29.731 
318 182.147 0.469 27.266 
319 177.799 0.474 27.274 
320 143.484 0.478 29.311 
321 170.629 0.475 27.609 
322 163.206 0.474 28.22 
323 173.326 0.475 27.465 
324 169.498 0.47 28.097 
325 178.305 0.473 27.342 
326 181.785 0.47 27.243 
327 184.849 0.474 26.812 
328 157.612 0.476 28.462 
329 208.359 0.47 25.505 
330 149.174 0.477 28.964 
331 182.125 0.469 28.967 
332 120.036 0.486 30.127 
333 131.446 0.472 36.385 
334 161.537 0.475 28.326 
335 171.316 0.471 32.46 
336 169.143 0.473 29.229 
337 183.461 0.474 26.878 
338 174.817 0.474 27.722 
339 165.899 0.475 27.911 
340 202.723 0.471 25.875 
341 161.26 0.474 28.354 
342 166.218 0.474 27.967 
343 144.026 0.479 29.164 
344 233.589 0.463 24.278 
345 160.528 0.476 28.269 
346 154.235 0.477 28.617 
347 165.566 0.474 28.53 
348 183.193 0.472 26.996 
349 139.086 0.48 29.455 
350 67.988 0.463 67.343 
351 147.608 0.478 28.943 
352 111.247 0.49 30.379 
353 139.594 0.476 32.016 
354 119.735 0.485 30.25 
355 184.117 0.47 27.076 
356 149.683 0.478 28.787 
357 184.312 0.471 27.006 
358 173.947 0.474 27.47 
359 130.997 0.483 29.75 
360 166.856 0.474 28.06 
361 207.896 0.468 25.691 
362 144.967 0.478 29.124 
363 152.17 0.476 28.789 
364 177.045 0.475 27.195 
365 181.322 0.471 31.603 
366 145.176 0.479 29.015 
367 115.758 0.49 30.102 
368 94.087 0.471 44.763 
369 143.361 0.479 29.183 
370 147.896 0.477 29.158 
371 150.537 0.472 32.601 
372 103.73 0.457 56.817 
373 161.589 0.475 28.388 
374 156.969 0.475 28.548 
375 237.278 0.467 25.286 
376 121.726 0.672 23.195 
377 110.084 0.55 24.443 
378 215.802 0.466 26.467 
379 101.775 0.445 89.521 
380 142.366 0.479 29.205 
381 153.048 0.477 29.333 
382 174.822 0.469 29.655 
383 152.907 0.475 28.86 
384 146.618 0.479 28.947 
385 124.772 0.549 23.157 
386 103.996 0.471 42.141 
387 131.924 0.471 37.695 
388 143.715 0.477 30.635 
389 161.022 0.476 28.155 
390 131.968 0.481 29.757 
391 180.358 0.473 27.152 
392 165.256 0.475 28.105 
393 144.252 0.479 29.062 
394 115.638 0.487 30.381 
395 149.334 0.478 28.843 
396 150.623 0.477 28.796 
397 169.796 0.474 27.78 
398 146.298 0.471 36.699 
399 152.921 0.477 28.797 
400 144.938 0.478 29.142 
401 116.454 0.632 21.702 
402 121.366 0.478 33.884 
403 153.151 0.476 28.767 
404 138.066 0.479 29.82 
405 191.519 0.472 26.936 
406 159.54 0.475 29.217 
407 146.237 0.479 28.987 
408 144.791 0.478 29.14 
409 179.855 0.466 31.644 
410 174.822 0.474 27.468 
411 149.181 0.478 28.861 
412 160.546 0.475 28.408 
413 167.452 0.473 28.031 
414 122.931 0.482 30.374 
415 176.952 0.473 27.432 
416 184.563 0.475 26.733 
417 171.271 0.467 32.614 
418 172.088 0.472 27.883 
419 148.07 0.478 28.88 
420 132.44 0.481 29.701 
421 204.418 0.467 25.894 
422 160.748 0.476 28.279 
423 157.071 0.475 28.549 
424 111.952 0.491 30.254 
425 120.606 0.485 30.198 
426 181.577 0.471 28.72 
427 196.742 0.472 26.181 
428 93.07 0.49 35.168 
429 155.654 0.476 28.605 
430 116.274 0.486 30.419 
431 156.851 0.471 31.765 
432 176.374 0.471 27.553 
433 163.025 0.471 31.881 
434 148.884 0.477 29.011 
435 162.114 0.476 28.154 
436 213.043 0.467 25.442 
437 119.038 0.475 36.541 
438 151.393 0.477 28.848 
439 177.15 0.471 27.558 
440 156.177 0.476 28.58 
441 143.551 0.479 29.198 
442 158.734 0.477 28.295 
443 120.528 0.464 44.899 
444 155.981 0.477 28.466 
445 139.245 0.479 29.579 
446 153.727 0.476 28.819 
447 149.82 0.475 30.214 
448 158.626 0.475 28.425 
449 178.67 0.473 27.208 
450 138.533 0.479 29.797 
451 136.692 0.48 29.554 
452 119.797 0.485 30.519 
453 178.564 0.474 27.218 
454 160.716 0.474 29.051 
455 182.441 0.474 26.908 
456 158.401 0.474 28.893 
457 136.27 0.481 29.546 
458 137.274 0.48 29.603 
459 151.933 0.477 28.788 
460 116.562 0.488 30.269 
461 134.64 0.462 48.608 
462 123.329 0.468 41.787 
463 89.277 0.958 13.16 
464 143.145 0.479 29.126 
465 136.421 0.48 29.532 
466 182.976 0.471 27.074 
467 164.462 0.475 28.178 
468 170.779 0.475 27.611 
469 159.161 0.475 28.677 
470 159.786 0.475 28.365 
471 142.871 0.478 29.275 
472 217.379 0.471 24.873 
473 144.438 0.468 31.211 
474 189.708 0.472 26.761 
475 115.62 0.491 29.991 
476 179.528 0.471 27.391 
477 118.413 0.489 30.028 
478 177.014 0.472 27.781 
479 127.932 0.482 29.987 
480 142.488 0.476 32.253 
481 169.874 0.474 27.877 
482 202.523 0.471 26.624 
483 131.106 0.482 29.92 
484 131.66 0.482 29.715 
485 181.308 0.472 27.2 
486 137.057 0.48 29.527 
487 91.652 0.445 70.129 
488 173.658 0.475 27.443 
489 155.092 0.476 29.999 
490 156.878 0.475 29.033 
491 144.961 0.477 29.6 
492 178.187 0.474 27.19 
493 117.424 0.453 68.799 
494 155.643 0.47 34.091 
495 175.078 0.474 27.673 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A II-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT III
ALTERNATE ROCK MASS COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE
CALCULATION BY HOEK TUNNEL METHOD
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ALTERNATE ROCK MASS COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE 
CALCULATION BY HOEK TUNNEL METHOD 
III.1 INTRODUCTION 
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion c (cohesion), and f(friction angle), are dependant on the 
stress range over which the criterion is applied. The stress range selected will vary 
depending on the intended use of the data. Attachment II develops Mohr-Coulomb 
failure criterion in the Hoek-Brown general case where the stress range selected is 
greater than the rock mass tensile strength and less than one quarter of the intact rock 
compressive strength. An alternate method developed by Hoek for deep tunnels sets the 
range for Mohr-Coulomb parameter development between rock mass tensile strength and 
the maximum minor principal stress anticipated at tunnel depth (Hoek, Carranza, Corkum 
2002 Section 6). 
III.2 COHESION AND FRICTION ANGLE CALCULATION 
Mohr-Coulomb Criterion can be calculated from the following equations as suggested by 
Hoek, Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002. The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is 
determined by fitting an average linear relationship to the curve generated by solving the 
general fit equation for a range of minor principal stress values defined by st<s3<s3max. 
The frictional component, f, is calculated by 
a-1 .
. 6amb(s + m s' )
-1 b 3n
f' = sin . 
. 12 + a)(2 + a)+ 6am (s + m s' )a-1 ..
. (Eq. III-1)
.( bb 3n 
And the cohesive component, c, is calculated by: 
a-1
) )
s [(1 + 2 sa + (1- ma s' ](s + m s' ) 
(Eq. III-2)
ci b 3nb 3n
c' = 
.
bb 3n
(1 + a)(2 + a) 1 +
.
.(6am (s + m s' )a-1 )
((1 + a)(2 + a)).
.
. 
Where: 
s'3n =
s' max3 
s
ci (Eq. III-3) 
and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
.s ' .- 94.0 
cm
s ' max3 =s '  47.0 
.
.
.H .
.or measured in-situ stress (Eq. III-4)
cm 
H = depth to point of stress determination (depth in m from surface to tunnel) 
. = unit weight of rock (in MN/m3) 
The parameters s and a are presented and developed in Section 8.4.4.5 and Hoek-Brown 
rock mass parameter mb is developed in Section 8.5.2.1. 
The development of the maximum confining stress for deep tunnels is done with an 
assumption that a failure zone for the tunnel does not extend to the surface (Hoek, 
Carranza-Torres, and Corkum 2002). The horizontal stress is expected to be less than the 
vertical stress (K0 < 1.0). Horizontal stress has been measured, and the measured values 
are preferable to calculated values developed from equation III3-4. Current Reference 
Information Base (RIB) data indicates that a minimum value of horizontal stress at a 
depth of 323.4 meters to be 2.66 MPa, and a maximum horizontal stress to be 6.46 MPa, 
while the vertical stress is reported to be 6.46 MPa at this depth 
(MO0007RIB00077.000). 
The values of horizontal stress at repository depth used to calculate the parameters of 
rock mass cohesion and friction angle were selected with recommended horizontal-to-
vertical stress ratios of 0.3<K0<1 (Sun 2002, p. 11). The maximum value of vertical 
stress when K0=1 is 6.46 MPa, and this value was increased to 10 MPa for conservatism. 
The resulting value of minimum horizontal stress (K0=0.3) results in a minimum 
horizontal stress of 3.33 MPa, which is used as a lower bound. The distribution selected 
for calculation of the Mohr-Coulomb parameters was a triangular distribution with a 
minimum of 3.33 MPa, a mean of 5 MPa and a maximum of 10 MPa. The range of stress 
over which the Mohr-Coulomb rock mass internal angle of friction is defined by Hoek, 
Carranza-Torres and Corkum (2002) to be between the ranges of tensile strength and 
maximum horizontal confining stress. The most probable maximum horizontal stress is 5 
MPa and the absolute maximum horizontal stress has been set in the calculation to be 10 
MPa. The rock mass tensile strength has been calculated to be quite low (see Section 
8.5.3.2) and will occur between 0.5 MPa and 0 MPa. The result of this relatively low 
stress range will cause the failure envelope to be quite steep with a high friction angle and 
low cohesion. An increase in maximum horizontal stress will cause the friction angle to 
decrease and the cohesion to increase. 
The resulting mean calculated Mohr-Coulomb rock mass cohesion for the Tptpmn is 3.26 
GPa and the mean Mohr-Coulomb cohesion is 3.95 MPa for the Tptpln rock unit. The 
results of calculation for the Tptpmn unit is shown in Figure III-1, and the results for 
calculation of cohesion for the Tptpln rock unit is presented in Figure III-2. 
The Mohr-Coulomb internal angle of rock mass friction for the Tptpmn and Tptpln units 
are calculated as stated earlier in this section. The mean internal angle of rock mass 
friction for the Tptpmn unit has been calculated to be 56.10 and the mean internal angle 
of rock mass friction has been calculated to be 57.43 for the Tptpln rock unit. The 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
distributions and cumulative probabilities of occurrence are presented in Figures III-3 and 
III-4. 
-()MohrCoulomb Cohesion MPaProbability 
Figure III-1. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Cohesion for Tptpmn 
-()MohrCoulomb Cohesion MPaProbability 
Figure III-2. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Cohesion for Tptpmn 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
() 
iRock Mass Angle of Internal 
FrictionDegreesProbablity 
Figure III-3. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Internal Angle of Friction for Tptpmn 
) 
iliRock Mass Angle of Internal 
Friction (DegreesProbabty 
Figure III-4. Distribution of Mohr-Coulomb Rock Mass Internal Angle of Friction for Tptpmn 
The cohesion and friction angle for the lithophysal rock will be determined from Particle 
Flow Code (PFC) numeric modeling. 
III.3 MODIFIED ROCK MASS PARAMETERS SUMMARY 
Tables III-1 and III-2 present the calculated rock mass parameters for the non-lithophysal 
units Tptpmn and Tptpln. The values in the table below are extracted from Sections 
8.4.2.1 through 8.5.3.4 of this report and this Attachment. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table III-1. Summary of Rock Mass Parameters for Tptpmn 
Tptpmn Rock Quality Category 
1234 
5 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Cohesion (MPa) c 2.53 2.93 3.27 3.63 4.21 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Internal Angle of Friction 
(Degrees) 
f 52.10 54.50 56.10 57.55 59.51 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compression Strength (MPa) 
sc 7.10 9.70 11.90 14.64 19.25 
Global Rock Mass 
Compressive Strength (MPa) 
scm 33.50 39.67 44.42 49.50 57.71 
Rock Mass Elastic Modulus 
(GPa) E m 10.25 13.66 16.74 20.23 26.18 
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPa) 
st 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.32 
Modified Rock Mass Quality 
Parameter Q p 2.05 3.59 5.31 7.67 12.58 
Geologic Strength Index GSI 50.48 55.49 59.03 62.33 66.79 
Rock Mass Dilation Angle 
(Degrees) 0 0 0 0 0 
Table III-2. Summary of Rock Mass Parameters for Tptpln 
Tptpln Rock Quality Category 
1 2 3 4 5 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Cohesion (MPa) c 3.07 3.56 3.95 4.36 5.00 
Rock Mass Mohr-Coulomb 
Internal Angle of Friction 
(Degrees) 
f 53.00 55.74 57.43 58.98 60.91 
Uniaxial Rock Mass 
Compression Strength (MPa) sc 13.30 17.64 20.92 24.35 29.80 
Global Rock Mass 
Compressive Strength (MPa) 
scm 40.31 50.01 57.52 65.29 77.46 
Rock Mass Elastic Modulus 
(GPa) E m 16.31 20.63 23.42 26.05 29.04 
Rock Mass Tensile Strength 
(MPa)* 
st 0.21 0.30 0.38 0.48 0.69 
Modified Rock Mass Quality 
Parameter Q p 5.05 7.95 10.13 12.42 15.29 
Geologic Strength Index GSI 58.58 62.65 64.84 66.67 68.55 
Rock Mass Dilation Angle 
(Degrees) 0 0 0 0 0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A III-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT IV
SPATIAL PLOTS OF SUBSURFACE ROCK PARAMETERS
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT IV 
SPATIAL PLOTS OF SUBSURFACE ROCK PARAMETERS 
The following illustrations present a visual representation of exploratory boreholes and tests 
performed on specimens from the selected stratigraphic units. The set of 25 figures summarizes 
in visual form, all tests performed on specimens retrieved from the four stratigraphic units within 
the Repository Host Horizon (RHH). Each figure summarizes the information for one-type of 
test and includes sample locations, number of test results for each unit, and a statistical summary 
of values for each unit. No distinction is made in the statistical summary between tests 
performed on different specimen sizes or rock material status, e.g. saturated vs. room-dry. 
The results represent the testing and QA status as of August 2001. The repository layout design 
shown in the background also represents the repository footprint design current as of August 
2001. Subsequent to August 2001 the QA status of results that were classified Q-TBV or non-Q 
were reexamined. See Section 2, Quality Assurance, for further information on the QA status of 
the data on these summary sheets. 
The following sample location plans are presented in this attachment: 
Figure IV-1 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Uniaxial Compressive Strength 
Figure IV-2 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Triaxial Compressive Strength 
Figure IV-3 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Friction Angle 
Figure IV-4 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Cohesion 
Figure IV-5 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Brazilian Tensile Strength 
Figure IV-6 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Direct Tensile Strength 
Figure IV-7 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness 
Figure IV-8 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Triaxial Compression Creep 
Figure IV-9 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Youngs Modulus 
Figure IV-10 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Poissons Ratio 
Figure IV-11 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Dynamic Youngs Modulus 
Figure IV-12 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Dynamic Poissons Ratio 
Figure IV-13 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Capacitance 
Figure IV-14 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity 
Figure IV-15 Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Expansion Coefficient 
Figure IV-16 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Peak Shear Strength 
Figure IV-17 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Residual Shear Strength 
Figure IV-18 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Peak Friction Angle 
Figure IV-19 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Residual Friction Angle 
Figure IV-20 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Dilation Angle 
Figure IV-21 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Cohesion 
Figure IV-22 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Normal Stiffness 
Figure IV-23 Sample Locations Plan for Joint Shear Stiffness 
Figure IV-24 Sample Locations Plan for In Situ Deformation Modulus 
Figure IV-25 Sample Locations Plan for In Situ Youngs Modulus Unloading-Reloading 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00137.000 
Figure IV-1. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Uniaxial Compressive Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00122.000 
Figure IV-2. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Triaxial Compressive Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00136.000 
Figure IV-3. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Friction Angle 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00134.000 
Figure IV-4. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Cohesion 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00133.000 
Figure IV-5. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Brazilian Tensile Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00135.000 
Figure IV-6. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Direct Tensile Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00146.000 
Figure IV-7. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00123.000 
Figure IV-8. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Triaxial Compression Creep 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00127.000 
Figure IV-9. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Youngs Modulus 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00126.000 
Figure IV-10. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Poissons Ratio 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00125.000 
Figure IV-11. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Dynamic Youngs Modulus 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00124.000 
Figure IV-12. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Dynamic Poissons Ratio 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00149.000 
Figure IV-13. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Capacitance 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00150.000 
Figure IV-14. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Conductivity 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00121.000 
Figure IV-15. Sample Locations Plan for Intact Rock Thermal Expansion Coefficient 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00142.000 
Figure IV-16. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Peak Shear Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00144.000 
Figure IV-17. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Residual Shear Strength 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00141.000 
Figure IV-18. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Peak Friction Angle 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00143.000 
Figure IV-19. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Residual Friction Angle 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00139.000 
Figure IV-20. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Dilation Angle 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00138.000 
Figure IV-21. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Cohesion 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00140.000 
Figure IV-22. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Normal Stiffness 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00145.000 
Figure IV-23. Sample Locations Plan for Joint Shear Stiffness 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00128.000 
Figure IV-24. Sample Locations Plan for In Situ Deformation Modulus 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: MO0204RIB00129.000 
Figure IV-25. Sample Locations Plan for In Situ Youngs Modulus Unloading-Reloading 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IV-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT V
LITHOPHYSAL ROCK MODELING USING PARTICLE FLOW CODE
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
PFC Shape Study:
The Effect of Lithophysal Geometric Properties on
Mechanical Properties
Prepared for: 
Douglas B. Rigby 
Bechtel SAIC LLC 
Las Vegas, Nevada 
Prepared by: 
David Potyondy 
David Sainsbury 
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 
June 2003 
Ref: 03-2133-2-3 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Executive Summary 
A Particle Flow Code (PFC) model for lithophysal tuff is described, and results of the application 
of this model to investigate the effect of lithophysal geometric properties on mechanical properties 
are presented. The focus is on the mechanical properties of Youngs modulus and peak strength 
measured during unconfined-compression tests, but polyaxial-cell tests can be performed on the 
same PFC specimens to measure confined properties. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 SHAPE STUDY OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 5
2.1 PFC BASE MATERIAL AND SPECIMEN ................................................................ 5
2.2 SIMPLIFIED SET OF SHAPES .................................................................................. 6
2.3 TRUE LITHOPHYSAL GEOMETRIES ................................................................... 12
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE SHAPE STUDY................................................................ 19
APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................. 20
A.1 PFC MODEL FOR ROCK ......................................................................................... 20
A.2 MEASURING THE PFC MATERIAL PROPERTIES.............................................. 23
A.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE LITHOPHYSAL TUFF AND THE PFC
MATERIAL ................................................................................................................ 25
A.4 PFC MATERIAL FOR LITHOPHYSAL TUFF........................................................ 28
A.5 PFC MATERIAL PROPERTIES ............................................................................... 30
A.5.1 Unconfined Compression Tests......................................................................30
A.5.2 Polyaxial-Cell and Direct-Tension Tests .......................................................33
A.5.3 Summary of PFC Material Response .............................................................39
A.6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................. 148
D.1 CONTENTS OF THE MASTER CD ....................................................................... 148
D.2.1 Circles, triangles and stars ..............................................................................149
D.2.2 Stencils ............................................................................................................150
D.2 CONTENTS OF THE 17 ADDITIONAL CDS ....................................................... 151
D.3 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 152
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
The PFC model for rock mimics a cemented granular material in which both the grains and the 
cement are deformable and may break. A set of microproperties for the base material and void-
specification procedure has been developed to produce a PFC model for lithophysal tuff. This model 
reproduces the failure mechanisms observed in the laboratory and exhibits a reduction of strength 
and modulus with increasing lithophysal volume fraction that is similar to laboratory measurements. 
The PFC model for lithophysal tuff is described in Appendix A. All results described in this report, 
including those in Appendix A, were produced using PFC2D 2.00-081 and PFC3D 2.00-081, which 
are the qualified versions of the software for this project. 
The PFC model can contribute toward a better understanding of the variability in the rock mass 
properties at Yucca Mountain. The variability arises from many sources, some of which include 
rock porosity, sample size, water saturation, temperature, confining pressure, loading rate and time-
dependent degradation processes. The PFC material provides a microstructural model of rock, 
which allows inclusion of the grain-scale mechanisms that produce these sources. The effect of each 
of these sources on rock mass variability could be investigated with the PFC model; however, only 
the effect of rock porosity will be discussed in this report. Specifically, we wish to better understand 
and quantify the effect of lithophysal geometry on the material properties of Youngs modulus and 
peak strength measured during unconfined-compression tests. 
2.0 SHAPE STUDY OVERVIEW 
The PFC model for lithophysal tuff is being used to quantify the effect of lithophysal geometry on 
material properties by introducing different void geometries. The variation of modulus and strength 
with lithophysal volume fraction is measured by performing unconfined-compression tests (UCS 
tests) on specimens of different lithophysal volume fraction. Two types of void geometries are 
considered: (1) a set of simple shapes along with a characterization of their size and spatial 
distributions, and (2) true lithophysal geometries. 
2.1 PFC Base Material and Specimen 
The microproperties of the PFC2D base material used for the shape study are given in Table 1. This 
material has a smaller particle size than the PFC material for lithophysal tuff (average particle 
diameter of 9.9 mm versus 17.1 mm, respectively) to provide a specimen resolution of 100 particles 
across a one-meter diameter specimen. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table 1 PFC2D microproperties for lithophysal tuff (bf5-material) 
Grains Cement 
32510 kg m.= 
( )max min 
avg 
1.5 
9.9 mm 
D D 
D 
= 
= 
1.= 
14.8 GPacE= 14.8 GPacE= 
( ) 2.1n skk = ( ) 2.1n skk = 
0.5
= ( )mean std. dev. 
48 11 MPa 
c cs =t =  
=  
2.2 Simplified Set of Shapes 
An attempt has been made to develop a concise set of geometric parameters that characterize the 
lithophysal geometries and capture the geometrical aspects that most affect deformability and 
strength. A means to map field data of lithophysal geometries into this set of geometric parameters 
is suggested. The approach considers that the lithophysal geometries can be characterized by shape, 
size distribution and spatial distribution as follows. 
 SHAPE. Investigate a small number of simple shapes: circle, triangle and star. 
 SIZE DISTRIBUTION. Given a shape, construct a PFC2D material that matches the 
area distribution of lithophysal cavities from panel maps. 
 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION. Given a shape, construct a PFC2D material that matches 
the nearest-neighbor distribution of lithophysal cavities from panel maps. 
The mapping of field data into this set of geometric parameters has not been performed because of 
the difficulty in defining the parameters that capture spatial distribution. The parameters must 
account for nearness (perhaps in terms of a minimum bridge length of material between voids) and 
for placement (to account for the possibility of a critically near set of voids that provides a path of 
weakness across the specimen  such a path of weakness is evident in the left-hand portion of the 
PFC2D specimen in Figure 8). It may be possible to quantify a spanning-chain of nearby voids 
using graph-theoretic concepts; this is left for future work. Only the effect of void shape is 
investigated here. 
A parametric study, in which a shape parameter is varied while all other geometric parameters are 
held constant, has been performed to quantify the sensitivity of material properties to void shape. 
Three void shapes are studied: a circle, a triangle and a 3-
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
pointed star. The triangle and star are defined by setting in Figure 1 equal to 0.50 and 0.25, 
respectively. The area of these voids is given by 
.33 . 2 .0.50, triangle 
A =. 
.D, =. (1) 
. 8 ..0.25, star 
where D is the bounding-circle diameter. Void size is chosen such that all voids have an area of 
approximately 6313 mm2 by using bounding circles with 
.90 mm, circle 
.
D =.139 mm, triangle. (2) 
.
.197 mm, star 
The ability of the PFC2D material to resolve these shapes is shown in Figure 2, where the geometric 
stencils are overlaid upon the PFC2D bf5-material. Note that the corners of the triangles and stars 
are rounded in the PFC2D material, and thus, do not induce the infinite stresses that would occur if 
the exact geometry were present to a linear elastic body. Three sets of specimens are created in 
which circular-, triangular- and star-shaped voids of constant size (given by (2)) are distributed 
randomly in space subject to the constraint that the length of bridging material between any two 
voids (defined as the distance between bounding circles) is greater than a minimum bridge length 
of 41.5 mm. The voids may intersect the specimen boundary. The triangular-shaped voids are 
randomly oriented, and the star-shaped voids have the same orientation. Representative specimens 
for a void porosity of approximately 0.05 are shown in Figure 3. 
Figure 1 Geometric stencil used to generate triangular- and star-shaped voids 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 2 Resolution of PFC2D specimens of circular-, triangular- and star-
shaped voids (240-mm bounding box for all specimens.) 
Figure 3 PFC2D specimens of circular-, triangular- and star-shaped voids 
with void porosities of approximately 0.05 
For each void shape, 40 specimens with different void porosities were created and subjected to 
unconfined-compression tests. The PFC2D material properties are compared with the best available 
laboratory data in Figures 4 and 5. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% and the stress-
strain curves of the PFC2D specimens with void porosities of approximately 0.05 are shown in 
Figures 6 and 7. Additional specimen-damage plots are provided in Appendix B to support 
additional analysis beyond what follows about the effect of void shape on PFC2D material 
properties. 
1. The addition of corners makes the material softer and weaker, and decreasing the corner 
angles (in moving from a triangular to a star shape) further softens and weakens the 
material. This effect is seen by comparing modulus and strength values at the same void 
porosity in Figures 4 and 5, and is also evident in Figure 7. 
2. The softening effect is explained by the following analysis. Assume that the voids are 
randomly distributed such that an individual void can be isolated from its neighbors in 
a fixed-size bounding box as shown in Figure 2. Each of these three systems has the 
same void porosity, because the void areas are the same; however, the effective area that 
contributes to the modulus of the bounding-box region (approximated by the diameter 
of the bounding circle) increases as we move from circles to triangles to stars. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Therefore, the triangles and stars produce a larger modulus reduction for the same void 
porosity. 
3. The weakening effect is more difficult to explain. One contributing factor may be the 
stress concentrations that develop at the void corners such that introducing and then 
decreasing the corner angles (in moving from a circular to a triangular to a star shape) 
increases the stress concentrations thereby weakening the material. Examination of the 
specimen damage plots in Appendix B reveals that for the triangular-shaped voids most 
pre-peak damage that subsequently forms macroscopic fractures (which is here termed 
critical damage and which is assumed to control the peak strength) develops either at 
triangle corners or at triangle sides oriented perpendicular to the loading direction (see 
Figure 8). Similar behavior is exhibited by the material with star-shaped voids; however, 
there are less side emanations. (This may be because the stars are not randomly oriented 
and thus do not present a critical orientation with respect to the loading direction.) The 
fact that critical damage forms at void boundaries, and not internal to the material, 
suggests that the void-induced stress concentrations control peak strength; thus, any 
geometry change that increases these stress concentrations will decrease specimen 
strength. 
4. Although the void shape does affect how modulus and strength depend upon void 
porosity (see Figures 4 and 5), when the void porosity is removed from explicit reference 
by plotting strength versus modulus as shown in Figure 9, the data set for all three shapes 
collapses onto nearly the same curve. This suggests that the mechanism relating 
modulus and strength is the same for all three shapes. 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
R2R2R2Lif () 
li) 
tril (ii) 
y = 19.067e -3.6915x 
= 0.9884 
y = 18.86e-4.5241x 
= 0.984 
y = 19.16e-7.0437x 
= 0.9746 
th. tuf2002circes (90 mm dam.
anges139 mm dam.) 
stars (197 mm dam.
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
E (GPa) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 4 Youngs modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and 
PFC2D models of randomly distributed circular-, triangular- and 
star-shaped voids 
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
R2R2R2 = 
Li () 
li) 
tril (ii) 
y = 52.482e -5.1493x 
= 0.9434 
y = 53.585e -7.1352x 
= 0.9409 
y = 54.737e -11.579x 
0.8927 
th. tuff1985 & 2002circes (90 mm dam.
anges139 mm dam.) 
stars (197 mm dam.
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
Figure 5 Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal 
tuff and PFC2D models of randomly distributed circular-, 
triangular- and star-shaped voids 
qu (MPa) 
Figure 6 Damage at an axial strain of 0.5% in PFC2D specimens of circular-, 
triangular- and star-shaped voids with void porosities of 
approximately 0.05 (plotting convention described in Appendix B) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
40 
30
Axial stress (MPa)
20 
10 
0 
l(i) 
l (ii) 
circes 90 mm dam.
trianges139 mm dam.) 
stars (197 mm dam.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 
Axial strain (%) 
Figure 7 Stress-strain curves of PFC2D specimens of circular-, triangular-
and star-shaped voids with void porosities of approximately 0.05 
Figure 8 Damage (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an axial strain of 
0.5% in PFC2D specimen with triangular-shaped voids showing six 
sites of critical damage (Note how the critical damage has initiated 
three distinct vertical failure paths across the specimen.) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
qu (MPa) 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
R2R2R2R2Lif (i) 
li) 
tril (ii) 
y = 10.004e 0.0579x 
= 0.6479 
y = 5.9043e 0.1225x 
= 0.9635 
y = 6.3088e 0.1171x 
= 0.9548 
y = 6.3234e 0.1159x 
= 0.9258 
th. tufPrce, 2002circes (90 mm dam.
anges139 mm dam.) 
stars (197 mm dam.
0 5 10152025 
modulus, E (GPa) 
Figure 9 Unconfined compressive strength versus Youngs modulus for 
lithophysal tuff and PFC2D models of randomly distributed circular, 
triangular- and star-shaped voids 
2.3 True Lithophysal Geometries 
Panel maps of the walls of the ECRB cross drift are used as stencils to generate a collection of one-
by-one meter PFC2D specimens. A typical panel map is shown in Figure 10. Each panel map 
defines a one-by-three meter area within which lithophysal cavities, rims, spots and lithic clasts have 
been identified as separate features. The lithophysal cavities (excluding the rims) are used to define 
the voids in the PFC2D specimens as follows. First, the cavity features (see Figure 11) are used to 
produce a bitmap image with a resolution of 100 cells per meter (see Figure 12). A resolution of 100 
cells per meter corresponds with a cell size equal to the average particle diameter of the PFC2D bf5-
material.1 Next, the location of the PFC2D specimen is specified relative to the panel map system. 
Then, all PFC2D particles with centroids lying within each void-cell of the bitmap are deleted. 
A set of three non-overlapping PFC2D specimens (left, middle and right) was extracted from each 
panel map (see Figure 13). A total of 18 panel maps ranging from stations 14+93 to 22+94 were 
1 The sensitivity of the measured properties to the bitmap resolution used in the stenciling process is not known. As 
can be seen in Figure 12, a resolution of 100 cells per meter overestimates the lithophysal volume fraction. The void 
porosities of the PFC2D specimens generated from the left section of panel map 14+93R decreased from 0.177 to 
0.162 to 0.154 as the bitmap resolution increased from 100 to 200 to 400 cells per meter. The UCS values for these 
specimens increased from 5.5 to 11.7 to 13.3 MPa. The large sensitivity of the UCS value of this specimen to 
bitmap resolution may not be representative of most stenciled-lithophysae specimens, because its peak load appears 
to correspond with the breaking of the single critical bridge in the middle-left portion of the specimen (see Figure 
16) and it is a low-strength outlier (see Figure 15, void porosity of 0.177). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
used to produce a total of 54 PFC2D stenciled-lithophysae specimens, which were then subjected 
to unconfined-compression tests. 
Figure 10 Panel map 14+93R 
Figure 11 Cavity features from panel map 14+93R 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 12 Cavity features overlaid on bitmap of 100 cells per meter resolution 
from left section of panel map 14+93R (Cavity features are yellow, 
void cells are black and non-void cells are gray.) 
Figure 13 PFC2D stenciled-lithophysae specimens (left, middle and right) 
generated from lithophysal cavities of panel map 14+93R 
The PFC material properties are compared with the best available laboratory data and randomly 
distributed circular voids in Figures 14 and 15. The damage existing at an axial strain of 0.5% of 
the three PFC2D specimens from panel map 14+93R are shown in Figure 16. The specimen-damage 
plots, which also include stress-strain curves, for all stenciled-lithophysae models are provided in 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Appendix B. The following statements can be made about the properties of the PFC2D stenciledlithophysae 
material. 
1. The damage mechanisms of the stenciled-lithophysae material are similar to those of the 
material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape. Most importantly, the critical 
damage (defined in bullet 3 of the previous section) forms at void boundaries, and not 
internal to the material. This damage mechanism occurs for any void shape and controls 
specimen strength. 
2. The stenciled-lithophysae material is softer and weaker and exhibits greater property 
variability than the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape. 
3. The property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material is similar to that of the 
laboratory data, and the property variability diminishes when the data is plotted as 
strength versus modulus (see Figure 17). Also, the strength versus modulus relation is 
similar to that of the material with randomly distributed voids of simple shape (see 
Figure 18) suggesting that the strength versus modulus curve of the PFC2D material is 
independent of void geometry. The slope of this curve is affected by the PFC2D 
microproperties as seen in Figure 19, which compares the curve for randomly distributed 
circular voids in the bf2- and bf4-materials (microproperties given in Tables A-1 and A4). 
The bf4-material has smaller micro-moduli and larger micro-strengths than the bf2material, 
and this produces a reduction and increase in the corresponding macro 
quantities; however, the relative magnitude of the reduction and increase becomes 
smaller as the void porosity increases. As more holes are added, the contribution of the 
base material to the macroproperties is lessened producing an increase in the slope of the 
curve. It may be possible to match the laboratory data by modifying the PFC2D 
microproperties and including non-circular grain shapes. 
4. Some of the property variability of the stenciled-lithophysae material (especially low 
strength values) may arise from an inadequate sampling of the material in that the 
maximum void size in many of the PFC2D specimens is greater than one-quarter of the 
specimen diameter. Such variability could be reduced by removing such specimens from 
the data set. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
R2R20 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
E (GPa) 
f (2002) 
cii) 
iliy = 19.067e -3.6915x 
= 0.9884 
y = 16.483e-4.7287x 
= 0.6851 
Lith. tufrcles (90 mm dam.
stenced lthophysae 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
Figure 14 Youngs modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and 
PFC2D models of randomly distributed circles and stenciled 
lithophysae 
R2R20 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
qu (MPa) 
Li) 
li) 
l liy = 52.482e -5.1493x 
= 0.9434 
y = 34.079e -5.4687x 
= 0.5505 
th. tuff (1985 & 2002circes (90 mm dam.
stenciedthophysae 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 
void porosity, nv 
Figure 15 Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal 
tuff and PFC2D models of randomly distributed circles and stenciled 
lithophysae 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
qu (MPa) 
Figure 16 Damage at an axial strain of 0.5% in PFC2D specimens from panel 
map 14+93R (plotting convention described in Appendix B) 
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10152025
R2R20.156x 
R2Li (i) 
li) 
l liy = 10.004e 0.0579x 
= 0.6479 
y = 5.9043e 0.1225x 
= 0.9635 
y = 3.8774e 
= 0.8721 
th. tuffPrce, 2002circes (90 mm dam.
stenciedthophysae 
modulus, E (GPa) 
Figure 17 Unconfined compressive strength versus Youngs modulus for 
lithophysal tuff and PFC2D models of randomly distributed circles 
and stenciled lithophysae 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00AV-18December 2003y = 5.9043e0.1225xR2 = 0.9635y = 6.3088e0.1171xR2 = 0.9548y = 6.3234e0.1159xR2 = 0.9258y = 3.8774e0.156xR2 = 0.872101020304050600510152025modulus, E (GPa)
qu (MPa)
circles (90 mm diam.)
triangles (139 mm diam.)
stars (197 mm diam.)
stenciled lithophysaeFigure 18 Unconfined compressive strength versus Youngs modulus forPFC2D models of randomly distributed voids of simple shape andstenciled lithophysaebest available lab datay = 10.004e0.0579xR2 = 0.6479y = 4.1467e0.1394xR2 = 0.9687y = 3.0821e0.0896xR2 = 0.9611010203040500510152025modulus, E (GPa)
qu (MPa)
Lith. tuff (Price, 2002)
PFC2D (2:1, bf4)
PFC2D (2:1, bf2)
Figure 19 Unconfined compressive strength versus Youngs modulus forlithophysal tuff and PFC2D models of randomly distributed circularvoids in bf2- and bf4-materials

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
2.4 Limitations of the Shape Study 
The following limitations are inherent in the PFC shape study. 
1. Both the panel maps and the PFC2D analyses are two-dimensional slices, whereas the 
true lithophysal geometries are three-dimensional. An assessment should be made of the 
limitations of this two-dimensional approach. It is a straightforward process to map true 
lithophysal geometries into the PFC3D model; however, current computing capabilities 
make it impractical to run PFC3D models of sufficient resolution to resolve the voids 
adequately. Such computational limitations are being addressed in the development of 
a scheme called AC/DC (Adaptive Continuum/DisContinuum), which supports parallel 
processing and replaces elastic regions remote from cracks by a continuum formulation, 
represented by a linear matrix, thus achieving economies in computation time. It may 
be possible to simulate true lithophysal geometries in PFC3D models using the AC/DC 
methodology. 
2. The void geometries from the panel maps (on the scale of a meter) may not be 
representative of the laboratory specimens (on the scale of a foot). The effect of 
specimen size on material properties has not been addressed in this work. PFC2D 
modeling of the slot tests will give us a better understanding of such scaling issues. 
3. The PFC material does not contain fractures already present in the matrix material of 
some of the lithophysal tuff. The effect of such fractures could be added in a smeared 
sense by reducing the stiffness and strength of the PFC base material or in a direct sense 
by adding discrete fractures to the PFC material between the voids. Such discrete 
fractures could take the form of reduced strength and stiffness of all particles and bonds 
lying within a specified thickness of each fracture surface. 
4. The effect of rims, spots and lithic clasts on the material properties are not accounted for 
directly by the PFC model, because it only provides a base material to which voids can 
be added. One could define additional regions for rims, spots and lithic clasts and assign 
them appropriate stiffnesses and strengths; however, these properties are not available 
at present. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
APPENDIX A 
PFC MODEL FOR LITHOPHYSAL TUFF 
The PFC model for lithophysal tuff is described in this appendix. A brief description of the PFC 
model is provided in Section A.1. A thorough description of the PFC code and its application to 
modeling rock is found in the Potyondy and Cundall paper presented in Appendix C, while a detailed 
description of the initial development and calibration of the PFC model for lithophysal tuff is found 
in December 2002 Draft of PFC Lithophysal Investigation (Appendix E). The tests used to obtain 
the PFC material properties are described in Section A.2. Then, the assumptions used to characterize 
the lithophysal tuff and the PFC material for lithophysal tuff are presented in Sections A.3 and A.4. 
The measured PFC material properties are presented and compared with laboratory data in Section 
A.5. 
A.1 PFC Model for Rock 
A thorough description of the PFC code and its application to modeling rock is found in Appendix 
C, in which the model is referred to as a bonded-particle model for rock. The introductory paragraph 
and abstract of that work follow. 
In this paper, we argue that rock behaves like a cemented granular material of complex 
shaped grains in which both the grains and the cement are deformable and may break, 
and that such a conceptual model can, in principle, explain all aspects of the mechanical 
behavior. Various numerical models have been proposed that mimic such a system with 
differing levels of fidelity. The bonded-particle model for rock (referred to hereafter as 
the BPM) directly mimics this system and thus exhibits a rich set of emergent behaviors 
that correspond very well with those of real rock. The BPM provides both a scientific 
tool to investigate the micro-mechanisms that combine to produce complex macroscopic 
behaviors and an engineering tool to predict these macroscopic behaviors. 
A numerical model for rock is proposed in which the rock is represented by a dense 
packing of non-uniform sized circular or spherical particles that are bonded together at 
their contact points and whose mechanical behavior is simulated by the distinct-element 
method using the two- and three-dimensional discontinuum programs PFC2D and 
PFC3D. The microproperties consist of stiffness and strength parameters for the 
particles and the bonds. Damage is represented explicitly as broken bonds, which form 
and coalesce into macroscopic fractures when load is applied. The model reproduces 
many features of rock behavior including elasticity, fracturing, acoustic emission, 
damage accumulation producing material anisotropy, hysteresis, dilation, post-peak 
softening and strength increase with confinement. These behaviors are emergent 
properties of the model that arise from a relatively simple set of 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
microproperties. A material-genesis procedure and microproperties to represent Lac du 
Bonnet granite are presented. The behavior of this model is described for two- and 
three-dimensional biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests and for two-dimensional tunnel 
simulations in which breakout notches form in the region of maximum compressive 
stress. The sensitivity of the results to microproperties, including particle size, is 
investigated. Particle size is not a free parameter that only controls resolution; instead, 
it affects the fracture toughness and thereby influences damage processes (such as notch 
formation) in which damage localizes at subfracture tips experiencing extensile loading. 
(Appendix C). 
The PFC model mimics the mechanical behavior of a collection of grains joined by cement. We 
consider each grain as a PFC particle and each cement entity as a parallel bond. The total force and 
moment acting at each cemented contact is comprised of a force arising from particle-particle 
overlap and a force and moment carried by the parallel bond. These quantities contribute to the 
resultant force and moment acting on the two contacting particles. The grain-to-grain and cement 
behaviors are modeled using two different force-displacement laws. If a parallel bond is not present 
at a contact, then only the grain-based portion of the force-displacement behavior occurs. The 
mechanical behavior of the PFC model is summarized in Figure A-1. 
Figure A-1 Force and moment distributions and broken bonds (in magenta) in a cemented 
granular material with six initial holes idealized as a bonded-disk assembly in the post-peak portion of 
an unconfined compression test. (Blue is grain-grain compression, while black and red are 
compression and tension, respectively, in the cement drawn as two lines at the bond periphery. Line 
thicknesses and orientations correspond with force magnitude and direction, respectively, and the 
moment in the cement contributes to the forces at the bond periphery.) 
In general, the bonded-particle model is characterized by the grain density, grain shape, grain size 
distribution, grain packing and grain-cement microproperties. Each of these items influences the 
model behavior. The grain density, ., does not affect the quasi-static behavior but is included for 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
completeness. The particle diameters satisfy a uniform particle-size distribution bounded by Dmin 
and D , and a dense packing is obtained using the material-genesis procedure (Appendix C). The
max 
packing fabric, or connectivity of the bonded assembly, is controlled by the ratio ( DDmin ) , and,
max 
for a fixed ratio, varying D changes the absolute particle size but does not affect the packing 
min 
fabric. Such a microproperty characterization separates the effects of packing fabric and particle size 
on material behavior and clearly identifies D as the controlling length scale of the material. The 
min 
final item that characterizes the bonded-particle model is the grain-cement microproperties: 
( ){ } 
( ){ } 
, , 
, , , , 
c n s 
n s 
c c c 
E kk 
E k k 
 
. s t 
grain microproperties 
cement microproperties 
(A.1) 
where cEand cE are the Youngs moduli of the grains and cement, respectively; kk and( )n s 
ns
(kk) are the ratios of normal to shear stiffness of the grains and cement, respectively; . is the 
() ( B)
A 
,
radius multiplier used to set the parallel-bond radii such that R=.min ( R R ) ;  is the grain 
friction coefficient; and s and t are the tensile and shear strengths, respectively, of the cement. 
cc
The grain and cement moduli are related to the corresponding normal stiffnesses such that the 
particle and parallel-bond stiffnesses are assigned as 
.2 tE t = 1, PFC2D 
c
kn:=. 
, 
.4RE, PFC3D 
c 
k
n
k:= 
s 
n
(kks) 
(A.2)
E
c
kn:= 
A ( B)
R
() + R 
n 
sk
k:= . 
ns
(kk) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A.2 Measuring the PFC Material Properties 
The PFC material properties are obtained by testing PFC specimens in a polyaxial cell and in a 
direct-tension device. The polyaxial cell loads a parallelepiped specimen between pairs of opposing 
walls. The walls are made frictionless and assigned a stiffness equal to that of the PFC particles in 
order to eliminate frictional effects. The top and bottom walls act as loading platens, and the 
velocities of the lateral walls are controlled to maintain a constant confining stress. Unconfined-
compression tests are performed by removing the lateral walls. The polyaxial cell inhibits specimen 
bulging, whereby the specimen sides deform into a barrel shape, because the lateral walls remain 
straight. The polyaxial cell does not simulate a triaxial test in which a specimen is encased in a 
membrane and confined by fluid pressure.2 
The direct-tension device controls the velocities of a thin layer of boundary particles on the top and 
bottom specimen faces to apply uniaxial strain. The rotations and non-axial translations of the 
boundary particles are constrained to zero; thus, the test mimics a complete gluing of a rigid platen 
to each face such that the specimen is not allowed to contract at the platen-specimen interface. The 
total out-of-balance force acting on each set of boundary particles is monitored during the test, and 
the average of this force is divided by the initial specimen cross-sectional area to compute the 
applied stress. 
The following assumptions are made when obtaining material properties from polyaxial-cell tests. 
Stresses and strains are computed using the specimen dimensions at the start of the test. Stresses in 
the PFC2D models are computed assuming that each particle is a disk of unit thickness. Strains are 
computed from the wall displacements.3 
The elastic constants are obtained using the stress and strain increments occurring between the start 
of the test and the point at which one-half of the peak stress has been obtained. For both PFC2D and 
PFC3D models, the specimen axis is parallel with the global y-axis. For the PFC3D material, the 
Youngs modulus is computed by 
.s
y
E = (A.3)
.e
y 
2 A prototype PFC3D triaxial cell consisting of a set of non-overlapping cylindrical sleeves that apply confinement and 
allow the specimen to undergo non-uniform bulging has been implemented for a single sleeve in PFC3D version 3.0, 
but is not being used because PFC3D version 3.0 has not been qualified for use on this project. 
3 Void collapse and non-homogeneous deformation in the post-peak region produce a large scatter in both the 
measurement-based (using the average of three measurement regions lying along the specimen axis) and the specimen-
based (using gage particles on the specimen surface) deformation measurements. Note that the wall-based modulus is 
slightly less than the specimen-based modulus, because of the ball-wall overlap that makes the wall-based strain greater 
than the specimen-based strain. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
and the Poissons ratio is computed by 
e
.e 1 (.+.e)= 1 
.
. 
1-
.e
. 
xxz v
.=-
.e 
=-2 
.e 2 . .ey ..
(A.4) 
yy . 
where the average of the two lateral strains is used to approximate the lateral strain, and the 
evolumetric strain .=.e+.e+.e. These relations are valid for constant lateral stress 
v xyz 
during the test. 
For the PFC2D material, first, the Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus corresponding with a 
state of plane stress are computed as 
.e
x
.'=- 
.e
y 
PFC2D material, plane stress. (A.5)
.s
y
E'= 
.e
y 
Equation (A.5) is valid for the case of plane stress (s =0) and constant lateral stress (.s=0)
zx
during the stress and strain increments. Then, the elastic constants corresponding with a state of 
plane strain are obtained via 
.' 
v = 
1+.' PFC2D material, plane strain . (A.6) 
2
EE'(1-.)
= 
Equation (A.6) is the general relation between plane-stress and plane-strain conditions. When 
calibrating the PFC2D model, we compare E and .(not E' and .') with the elastic constants 
measured during triaxial tests on real rock specimens.4 
4 Recall that the PFC2D model behaves as an assembly of unit-thickness disks. The conditions are neither plane strain 
nor plane stress, because the corresponding stress-strain constitutive relations are not employed  i.e., the out-of-plane 
forces and displacements do not enter into the force-displacement law. Therefore, the elastic constants of the PFC2D 
model are measured by interpreting the force-displacement response. For the same PFC2D model, we measure one 
force-displacement response but compute two sets of elastic constants corresponding with plane-stress and plane-strain 
conditions. If a region of a 2D isotropic elastic continuum were extracted and replaced with this model material, and 
the corresponding set of elastic constants were assigned to the remaining continuum, then the deformation state of the 
model material would match that of the continuum  i.e., there would be full displacement compatibility along the 
extraction boundary. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The strength envelopes are used to obtain the secant slope, N f, friction angle, f, and cohesion, c 
, of an equivalent Mohr-Coulomb material for confinements in the range P to P1 via
0
sf (P 1 )-sf (P 0 )
N f= 
PP 0
-
1 
.N f-1 .
-1
f=sin ..
N f+1 .. (A.7) 
.. 
q
c = u 
2 N f 
where s is peak strength and qu is unconfined compressive strength. The slope of the volumetric-
f
strain curve in the post-peak region is used to obtain the dilation angle of an equivalent Mohr-
Coulomb material. For the PFC3D material (assuming a triaxial test for which both confining 
stresses are equal), 
s = 
.ev =tan -1 .
. 2sin . 
.
. , .= sin-1 . tan s . 
.ea .1sin .. ..
2 +tan s .
. 
(A.8)
- 
For the PFC2D material (assuming a biaxial plane strain test), 
v
s =
.e 
= 2sin . 
, .= sin -1 . s . (A.9)
- .
.ea 1sin ..2 +s .
. 
where e and e are volumetric and axial strain, respectively, with .e<0and.>0 denoting
e
va va
contraction (Vermeer and de Borst, 1984). 
A.3 Characterization of the Lithophysal Tuff and the PFC Material 
The tuff can be divided into lithophysal and nonlithophysal types. These two rock types differ 
significantly in their microstructural and mechanical properties. In the lithophysal tuff, the vast 
majority of the porosity is concentrated in lithophysae and surrounding vapor phase-altered material, 
whereas porosity is more evenly distributed throughout the material in the nonlithophysal tuffs. The 
nonlithophysal tuffs have effective porosities that increase from 0.12 to 0.38 as the extent of welding 
decreases. The high-porosity nonlithophysal tuffs have large effective porosities because of the 
voids between grains, whereas similar effective porosities in lithophysal tuffs arise from the presence 
of lithophysae and vapor phase-altered material. The matrix fabric of the lithophysal tuff is 
microscopically identical to that of moderately to densely welded nonlithophysal tuff. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Price et al. (1985) divide the lithophysal tuff into the following three components: a fine-grained 
matrix (M), large lithophysae (L), and vapor phase-altered material (A) surrounding the lithophysae. 
Denote the porosity of component -iby 
vi 
Vi 
,,
f= 
(V) 
, i={M AL } (A.10)
i 
and the volume fraction of component -iby 
V 
,,
P= Vi , i={M AL } (A.11)
i 
where () is the void volume of component - i,V is the solid volume of component -i and Vis
V
vi i
the total volume. The total porosity can be expressed as 
VV
vM 
vA
f=
()+()+(Vv)L =f PM +f P +fP. (A.12)
V 
M A A L L 
The void porosity of the PFC material 
V 
n = v (A.13)
v 
V 
material has zero porosity. The void porosity of the PFC base material before deleting any particles 
is zero; the void porosity can be compared with the lithophysal volume fraction, PL. Voids are 
created in the PFC base material by deleting particles that lie in the void regions. If we designate 
the inherent porosity of the PFC base material by n (approximately 0.17 and 0.36, for PFC2D and 
PFC3D, respectively), then the void volume in (A.13) can be expressed as a sum of the volume of 
deleted particles, V, and the volume of space between those particles, V , such that
bm
V = Vb + V = Vb + nV. (A.14)
vm v 
Solving for V and substituting into (A.13) yields the following expression for the void porosity: 
v
n = Vv Vb (A.15)
v 
V 
. 
V(1- n) . 
Equation (A.15) is used to obtain the void porosity of the PFC specimens. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The PFC model represents lithophysal tuff as a base material with discrete voids. The base material 
represents both the matrix (M) and the vapor phase-altered material (A) in a smeared fashion, and 
the discrete voids represent the lithophysae (L). The void porosity of the PFC model, n , 
corresponds with the volume fraction, P , of the lithophysal tuff. The relative distributions of these 
Lcomponents for the lithophysal tuff and the PFC model are shown in Figure A-2. Note that the PFC 
base material has an inherent porosity that does not correspond with that of the tuff  the tuff 
microstructure at this small scale is not reproduced by the PFC material. Only the void porosity of 
the PFC material can be compared with the lithophysal volume fraction. Also, note that PA as a 
function of P is not known for the lithophysal tuff, but P must approach zero as P approaches 
LALzero. This effect is not accounted for in the PFC material, because the microproperties of the PFC 
material are kept constant for all void porosities. Therefore, the PFC materials with low void 
porosity overestimate the softening and weakening effects of the vapor phase-altered material.5 
Figure A-2. Relative distributions of the three components of lithophysal tuff for 
(a) real material and (b) PFC material 
5 One approach to incorporate this effect in the PFC models would be to modify the PFC microproperties as a function 
of n such that they match the laboratory data for the lithophysal tuff in the non-zero range of n and match the 
vv
nonlithophysal tuff when n = 0 . This approach has not been adopted here; thus, the properties of the PFC base 
v
material will not match those of the nonlithophysal tuff  the modulus and UCS values of the PFC base material will 
be less than those of the nonlithophysal tuff. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A.4 PFC Material for Lithophysal Tuff 
The PFC material for lithophysal tuff (see Table A-1 and note that this PFC material is designated 
as the bf4-material) consists of a set of microproperties for the base material (Appendix C) and a 
specification of the void geometry. In general, the void geometry is characterized by shape, size 
distribution and spatial distribution. The following simplified void geometry is used. Circular 
(PFC2D) and spherical (PFC3D) voids of the same size are distributed randomly in space subject 
to the constraint that the length of bridging material between any two voids is greater than Bmin . 
PFC specimens are created such that the voids may intersect the specimen boundary. 
The properties of the PFC material are obtained by testing 2:1 aspect-ratio specimens. The PFC2D 
specimens are rectangular and are tested in the material vessel in which they were formed. The 
PFC3D specimens are formed in a parallelepiped material vessel, and then trimmed into a cylindrical 
shape before testing. All PFC specimens have a one-meter diameter. The fundamental length scale 
of a PFC material is the particle size (diameter, Davg ), which provides a discrete lower limit to 
mechanisms that can be resolved by the model. Additional length scales for PFC models of 
lithophysal tuff include specimen size (diameter, D ), void size (diameter, D ) and minimum bridge 
sv
length between voids ( B ). The specimen, void and bridge resolutions are defined by 
min 
.= 
D , respectively, and shown in Table A-2.
s DDs avg , .v =DDv avg and .B =Bmin 
avg 
Representative PFC specimens for different void porosities are shown in Figures A-3 and A-4. 
Table A-1 PFC microproperties for lithophysal tuff (bf4-material) 
Grains Cement 
.2510 kg m 3= 
( )max min 
avg 
1.5 
17.1 mm, PFC2D 
52.3 mm, PFC3D 
D D 
D 
= 
. 
=. 
. 
.1= 
14.8 GPa, PFC2D 
17.2 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
=. 
. 
14.8 GPa, PFC2D 
17.2 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
=. 
. 
( ) 2.1, PFC2D 
1.8, PFC3D n skk 
. 
=. 
. 
( ) 2.1, PFC2D 
1.8, PFC3D 
nkk s . 
=. 
. 
0.5= (mean std. dev. 
48 11 MPa, 
34 8 MPa, 
c cs 
t= =  
. 
=. . 
) 
PFC2D 
PFC3D 
Void Geometry: circular or spherical, vD 166 mm = , min 41.5 mm B = 
Table A-2 PFC resolutions for lithophysal tuff specimens 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Resolution 
( )1000 mm sD= PFC2D PFC3D 
avg specimen, s sDD.= 58.5 19.1 
avg void, v vDD.= 9.7 3.2 
min avg bridge, B B D. = 2.4 0.8 
Figure A-3. PFC2D UCS test specimens of lithophysal tuff (void porosities of 0.05, 0.10 and 
0.20) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure A-4. PFC3D UCS test specimens of lithophysal tuff (void porosities of 0.05, 0.10 
and 0.19; voids depicted as black spheres) 
A.5 PFC Material Properties 
A.5.1 Unconfined Compression Tests 
The microproperties of the PFC material for lithophysal tuff have been chosen to match the variation 
of modulus and strength with lithophysal volume fraction measured from UCS tests on large-
diameter (approximately 12-inch) specimens. The best available laboratory data for lithophysal tuff 
are the strength data from Price et al. (1985, DTNs SNSAND84086000.000, 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002) and the strength and modulus data from 
2002 test results (DTNs SN0208L0207502.001, SN0211L0207502.002, and 
SN0305L0207502.006). A subset of the 2002 data, shown in Table A-3, consisting of 14 tests 
performed at room temperature and under room dry and saturated conditions is used. Results from 
heated tests are excluded. The 2002 data show lower modulus values than the 1985 data. The strain 
measurements in the 1985 data are suspect, but the strength values are believed to be correct. For 
the PFC calibration, we use the strength values from both the 1985 and the 2002 tests and the 
modulus values from only the 2002 tests. Note that the lithophysal volume fractions (denoted as 
Lith Porosity in Table A-3) are estimates only and should be considered preliminary values until 
measurements that are more accurate have been completed. Also note that the 1985 tests and four 
of the 2002 tests were performed under saturated conditions, while the 10 remaining 2002 tests were 
performed under room dry conditions. The saturated samples, in general, show strength values at 
the lower end of the strength and modulus range. No attempt is made here to differentiate between 
the saturated and room dry tests. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table A-3 Strength and modulus data for lithophysal tuff used in the PFC calibration 
2002 Tests Moisture Sample Strength Strain Young's Poisson's Porosity L:D Lith Porosity 
Batch 1 Room Dry 59A - UL 13.5 3.0 5.8 0.39 0.48 2.0 0.303 
61A - UL 17.7 2.8 8.8 0.44 1.9 0.239 
62A - UL 25.9 2.6 13.7 0.30 1.7 0.127 
64A - UL 33.5 2.0 20.5 0.32 1.7 0.128 
65A - UL 26.2 1.8 19.5 0.29 2.0 0.119 
66A - UL 16.5 1.8 12.4 0.36 1.7 0.167 
Saturated 60A - UL 12.7 2.7 6.7 0.36 1.8 0.186 
63A - UL 9.4 2.5 5.0 0.24 0.42 1.8 0.2 
68A - UL 11.6 2.6 5.9 0.03 0.44 2.0 0.258 
Batch 2 Room Dry 50A - UL 22.1 2.0 14.9 0.21 1.5 0.285 
Room Dry 23A - LL 28.7 4.6 9.2 1.8 0.192 
24A - LL 13.3 4.0 5.0 1.8 0.222 
46A - LL 21.7 3.9 8.5 1.8 0.284 
Saturated 87A - LL 15.7 4.5 5.3 1.9 0.145 
E (GPa) 
Source for laboratory measurements: DTNs: SNSAND84086000.000, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002, and 
MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. 
The PFC material properties are compared with the best available laboratory data in Figures A-5 and 
A-6, and the strength-modulus relation derived from these results is shown in 0. When comparing 
2D and 3D properties, it should be kept in mind that, although both specimens are 2:1 aspect ratio 
with a one-meter diameter, the 2D material contains cylindrical holes, whereas the 3D material 
contains spherical holes of the same diameter. One result of this different geometry is that the 
maximum void porosity obtainable for the PFC3D material, 0.19, is less than for the PFC2D 
material, 0.36. Nevertheless, the results show good correlation between the 2D and 3D properties, 
which suggests that void porosity is a unifying parameter that can be used to relate 2D and 3D 
behavior. 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
R2R2) 
l) 
y = 20.245e-4.1815x 
= 0.9779 
y = 17.866e-3.457x 
= 0.9981 
Lith. tuff (2002) 
PFC2D (2:1, bf4PFC3D (2:1 cy, bf4
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 
void porosity, nv 
Figure A-5. Youngs modulus versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and PFC bf4material 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
R2R20 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
qu (MPa) 
( 
(f4) 
(l) 
y = 52.167e-5.9159x 
= 0.943 
y = 38.467e-4.792x 
= 0.9898 
Lith. tuff1985 & 2002) 
PFC2D2:1, bPFC3D2:1 cy, bf4
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 
void porosity, nv 
Figure A-6. Unconfined compressive strength versus void porosity for lithophysal tuff and 
PFC bf4-material 
yR2R2R20 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
qu (MPa) 
Li () 
) 
l) 
= 10.004e0.0579x 
= 0.6479 
y = 4.1467e0.1394x 
= 0.9687 
y = 5.9798e0.1067x 
= 0.984 
th. tuff2002PFC2D (2:1, bf4PFC3D (2:1 cy, bf4
0 5 10152025 
modulus, E (GPa) 
Figure A-7. Unconfined compressive strength versus modulus for lithophysal tuff and PFC 
bf4-material 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A.5.2 Polyaxial-Cell and Direct-Tension Tests 
A comparison of the PFC3D and PFC2D bf2-material response during polyaxial-cell and direct-
tension tests on 2:1 aspect ratio parallelepiped specimens of one-meter diameter is provided here. 
The PFC material is described by the microproperties in Table A-4. Note that the micro-moduli have 
been increased and the micro-strengths have been reduced relative to the bf4-material. A set of PFC 
specimens of differing void porosity was created, and these specimens were tested in a polyaxial cell 
at confinements of 0.1, 1, 3 and 10 MPa. The properties of the PFC bf2-material are listed in Tables 
A-5 and A-6. Damage plots and plots of deviatoric stress, volumetric strain and total number of 
cracks versus axial strain are provided in the December 2002 Draft of PFC Lithophysal Investigation 
(Appendix E). Only a subset of that material is repeated here to support the following discussion. 
Table A-4 PFC microproperties for lithophysal tuff (bf2-material) 
Grains Cement 
.2510 kg m 3= 
( )max min 
avg 
1.5 
17.1 mm, PFC2D 
52.3 mm, PFC3D 
D D 
D 
= 
. 
=. 
. 
.1= 
23.4 GPa, PFC2D 
24.5 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
=. 
. 
23.4 GPa, PFC2D 
24.5 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
=. 
. 
( ) 2.1, PFC2D 
1.8, PFC3D n skk 
. 
=. 
. 
( ) 2.1, PFC2D 
1.8, PFC3D 
nkk s . 
=. 
. 
0.5= ( )mean std. dev. 
34 8 MPa, PFC2D 
28 6 MPa, PFC3D 
c cs 
t= =  
. 
=. . 
Void Geometry: circular or spherical, 166 mm vD = , min 41.5 mm B = 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table A-5. Material properties of PFC3D bf2-material 
() ill diiE sig_f siili phi 
) () ( ) () (( ) ( ) ( ) (
0 NA NA 
NA NA 
1 
3 
5 0 NA NA 
5 NA NA 
5 1 
5 3 
5 
10 0 NA NA 
10 NA NA 
10 1 
10 3 
10 10 
15 0 NA NA 
15 NA NA 
15 1 
15 3 
15 10 
19 0 NA NA 
19 NA NA 
19 1 
19 3 
19 10 
sC1_mGvBx_tCy PFC3D 
3D, 2:1 par, bf2UCS + polyaxal cerect-tenson 
x: vary Pc nu g_t E-sg_t t_vporos N_phcoh 
(MPaGPaMPa) (MPaGPa) MPa) 
base 24.9 0.200 34.3 -9.5 14.3 0.000 NA 
base 0.1 24.7 0.190 35.4 0.000 NA 
base 25.8 0.181 37.5 0.000 2.37 24.0 11.5 
base 26.8 0.157 41.2 0.000 1.83 17.1 13.1 
base 10 29.0 0.133 53.5 0.000 1.76 15.9 13.3 
21.0 0.186 27.2 -6.5 12.5 0.052 NA 
0.1 21.5 0.197 28.2 0.052 NA 
22.1 0.183 29.9 0.052 1.97 19.0 10.0 
23.0 0.156 33.6 0.052 1.86 17.4 10.3 
10 24.9 0.118 43.2 0.052 1.36 8.7 12.1 
18.2 0.195 22.2 -6.2 10.7 0.100 NA 
0.1 18.4 0.204 22.9 0.100 NA 
18.8 0.185 24.6 0.100 1.84 17.3 8.4 
20.1 0.158 27.1 0.100 1.24 6.0 10.3 
21.9 0.131 34.0 0.100 0.99 -0.4 11.5 
15.0 0.212 17.8 -4.6 8.9 0.149 NA 
0.1 15.1 0.212 18.1 0.149 NA 
15.6 0.193 19.5 0.149 1.61 13.5 7.1 
16.7 0.163 22.1 0.149 1.32 7.8 7.9 
18.1 0.110 28.4 0.149 0.89 -3.4 9.6 
13.3 0.246 15.3 -4.1 7.9 0.186 NA 
0.1 13.4 0.212 15.8 0.186 NA 
14.1 0.189 17.1 0.186 1.46 10.7 6.5 
15.0 0.162 19.6 0.186 1.25 6.4 7.1 
15.7 0.060 24.5 0.186 0.70 -10.3 9.4 
Table A-6. Material properties of PFC2D bf2-material 
(ill iE sig_f sig_t ig_t li phi 
) () ( ) () ) () ( ) ( ) ( ) () 
0 
1 
3 
5 0 
5 
5 1 
5 3 IV/0! 
5 
10 0 
10 
10 1 
10 3 
10 10 
15 0 
15 
15 1 
15 3 
15 10 
20 0 
20 
20 1 
20 3 
20 10 
25 0 
25 
25 1 
25 3 
25 10 
30 0 
30 
30 1 
30 3 
30 10 
35 0 
35 
35 1 
35 3 
35 10 
sC1_mHbx_tD PFC2D 
2D, 2:1, bf2) UCS + polyaxal cedirect-tenson 
x: vary Pc nu E-st_vporos N_phcoh 
(MPaGPaMPa(MPaGPaMPabase 31.0 0.204 44.6 -7.3 0.000 NA NA NA 
base 0.1 29.6 0.211 45.0 0.000 NA NA NA 
base 30.1 0.201 48.3 0.000 3.64 34.7 11.8 
base 30.9 0.189 53.3 0.000 2.51 25.5 14.2 
base 10 32.5 0.165 66.8 0.000 1.92 18.4 16.2 
25.1 0.168 23.9 -5.7 0.053 NA NA NA 
0.1 22.8 0.314 25.7 0.053 NA NA NA 
24.8 0.223 30.8 0.053 5.64 44.3 5.4 
25.3 0.203 30.8 0.053 0.00 -90.0 #D10 26.9 0.175 36.8 0.053 0.86 -4.4 13.9 
21.0 0.193 19.2 -4.6 0.103 NA NA NA 
0.1 18.8 0.307 19.7 0.103 NA NA NA 
20.3 0.230 22.7 0.103 3.37 32.8 5.4 
20.8 0.215 25.5 0.103 1.38 9.1 8.4 
22.1 0.203 30.3 0.103 0.69 -10.5 11.8 
18.1 0.276 16.1 -4.3 0.153 NA NA NA 
0.1 16.3 0.291 16.6 0.153 NA NA NA 
17.1 0.243 19.4 0.153 3.06 30.5 4.7 
17.5 0.230 22.3 0.153 1.46 10.8 6.9 
17.9 0.222 27.1 0.153 0.69 -10.6 10.0 
13.0 0.133 8.9 -2.5 0.201 NA NA NA 
0.1 11.3 0.388 9.5 0.201 NA NA NA 
12.6 0.287 12.3 0.201 3.14 31.1 2.7 
13.1 0.278 14.3 0.201 0.99 -0.3 4.8 
17.2 0.201 0.42 -24.3 7.3 
11.2 0.216 8.0 -2.0 0.253 NA NA NA 
0.1 9.9 0.351 8.7 0.253 NA NA NA 
10.7 0.263 11.9 0.253 3.60 34.4 2.3 
11.3 0.242 12.7 0.253 0.41 -25.1 6.8 
13.5 0.253 0.11 -53.8 13.2 
9.1 0.344 7.1 -2.1 0.297 NA NA NA 
0.1 7.8 0.362 7.3 0.297 NA NA NA 
8.4 0.304 9.3 0.297 2.16 21.5 2.5 
8.8 0.286 11.0 0.297 0.84 -5.0 4.0 
14.3 0.297 0.47 -20.9 5.3 
6.6 0.199 4.6 -1.3 0.350 NA NA NA 
0.1 5.6 0.375 5.2 0.350 NA NA NA 
6.2 0.292 5.9 0.350 0.79 -6.6 2.9 
6.8 0.282 7.4 0.350 0.74 -8.6 3.0 
12.6 0.350 0.74 -8.6 3.0 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The PFC2D and PFC3D responses are remarkably similar and are summarized in the following. 
A. The strength envelopes are compared in Figure A-8. The slopes are similar, but the PFC2D 
material is weakened more by the addition of voids than is the PFC3D material. A possible 
explanation is that, for a given void porosity, the PFC3D material has more load paths available 
to transfer load as damage begins to develop than does the PFC2D material. The observation 
that there is more scatter in the strengths of the PFC2D material than in those of the PFC3D 
material also supports this hypothesis. 
B. The stress-strain curves are compared in Figures A-9 and A-10. The response becomes more 
plastic-like as confinement increases. Although the PFC3D material is more compliant and 
weaker than the PFC2D material, both materials have the same post-peak residual deviatoric 
stress at 0.3% strain. At 10% void porosity, both materials fail at approximately the same 
deviatoric stress for all confinements (The shear strength is independent of confinement.), and 
the PFC3D material has a larger post-peak residual strength when confined than does the PFC2D 
material. The addition of voids makes the shear strength independent of confinement. Does this 
mean that failure is governed by the breaking of bridging material, and that most bridging 
material is essentially unconfined and, thus, not affected by external confinement? Examination 
of the damage plots of the PFC2D material reveals a failure mechanism whereby damage forms 
in the bridging material; as confinement increases, this bridging material crushes (see Figures 
A-11 to A-13). 
C. The volumetric strain curves are compared in Figures A-14 and A-15. The point of strain 
reversal for both materials when unconfined is approximately at peak load. The PFC2D material 
exhibits a more brittle response than does the PFC3D material in that the post-peak dilation 
develops more rapidly and the dilation angle is much larger for the PFC2D material than for the 
PFC3D material. At 10% void porosity, the PFC3D material begins to dilate at a larger strain 
than the PFC2D material. Both materials exhibit no dilation at 10-MPa confinement. (A local 
region of bridging material is crushing in the PFC2D material as seen in Figure A-13.) 
The behavior of the PFC material is summarized as follows. As void porosity increases: (a) the 
strength is reduced, (b) the friction angle is decreased (and becomes negative for large void 
porosities and confinements), (c) the response becomes more plastic-like (but the PFC2D material 
is more brittle than the PFC3D material), and (d) dilation is inhibited and failure occurs by crushing 
of material bridges between voids. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-35 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2) 
0 
20 
40 
60 
()sig1MPanv = 0, PFC2D 
nv = 0, PFC3D 
nv = 0.10, PFC2D 
nv = 0.10, PFC3D 
nv = 0.20, PFC2D 
nv = 0.19, PFC3D 
-10 -5 0 5 10 
sig3 (MPa) 
Figure A-8. Comparison of strength envelopes for PFC bf2-material 
) 
l0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0PFC3D: thickerines 
deviatoric stress (MPa) 
sig3 = 0.1 MPa 
sig3 = 1 MPa 
sig3 = 3 MPa 
sig3 = 10 MPa 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 
axial strain (%) 
Figure A-9. Comparison of stress-strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void 
porosity = 0) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-36 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
30 
deviatoric stress (MPa) 
20 
10 
0 
) 
iPFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0.10PFC3D: thcker lines 
sig3 = 0.1 MPa 
sig3 = 1 MPa 
sig3 = 3 MPa 
sig3 = 10 MPa 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 
axial strain (%) 
Figure A-10. Comparison of stress-strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void 
porosity = 0.10) 
Figure A-11. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 0.1 MPa) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-37 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure A-12. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 3 MPa) 
Figure A-13. PFC2D bf2-material (void porosity = 0.10, confinement = 10 MPa) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
() 
li 
(%) 
PFC3D + PFC2D2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0PFC3D: thickernes 
-0.15 
-0.10 
-0.05 
0.00 
volumetric strainsig3 = 0.1 MPa 
sig3 = 1 MPa 
sig3 = 3 MPa 
sig3 = 10 MPa 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 
axial strain (%) 
Figure A-14. Comparison of volumetric strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void 
porosity = 0) 
) 
ili 
(%) 
PFC3D + PFC2D (2:1 par, bf2, nv = 0.10PFC3D: thcker nes 
-0.15 
-0.10 
-0.05 
0.00 
volumetric strainsig3 = 0.1 MPa 
sig3 = 1 MPa 
sig3 = 3 MPa 
sig3 = 10 MPa 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 
axial strain (%) 
Figure A-15. Comparison of volumetric strain curves for PFC bf2-material (void 
porosity = 0.10) 
A.5.3 Summary of PFC Material Response 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-39 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The PFC model for lithophysal tuff reproduces the failure mechanisms observed in the laboratory, 
which are believed to be tensile splitting in (followed by crushing of) the bridging material between 
the voids. Localized crushing is enhanced with increasing confinement. As void porosity increases, 
the following occurs. 
 Dilation is inhibited, and failure occurs by crushing of bridging material. 
 The response becomes less brittle with post-peak load capacity as load redistributes to 
unbroken webs. 
 Stiffness and strength are reduced, and these reductions are similar to laboratory 
measurements on large cores (approximately 12-inch diameters). 
The PFC model for lithophysal tuff accounts for the reduction of strength and modulus with 
increasing lithophysal volume fraction. 
A.6 References 
Price, R. H., F. B. Nimick, J. R. Connolly, K. Keil, B. M. Schwartz and S. J. Spence (1985). 
Preliminary Characterization of the Petrologic, Bulk, and Mechanical Properties of a Lithophysal 
Zone within the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff, Sandia National Laboratories, 
SAND84-0860, February. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-40 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
APPENDIX B 
SPECIMEN DAMAGE PLOTS 
The damage that occurred in some of the PFC specimens subjected to unconfined-compression tests 
is presented here in the form of specimen damage plots. These plots provide information about the 
intensity, location and orientation of the cracks (and possible coalescence into macro-fractures) that 
have formed throughout the specimens. A plot of the axial stress (in units of Pa) versus axial strain 
is overlaid on the damage plots, which correspond with the state at an axial strain of 0.5%. The 
particles are drawn in yellow, the platens are drawn as black lines, and the stress-strain curves use 
the same scales for which stress ranges, from 0 to 55 MPa, and strain ranges, from 0 to 0.5%. Each 
crack is depicted as a line lying between the two previously bonded particles with a length equal to 
the average diameter of the two previously bonded particles. The line is oriented perpendicular to 
the line joining the centers of the two previously bonded particles. The cracks are colored such that 
blue and red indicate those cracks that have formed prior to or after, respectively, the peak stress. 
The view title of each plot lists the total number of cracks, the number of cracks that have formed 
prior to and after the peak stress, the strain at peak stress and the void porosity, n , of the specimen. 
vDamage plots are provided for each of the 54 PFC2D specimens extracted from the 18 panel maps 
of the walls of the ECRB cross drift. Each page includes a photograph of the 1-m by 3-m panel, 
with outlines of the lithophysal cavities used to define the voids in the three non-overlapping 1-m 
by 1-m PFC2D specimens. Damage plots also are provided for a representative sampling of the 120 
PFC2D specimens containing circular-, triangular- and star-shaped voids. All damage plots and 
panel photographs are included on the attached CD to facilitate closer inspection. The information 
on the CD is described in Table B-1. 
Table B-1 Contents of the attached CD 
CD Folder Description of Contents 
PFC Shape Study Appendix B PDF file of PFC Shape Study Appendix B 
Panel Maps PDF Separate PDF files of panel map photo and damage 
plots included in Appendix B 
Simplified Shapes Separate PDF files of simplified shape damage plots 
included in Appendix B 
90-mm Circles PDF PDF files of individual 90-mm circle damage plots 
139-mm Triangles PDF PDF files of individual 139-mm triangle damage plots 
197-mm Stars PDF PDF files of individual 197-mm star damage plots 
To appear in Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. as part of a special issue on rock mechanics research at 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limiteds Underground Research Laboratory (2003-2004). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-41 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-1. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 14+93 to 14+96 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-42 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-2. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 15+51 to 15+54 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-43 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-3. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+10 to 16+13 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-44 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-4. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+24 to 14+27 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-45 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-5 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+41 to 16+44 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-46 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-6 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+41 to 16+44 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-47 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-7 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 16+56 to 16+59 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-48 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-8. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+26 to 17+29 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-49 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-9 Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+68 to 17+71 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-50 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-10. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 17+68 to 17+71 (Right Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-51 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-11. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 18+05 to 18+08 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-52 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-12. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 18+86 to 18+89 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-53 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-13. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 19+19 to 19+22 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-54 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-14. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 20+18 to 20+21 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-55 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-15. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 20+69 to 20+72 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-56 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-16. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 21+24 to 21+27 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-57 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-17. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 22+32 to 22+35 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-58 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-18. Damage in PFC2D Stenciled-lithophysae Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% Generated 
from Lithophysal Cavities of Panel Map at ECRB Station 22+94 to 22+97 (Left Wall) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-59 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-19. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-
peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.006 cm3/cm3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-60 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-20. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-
peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.037 cm3/cm3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-61 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-21. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-
peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.047 cm3/cm3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-62 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-22. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-
peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.090 cm3/cm3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-63 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure B-23. Damage in PFC2D Simulation of Uniaxial Compression Test of 1:1 L:D Simple-Shape Specimens (blue is pre-peak, red is post-
peak) at an Axial Strain of 0.5% (Void Porosity of 0.14 cm3/cm3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-64 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Potyondy, D. O., and P. A. Cundall. (2003). A Bonded-Particle Model for Rock, to appear in 
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. as part of a special issue on rock mechanics 
research at the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Underground Research Laboratory. 
APPENDIX C 
A BOUNDED-PARTICLE MODEL FOR ROCK 
David O. Potyondy & Peter A. Cundall 
dpotyondy@itascacg.com, pac@compuserve.com 
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 450 
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 
Abstract 
A numerical model for rock is proposed in which the rock is represented by a dense packing of non-
uniform-sized circular or spherical particles that are bonded together at their contact points and 
whose mechanical behavior is simulated by the distinct-element method using the two- and three-
dimensional discontinuum programs PFC2D and PFC3D. The microproperties consist of stiffness 
and strength parameters for the particles and the bonds. Damage is represented explicitly as broken 
bonds, which form and coalesce into macroscopic fractures when load is applied. The model 
reproduces many features of rock behavior, including elasticity, fracturing, acoustic emission, 
damage accumulation producing material anisotropy, hysteresis, dilation, post-peak softening and 
strength increase with confinement. These behaviors are emergent properties of the model that arise 
from a relatively simple set of microproperties. A material-genesis procedure and microproperties 
to represent Lac du Bonnet granite are presented. The behavior of this model is described for two-
and three-dimensional biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests and for two-dimensional tunnel 
simulations in which breakout notches form in the region of maximum compressive stress. The 
sensitivity of the results to microproperties, including particle size, is investigated. Particle size is 
not a free parameter that only controls resolution; instead, it affects the fracture toughness and 
thereby influences damage processes (such as notch formation) in which damage localizes at 
subfracture tips experiencing extensile loading. 
Keywords: Rock fracture; Distinct-element method; Numerical model; Micromechanics. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-65 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Contents 
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Formulation of the BPM
2.1 Distinct-element method
2.2 Damping of particle motion
2.3 Grain-cement behavior and parameters
2.4 Microproperty characterization
2.5 Material-genesis procedure
3.0 Measured macroscopic properties (laboratory scale)
3.1 Choosing microproperties
3.2 PFC2D model behavior during biaxial and Brazilian tests
3.3 Macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite
3.4 Macroproperties of the PFC models
3.5 Effect of particle size on macroproperties
3.5.1 PFC2D material response
3.5.2 PFC3D material response
3.6 Effect of stress and damage on elastic constants
4.0 Measured macroscopic properties (field scale)
4.1 Coupling the BPM with a continuum model
4.2 PFC2D model behavior during excavation-damage studies
4.3 Discussion of simulation results for the Mine-by models
5.0 Emergent properties of the BPM
5.1 The reproduction of fracture mechanics behavior
5.2 Relating Brazilian strength to fracture toughness
6.0 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Stress-measurement procedure
7.2 Strain rate measurement procedure
7.3 Stress-installation procedure
7.4 Ball-generation procedure
7.5 Isotropic stress installation procedure
7.6 Floater-elimination procedure
7.7 Biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian testing procedures
References 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-66 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
1.0 Introduction 
In this paper, we argue that rock behaves like a cemented granular material of complex-shaped 
grains in which both the grains and the cement are deformable and may break, and that such a 
conceptual model can, in principle, explain all aspects of the mechanical behavior. Various 
numerical models have been proposed that mimic such a system with differing levels of fidelity. 
The bonded-particle model for rock (referred to hereafter as the BPM) directly mimics this system 
and thus exhibits a rich set of emergent behaviors that correspond very well with those of real rock. 
The BPM provides both a scientific tool to investigate the micro-mechanisms that combine to 
produce complex macroscopic behaviors and an engineering tool to predict these macroscopic 
behaviors. 
The mechanical behavior of rock is governed by the formation, growth and eventual interaction of 
microcracks. Microscopic observations of rock [15] reveal detailed information about initial 
defects and load-induced cracks, such as length, density, aspect ratio and orientation. Acoustic-
emission (AE) based observations of rock [6] record the acoustic signals that are generated 
spontaneously from this microcracking, thereby providing information about the size, location and 
deformation mechanisms of the acoustic events as well as properties of the medium through which 
the acoustic waves travel (e.g., velocity, attenuation and scattering). Experimental observations 
reveal that most of the compression-induced cracks nucleate at the initial defects, such as grain 
boundaries or crack-like, low aspect-ratio cavities, and that all compression-induced cracks are 
almost parallel to the direction of the maximum compression. The micromechanism responsible for 
the formation of these cracks is not understood fully; however, many possible models exist (e.g., 
sliding deformation between the faces of initial defects inclined to the direction of maximum 
compression leading to formation of a wing crack at each of the two defect tips) that can reproduce 
many of the essential features of the brittle fracture phenomenon [1, 715]. Kemeny [10] asserts 
that: 
Although the actual growth of cracks under compression may be due to many 
complicated mechanisms, as revealed by laboratory tests, it appears that they can all 
be approximated by the crack with a central point load. The origins of these point 
loads in rock under compression are small regions of tension that develop in the 
direction of the least principal stress. 
Kemeny and Cook [11] emphasize the importance of producing compression-induced tensile cracks: 
Laboratory testing of rocks subjected to differential compression have revealed many 
different mechanisms for extensile crack growth, including pore crushing, sliding 
along pre-existing cracks, elastic mismatch between grains, dislocation movement, 
and hertzian contact. Because of the similarity in rock behavior under compression 
in a wide range of rock types, it is not surprising that micromechanical models have 
many similarities. This may explain the success of models based on certain 
micromechanisms (such as the sliding crack and pore models) in spite of the lack of 
evidence for these mechanisms in microscopic studies. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-67 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
One mechanism [16] for the formation of compression-induced tensile cracks is shown in Figure 
1(c), in which a group of four circular particles is forced apart by axial load, causing the restraining 
bond to experience tension. These axially aligned microcracks occur during the early loading 
stages of compression tests on bonded assemblies of circular or spherical particles. Similar crack-
inducing mechanisms occur even when different conceptual models for rock microstructure are used. 
For example, wedges and staircases also induce local tension if angular grains replace circular 
grains  see Figure 1(a and b). In addition to the formation and growth of microcracks, the 
eventual interaction of these cracks is necessary to produce localization phenomena such as axial 
splitting or rupture-zone formation during unconfined or confined compression tests. Thus, any 
model intending to reproduce these phenomena must allow the microcracks to interact with one 
another. 
Figure 1 Physical mechanisms for compression-induced tensile cracking (a-b) and idealization as 
bonded assembly of circular particles (c). 
Rock can be represented as a heterogeneous material comprised of cemented grains. In 
sedimentary rock, such as sandstone, a true cement is present, whereas in crystalline rock, such 
as granite, the granular interlock can be approximated as a notional cement. There is much 
disorder in this system, including locked-in stresses produced during material genesis, 
deformability and strength of the grains and the cement, grain size, grain shape, grain packing 
and degree of cementation (i.e., how much of the inter-grain space is filled with cement). All of 
these items influence the mechanical behavior, and many of them evolve under load application. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-68 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The mechanical behavior of both rock and a BPM is driven by the evolution of the force-chain 
fabric, as will be explained here with the aid of Figure 2. An applied macroscopic load is 
carried by the grain and cement skeleton in the form of force chains that propagate from one 
grain to the next across grain contacts, some of which may be filled with cement. The force 
chains are similar to those that form in a granular material [17]. The cement-filled contacts 
experience compressive, tensile and shear loading and also may transmit a bending moment 
between the grains, whereas the empty contacts experience only compressive and shear loading. 
Thus, applied loading produces heterogeneous force transmission and induces many sites of 
tension/compression oriented perpendicular to the compression/tension direction  for the 
reasons illustrated in Figure 1(c). In addition, the force chains are highly non-uniform, with a 
few high-load chains and many low-load chains. The chain loads may be much higher than the 
applied loads, such that a few grains will be highly loaded while others will be less loaded or 
carrying no load (see Figure 5(b))  because the forces will arch around these grains, thereby 
forming chains with a fabric that is larger than the grain size, as seen in the compression rings in 
Figure 6. (The existence of such large-scale features in the force chains provides evidence that, 
in general, the mechanism shown in Figure 1(c) will be operative at a length scale larger than the 
grain size.) It is these micro-forces and micro-moments that provide the local loading to produce 
grain and/or cement breakage, which, in turn, induces global force redistribution (because 
damaged material is softer and sheds load to stiffer, undamaged material) and the eventual 
formation of macroscopic fractures and/or rupture zones. As more and more grains and cement 
are broken, the material behaves more and more like a granular material with highly unstable 
force chains. The key to explaining material behavior is the evolving force-chain fabric, which 
is related in a complex way to the deformability and strength of the grains and the cement, the 
grain size, grain shape, grain packing and degree of cementation. 
Computational models of rock can be classified into two categories, depending on whether damage 
is represented indirectly, by its effect on constitutive relations, or directly, by the formation and 
tracking of many microcracks. Most indirect approaches idealize the material as a continuum and 
utilize average measures of material degradation in constitutive relations to represent 
irreversible microstructural damage [18], while most direct approaches idealize the material as a 
collection of structural units (springs, beams, etc.) or separate particles bonded together at their 
contact points and utilize the breakage of individual structural units or bonds to represent damage 
[1922]. Most computational models used to describe the mechanical behavior of rock for 
engineering purposes are based upon the indirect approach, while those used to understand the 
behavior in terms of the progress of damage development and rupture are based upon the direct 
approach. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-69 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 2 Force and moment distributions and broken bonds (in magenta) in a cemented granular 
material with six initial holes idealized as a bonded-disk assembly in the post-peak portion of 
an unconfined compression test. (Blue is grain-grain compression, while black and red are 
compression and tension, respectively, in the cement drawn as two lines at the bond periphery. 
Line thicknesses and orientations correspond with force magnitude and direction, respectively, 
and the moment in the cement contributes to the forces at the bond periphery.) 
The BPM is an example of a direct modeling approach in which particles and bonds are related to 
similar objects observed microscopically in rock [2330]. Alternative rock models in which the 
material is represented as a continuum include those in [31,32], where a network of weak planes is 
superimposed on an otherwise homogeneous elastic continuum, and those in [33,34], where the 
stiffness and strength of elements in a continuum with initial heterogeneous strength are allowed to 
degrade based on a strength failure criterion in the form of an elastic-brittle-plastic constitutive 
relation. These rock models exhibit more realistic responses in terms of shear and post-failure 
behavior than most lattice models, because they can carry compressive and shear forces arising from 
loading subsequent to bond breakage, whereas most lattice models retain no knowledge of the 
particles after each bond has broken. Comprehensive review articles [35,36] summarize rock models 
and approaches for simulating crack growth, and [37] provides additional discussion of the BPM and 
its relation to other rock models. 
The micromechanisms occurring in rock are complex and difficult to characterize within the 
framework of existing continuum theories. Microstructure controls many of these micro-
mechanisms. The BPM approximates rock as a cemented granular material with an inherent length 
scale that is related to grain size and provides a synthetic material that can be used to test hypotheses 
about how the microstructure affects the macroscopic behavior. This is a comprehensive model that 
exhibits emergent properties (such as fracture toughness, which controls the formation of 
macroscopic fractures) that arise from a small set of microproperties for the grains and cement. The 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-70 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
BPM does not impose theoretical assumptions and limitations on material behavior as do most 
indirect models (such as models that idealize the rock as an elastic continuum with many elliptical 
cracks  in the BPM, such cracks form, interact, and coalesce into macroscopic fractures 
automatically). Behaviors not encompassed by current continuum theories can be investigated with 
the BPM. In fact, continuum behavior itself is simply another of the emergent properties of a BPM 
when averaged over the appropriate length scale. 
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The formulation of the BPM, which includes 
a microproperty characterization expressed in terms of grain and cement properties and a material-
genesis procedure, is presented in the next section. In Sections 3 and 4, the measured macroscopic 
properties of a BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite are presented and discussed. In Section 3, the focus 
is on laboratory-scale behavior (during biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian tests), and Section 4 focuses 
on field-scale behavior (involving damage formation adjacent to an excavation). In both sections, 
the effect of particle size on model behavior is investigated. In Section 5, the emergent properties 
of the BPM are listed, and the general source of some of these behaviors is identified. As a 
particular example, a formal equivalence between the mechanisms and parameters of the BPM 
and the concepts and equations of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is established and then 
used to explain the effect of particle size on model behavior. The capabilities and limitations of the 
BPM, as well as suggestions for overcoming these limitations, are presented in the conclusion. For 
completeness, the algorithms used to measure average stress and strain within the BPM, to install 
an initial stress field within the BPM, to create a densely packed BPM with low locked-in forces to 
serve as the initial material, and to perform typical laboratory tests on the BPM are described in the 
appendices. Throughout the paper, all vector and tensor quantities are expressed using indicial 
notation. 
2.0 Formulation of the BPM 
The BPM simulates the mechanical behavior of a collection of non-uniform-sized circular or 
spherical rigid particles that may be bonded together at their contact points. The term particle, as 
used here, differs from its more common definition in the field of mechanics, where it is taken as 
a body of negligible size that occupies only a single point in space; in the present context, the term 
particle denotes a body that occupies a finite amount of space. The rigid particles interact only 
at the soft contacts, which possess finite normal and shear stiffnesses. The mechanical behavior of 
this system is described by the movement of each particle and the force and moment acting at each 
contact. Newtons laws of motion provide the fundamental relation between particle motion and the 
resultant forces and moments causing that motion. 
The following assumptions are inherent in the BPM. 
1. The particles are circular or spherical rigid bodies with a finite mass. 
2. The particles move independently of one another and can both translate and 
rotate. 
3. The particles interact only at contacts; because the particles are circular or 
spherical, a contact is comprised of exactly two particles. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-71 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4. The particles are allowed to overlap one another, and all overlaps are small in 
relation to particle size such that contacts occur over a small region (i.e., at a 
point). 
5. Bonds of finite stiffness can exist at contacts, and these bonds carry load and can 
break. The particles at a bonded contact need not overlap. 
6. Generalized force-displacement laws at each contact relate relative particle 
motion to force and moment at the contact. 
The assumption of particle rigidity is reasonable when movements along interfaces account for most 
of the deformation in a material. The deformation of a packed-particle assembly, or a granular 
assembly such as sand, is described well by this assumption, because the deformation results 
primarily from the sliding and rotation of the particles as rigid bodies and the opening and 
interlocking at interfaces  not from individual particle deformation. The addition of bonds 
between the particles in the assembly corresponds with the addition of real cement between the 
grains of a sedimentary rock, such as sandstone, or notional cement between the grains of a 
crystalline rock, such as granite. The deformation of a bonded-particle assembly, or a rock, should 
be similar, and both systems should exhibit similar damage-formation processes under increasing 
load as the bonds are broken progressively and both systems gradually evolve toward a granular 
state. If individual grains or other microstructural features are represented as clusters of bonded 
particles, then grain crushing and material inhomogeneity at a scale larger than the grain size can 
also be accommodated by this model [3840]. 
2.1 Distinct-element method 
The BPM is implemented in the two- and three-dimensional discontinuum programs PFC2D and 
PFC3D [41] using the distinct-element method (DEM). The DEM was introduced by Cundall [42] 
for the analysis of rock-mechanics problems and then applied to soils by Cundall and Strack [43]. 
Thorough descriptions of the method are given in [44,45]. The DEM is a particular implementation 
of a broader class of methods known as discrete-element methods, which are defined in [46] as 
methods that allow finite displacements and rotations of discrete bodies, including complete 
detachment, and recognize new contacts automatically as the calculation progresses. Current 
development and applications of discrete-element methods are described in [47]. 
In the DEM, the interaction of the particles is treated as a dynamic process with states of equilibrium 
developing whenever the internal forces balance. The contact forces and displacements of a stressed 
assembly of particles are found by tracing the movements of the individual particles. Movements 
result from the propagation through the particle system of disturbances caused by wall and particle 
motion, externally applied forces and body forces. This is a dynamic process in which the speed of 
propagation depends on the physical properties of the discrete system. The calculations performed 
in the DEM alternate between the application of Newtons second law to the particles and a force-
displacement law at the contacts. Newtons second law is used to determine the translational and 
rotational motion of each particle arising from the contact forces, applied forces and body forces 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-72 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
acting upon it, while the force-displacement law is used to update the contact forces arising from the 
relative motion at each contact. 
The dynamic behavior is represented numerically by a timestepping algorithm in which the 
velocities and accelerations are assumed to be constant within each timestep. The solution scheme 
is identical to that used by the explicit finite-difference method for continuum analysis. The DEM 
is based upon the idea that the timestep chosen may be so small that, during a single timestep, 
disturbances cannot propagate from any particle farther than its immediate neighbors. Then, at all 
times, the forces acting on any particle are determined exclusively by its interaction with the 
particles with which it is in contact. Because the speed at which a disturbance can propagate is a 
function of the physical properties of the discrete system (namely, the distribution of mass and 
stiffness), the timestep can be chosen to satisfy the above constraint. The use of an explicit, as 
opposed to an implicit, numerical scheme provides the following advantages. Large populations of 
particles require only modest amounts of computer memory, because matrices are not stored. Also, 
physical instability may be modeled without numerical difficulty, because failure processes occur 
in a realistic manner  one need not invoke a nonphysical algorithm, as is done in some implicit 
methods. 
2.2 Damping of particle motion 
Because the DEM is a fully dynamic formulation, some form of damping is necessary to dissipate 
kinetic energy. In real materials, various microscopic processes such as internal friction and wave 
scattering dissipate kinetic energy. In the BPM, local non-viscous damping is used by specifying 
a damping coefficient, a. The damping formulation is similar to hysteretic damping [48], in which 
the energy loss per cycle is independent of the rate at which the cycle is executed. The damping 
force applied to each particle is given by 
Fd =-aF 
sign () (1)
V 
where 
F 
is the magnitude of the unbalanced force on the particle, and sign (V) is the sign (positive 
or negative) of the particle velocity. This expression is applied separately to each degree-of-
freedom. 
A common measure of attenuation or energy loss in rock is the seismic quality factor, Q. The 
quality factor is defined as 2p times the ratio of stored energy to dissipated energy in one 
wavelength: 
Q =2p(W / .W ) 
(2) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-73 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
where W is energy [49]. For a single degree-of-freedom system, or for oscillation in a single 
mode, the quality factor can be written as [41] 
Q =p/2a. 
(3) 
All BPMs described in this paper were run with a damping coefficient of 0.7, which corresponds 
with a quality factor of 2.2. The quality factor of Lac du Bonnet granite in situ is about 220 [50]; 
therefore, the models were heavily damped to approximate quasi-static conditions. Hazzard et al. 
[49] ran similar models using a damping coefficient corresponding with a quality factor of 100 and 
found that the energy released by crack events (i.e., bond breakages) may have a significant 
influence on the rock behavior, because the waves emanating from cracks are capable of inducing 
more cracks if nearby bonds are close to failure. Hazzard and coworkers showed that the effect of 
this dynamically induced cracking was to decrease the unconfined compressive strength by up to 
15%. In addition, if low numerical damping is used, then seismic source information (such as 
magnitude and mechanism) can be determined for every modeled crack [51]. 
2.3 Grain-cement behavior and parameters 
The BPM mimics the mechanical behavior of a collection of grains joined by cement. The following 
discussion considers each grain as a PFC2D or PFC3D particle and each cement entity as a parallel 
bond. The total force and moment acting at each cemented contact is comprised of a force, Fi, 
arising from particle-particle overlap, denoted in Figure 3 as the grain behavior, and a force and 
moment, Fi and Mi , carried by the parallel bond and denoted as the cement behavior. These 
quantities contribute to the resultant force and moment acting on the two contacting particles. The 
force-displacement law for this system will now be described, first for the grain behavior and then 
for the cement behavior. Note that if a parallel bond is not present at a contact, then only the grain-
based portion of the force-displacement behavior occurs. 
The grain-based portion of the force-displacement behavior at each contact is described by the 
following six parameters (see Figure 3): the normal and shear stiffnesses, k and k , and the friction 
ns 
coefficient, , of the two contacting particles, which are assumed to be disks of unit thickness in 
PFC2D and spheres in PFC3D. Whenever two particles overlap, a contact is formed at the center 
c
of the overlap region along the line joining the particle centers ( xi() in Figure 3), and two linear 
springs are inserted (with stiffnesses derived from the particle stiffnesses assuming that the two 
particle springs act in series) along with a slider in the shear direction. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-74 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 3 Force-displacement behavior of grain-cement system. 
The contact force vector, Fi (which represents the action of particle A on particle B), can be 
resolved into normal and shear components with respect to the contact plane as 
ns
Fi = F ni + F ti 
(4) 
ns
where F and F denote the normal and shear force components, respectively, and ni and ti are 
the unit vectors that define the contact plane. The normal force is calculated by 
n nn
F = KU 
(5) 
nn
where U is the overlap, and K is the contact normal stiffness given by 
() ( B )
A 
n kk
nn
K = 
A ( B )
k 
() + k
nn 
(6) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-75 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
with k()A and k()B being the particle normal stiffnesses. 
nn 
s
The shear force is computed in an incremental fashion. When the contact is formed, F is initialized 
s
to zero. Each subsequent relative shear-displacement increment, .U, produces an increment of 
s ss
elastic shear force, .F, that is added to F (after F has been rotated to account for motion of the 
contact plane). The increment of elastic shear force is given by 
s ss
k
.F =- . U 
(7) 
s
where k is the contact shear stiffness given by 
() ( B )
A 
s kk
ss
k = 
A ( B )
k 
() +k
ss 
(8) 
with k()A and k()B being the particle shear stiffnesses. The relative displacement increment during 
ss 
the timestep .t is given by .Ui =V .t , where Vi is the contact velocity 
i 
() ) (c ) )
c
Vi =(x &i -(x &i
BA 
( B ) ()( c ) -xk 
( B ) &() ()(c ) ()
B AA
=(x &i +ei jk .j (xk ))-(xi +eijk .j (xk -xkA )), 
(9) 
x &i and .j 
are the particle translational and rotational velocities, respectively, and eij k is the 
permutation symbol. The relative shear-displacement increment vector is 
ss
.Ui =Vi . =(Vi -V ). =(V -Vjnjni ).t .
t 
int i 
(10) 
n
If U =0 (a gap exists), then both normal and shear forces are set to zero; otherwise, slip is 
accommodated by computing the contact friction coefficient 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-76 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
A ( B ) )

= min ( (), 
(11) 
()()s nsn
with A and B being the particle friction coefficients, and setting F = F if F > F. 
Note that Kn is a secant stiffness in that it relates total displacement and force, whereas ks is a 
tangent stiffness in that it relates incremental displacement and force. In this paper, an upper-case 
K denotes a secant stiffness, and a lower-case k denotes a tangent stiffness. Use of a secant 
stiffness to compute normal force makes the computations less prone to numerical drift and able to 
handle arbitrary placement of particles and changes in particle radii after a simulation has begun. 
The cement-based portion of the force-displacement behavior at each cemented contact is described 
by the following five parameters that define a parallel bond (see Figure 3): normal and shear 
stiffnesses per unit area, kn and ks ; tensile and shear strengths, s and t ; and bond-radius
cc
multiplier, . , such that parallel-bond radius 
A ( B ) )
R =. min ( R(), R 
(12) 
R
A RB
with () and () being the particle radii. A parallel bond approximates the mechanical behavior 
of a brittle elastic cement joining the two bonded particles. Parallel bonds establish an elastic 
interaction between these particles that acts in parallel with the grain-based portion of the force-
displacement behavior; thus, the existence of a parallel bond does not prevent slip. Parallel bonds 
can transmit both force and moment between particles, while grains can only transmit force. A 
parallel bond can be envisioned as a set of elastic springs uniformly distributed over a rectangular 
cross-section in PFC2D and a circular cross-section in PFC3D lying on the contact plane and 
centered at the contact point. These springs behave as a beam whose length, L in Figure 3, 
approaches zero to approximate the mechanical behavior of a joint. 
The total force and moment carried by the parallel bond are denoted by Fi and Mi , respectively, 
which represent the action of the bond on particle B. The force and moment vectors can be resolved 
into normal and shear components with respect to the contact plane as 
ns
Fi = F ni + F i 
ns
Mi = Mni + M i 
(13) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-77 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ns ns 
,where FF and M , M denote the axial- and shear-directed forces and moments, respectively, 
and ni and ti are the unit vectors that define the contact plane. (For the PFC2D model, the twisting 
ns
moment, M = 0 , and the bending moment, M , acts in the out-of-plane direction.) When the 
parallel bond is formed, Fi and Mi are initialized to zero. Each subsequent relative displacement-
n snsB ( A )
and rotation-increment ( .U, .U, .., .. with ..= (.() -.i ).t ) produces an increment
ii 
of elastic force and moment that is added to the current values (after the shear-component vectors 
have been rotated to account for motion of the contact plane). The increments of elastic force and 
moment are given by 
nn n
.F = kA .U 
sss
.F = - kA .U 
n sn
.M = - k J .. 
s ns
.M = - k I .. 
(14) 
where A , I and J are the area, moment of inertia and polar moment of inertia of the parallel bond 
cross-section, respectively. These quantities are given by 
. Rt
.2, t = 1, PFC2D 
A =. 
2
.pR , PFC3D 
. 
. 2 Rt, t = 1, PFC2D 
. 33 
I =. 
4
.
1 pR , PFC3D 
. 4 
.NA, PFC2D
J =. 4.
1 pR ,PFC3D
. 2 
(15) 
The maximum tensile and shear stresses acting on the parallel-bond periphery are calculated from 
beam theory to be 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-78 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
s
n 
M 
R
- F
max 
s= +
AI 
s 
n
F 
M 
R 
max 
t= 
+ .
AJ 
(16) 
max 
If the maximum tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength (s =s ) or the maximum shear stress 
c 
max 
exceeds the shear strength ( t =t ), then the parallel bond breaks, and it is removed from the 
c 
model along with its accompanying force, moment and stiffnesses. 
A simplified form of the BPM represents the cement using contact bonds instead of parallel bonds. 
A contact bond approximates the physical behavior of a vanishingly small cement-like substance 
lying between and joining the two bonded particles. The contact bond behaves, essentially, as a 
parallel bond of radius zero. Thus, a contact bond does not have a radius or shear and normal 
stiffnesses, as does a parallel bond, and cannot resist a bending moment or oppose rolling; rather, 
it can only resist a force acting at the contact point. Also, slip is not allowed to occur when a contact 
bond is present. A contact bond is defined by the two parameters of tensile and shear strengths, f 
n
and f , expressed in force units. When the corresponding component of the contact force exceeds 
seither of these values, the contact bond breaks, and only the grain-based portion of the force-
displacement behavior occurs. 
2.4 Microproperty characterization 
In general, the BPM is characterized by the grain density, grain shape, grain size distribution, grain 
packing and grain-cement microproperties. Each of these items influences the model behavior. The 
grain density, . , does not affect the quasi-static behavior but is included for completeness. In this 
paper, we focus on circular or spherical grains comprised of individual PFC2D or PFC3D particles, 
although the effect on the strength envelope of introducing particle clusters of complex interlocking 
shapes into the PFC2D particle assembly is discussed in Section 3.4. The particle diameters satisfy 
a uniform particle-size distribution bounded by Dmin and D , and a dense packing is obtained
max 
using the material-genesis procedure of Section 2.5. The packing fabric, or connectivity of the 
bonded assembly, is controlled by the ratio ( D 
D
min ) ; for a fixed ratio, varying Dmin changes the 
max 
absolute particle size but does not affect the packing fabric. Such a microproperty characterization 
separates the effects of packing fabric and particle size on material behavior and clearly 
identifies Dmin as the controlling length scale of the material. The final item that characterizes the 
BPM is the grain-cement microproperties: 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-79 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
({ ,c nE k ) },sk  grain microproperties 
{ ,. (,cE k n k ) }, , s 
c cs t cement microproperties 
(17) 
where cE and cE are the Youngs moduli of the grains and cement, respectively; kk( )n s and 
n
(kks ) are the ratios of normal to shear stiffness of the grains and cement, respectively; . is the 
radius multiplier used to set the parallel-bond radii via (12);  is the grain friction coefficient; and 
s and t are the tensile and shear strengths, respectively, of the cement. In the analysis below, the 
ccgrain and cement moduli are related to the corresponding normal stiffnesses such that the particle 
and parallel-bond stiffnesses are assigned as 
.2 tEc , t =1, PFC2D 
kn :=. 
.4RE , PFC3D 
c 
k
n
k := 
s 
(kks )
n 
E
c
kn := 
() ( B )
RA +R 
n
k
ks := 
ns
(kk ) 
(18) 
where R is particle radius. The usefulness of these modulus-stiffness scaling relations is confirmed 
in Section 3.5, where it is shown that the macroscopic elastic constants are independent of particle 
size for the PFC2D material and exhibit only a minor size effect for the PFC3D material. 
The deformability of an isotropic linear elastic material is described by two elastic constants. These 
quantities are emergent properties of the BPM and cannot be specified directly. It is possible, 
however, to relate the grain and cement moduli, E and E , respectively, to the normal stiffnesses 
cc 
by envisioning the material at each contact as an elastic beam with its ends at the particle centers, 
as shown in Figure 4. The axial stiffness of such a beam is K =AE L , where A, E and L are the 
cross-sectional area, modulus and length, respectively, of the beam. For the grain-based behavior, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-80 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Lt E k
nn
k =()c =Et . E = , t =1, PFC2D 
cc
2 L 2t 
2
k LE kk
n nn
=()c =EL . E == ,PFC3D 
cc
2 L 2L 4R 
(19) 
()
by assuming that k =kA =k ( B ) in (6). For the cement-based behavior, 
nn n 
B
nAEc c nA () ).
kA == 
RAAE. E =k (R() +R
c
L +RB 
(20) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-81 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 4 Equivalent continuum material of grain-cement system. 
The cement modulus is dependent on particle size; to achieve a constant cement modulus, 
parallel-bond stiffnesses must be scaled with the particle radii. For the PFC3D material, the grain 
modulus is dependent on particle size; to achieve a constant grain modulus, particle stiffnesses must 
be scaled with particle radius. This analysis does not yield a relation between Poissons ratio and 
particle stiffness at the microlevel; however, a macroscopic Poissons ratio will be observed, and its 
value will be affected by grain shape, grain packing and the ratios kk and ( )n s kk .( )n s For a fixed 
grain shape and packing, increasing these ratios increases the Poissons ratio. 
2.5 Material-genesis procedure 
The BPM represents rock as a dense packing of non-uniform-sized circular or spherical particles that 
are joined at their contact points with parallel bonds. The material-genesis procedure produces this 
system such that the particles are well connected and the locked-in forces are low. Both the packing 
and the locked-in forces are arbitrary and isotropic at a macroscale  i.e., when averaged over 
approximately one dozen adjacent particles. (This would not occur if the material were created by 
gravity compaction  in which case, the force chains would be aligned vertically and their 
magnitudes would increase with depth.) The material-genesis procedure employs the following five-
step process (illustrated in Figures 5 and 6 for the PFC2D Lac du Bonnet granite model of Table 1). 
1. Compact initial assembly. A material vessel consisting of planar 
frictionless walls is created, and an assembly of arbitrarily placed particles 
is generated to fill the vessel. The vessel is a rectangle bounded by four walls 
for PFC2D and a rectangular parallelepiped bounded by six walls for PFC3D. 
The wall normal stiffnesses are made just larger than the average particle 
normal stiffness to ensure that the particle-wall overlap remains small. The 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-82 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
D
particle diameters satisfy a uniform particle-size distribution bounded by 
min and D . To ensure a reasonably tight initial packing, the number of 
max 
particles is determined such that the overall porosity in the vessel is 16% for 
PFC2D and 35% for PFC3D. The particles, at half their final size, are placed 
randomly such that no two particles overlap. Then, the particle radii are 
increased to their final values, as shown in Figure 5(a), and the system is 
allowed to rearrange under zero friction. The ball-generation procedure is 
described in more detail in the Appendices. 
2. Install specified isotropic stress. The radii of all particles are reduced 
uniformly to achieve a specified isotropic stress, s , defined as the average 
o
of the direct stresses. These stresses are measured by dividing the average 
of the total force acting on opposing walls by the area of the corresponding 
specimen cross-section. Stresses in the PFC2D models are computed 
assuming that each particle is a disk of unit thickness. When constructing a 
granite material, s is set equal to approximately 1% of the uniaxial 
o
compressive strength. This is done to reduce the magnitude of the locked-in 
forces that will develop after the parallel bonds are added and the specimen 
is removed from the material vessel and allowed to relax, as shown in Figure 
6. The magnitude of the locked-in forces (both tensile and compressive) will 
be comparable to the magnitude of the compressive forces at the time of bond 
installation. The contact-force distribution at the end of this step is shown in 
Figure 5(b). The isotropic stress installation procedure is described in more 
detail in the Appendices. 
3. Reduce the number of floating particles. An assembly of non-
uniform-sized circular or spherical particles, placed randomly and compacted 
mechanically, can contain a large number (perhaps as high as 15%) of 
floating particles that have less than Nf contacts, as shown in Figure 5(c), 
where Nf = 3 . It is desirable to reduce the number of floating particles such 
that a denser bond network is obtained in step 4. In our granite models, we 
wish to obtain a densely packed and well-connected assembly to mimic a 
highly interlocked collection of grains. By setting Nf =3 and the allowed 
number of floating particles to zero, we obtain a bonded assembly for whichnearly 
all particles away from the specimen boundaries have at least threecontacts.  
The floater-elimination procedure is described in more detail in the Appendices.

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 5 Material-genesis procedure for PFC2D model: (a) particle assembly after initial generation 
but before rearrangement; (b) contact-force distribution (All forces are compressive, 
thickness proportional to force magnitude.) after step 2; (c) floating particles (with less than 
three contacts) and contacts after step 2; (d) parallel-bond network after step 4. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-84 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 6 Force and moment distributions in PFC2D material after removal from material-genesis vessel 
followed by relaxation (color convention described in Figure 2). 
Table 1 Model microproperties for Lac du Bonnet granite. 
grains cement 
32630 kg m.= 
( )max min min 1.66, varies D D D= 1.= 
62 GPa, PFC2D 
72 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
= . 
. 
62 GPa, PFC2D 
72 GPa, PFC3D cE 
. 
= . 
. 
( ) 2.5n skk = ( ) 2.5nkk s = 
0.5
= ( )mean std. dev. 
157 36 MPa, PFC2D 
175 40 MPa, PFC3D 
c cs =t =  
. 
= . . 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-85 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4. Install parallel bonds. Parallel bonds are installed throughout the assembly 
between all particles that are in near proximity (with a separation less than 
10-6 times the mean radius of the two particles), as shown in Figure 5(d). 
The parallel-bond properties are assigned to satisfy (17) and (18), with s
c
and t picked from a Gaussian (normal) distribution. The grain property of
c
 is also assigned. 
5. Remove from material vessel. The material-genesis procedure is completed 
by removing the specimen from the material vessel and allowing the 
assembly to relax. This is done by deleting the vessel walls and stepping 
until static equilibrium is achieved. During the relaxation process, the 
material expands and generates a set of self-equilibrating locked-in forces, 
as shown in Figure 6. These are similar to locked-in stresses that may exist 
in a free specimen of rock. The locked-in forces can be divided into two 
types, depending upon their existence at a macro- or a micro-scale. The 
macro-scale forces exist within self-contained clusters of approximately one 
dozen particles, in which the inner particles are in tension and the outer 
particles are in compression, or vice versa. Such compression rings can be 
seen in Figure 6. The micro-scale forces exist within individual parallel 
bonds and are mostly tension to equilibrate the tendency of the contact 
springs to repel the compressed particles. There is a net energy stored in the 
assembly in the form of strain energy in both the particle-particle contacts 
and the parallel bonds. These locked-in forces can have a significant effect 
upon behavior (e.g., feeding energy into a rockburst or causing strain to occur 
when the assembly is cut). Holt [52] used a BPM to investigate stress-relief 
effects induced during coring of sandstone by setting s equal to the
o
compaction stresses existing at the time of grain cementation. 
3.0 Measured macroscopic properties (laboratory scale) 
The BPM consists of a procedure for material genesis and two independent sets of microproperties 
for short- and long-term behavior. A set of short-term microproperties are described in Section 2.4, 
and a set of long-term microproperties are described in [53]. No model is complete or fully 
verifiable [54], but the validity of the BPM is demonstrated by comparing model behavior with 
measured and observed responses of Lac du Bonnet granite at both laboratory and field scales in this 
and the next section. 
3.1 Choosing microproperties 
For continuum models, the input properties (such as modulus and strength) can be derived directly 
from measurements performed on laboratory specimens. For the BPM, which synthesizes macro-
scale material behavior from the interactions of micro-scale components, the input properties of the 
components usually are not known. The relation between model parameters and commonly 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-86 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
measured material properties is only known a priori for simple packing arrangements. For the 
general case of arbitrary packing of arbitrarily sized particles, the relation is found by means of a 
calibration process in which a particular instance of a BPM  with a particular packing arrangement 
and set of model parameters  is used to simulate a set of material tests, and the BPM parameters 
then are chosen to reproduce the relevant material properties measured in such tests. 
The BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite is described by the microproperties in Table 1. These 
microproperties were chosen to match the macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite discussed in 
Section 3.3. The ratio ( D 
D
min ) is set greater than 1 to produce an arbitrary isotropic packing. 
max 
As ( D 
D
min ). 1, the packing tends toward a crystalline arrangement. Such a uniform packing 
max 
exhibits anisotropic macroproperties and is not representative of the more complex grain 
connectivity of a granite. . is set equal to 1 to produce a material with cement that completely fills 
the throat between cemented particles. As .. 0 , the material behavior approaches that of a 
granular material. The grain and cement moduli and ratios of normal to shear stiffness are set equal 
to one another to reduce the number of free parameters. Then, the moduli are chosen to match the 
Youngs modulus, and the ratios of normal to shear stiffness are chosen to match the Poissons ratio. 
Next, the cement strengths are set equal to one another so as not to exclude mechanisms that may 
only be activated by micro-shear failure (see below). The ratio of standard deviation to mean of the 
cement strengths is chosen to match the crack-initiation stress (defined in Section 3.3), and the mean 
value of the cement strengths is chosen to match the unconfined compressive strength. The particle-
friction coefficient appears to affect only post-peak response, and it is not clear to what it should be 
calibrated; thus, =0.5 is used as a reasonable non-zero value. 
By setting s =t , both tensile and shear microfailures are possible. If micro-tensile failure is 
cc 
excluded (by setting s to infinity), then cracking does not localize onto a single macrofracture 
cplane under macroscopic extensile loading. Because this mechanism does occur in granite, 
micro-tensile failure is allowed to occur in the granite model. The alternative cases for which 
micro-shear failure is excluded fully (by setting t to infinity) or allowed (by setting s =t ) are
ccc 
investigated for the PFC2D material by Potyondy and Autio [39], who study damage formation 
adjacent to a circular hole subjected to far-field compressive loading. Both materials produce 
breakout notches in compressive regions and tensile macrofractures in tensile regions that are 
generally similar. The material with s =t allows more well-defined notches to form than does 
cc 
the material that can only fail in the micro-tensile mode (see Figure 7). The former material 
accommodates the shearing deformation along the notch outline by forming a string of shear 
microcracks, whereas the latter material must form several sets of en echelon tensile microcracks 
(which requires that additional deformation and accompanying damage occur within the notch 
region). For the granite model, s =t so as not to exclude mechanisms that may only be activated 
cc 
via micro-shear failure. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-87 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 7 Damage in the notch region for the same compressive load (acting vertically) for a PFC2D 
material with (a) micro-shear failure allowed (3267 cracks), and (b) micro-shear failure 
excluded (3800 cracks). 
3.2 PFC2D model behavior during biaxial and Brazilian tests 
Typical stress-strain response and damage patterns are shown in Figure 8 for the PFC2D granite 
model with an average particle diameter of 0.72 mm. The testing procedures are described in the 
Appendices. The crack distributions in this and all such figures are depicted as bi-colored lines (in 
which red represents tension-induced parallel-bond failure for which bond tensile strength has been 
exceeded and blue represents shear-induced parallel-bond failure for which bond shear strength has 
been exceeded) lying between the two previously bonded particles with a length equal to the average 
diameter of the two previously bonded particles. The cracks are oriented perpendicular to the line 
joining the centers of the two previously bonded particles. The damage mechanisms during biaxial 
tests are summarized in observations 1 to 3, and those during Brazilian tests in observation 4. 
Similar observations apply to the PFC3D granite model subjected to triaxial and Brazilian tests. 
1. During the early stages of biaxial loading, relatively few cracks form, and 
those that do form tend to be aligned with the direction of maximum 
compression. These cracks are distributed throughout the specimen and do 
not seem to be interacting. The onset of this early cracking is quantified by 
the crack-initiation stress. 
2. Near peak load in a biaxial test, one or more macroscopic failure planes 
develop that cut across the specimen. When confinement is low, a set of 
secondary macrofractures oriented parallel with the loading direction form 
on either side of these failure planes, as seen in Figure 8(b). The secondary 
macrofractures are comprised of tensile microcracks and suggest an axial-
splitting phenomenon. As the confinement increases, the number of failure 
planes and their widths increase, as seen in Figures 8(c and d). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-88 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 8 Stress-strain response and damage patterns formed during biaxial tests at confinements of 0.1, 
10 and 70 MPa for a 63.4x126.8-mm specimen of the PFC2D granite model with 
D = 0.72 mm .
avg 
3. Damage at peak load is quite similar for all confinements, and most damage 
occurs after peak load as the specimen expands laterally  volumetric strain 
is dilational [53]. This observation, combined with observation 2, suggests 
that the post-peak damage-formation process is affected more by 
confinement than is the pre-peak damage-formation process. This change in 
behavior is related in part to the fact that, as confinement increases, the ratio 
of shear microcracks to tensile microcracks increases. The confinement 
reduces the tensile forces that develop in a direction perpendicular to the 
specimen axis and thereby causes more shear microcracks to form. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-89 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4. During Brazilian tests, a wedge of cracks forms inside of the specimen below 
each platen. Then, one of the wedges initiates a single macrofracture that 
travels across the specimen parallel with the direction of loading. The 
macrofracture is comprised of tensile microcracks and is driven by extensile 
deformation across the crack path (similar to an LEFM mode-I crack). This 
observation suggests that the Brazilian strength measured in these tests is 
related to the material fracture toughness, as is shown in Section 5.2, and that 
it may not correspond with the Brazilian strength measured in a valid 
Brazilian test on a real rock specimen. Such difficulties are inherent in 
tests that attempt to measure the tensile strength of a rock, because it is rarely 
possible to force the failure to occur simultaneously across the entire final 
fracture plane. 
3.3 Macroproperties of Lac du Bonnet granite 
The following short-term laboratory properties of Lac du Bonnet granite [55] obtained from 63mm 
diameter specimens with a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 are used to calibrate the short-term 
response of the granite model (See Table 2 for mean, standard deviation and number of tests.): (a) 
the elastic constants of Youngs modulus, E , and Poissons ratio, ., measured from unconfined 
compression tests; (b) the unconfined compressive strength, qu; (c) the crack-initiation stress, s;
ci
(d) the strength envelope for confining pressures in the range 0.110 MPa approximated as an 
equivalent Mohr-Coulomb material with a secant slope, Nf, friction angle, f, and cohesion, c ; and 
(e) the Brazilian strength, s.
t
Table 2 Macroproperties of the models and Lac du Bonnet granite. 
property Lac du Bonnet 
granite 
PFC2D model, 
avg 0.72 mm D = 
PFC3D model, 
avg 1.53 mm D =
E (GPa) 69 5.8 (n=81)  70.9 0.9 (n=10)  69.2 0.8 (n=10)  
. 0.26 0.04 (n=81) 0.237 0.011 (n=10)  0.256 0.014 (n=10) 
(MPa)qu200 22 (n=81)  199.1 13.0 (n=10)  198.8 7.2 (n=10) 
(MPa) cis 3 390 , 30 s 
s+ < 371.8 21.8 (n=10, = 0.1)s
 386.6 11.0 (n=10, = 0.1)s 
(MPa) cds 
3150, 0s= NA 3190.3 7.5 (n=10, = 0.1)s
 
Nf 13 3.01 0.60 (n=10)  3.28 0.33 (n=10)  
(degrees)f 
59 29.5 4.8 (n=10)  32.1 2.4 (n=10) 
c (MPa) 30 58.5 8.5 (n=10) 55.1 4.2 (n=10)  
(MPa) ts 9.3 1.3 (n=39)  44.7 3.3 (n=10) 27.8 3.8 (n=10) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-90 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The crack-initiation stress is defined as the axial stress at which non-elastic dilation just begins, 
identified as the point of deviation from linear elasticity on a plot of axial stress versus volumetric 
strain. 
The strength envelope, which is the relation between peak strength and confining pressure, is 
obtained by fitting the Hoek-Brown strength criterion [56] to results of triaxial tests at confining 
pressures up to 70 MPa. The Hoek-Brown strength criterion is given by 
2
sf =s3 - s s -ssm
c 3 c 
(21) 
where s and m are dimensionless material parameters, and s is equal to the unconfined
c
compressive strength when s = 1. The Hoek-Brown parameters for the strength envelope of Lac du 
Bonnet granite [57] are s= 213 MPa , m =31 and s = 1. In general, the strength envelope will
c
exhibit a decreasing slope for increasing confinement; however, it can be linearized using a 
secant approximation defined by the strength, sf, at two confinements, P0 and P 1. If the slope is 
defined by 
sf ()-s ( P )
N f= 
PPP 
10 
f 0,
-
1 
(22) 
then the friction angle and cohesion can be written as [58] 
. N f- 1 .
-1
f= sin .. 
. N f+ 1 . 
q
c = u
2 N f
(23) 
where qu is the unconfined compressive strength. 
The Brazilian strength is computed via 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-91 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Ff
st = 
pRt 
(24) 
where Ff is the peak force acting on the platens, and R and t are the radius and thickness, 
respectively, of the Brazilian disk. 
The crack-damage stress, scd, is defined as the axial stress at which the volumetric strain reverses 
direction and becomes dilational. The crack-damage stress for saturated Lac du Bonnet granite is 
related to the peak strength, sf, by the following fourth-order polynomial [53]: 
3
s
cd = 0.75 - 0.031x + 0.00285x2 - 0.000104x + 0.00000138x4 
sf 
(25) 
where x is the confining stress (in MPa). The crack-damage stress is measured for the PFC3D 
material, but it is not used in the present calibration. 
3.4 Macroproperties of the PFC models 
The microproperties in Table 1 with Dmin =0.55 mm and Dmin = 1.19 mm were used to produce 
PFC2D and PFC3D materials with average particle diameters of 0.72 mm and 1.53 mm, 
respectively. Then, ten rectangular PFC2D specimens (63.4 by 31.7 mm) and ten rectangular 
parallelepiped PFC3D specimens (63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm) with different packing arrangements 
and microstrengths were created by varying the seed of the random-number generator during 
material genesis. Typical PFC2D/PFC3D specimens (shown in Figure 9) contain approximately 
4000/20,000 particles and have 44/20 particles across the specimen width. Biaxial, triaxial and 
Brazilian tests were performed upon these specimens to obtain the model macroproperties shown 
in Table 2. The testing procedures are described in the Appendices. The strength envelopes were 
obtained by performing a set of biaxial and triaxial tests at confining pressures of 0.1, 1, 5, 10, 20, 
30 and 70 MPa. The test results for the PFC2D material are shown in Figure 10, which includes the 
peak strength and crack-initiation stress from each test with lines joining the average values at each 
confining pressure. The strength envelope for the PFC3D material is similar. 
The PFC models match the macroproperties of E , . and qu of the Lac du Bonnet granite, and the 
variability of these macroproperties (expressed as a ratio of standard deviation to mean) is less than 
that of the physical material. The unconfined compressive strength of the PFC3D material exhibits 
less variability than that of the PFC2D material. The model materials also exhibit the onset of 
significant internal cracking (measured by sci) before ultimate failure. However, the model 
strengths only match that of the Lac du Bonnet granite for stresses near the uniaxial state. The slope 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-92 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
of the strength envelope is too low (3 for both PFC2D and PFC3D versus 13 for the granite), and 
the Brazilian strength is too high (the ratio ( q st ) is 4.5 and 7.2 for PFC2D and PFC3D,
u 
respectively, versus 21.5 for the granite). This discrepancy may arise from the use of circular and 
spherical grains in the present model, and it could be reduced by using grain shapes that more 
closely resemble the complex-shaped and highly interlocked crystalline grains in granite. A 
preliminary investigation, described below, suggests that introducing finite-strength particle clusters 
of complex interlocking shapes into the PFC2D particle assembly will increase the slope of the 
strength envelope and will lower the crack-damage stress. A similar effect is expected for the 
PFC3D material. If these grains are also allowed to break, then damage mechanisms that more 
closely resemble those in granite will be possible. One mechanism that contributes to the large 
difference in the compressive and tensile strengths of granite is suggested by Mosher et al. [59], who 
have studied the cracking within granite thin sections when stressed in tension or compression under 
the microscope and have found that intergranular fractures predominate in tension and intragranular 
in compression. 
In the preliminary investigation, unbreakable particle clusters of complex interlocking shapes were 
introduced into the PFC2D particle assembly so that cracking is forced to occur along cluster 
boundaries (the white dots in Figure 11(a)). The clustering algorithm is controlled by S , the 
maximum number of particles in a cluster. A cluster is defined as a set of particles that are adjacent 
to one another, where adjacent means that a connected path can be constructed between any two 
particles in a cluster by traversing bonded particle-particle contacts. The algorithm begins with a 
densely packed bonded material and identifies particle clusters by traversing the list of particles. 
Each cluster is grown by identifying the current particle as a seed particle and then adding adjacent 
particles to the cluster until either all adjacent particles have been added or the cluster size has 
reached S . The algorithm provides no control over cluster shape but does produce a collection of 
c 
complex cluster shapes that are fully interlocking  similar to the interlocking grains in a crystalline 
rock. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-93 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 9 Typical specimens of the granite model: (a) PFC2D specimen (4017 particles, 7764 parallel 
bonds); and (b) PFC3D specimen (19749 particles, 55042 parallel bonds). 
Figure 10 Strength envelopes for PFC2D granite model (results of all 10 tests) and Lac du Bonnet 
granite. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-94 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 11 Introducing complex grain-like shapes into the PFC2D material using particle clusters: (a) 
clusters of size 7 and bonds (black: intra-cluster bonds, white: inter-cluster bonds); and (b) 
effect of cluster size on strength envelope for unbreakable clusters. 
The strength-envelope slope for such a material can be made to exceed that of Lac du Bonnet 
granite, as shown in Figure 11(b), and dilation begins at lower stresses relative to peak ( s is
cdlowered) as cluster size is increased. However, the biaxial-test damage does not localize into 
discrete macroscopic failure planes, and the post-peak response is plastic-like and does not exhibit 
the abrupt stress drop of Lac du Bonnet granite. Experiments on Barre granite [4] indicate that, after 
loading to approximately 87% of peak strength, almost all grain boundaries were cracked along their 
entire length. Because this had occurred before the peak strength had been reached, it suggests that 
additional damage, in the form of transgranular fracture (or grain splitting) may be occurring in this 
loading regime. If a finite strength were assigned to the bonds within clusters, then transgranular 
fractures could form, and this might produce the desired localization and abrupt post-peak stress 
drop. This presents a promising avenue for further study [60]. 
3.5 Effect of particle size on macroproperties 
If the BPM is used to predict damage formation surrounding an excavation, then the absolute size 
of the potential damage region is fixed, and successively finer resolution models can be produced 
by decreasing Dmin while keeping all other microproperties fixed. The investigation in this section 
demonstrates that particle size is an intrinsic part of the material characterization that affects the 
Brazilian strength (and the unconfined compressive strength for PFC3D material); thus, particle size 
cannot be regarded as a free parameter that only controls model resolution. If the damage 
mechanisms involve extensile conditions similar to those existing in a Brazilian test, then particle 
size should be chosen to match the Brazilian strength or another appropriate property of the rock, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-95 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
perhaps the fracture toughness. For the PFC3D material, it may not be possible to match the ratio 
(q st ) without introducing non-spherical grains. 
u 
Four PFC2D and four PFC3D granite materials were produced using the microproperties in Table 
1 with different values of D min . The PFC2D and PFC3D materials have average particle diameters 
ranging from 2.87 to 0.36 mm and 5.95 to 1.53 mm, respectively. For each PFC2D and PFC3D 
material, ten rectangular specimens (63.4 by 31.7 mm) or ten rectangular parallelepiped specimens 
(63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm), respectively, with different packing arrangements and microstrengths 
were created by varying the seed of the random-number generator during material genesis. Each 
specimen was then subjected to a Brazilian test and to two biaxial or triaxial tests at confinements 
of 0.1 and 10 MPa. The PFC3D Brazilian disk thicknesses were chosen to produce approximately 
2.6 particles across the thickness. The test results are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in terms of the 
mean and coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of each macroproperty. 
Table 3 Effect of particle size on PFC2D macroproperties. 
particle macroproperty 
size (63.4 by 31.7 mm specimens, n=10, mean and coefficient of variation) 
avg D 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa, %) 
. 
( , %) 
q u(MPa, %) 
f 
(degrees, %) 
c 
(MPa, %) ts 
(MPa, %) 
2.87 68.3 10.5 0.231 19.0 186.8 12.7 34.9 18.1 48.5 12.8 65.5 26.1 
1.44 68.8 3.3 0.249 7.6 184.4 7.9 30.3 23.8 53.4 18.9 54.3 12.2 
0.72 70.9 1.3 0.237 4.6 199.1 6.5 29.5 16.3 58.5 14.5 44.7 7.4 
0.36 71.5 0.8 0.245 2.9 194.8 4.1 33.0 17.3 53.3 14.4 35.4 7.6 
Table 4 Effect of particle size on PFC3D macroproperties. 
particle macroproperty 
size (63.4 by 31.7 by 31.7 mm specimens, n=10, mean and coefficient of variation) 
avg D 
(mm) 
E 
(GPa, %) 
. 
( , %) 
q u(MPa, %) 
f 
(degrees, %) 
c 
(MPa, %) ts 
(MPa, %) 
5.95 57.3 10.0 0.231 21.2 127.9 11.9 25.9 14.2 40.0 11.4 43.6 27.8 
3.05 64.0 3.9 0.254 8.1 169.6 3.4 30.6 9.8 48.4 7.6 35.4 26.1 
2.04 67.6 1.8 0.255 5.8 186.9 1.5 32.3 9.2 51.6 6.9 33.0 21.9 
1.53 69.2 1.2 0.256 5.5 198.8 3.6 32.1 7.4 55.1 7.6 27.1 13.7 
It is expected that as particle size continues to decrease, the coefficients of variation will converge 
to specific values. These values should be a true measure of the effect of both packing and strength 
heterogeneities in the model materials, because the number of particles across the specimen has 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-96 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
become large enough to obtain a representative sampling of the material response. As the number 
of particles across the specimen is reduced, the scatter in measured properties increases. Also, a 
sufficient number of particles must be present for the model to resolve and reproduce the failure 
mechanisms that influence the strength properties. 
3.5.1 PFC2D material response 
The elastic constants appear to be independent of particle size. The mean values of Poissons ratio 
are approximately the same for all particle sizes, and the mean values of Youngs modulus increase 
slightly (by less than 5%) as particle size decreases from 2.87 to 0.36 mm. This slight increase in 
Youngs modulus may be an artifact of having sampled too few data points to obtain a true measure 
of the mean values. If the elastic constants truly are independent of particle size, then the 
n 
,characterization of the elastic grain-cement microproperties in terms of EE , (k 
k ), and (k 
ks )
cc n 
s 
provides a size-independent means of specifying the elastic properties of the material. The size-
independence is achieved by scaling the parallel-bond stiffnesses as a function of particle size via 
(18). 
The unconfined compressive strength also appears to be independent of particle size. The mean 
values differ by less than 8% and exhibit no clear increasing or decreasing trend. This behavior may 
be an artifact of having sampled too few data points to obtain a true measure of the mean values; 
however, the decreasing coefficients of variation are reasonable and indicate a possible convergence 
to a specific value. It is also reasonable that the variability of qu is greater than the variability of the 
elastic constants, because qu measures a complex critical-state phenomenon involving extensive 
damage formation and interaction, whereas the elastic constants merely measure the deformability 
of the particle assembly before any significant damage has developed. 
No definitive statements about the effect of particle size on friction angle and cohesion can be made 
based on the results in Table 3. The mean values of fand c differ by 19% and 21%, respectively, 
and exhibit no clear increasing or decreasing trends. For the three smallest particle sizes, fand c 
exhibit the most variability of all measured properties. 
The Brazilian strength exhibits a clear dependence upon particle size, with s decreasing from 65.5 
t
to 35.4 MPa as particle size decreases from 2.87 to 0.36 mm. The coefficients of variation have 
converged to approximately 7.5%. The variability of s is slightly greater than that of qu. This
tsuggests that the critical-state conditions in a Brazilian test are more sensitive to packing and 
strength heterogeneities than are the critical-state conditions in an unconfined compression test. 
The measured decrease in Brazilian strength with decreasing particle size is explained in Section 5.2, 
where it is shown that Brazilian strength is proportional to fracture toughness, which, in turn, is 
proportional to particle size. The lack of a similar size effect for qu suggests that the critical state 
in an unconfined compression test on the PFC2D material does not consist of the unstable growth 
of a single macrofracture subjected to extensile conditions. We speculate that a more complex 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-97 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
critical state exists in which a failure plane and secondary macrofractures form under mixed 
compressive-shear conditions, and that such conditions are not sensitive to particle size. 
3.5.2 PFC3D material response 
The Poissons ratio is independent of particle size. The Youngs modulus exhibits a clear 
dependence on particle size, with E increasing from 57.3 to 69.2 GPa as particle size decreases from 
5.95 to 1.53 mm. The characterization of the elastic grain-cement microproperties in terms of 
n 
s
EE , (k
, 
k ), and (k 
k) provides a size-independent means of specifying the Poissons ratio 
cc n 
s 
of the material, but the Youngs modulus exhibits a minor size effect. 
The unconfined compressive strength exhibits a clear dependence on particle size, with quincreasing from 127.9 to 198.8 MPa as particle size decreases from 5.95 to 1.53 mm. The 
coefficients of variation have converged to approximately 3.5%. The reason for this size effect is 
unknown. It corresponds with general observations that finer-grained rock is stronger than coarser-
grained rock (medium and fine-grained Lac du Bonnet granite [61, 62]). A credible explanation 
must encompass the fact that qu of the PFC2D material is independent of particle size. 
No definitive statements about the effect of particle size on friction angle and cohesion can be made 
based on the results in Table 4, although both properties seem to increase as particle size decreases. 
The Brazilian strength exhibits a clear dependence upon particle size, with s decreasing from 43.6 
t
to 27.1 MPa as particle size decreases from 5.95 to 1.53 mm. The coefficients of variation have not 
yet converged. The variability of s is much greater than that of qu. This suggests that the critical-
tstate conditions in a Brazilian test are more sensitive to packing and strength heterogeneities than 
are the critical-state conditions in an unconfined compression test. 
3.6 Effect of stress and damage on elastic constants 
The elastic constants of the bonded-particle model are affected by both stress and damage. These 
effects have been quantified using a strain probe, which applies a specified strain path to the 
particles at the boundary of an extracted core and monitors the stress-strain response using 
measurement regions within the core. Preliminary measurements performed upon the granite model 
indicate a reasonable correspondence with the properties of Lac du Bonnet granite [53]. The elastic 
constants are affected by the stress state as follows. Compressive loading induces micro-tensile 
forces that act orthogonal to the compressive direction, and the particle motions that produce 
these micro-tensile forces modify the fabric (distribution of force chains) of the assembly. 
Increasing the mean stress increases the coordination number (average number of contacts per 
particle), which modifies the magnitudes of the elastic constants but does not produce 
anisotropy. Anisotropy is produced by deviatoric stresses that modify the directional distribution 
of the force chains  compressive loading increases the number of contacts oriented in the 
compressive direction and decreases the number of contacts oriented orthogonal to the compressive 
direction. These effects are enhanced by the presence of damage in the form of bond breakages. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-98 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The elastic modulus dependence on mean and differential stress, as identified in PFC modeling, has 
been qualitatively supported by in situ measurements of dynamic modulus [63]. Ongoing work [64] 
aims to develop a quantitative link between AE/MS field measurements of dynamic moduli and 
rock-mass damage by comparing the evolution of stress- and damage-induced modulus anisotropy 
in the PFC3D model with the results of both short- and long-term laboratory tests. 
4.0 Measured macroscopic properties (field scale) 
Three sets of boundary-value simulations were performed to demonstrate the ability of the two-
dimensional BPM to predict the extent and fabric of damage that forms adjacent to an excavation 
and the effect of this damage on rock strength and deformability [53]. The boundary-value 
simulations were of three experiments at Atomic Energy of Canada Limiteds (AECL) Underground 
Research Laboratory (URL) near Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada  namely, the Mine-by 
Experiment [65,66], the Tunnel Sealing Experiment [67] and Stage 1 of the Heated Failure Test [68]. 
The Excavation Stability Study [69] also was simulated using slightly different microproperties. A 
summary of comparisons between simulations and in situ observations is provided in [63]. 
Extensive work has been done at the URL to characterize excavation-induced damage [70]. One 
common feature of this damage is the formation of breakout notches (apparently in regions where 
the elastic tangential stress at the excavation boundary exceeds some critical value). This feature 
is investigated in the simulations, which embed the BPM within a larger continuum model such that 
only the region of a single notch is represented by the BPM. Only the results of the Mine-by 
Experiment simulations are presented here. 
The Mine-by Experiment took place on the 420-m level of the URL in sparsely fractured Lac du 
Bonnet granite and consisted of carefully excavating a 3.5-m diameter circular tunnel subparallel 
with the direction of the intermediate principal stress. The tunnel was excavated in 1-meter stages 
by drilling overlapping holes about the tunnel perimeter, and then removing the material using 
hydraulic rock splitters in closely spaced drill holes in the tunnel face. During tunnel excavation, 
a multi-stage process of progressive brittle failure resulted in the development of v-shaped notches, 
typical of borehole breakouts, in the regions of compressive stress concentration in the roof and floor 
(as shown in Figure 12). The major and minor in situ stresses are approximately 60 and 11 MPa, 
which produce an elastic tangential stress of 169 MPa in the roof and floor. This induced stress is 
lower than the 200 MPa unconfined compressive strength of the undamaged granite, and observation 
and analysis of other excavations at the 420-m level indicate that notches will form when the elastic 
tangential stress in horizontal tunnels exceeds approximately 120 MPa [69]. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-99 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 12 Photograph of broken and buckled rock slabs comprising the notch tip in the floor of the Mine-
by Experiment tunnel. 
Various mechanisms have been suggested to account for the apparent degradation in material 
strength sufficient to cause breakout. Two such mechanisms include precracking, which results from 
the local increase and rotation of stresses ahead of the advancing tunnel face, and stress corrosion 
 time-dependent cracking in rock that depends on load, temperature and moisture [71,72]. Both 
of these mechanisms are investigated in [73] using a simplified form of the BPM that represents the 
cement using contact bonds. (A contact bond provides tensile and shear strengths only and behaves 
ns
like a parallel bond with k = k = R = 0 .) In that work, a time- dependent strength-degradation 
process was included in the simplified BPM by reducing the contact-bond strength at a specified 
rate if the contact force was above a specified micro-activation force. It was found that (a) 
precracking coupled with uniform strength reduction (choosing microproperties to match the long-
term instead of the short-term strength of the rock) produced spalling and not distinct notches, and 
(b) activation of stress corrosion (for micro-properties that match the short-term strength of the rock) 
produced notches that stabilized after approximately 56 hours. Subsequent work, summarized in 
[53], utilized the full BPM that represents the cement using parallel bonds, which allow one to 
mimic more closely the micro-mechanisms operative during stress corrosion by reducing the 
parallel-bond radius at a specified rate if the maximum tensile stress in the parallel bond is above 
a specified micro-activation stress. In such models, notches are formed either by uniformly reducing 
the material strength everywhere or by activating stress corrosion. The difference in model 
behavior, particularly the ability to replicate notch development using a uniform strength reduction 
for the parallel bonds, is believed to be related to the use of parallel versus contact bonds. The 
parallel-bonded material becomes much more compliant in the damaged region than does the 
contact-bonded material, thereby shedding more load to the notch perimeter. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-100 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
4.1 Coupling the BPM with a continuum model 
The Mine-by Experiment was simulated using a coupled PFC2D-FLAC [74] model in which only 
the potential damage region is represented by the PFC2D material. The rectangular sample produced 
by the material-genesis procedure is installed into a corresponding rectangular void created in a 
FLAC grid adjacent to the tunnel surface, and a circular arc is removed from the particle assembly, 
corresponding to the tunnel boundary (see Figure 13). The basis of the coupling scheme is that 
FLAC controls the velocities of a layer of particles on three sides of the PFC2D region. PFC2D 
returns the unbalanced forces of the same set of particles, and these are applied as boundary forces 
to the FLAC grid. A symmetry line, in the direction of the major principal stress, is used based on 
the assumption that cracking is similar in the roof and floor of the tunnel. The FLAC grid boundaries 
are placed at a distance of 10 times the tunnel radius from the center. The elastic constants to be used 
in the FLAC grid are specified, and the FLAC model is run in large-strain mode under conditions 
of plane strain. Coupling occurs during cycling such that each cycle in PFC2D corresponds with 
a cycle in FLAC. 
Figure 13 PFC2D portion of coupled PFC2D-FLAC Mine-by model (PFC2D granite model with 
D = 32 mm ).
avg 
Initially, the system is regarded as stress-free. There are no initial stresses in the FLAC model, and 
the initial stresses in the PFC2D material are low relative to the final stresses that will develop as 
a result of the excavation. In situ stresses are applied to the outer boundaries of the FLAC grid, and 
cycling is performed until equilibrium is established, indicating that the excavation-induced 
stress redistribution is complete. An alternative procedure would be to 
initialize stresses in the FLAC grid and install the same mean stresses in the PFC2D sample (using 
the stress-installation procedure described in the Appendix) prior to its connection to the FLAC grid. 
The resulting relaxation would correspond to the tunnel being created in a stressed material. 
Three PFC2D granite materials were produced using the microproperties in Table 1 with different 
values of Dmin . The PFC2D materials have average particle diameters of 32, 16 and 8 mm, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-101 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
respectively, and this corresponds with model resolutions of 33, 66 and 132 particles across the 1.05-
m extent of the potential damage region as shown in Figure 13. The elastic constants assigned to 
the FLAC grid were taken as the average values of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio from Table 
2. Although the PFC2D particle size that generated the data in Table 2 was much smaller 
( Davg = 0.72 mm ), the results in Table 3 indicate that particle size has only a minimal effect on the 
macroscopic elastic constants. 
The modeling sequence mimics the rock genesis followed by the tunnel excavation. Two forms of 
strength reduction: uniform strength reduction, or activation of stress corrosion, were then applied 
to replicate the lower strength long-term response of the granite. The uniform strength reduction 
occurs by multiplying both the tensile and shear strengths of all parallel bonds by a specified factor. 
The activation of stress corrosion introduces a time scale into the simulations such that the time 
evolution of the damage-formation process can be investigated  and, in cases where all micro-
tensile stresses fall below the micro-activation stress, a time to full damage stability can be 
determined. In this paper, the results from field-scale simulations using a uniform strength reduction 
factor are presented, whereas the stress-corrosion model is described elsewhere [53] and is only 
briefly discussed in the following sections. 
4.2 PFC2D model behavior during excavation-damage studies 
In BPM simulations of the Mine-by Experiment, the notch-formation process is driven by either (a) 
monotonically increasing the far-field loading, (b) uniformly reducing the microstrengths (as shown 
in Figure 14, which includes the outline of the excavation, the outline of the PFC2D material, 
and a set of dashed circles spaced at intervals of 
5R 
, where R is excavation radius), or (c) 
activating stress corrosion. The notch forms by a progressive failure process that starts at the 
excavation boundary in the region of maximum compression and proceeds inward. First, a small 
notch (group of microcracks) forms. Wing-cracks form near the notch tip and extend parallel with 
the current notch boundary, eventually curving toward and intersecting the boundary, forming slab-
like pieces of material. These slabs do not detach fully, still being joined to the rock mass by some 
unbroken bonds, but do become much softer than the rock mass and, thus, shed load deeper into the 
rock mass. This increased load initiates additional wing cracks, which combine to extend the notch 
boundary. During this process, the notch is in a meta-stable state and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-102 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 14 Effect of strength-reduction factor on damage patterns in the potential damage region of the 
Mine-by model for PFC2D granite model with Davg = 8 mm . 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-103 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
only grows if the far-field load is increased, the microstrengths are reduced, or stress corrosion is 
active. The notch is meta-stable because the notch shape induces a compressive zone to form at the 
notch tip, which effectively strengthens the rock mass by reducing the micro-tensions that are 
driving the wing-crack growth. If the slabs are removed, the notch grows again to re-establish a new 
stable shape. 
This meta-stable growth process continues until the notch reaches a critical depth relative to the 
tunnel radius, at which time the wing-cracks do not curve back toward the notch boundary; instead, 
they curve away from the boundary, forming what looks like a macroscopic fracture (see Figure 
14(c)). This secondary fracture is described in [39] as a shear band  an elongated cluster of 
microcracks that emanates from the apex of one or both notches and extends approximately parallel 
with the excavation surface. Although there is no clear evidence for, or against, the formation of a 
shear band in the Mine-by Experiment, such features are often observed in laboratory tests. The 
rupture zone that formed in both the numerical (using a simplified BPM that represents the cement 
using contact bonds instead of parallel bonds) and laboratory test of a rectangular prism of Berea 
sandstone containing a circular hole and loaded in a plane strain (biaxial) test [75] may be such a 
feature. Potyondy and Autio [39] offer the following hypothesis regarding this feature: 
It evolves from a band or cloud of microcracks. The formation of this band seems to be related 
to a punching-type failure occurring at the top and/or bottom of the [excavation], in which the 
applied load tries to drive an intact rectangular region of material into the unloaded region 
surrounding the [excavation]. (This unloaded region encompasses the notch tips and results from 
the presence of the notches, which are much more compliant than the surrounding rock and therefore 
shed load deeper into the rock away from the [excavation]). The micro-failure mode within the 
shear band need not be of a shearing type; many tensile microcracks may combine in an en-echelon 
fashion to accommodate the macroscopic shearing motion and thereby produce the shear band. 
4.3 Discussion of simulation results for the Mine-by models 
No significant damage forms as a result of excavation in any of the BPM simulations of the Mine-by 
Experiment; however, application of a strength-reduction factor of 0.6 to the material with 
D =8 mm produces a stable breakout notch as seen in Figure 14(b). Activation of stress
avg 
corrosion to the material with D =8 mm after excavation produces a notch that grows over time 
avg 
and does not fully stabilize before reaching the PFC2D-FLAC boundary, which occurs at a time of 
approximately 14 years. A notch of similar extent (but different internal damage fabric) as that 
produced by a uniform strength-reduction factor of 0.6 has formed after approximately two months 
of stress corrosion. 
The notch-formation process is sensitive to the strength-reduction factor, as seen in Figure 14. It is 
not clear what procedure should be used to calibrate the strength-reduction factor, other than 
comparing the final extent of any notches that form in boundary-value models of excavations. The 
use of a uniform strength-reduction procedure to predict excavation damage may be limited to 
qualitative assessments of the nature of the possible damage, and use of a properly calibrated stress-
corrosion model may be required to make quantitative assessments. The stress-corrosion model was 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-104 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
calibrated to match the static-fatigue behavior of the granite [76]. The fact that similar notches form 
for both strength-reduction procedures supports such use of a uniform strength-reduction approach. 
The notch-formation process is sensitive to the particle size, as seen in Figure 15. Notches form 
more readily in material with smaller particles. One hypothesis to explain this behavior is that the 
material with smaller particles has a lower fracture toughness (as discussed below). The extent of 
the notch is controlled by macroscopic fracture formation in the form of the wing-cracks described 
above. Stress concentrations occur at the tips of these wing-cracks, giving rise to the conditions for 
which the principles of fracture mechanics apply, such that the material resistance to such 
macroscopic fracture formation is measured by the fracture toughness rather than the unconfined 
compressive strength. 
5.0 Emergent properties of the BPM 
Systems composed of many simple objects commonly exhibit behavior that is much more 
complicated than that of the constituents [77]. The particles and contacts comprising the BPM are 
described by simple equations, with few parameters, but an assembly of such particles displays a rich 
spectrum of behaviors that closely resemble those of rock. 
The following behaviors are observed both in rock samples and in synthetic samples composed of 
bonded particles: 
1. Continuously nonlinear stress-strain response, with ultimate yield, followed 
by softening or hardening. 
2. Behavior that changes in character, according to stress state; for example, 
crack patterns are quite different in the tensile, unconfined-compressive and 
confined-compressive regimes. 
3. Memory of previous stress or strain excursions, in both magnitude and 
direction. This behavior is commonly expressed in terms of moving yield 
surfaces, or evolving anisotropic damage tensors. 
4. Dilatancy that depends on history, mean stress and initial state. 
5. Hysteresis at all levels of cyclic loading/unloading; cyclic energy dissipation 
is strongly dependent on cyclic amplitude. 
6. Transition from brittle to ductile shear response as the mean stress is 
increased. 
7. Dependence of incremental stiffness on mean stress and history. 
8. Induced anisotropy of stiffness and strength with stress and strain path. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-105 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 15 Effect of particle size on damage patterns in the potential damage region of the Mine-by model 
for PFC2D granite models with strength-reduction factors of 0.6. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-106 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9. Nonlinear envelope of strength. 
10. Spontaneous appearance of microcracks and localized macrofractures. 
11. Spontaneous emission of acoustic energy. 
It may be noted that there is no existing continuum constitutive model that reproduces all of these 
behaviors. Some models can reproduce selected items, but, usually, many ad hoc parameters are 
needed. An assembly of bonded particles exhibits all of the behaviors, using few micro-parameters 
(but at the expense of often quite lengthy calibration procedures). Further, continuum-based 
models (typically implemented via finite or boundary element techniques) have difficulty 
reproducing the spontaneous development of many microcracks and macrofractures. BPMs 
explicitly represent the evolution of damage (in terms of the density and orientation of 
microcracks), in contrast to continuum models, which commonly contain evolution laws that are 
phenomenological, and not mechanistically based. 
Many of the noted behaviors arise from the existence of many sites of nonlinear response, each of 
which may be activated at a different stress level. Thus, the memory of a previous stress level, at 
which unloading occurred, is encoded by a set of contacts that are either on the point of sliding or 
opening/closing. In either case, a change in response occurs at a particular stress level when a 
contact starts to slide or it opens or closes. Each such contact site contributes to the stress-
dependent, nonlinear response of the entire assembly  not only in magnitude, but also in direction, 
because the contact activation depends critically on its orientation in relation to the direction of 
applied strain. 
Similar arguments may be made for the micromechanical bases of the other phenomena noted above. 
The following focus is on a single aspect of the emergent behavior of the BPM namely, the ability 
to reproduce the fracturing behavior of a brittle material and its application to explain the size effect 
observed in Brazilian tests. 
5.1 The reproduction of fracture mechanics behavior 
BPMs produce patterns of bond-breaks that are qualitatively similar to microcracks and extended 
cracks seen in real rock samples. Although bond-breaks in a particle assembly might appear 
conceptually different from monolithic cracks that propagate in a brittle continuum, it is possible to 
establish a formal equivalence between the mechanisms and parameters of the BPM and the 
concepts and equations of LEFM. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-107 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Consider the bonded-disk assembly shown in Figure 16, in which a crack (an unbonded line of 
contacts) is introduced into a cubic packing of unit-thickness ( t= 1) disks of radius Rjoined by 
contact bonds with 
=2.5 and subjected to an extension strain normal to the crack. Large 
kkn s 
tensile contact forces occur at contacts in front of the crack tip, as shown by the red lines. The force 
magnitudes conform well with those that would be induced over finite line segments in front of a 
crack tip in an isotropic linear elastic continuum; see Figure 17, in which the LEFM values are 
derived as follows. 
Figure 16 Force distribution and displacement field near the crack tip in a cracked cubically packed 
contact-bonded disk assembly. 
Figure 17 Normalized tensile force of LEFM and BPM at the five contacts ahead of the crack. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-108 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
For a through-thickness crack of half-width a in an infinitely wide plate of isotropic linear elastic 
material subjected to a remote tensile stress, sf, acting normal to the crack, the induced stress, s ,
n
acting on the crack plane near the crack tip ( r . a ) is [78]: 
s =sfa 
n 
2r 
(26) 
where r is the distance from the tip. The force, F , acting over a line segment equal to a disk 
n
diameter ( 2R ) at a mean distance r =(2m -1) R is given by 
nF 
rR 
n f 
rR 
tdr ts s 
+ 
- 
= =. 2 
a 12 2 
r R 
f 
rR 
r dr ts 
+ 
- 
- 
=. (aR m - )1m - 
(27) 
where m is a positive integer denoting the disk sequence number. The tensile forces in the BPM 
are compared with those of LEFM in Figure 17 by plotting normalized force 
F
% n
F == m - m -1
n 
2sftaR 
(28) 
versus disk sequence number. The BPM values are from a symmetric model containing 64.5 disks 
along the crack width and model boundaries at a distance of 3a and 2a above and in front of the 
crack, respectively. 
Having established that forces in the BPM conform well to those induced on line segments in a 
continuum, the next step is to examine the maximum contact force existing at m = 1, 
max 
F = 2sft aR .
n 
(29) 
Noting that the mode-I stress intensity factor for the system is defined as KI =s 
pa , (29) can be 
f 
written as 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-109 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
max R
F = 2tKI 
.
n 
p 
(30) 
The true tensile strength of the BPM (i.e., the strength from a test in which no force concentrations 
exist) is denoted by s' . For a cubically packed BPM loaded parallel with the packing direction, 
t
st ' =f 
2Rt , where f is the contact-bond tensile strength (in force units). At the condition of
n 
n
max 
incipient failure, or crack extension, F =f and KI = KIc , where KIc is the mode-I fracture 
nn 
toughness. Substituting into (30), 
K
Ic =st 'pR . 
(31) 
The fracture toughness is thus related to the properties of the BPM. Notably, because particle 
radius enters into the expression, particle sizes cannot be chosen arbitrarily if it is required to match 
fracture toughness. This is not surprising, as the concept of fracture toughness implies an internal 
length scale, whereby the ratio of fracture toughness to material strength has the dimension of square 
root of length. The particle size in the BPM supplies this internal length scale. 
The foregoing analysis is based on incipient failure and does not address the condition for 
propagation of a crack. Considering equation (29), the new induced force, F ' , following breakage 
nof the bond nearest the crack tip, is found by substituting the new crack length for the original crack 
length: 
max 
F '= 2sft (a + 2R R = F 1+ 2R a .
) n
n 
(32) 
Thus, the new maximum contact force is always greater than the previous maximum and greater than 
the bond strength. This condition ensures that the crack will propagate in an unstable fashion. The 
analysis assumes that the crack is remote from other boundaries and that the far-field load remains 
max 
constant, but proximate boundaries or fixed-grip loading might cause F ' to be less than F if the 
nnbreaking of the critical bond leads to a force on the next bond that is less than the bond strength. In 
such a case, the crack would not propagate; thus, the condition for propagation is not necessarily a 
local one, but depends on the influence of the complete model on the contact forces near the crack 
tip. 
The derivation for fracture toughness in (31) is based on the assumption of a cubically packed 
contact-bonded assembly with perfectly brittle bonds. The toughness for more general cases is 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-110 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
obtained by testing a set of self-similar Center Cracked Tension specimens, as shown in the inset 
of Figure 18. This system is characterized by two length scales: 
1 
3 
, a 
Wf= = 
2 
a 
R.= 
(33) 
where W is the specimen half-width, and . is the crack resolution. A set of self-similar specimens 
is generated by varying . while keeping f and particle size, R , fixed. For LEFM conditions, the 
applied far-field tensile stress at incipient failure, s' , is [78]: 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-111 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 18 Normalized strength of self-similar numerical specimens. 
.
24
s'= KIc a-12, C ()=.sec .
.pf.
.
.
. 
12 
..
1-0.025 f+0.06f..
.
f 
f p ..2 ..
C () 
(34) 
This equation is normalized by dividing by the true tensile strength and setting a =.2R to obtain 
s' . KIc .
.
.-12 
. (35)
=. 
. t 'C () 2pR .
st ' .s f 
. 
For each specimen, s' is measured and normalized strength versus crack resolution is plotted in log-
log space. If the slope equals minus one-half, then LEFM conditions apply, and 
b 
2 
.'
K
Ic =.10 C ()
.f 
.spR
t 
(36) 
where b is the y-intercept. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-112 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The results of a set of self-similar tests on the cubically packed contact-bonded material with brittle 
bonds and bonds that have softening slopes one-fifth and one-tenth of the loading slope are shown 
in Figure 18. Results similar to those for the softening slope of 
10k 
were obtained for an arbitrarily 
packed contact-bonded assembly with brittle bonds assigned both uniform and normally distributed 
strengths. These results support the postulate that 
'
K
Ic =spaR (contact-bonded material)
t 
(37) 
where a=1 is a non-dimensional factor that increases with packing irregularity, strength 
heterogeneity and bond ductility. The value of aR represents the apparent internal length scale of 
the BPM. The a values are obtained from the y-intercepts of the tests by comparing Equations (36) 
and (37) to obtain 
(
2
2
a= 
.
. 
KIc .
. = 210bC (1 3)) .
.spR .
' 
t 
(38) 
For the cubically packed contact-bonded material with brittle bonds, softening slope 
5k 
and 
softening slope 
10k 
, using the last five data points, the slopes are 0.47, and the y-intercepts are 
0.1590, -0.0980 and -0.0034, giving a values of 1.11, 1.46 and 2.26, respectively. Therefore, the 
effect of decreasing the softening slope is to increase the apparent internal length scale of the 
material, making it possible to match a given KIc for several different particle sizes. The asymptotic 
slope of all curves (at large crack resolutions) approaches minus one-half, but they are shifted to the 
right for increasing ductility. This is consistent with an increase in apparent length scale. 
The expression for fracture toughness in (37) only applies to a contact-bonded material. The results 
of a set of self-similar tests on the cubically packed parallel-bonded material (with .= 1, 
skkn 
=2.5 and s' =.s ) are also shown in Figure 18. The parallel-bonded material is weaker
tc 
than the contact-bonded material for the same true tensile strength, because a non-zero bending 
moment, Ms , develops at the crack tip and increases the maximum tensile stress acting on the bond 
periphery (see Equation (16)). This leads us to postulate that 
'
K
Ic = 
s 
paR (parallel-bonded material)
t 
(39) 
where a=1 is a non-dimensional factor that increases with packing irregularity, strength 
heterogeneity and bond ductility, and <1 is a non-dimensional factor that accounts for the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-113 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
weakening effect of the bending moment. For the results shown in Figure 18, a= 1, and  is 
obtained from the y-intercept of the tests (-0.3623) by comparing Equations (36) and (39) to obtain 
b
= KIc = 10 C (1 3 ) 2 = 10 -0.3623 C (1 3 ) 2 = 0.66 .
spR
' 
t 
(40) 
Figure 18 also provides evidence for a size effect whereby the behavior becomes plastic (strength 
independent of crack resolution) at small crack resolutions and brittle (conforming to LEFM with 
a slope of minus one-half) at large crack resolutions. This behavior, in terms of specimen size, is 
reported extensively for laboratory tests [79]. In the present analysis, increasing crack resolution 
corresponds with increasing specimen size. 
The BPM has been shown to be equivalent to a material described by LEFM in terms of observable 
behavior and mathematical description. However, the results cast fracture mechanics in a new light. 
The singularities discussed extensively in the literature of fracture mechanics simply do not arise in 
a discontinuous medium. Therefore, there is no need to propose devices, such as a process zone or 
tip plasticity, to eliminate the crack-tip singularity. The analysis of the initiation and stability of a 
crack in a BPM may be done in terms of forces, not global energy balance, as commonly done for 
fractures in a continuum [80,81]. Finally, the BPM shows naturally how size effect arises, in terms 
of the ratio between specimen size and particle size. A discontinuum interpretation of fracture 
mechanics has been given previously, notably by Eringen [82], who derives an equation almost 
identical to (31) and remarks: No poorly known constant such as surface energy appears. . . (in 
reference to the existence of surface energy in the Griffith criterion). An extensive comparison 
between BPMs and the results of fracture mechanics is given in [83]. 
5.2 Relating Brazilian strength to fracture toughness 
During Brazilian tests on BPMs, a wedge-shaped region of cracks forms inside of the specimen 
below each platen. Then, at peak load, one of the wedges initiates a single macrofracture that travels 
across the specimen parallel with the direction of loading. The macrofracture is comprised of tensile 
microcracks and is driven by extensile deformation across the crack path similar to an LEFM mode-I 
crack as shown in Figure 19. The conditions at peak load can be idealized as shown in Figure 20, 
where the wedge-shaped damage regions are replaced by edge cracks of length a . If the two cracks 
are not interacting ( D - 2a > a ), then the mode-I stress-intensity factor at each crack tip is 
KI 
as.
(41) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-114 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
where s is the tensile stress acting across the uncracked ligament. At peak load, KI =KIc , s=s
t 
and a .0.2D (observed for all particle sizes of the granite models), which can be substituted into 
(41) to give
K
Ic
s
t . 
D 
(42) 
where D is the diameter of the Brazilian disk. The form of (42) is the same as the empirical relation 
between fracture toughness and tensile strength of s=6.88 KIc suggested by Zhang [84]. Equation 
t 
(42) suggests that the Brazilian strength should increase as specimen size decreases, and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-115 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Figure 19 Damage in Brazilian specimen just past peak load (148 cracks, tensile/shear = 125/23). 
Figure 20 Idealized conditions in Brazilian specimen at peak load showing two cracks subjected to tensile 
loading across the uncracked ligament. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-116 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
this trend is exhibited by Lac du Bonnet granite, for which the Brazilian strength is about 10 MPa 
for specimens greater than 50-mm diameter and increases to about 15 MPa for specimens smaller 
than 50-mm diameter [55]. 
The analysis leading to (39) supports the postulate that 
K
Ic .s 
c 
R 
(43) 
where s =t is the mean parallel-bond strength with .= 1, and R is the mean particle radius. 
cc 
Combining (42) and (43) yields 
R
s t .s 
(44)
c 
D 
which suggests that the Brazilian strength is affected by the ratio of particle size to Brazilian disk 
diameter. If model resolution, . , is defined as the average number of particles across the Brazilian 
disk ( .= DR2), then models with constant . will have the same Brazilian strength. For 
example, if all other microproperties are kept fixed, then the same Brazilian strength will be 
measured by either doubling the size of the Brazilian disk for a fixed particle size, or halving the 
particle size for a fixed Brazilian disk size. The BPM for granite exhibits such dual-model similarity 
as shown in Figure 21. 
Figure 21 Dual-model similarity: If all microproperties are kept fixed, then the exact same six short-term 
macroproperties in Table 3 are measured for both models B and C. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-117 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The test results in Table 3 indicate that the Brazilian strength decreases as particle size decreases. 
The same trend is suggested by (44). The test results are compared with (44) by plotting (ssc )
t 
versus (
R D
) on a log-log scale. The test data are well-fit by a straight line with slope of 
approximately 0.3, whereas (44) suggests a slope of one-half. The slope will only be one-half if 
LEFM conditions apply, but such conditions do not apply here because (1) the microcracks at peak 
load do not form sharp macrofractures, and (2) the crack resolution ( .= aR2 . 0.2 D 2R ) is 
relatively small ranging from 2.2 to 17.6. Equation (44) can be expressed as 
-1
2
st ..
s
c 
(45) 
and the test data compared with Figure 18 to see that the test data lies in the range of . for which 
the slope is less than minus one-half (indicating a size effect whereby the behavior is more plastic 
than brittle) for the two reasons cited above. 
6.0 Conclusions 
The BPM approximates the mechanical behavior of rock by representing it as a cemented granular 
material. The model has been used to predict damage formation adjacent to excavations in Lac du 
Bonnet granite. The damage-producing mechanisms activated in rock loaded in compression are 
complex and not understood fully. There is a complex interplay occurring between the macro-scale 
compression and the induced micro-scale tensions, which drives the damage processes. This 
interplay produces nonlinear, anisotropic elastic behavior under low loads before any significant 
damage forms, and it subsequently controls the damage that results under higher loads. In addition, 
it contributes to the long-term strength degradation processes, such as stress corrosion, that are 
activated by the increased stresses adjacent to an excavation but which appear to be inactive (at least 
on engineering time scales) under in situ conditions. 
Particle size controls model resolution but is not a free parameter; instead, particle size is related 
directly to the material fracture toughness. When modeling damage processes for which 
macroscopic fractures form, the particle size and model properties should be chosen to match the 
material fracture toughness as well as the unconfined compressive strength. Such processes occur 
at the boundary of an excavation and contribute to the formation of breakout notches. This poses 
a severe limitation on the size of a region that can be represented with a BPM, because the present 
microproperty characterization is such that the particle size must be chosen to be of the same 
order as the grain size. 
The BPM for Lac du Bonnet granite, as presented here, has the following limitations. The material 
strength matches that of Lac du Bonnet granite only for stresses near the uniaxial state  i.e., the 
tensile strength is too high, and the slope of the strength envelope as a function of confining stress 
is too low. However, there is evidence to support the postulate that including complex-shaped, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-118 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
breakable grains of a size comparable to that of the rock will remove this limitation. Also, 
computations are time-consuming and are limited to small volumes of rock, unless the BPM is 
embedded within a larger continuum model. 
Despite the limitations noted above, BPMs have a number of advantages when compared with 
conventional continuum approaches. Damage and its evolution are represented explicitly in the 
BPM as broken bonds; no empirical relations are needed to define damage or to quantify its effect 
on material behavior. Localized microcracks form and coalesce into macroscopic fractures without 
the need for re-meshing or grid reformulation. Complex nonlinear behaviors arise as emergent 
features, given simple behavior at the particle level; thus, there is no need to develop constitutive 
laws to represent these effects. BPMs provide a rational means of incorporating additional physical 
processes that occur at the grain scale, such as fluid flow [85], stress corrosion [53] and thermal 
loading [86]. In addition, secondary phenomena, such as acoustic emission, occur in the BPM 
without additional assumptions. 
In principle, the BPM is capable of representing all of the significant physical behavior 
mechanisms in rock. The BPM is complete in the sense of Linkov [87], who describes a 
hypothetical model that encompasses all aspects in a causal chain of events that occur in a geomechanical 
medium. The links in his chain of processes are elastic distortion, creep deformation, 
dynamic instability, bifurcation and localization and transient equilibrium. Linkov emphasizes that 
a model embracing all of these features would be able to produce synthetic seismograms during a 
simulation [88], for example, of underground construction. The BPM provides such a complete 
model and reproduces qualitatively all of the mechanical mechanisms and phenomena that occur in 
rock, although adjustments and modifications may be necessary to obtain quantitative matches in 
particular cases. 
Ongoing work [64] is addressing three-dimensional modeling of excavation damage. There are two 
thrusts to this work. The first addresses computational limitations inherent in performing such 
simulations. A scheme called AC/DC (Adaptive Continuum/DisContinuum) is being developed that 
replaces elastic regions (remote from cracks) by a continuum formulation, represented by a linear 
matrix, thus achieving economies in computation time. The switch between continuum and 
discontinuum is done automatically, such that a BPM is in place in time for cracking to occur. The 
second thrust focuses on rock physics and aims to develop a quantitative link between passive 
monitoring (of AE/MS events and velocity surveys) and rock mass damage by developing a BPM 
that can reproduce the evolution of the stress- and damage-induced modulus anisotropy in the rock. 
If it can be shown that such a BPM exhibits the same modulus anisotropy as the rock, then it is likely 
that the damage in such a BPM is similar to the damage in the rock. Also, the relations between 
BPM properties and fracture toughness are being explored to determine if one can develop a BPM 
material with a fracture toughness that is independent of particle size. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-119 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Acknowledgements 
Much of the development of the bonded-particle model has been funded by Atomic Energy of 
Canada Limited and Ontario Power Generation during the years 19952001 as part of its 
Thermal-Mechanical Stability Study, with a goal of producing a mechanistically based numerical 
model that can predict excavation-induced rock-mass damage and long-term strength of Lac du 
Bonnet granite. We also thank Fabian Dedecker (Itasca Consultants S.A.) for performing the triaxial 
and Brazilian tests on the PFC3D material as part of a project co-funded by the European 
Commission and performed as part of the fifth EURATOM framework program, Nuclear Fission 
(19982002). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-120 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
7.0 Appendices 
All vector and tensor quantities are expressed using indicial notation with respect to a fixed right-
handed rectangular Cartesian coordinate system: the position vector is denoted by xi, and the stress 
tensor is denoted by sij. The Einstein summation convention is employed; thus, the repetition of 
an index in a term denotes a summation with respect to that index over its range. For example, the 
traction vector ti, acting in the direction ni, is given by ti =sijn j =sn +si 2n2 +sn3 . Vertical
i11 i 3 
braces denote the magnitude of a vector or the absolute value of a scalar. The notation ..denotes
..
,i
differentiation with respect to the coordinate xi, and a dot over a variable indicates a derivative with 
respect to time (e.g., x&=..i xit ). The Kronecker delta, dij, and the permutation symbol, eijk , are 
employed. 
7.1 Stress-measurement procedure 
The average stress, sij, in a volume, V , of material is defined by 
1
s
ij=sij dV
.
VV 
(46) 
where sij is the stress acting throughout the volume. For a particulate material, stresses exist only 
in the particles; thus, the integral can be replaced by a sum over the Np particles contained within 
V as 
pp
s
ij = 1 .s() V () 
V Np 
ij 
(47) 
()
p
where sij is the average stress in particle ( p) . In the same way, the average stress in a particle 
() can be written using (46) as
p
p
p = () dV ( p ) 
.
s
ij 
() 
V 
1() 
V 
. 
() 
sij
p 
p 
(48) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-121 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The identity 
S
ij =dSkj =xi kSkj =(xSkj ),k 
-xSkj k 
ik , ii , 
(49) 
holds for any tensor Sij. Applying this identity to the stress in a particle, one can write 
p () () . ()
p pp
s
() = 
V 
1() 
V 
. 
() ..
(xskj ),k 
-xiskj ,k .dV .
ijp i 
p 
(50) 
The stress in each particle is assumed to be continuous and in equilibrium. In the absence of body 
forces, the equilibrium condition is s , =0 . The volume integral in (50) is rewritten as a surface 
ij i 
integral by applying the Gauss divergence theorem to the first term and noting that the second term 
vanishes in the absence of body forces such that 
p ( p ) p ()dS ()
pp
s
() = 
V 
1() 
S 
. 
() 
(xs)ndS () = 1() . x tj
ij ppikjk VpS () 
i 
p 
(51) 
p
S
p
where () is the particle surface, nk is the unit outward normal to the surface, and tj 
() is the 
traction vector. If the moment carried by each parallel bond is neglected, then each particle is loaded 
by point forces acting at discrete contact locations, and the above integral can be replaced by a sum 
over the N contacts as
c 
s
ij 
( p ) =- 1 () ()
cc 
() .xi Fj
p
V Nc
(52) 
cc c
where xi() is the location, and Fj 
() is the force acting at contact (c). Fj 
() includes both Fi and Fi
from Equations (4) and (13), and the negative sign is introduced to ensure that compressive/tensile 
forces produce negative/positive stresses. 
The contact location can be expressed as 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-122 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
c +
xi 
() = xi 
( p ) 
c ( p ) 
,
ni 
( c p )
xi 
() - xi 
(53) 
p (,
where xi() is the location of the particle centroid, and nicp ) is the unit-normal vector directed from 
the particle centroid to the contact location. By substituting (53) into (52) and noting that 
c
.Fj 
() = 0 
Nc 
(54) 
for a particle in equilibrium, one obtains 
p 
p
x
i 
( c) - xi 
() 
,
n
i 
(c p ) Fj 
( c) 
.
s
ij 
() =- 1 
p
V Nc
() . 
(55) 
An expression for the average stress in a volume, V , is obtained by substituting (55) into (47); 
however, definition of the volume in the resulting expression is problematic because of the particles 
that intersect the measurement region. The problem is overcome by noting that, in a statistically 
() 
(1 - n ) , such that
uniform assembly, the volume associated with each particle is Vp 
()
Vp
V =
1 - n 
(56) 
where n is the porosity of the region. The average stress in a measurement region is found by 
combining Equations (47), (55) and (56) to yield 
..
. 1 - n .
c ( p ) 
,
n
i 
( c p ) Fj 
( c )
s
ij=-..V () ... 
x
i 
() - xi
p 
Np Nc
.. 
N .
p
. 
(57) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-123 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
where the summations are taken over the N particles with centroids contained within the 
p 
measurement region and the N contacts of these particles, n is the porosity within the 
c 
()pc
measurement region, Vp is the volume of particle ( p), xi() and xi() are the locations of a particle 
(,
centroid and its contact, respectively, nicp ) is the unit-normal vector directed from a particle 
c
centroid to its contact location, and Fj 
() is the force acting at contact (c) , which includes both Fi
and Fi from Equations (4) and (13) but neglects the parallel-bond moment. 
7.2 Strain-rate measurement procedure 
The procedure employed to measure local strain rate within a particle assembly differs from that 
used to measure local stress. In determining local stress, the average stress within a volume of 
material is expressed directly in terms of the discrete contact forces, as the forces in the voids are 
zero. It is not correct, however, to use the velocities in a similar way to express the average strain 
rate, as the velocities in the voids are non-zero. Instead of assuming a form for the velocity field in 
the voids, a velocity-gradient tensor, based on a best-fit procedure that minimizes the error between 
the predicted and measured velocities of all particles with centroids contained within the 
measurement region, is computed. The strain-rate tensor is the symmetric portion of the velocity-
gradient tensor. 
Before describing the least-squares procedure, the relation between the strain and strain rate will be 
reviewed, and the corresponding terms defined. The relation between the displacements ui at two 
neighboring points is given by the displacement gradient tensor, aij. Let points P and P' be 
located instantaneously at xi and xi + dxi , respectively. The difference in displacement between 
these two points is 
dui = ui, jdxj =aijdx j . 
(58) 
The displacement-gradient tensor can be decomposed into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric tensor 
as 
1
a
ij = eij -.ij , where eij = 2 (ui, j + uj ,i ) , infinitesimal-strain tensor, and 
1
.
ij = 2 (uji - ui, j ) , rotation tensor. 
, 
(59) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-124 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In a similar fashion, the relation between velocities vi at two neighboring points is given by the 
& ivelocity-gradient tensor, aij. (The velocity field is related to the displacement field by ui = v dt , 
in which vi is the velocity, and dt is an infinitesimal interval of time.) Let points P and P' be 
located instantaneously at xi and xi + dxi , respectively. The difference in velocity between these 
two points is 
dvi = vi, jdxj =a dxj .
&
ij 
(60) 
The velocity-gradient tensor can be decomposed into a symmetric and an anti-symmetric tensor as 
a= e&ij -. , where e&ij = 2 (vi, j + vj ,i ) , strain-rate tensor, and 
&
ij &ij 
1 
& 1
.
ij = 2 (vji - vi , j ) , spin tensor. 
, 
(61) 
&
a
ij is computed using the following least-squares procedure. The velocity-gradient tensor computed 
()
p
over a measurement region represents the best fit to the Np -measured relative velocity values V% 
iof the particles with centroids contained within the measurement region. The mean velocity and 
position of the Np particles is given by 
() ()
p
i
.Vp . xi
Vi = Np and xi = Np
NN
pp 
(62) 
pp
where Vi() and xi() are the translational velocity and centroid location, respectively, of particle 
(). The measured relative velocity values are given by 
p 
pp
V% () = Vi 
() - Vi .
i 
(63) 
p
&
For a given aij, the predicted relative velocity values v%i() can be written, using (60), as 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-125 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
p &() =a
v%i 
() p ( p )
=aij x%j &ij (xj -xj ). 
(64) 
A measure of the error in these predicted values is given by 
2
p
v%i 
( p ) -V% 
i 
() 
pp
( p ) -Vi 
() p () )
%
z =. 
=.(v%i 
%)(v%i 
() -Vi 
N 
N
pp 
(65) 
where z is the sum of the squares of the deviations between predicted and measured velocities. The 
condition for minimum z is that 
.z 
=0.
a
. &ij 
(66) 
Substituting (64) into (65) and differentiating, the following set of nine equations is obtained: 
pp pp
p () p () p %
i %1 . 
.
() p %%() %%() .. () () . 
%%
() 
2
..xx1 .xx1 .xx1 . ..Vx 
&
13
i1 .
.Np Np Np ..a .Np .
() () p .xx2 
p .&i 2 .=..V% 
i 
() %() .
p 
1 
pp 
2 
p 
3() () 
.
..a
. . px2 
p ..
%%() %%() %%
.
..xx2 .xx2 
Np Np ..Np .
..a .
.Np 
() p %%() .xx3() . 
&i3 . ..%() %() .
pp
p () p () p pp
..xx3 .xx3 %% . Vx3 .
1
.Np 
%%() 
Np 
2 
Np 
3 
.. .Ni 
.
. 
p 
(67) 
These nine equations are solved by performing a single LU-decomposition upon the 33 coefficient

matrix and performing three back-substitutions for the three different right-hand sides obtained by 
setting i =1 , 2 and then 3. In this way, all nine components of the velocity-gradient tensor are 
obtained. (For the PFC2D model, four equations are used to obtain the four non-zero values of the 
velocity-gradient tensor.) 
7.3 Stress-installation procedure 
The stress-installation procedure installs a general state of uniform stress (i.e., stress that does not 
vary with position) within an arbitrarily shaped particle ensemble. The intended use is to initialize 
internal stresses  not to apply stress boundary conditions. The procedure is based upon the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-126 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
following relations. The displacement-gradient tensor, aij, can be decomposed into a symmetric 
and an anti-symmetric tensor [89] as 
a=
.
. 
xuij 
=ui, j =eij -.ij
ij 
1
= 2 (uij +u )-1 (uj,i -ui, j )
, j,i 2 
(68) 
where eij is the infinitesimal-strain tensor, and .ij is the rotation tensor. The velocity-gradient 
tensor, a
&ij, relates the velocities vi =u&i at two neighboring points. Let the points P and P'be 
located instantaneously at xi and xi +dxi , respectively. The difference in velocity between these 
two points is 
dvi = 
.
. 
xvij 
dx j =vi, jdxj =adxj .
&
ij 
(69) 
The velocity at an arbitrary point xj (expressed as vxj )) is found by integrating (69) with respect 
to position. Let xj be a fixed reference position, then 
i ( 
xjxj xj 
adxj = 
.(eij -.)dx 
.dvi =.&ij ijj
..t
xjxj xj 
xj 
() -= e dxj
i
vxj vi .&ij 
xj 
(70) 
where a condition of no rotation has been enforced by setting .ij=0 in (68). If the time derivative 
of the strain tensor is approximated by 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-127 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
e&ij .
.eij 
Nt
. 
(71) 
where .eij is a strain increment applied over N timesteps, each of size .t, then the velocity field 
can be written as 
vxj
() =+
..e 
. 
ij ..
(xj - xj )
i vi .
. Nt .
(72) 
by assuming that the strain field does not vary with position. (If the strain field did vary with 
position, one could express the variation explicitly before performing the integration and thus 
obtain a final expression for the velocity that would depend upon the parameters used to 
characterize the strain-field variation.) 
The stress-installation procedure utilizes an iterative approach whereby a set of boundary (and 
possibly also interior) particles is moved, then the boundary particles are fixed, the interior particles 
are freed and static-equilibrium conditions are allowed to develop. During each iteration, the applied 
particle displacements are computed from the strain increment that is related by linear elasticity to 
the stress increment needed to reach the target stress. The iterations continue until the target stress 
is obtained. The stress field is measured by averaging the stresses within a set of measurement 
regions that cover the ensemble. The stress increment is defined as the difference between the target 
stress and the current stress: 
t
.sij =sij -sij 
(73) 
and the corresponding strain increment is found by assuming isotropic, elastic behavior: 
.1+.
. . 
e
ij .sd .
.=. ..sij - 
E aa ij
. E .
(74) 
The applied particle velocities are given by (72), where xj and vi are chosen as the initial position 
and velocity of the ensemble centroid, respectively. Good performance is achieved by setting .= 0, 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-128 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
N =10 and E = 2E , where E is an estimate of the ensemble modulus. (Note that when E is
oogreater than the true ensemble modulus, the strain required to reach the target stress will be 
underestimated; thus, the stresses will converge to the target stress from below in a smooth fashion. 
If E is too small, the stresses at the end of each iteration will overshoot the target stress; the stresses 
will then oscillate about the target stress and not converge.) 
A stress field can also be installed within an ensemble containing holes by including the hole 
boundaries in the set of boundary particles. For such a system, the installed stress field will not 
sense the presence of the holes. Such a scheme has been used to model a tunnel excavation without 
having to include particles within the tunnel itself. After installing the desired stress field, the tunnel 
boundary particles are freed to allow stress redistribution to occur as the tunnel is now sensed by the 
system. 
During the procedure, displacements can be applied to designated boundary particles or to all 
particles. For cases in which the material remains primarily elastic, applying displacements to all 
particles will: (1) speed convergence (as it will not be necessary to allow the entire system to 
respond to boundary displacements in order to reach final equilibrium; instead, the entire system is 
made to correspond with the required strain field instantaneously during each iteration); and (2) 
produce a stress field that is nearly uniform throughout the ensemble. Such would not be the case 
if either the boundary particles alone or a set of confining walls were moved, because then nonuniform 
force chains would develop throughout the ensemble, producing a locally non-uniform 
stress field  for compressive conditions, a compressive cage that shields the internal region from 
the full compressive stresses often forms. Note, however, that for cases in which localized failure 
occurs, the strain field is locally non-uniform. Thus, for such cases, it may be more appropriate to 
move only the boundary particles. 
7.4 Ball-generation procedure 
A procedure is described to generate a collection of particles of a given uniform size distribution 
with radii in the range [R , Rmax ] that fill a given area, A , or volume, V , at a given porosity, n .
min 
The basic algorithm is presented first. It makes use of two relations that are derived at the end of 
this section. 
The number of particles, N , that satisfies the above constraints is given by 
. A(1 - n) ,PFC2D 
2
max
N = ..
. 
pR 
with R = Rmin + R .
V
.3(1 - n) ,PFC3D 
2 
.3
. 4pR 
(75) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-129 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
These particles are chosen from a uniform size distribution with radii in the range 1 [R , Rmax ] and
2 min 
placed randomly within the specified region such that they do not overlap one another or the region 
boundary. The particles are generated at half their target sizes to ensure that the no-overlap criterion 
can be satisfied. Next, the porosity of the generated assembly, n , is computed, and the radii of all 
o
particles are multiplied by the factor 
1 
.1-n .. .2, PFC2D 
m =. . ,where.=. . 
.1-no ..3, PFC3D 
(76) 
The radius multiplier must be computed (i.e., it will not equal 2) because (75) is an approximation. 
Equation (76) is derived as follows. The porosity, n , of a collection of particles contained within 
an area, A , or volume, V , is defined as 
.AAp
- 
.,PFC2D 
. A 
n =.
.VVp
- 
.,PFC3D 
. V 
(77) 
where A and V are the total area and volume, respectively, of all particles given by 
pp 
2
Ap =.pR 
3
4 pR
p
V =.3 
(78) 
where . is over all particle radii, R . By combining (77) and (78), one can write 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-130 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
.R2 = A(1 -n)
p
.R =3(1 -n)
3 V 
. 
4p 
(79) 
Denoting the old porosity and radii by n and R , the new porosity and radii by n and R , and using
oo
(79), one can write 
.
1-n .R 
= 
1-n .R.. 
oo 
(80) 
If the same radius multiplier, m , is used for all particles, then R =mR , which can be substituted 
o 
into (80) to obtain (76). Thus, given a collection of particles of porosity, n , within an area, A , or
o
volume, V , (76) is an exact expression of the radius multiplier for all particles necessary to obtain 
a porosity, n . 
Equation (75) arises from the approximation that .R. of a uniform distribution is equal to .R. 
of a collection of same-size particles of size R . This approximation can be expressed as 
.R.=.R.=NR. 
(81) 
which can be substituted into (79) to obtain (75). 
7.5 Isotropic stress installation procedure 
The isotropic stress, s, of a particle assembly is defined as the average of the direct stresses 
o
.2, PFC2D 
s =
skk ,where.=. .
o 
..3, PFC3D 
(82) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-131 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
s
In the scheme described here, the radii of all particles are scaled iteratively to modify the isotropic 
stress of the assembly. Combining (55) and (47), an expression is obtained for the average stress, 
ij, in a volume, V, of material: 
1 
(, ni 
,
cp)( cp ) Fj 
( c)
s
ij =- ..R%
VNp Nc
(83) 
(,
cp) 
xi 
( c) -xi 
( p)
%
where R = 
. The isotropic stress can then be evaluated by 
(, (
cp) Fnc )
s =
skk =- 1 ..R% 
o 
..VNp Nc 
(84) 
nc
where F() is the normal component of the force acting at contact (c) . If the radii of all particles 
is scaled by the same factor, a, such that the change in radius is 
p ( p)
.R() =aR
(85) 
and it is assumed that all particles remain fixed, then the change in the normal component of force 
acting at each contact will be 
A 
nc () f() =...
R() +R( B), particle-particle contact 
nc ()fc , c
.F() =aK 
. p
.R(), particle-wall contact 
(86) 
nc c
where K() and f() are the normal stiffness and particle radii, respectively, at contact (c). 
Substituting in the incremental form of (84) gives 
cp) Knc)(c)
.s =- 
a..R% (, ( f .
o
.VNp Nc
(87) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-132 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Rearranging this expression gives 
.V.s
o
a=- cp) Knc )(c).
(, ( f
..R% 
Np N 
(88) 
Ideally, this formula enables one to determine the change in radii that will produce a given change 
in isotropic stress. However, some particle rearrangement occurs when the radii are changed, so 
formula (88) is applied several times, until the measured isotropic stress is within some tolerance 
of the target isotropic stress. 
7.6 Floater-elimination procedure 
When a particle assembly is compacted, even under the condition of zero friction, typically 10% to 
15% of the particles are found to have no contacts. These particles are termed floaters, because 
they are detached from the material matrix and appear to be floating in space. In physical specimens 
of an unbonded, granular material, such as sand, floaters are believed to exist, and it is reasonable, 
therefore, to accept their presence in a numerical specimen. However, if a particle model is used to 
represent a solid material, such as rock, each floater is equivalent to a void in the material. The 
effect of such voids on material response can be minimized by adjusting microproperties to obtain 
correct ensemble properties  nevertheless, the voids introduce a pattern of inhomogeneity that has 
no physical counterpart. The effect of this inhomogeneity is unknown and may be small. To be 
safe, steps can be taken to eliminate its source; an algorithm to eliminate floaters is described here. 
It may be argued that a solid consisting of bonded circular or spherical particles, even with no 
floaters, contains many voids. However, in a dense assembly, these voids are inaccessible during 
deformation, because they are too small to allow particles to move into them. In this sense, they are 
invisible as far as potential mechanisms are concerned. 
The starting point for the algorithm is a stable, compacted assembly with no bonds in which all 
contacts carry similar levels of force (i.e., the force distribution is fairly uniform). Further, the 
average stress level is low compared to the final stress level to be carried by the material. The 
algorithm expands and moves floaters until every particle has the specified minimum number of 
contacts. The key to success (i.e., elimination of all floaters) is the recognition that it is not 
necessary to enforce local equilibrium. If the assembly were destined to become an unbonded 
granular medium, then equilibrium of the final state would be required (and floater elimination made 
more difficult). However, a bonded material always carries locked-in forces of magnitudes that are 
related to the levels of contact forces existing at the instant of bonding. These locked-in forces 
typically are made low compared to the forces carried by the material in its operating range. Extra 
forces of low magnitude (e.g., one-tenth of pre-bonding contact forces) introduced by the floater-
elimination algorithm add little to the existing noise of locked-in forces, even though the forces 
are not in local equilibrium. After bonding, equilibrium is again established, with final forces at 
levels comparable to their pre-bonding levels. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-133 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
In summary, the algorithm is described as follows. All particles except floaters are fixed and given 
zero velocities. Floaters are then expanded by a large amount (30%), sufficient to ensure contact 
with all of their immediate neighbors. After being cycled to local equilibrium, the floaters are 
contracted by an amount (see (94)) that is calculated to reduce their mean contact normal force 
below a target force (one-tenth of the mean contact normal force for the assembly). If the mean 
contact normal force for a particle is below the target force, then it is declared inactive and is not 
contracted further at this stage. The contraction step is applied repeatedly until all floaters become 
inactive. After executing this iteration, the number of active floaters is reduced considerably. The 
complete procedure is repeated several times until all floaters have been removed. The algorithm 
works well, because the adjustments to floater radii (and positions, through the law of motion) are 
done for small groups within a cage of fixed particles. As mentioned, it is only necessary to 
establish equilibrium within this trapped group. Then, as floaters themselves become part of the 
cage, the scheme becomes increasingly more efficient as the number of particles in each floater 
group decreases. 
The following parameters control the algorithm: Nf (minimum number of contacts to be a non-
floater, set to 3 in our granite models); M (initial radius multiplier, set to 1.3); f (target fraction 
rm 
of F , set to 0.1); F (relaxation factor, set to 1.5); and H (hysteresis factor, set to 0.9). The
arfollowing variables are used in the algorithm: aF (mean contact normal force for entire assembly); 
F (mean contact normal force for single particlek (particle normal ); R (particle radius); and 
pn 
stiffness). The algorithm is defined by the following pseudo-code. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-134 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Perform this outer loop up to 10 times. 
Get current mean contact normal force for the assembly,F.
a 
Scan all particles to identify floaters: a floater is 
a particle with less than Nf contacts. 
If no floaters, then EXIT outer loop. 
Fix all non-floaters. 
For all floaters:
- expand byMr, 
- set friction to zero.
Cycle 200 steps to get floater groups to equilibrium.
Perform this inner loop up to 100 times. 
Define "active" floaters. An active floater is a particle 
with more than one contact and mean contact normal 
force greater than fF.
ma
If no active floaters, then EXIT inner loop. 
Shrink each active floater according to the formula: 
R:=- r(
R F F - HFm) k.
pa 
n 
Cycle 100 steps to obtain approximate equilibrium. 
End of inner loop. 
End of outer loop. 
In order to speed up the algorithm, contact calculations are inhibited whenever the two particles 
comprising any contact are fixed. The inhibit flags are removed upon exit from the algorithm. For 
a large assembly, it is found that one or two floaters may be positioned almost exactly between two 
non-floaters such that the two contact directions are nearly coaxial. The algorithm cannot establish 
more than two contacts in this case. To allow convergence, the parameter N is reduced by one if
f 
the same number of overall floaters is observed between iterations of the outer loop. 
The objective of the shrinkage procedure is to reduce the mean contact normal force on a particle 
below some target force, Ftarget = Ff , by setting
am 
RF F - HFm) k .
R.- r( 
pa 
n 
(89) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-135 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
This expression is now derived. The mean normal force on a single particle is given by 
()
1 
nc 
N
Fp =.F
c Nc
(90) 
nc
where F() is the normal component of the force acting at contact (c) . The normal force at each 
contact is changed by the following amount, if the radius is changed by .R, assuming that particles 
remain fixed during the radius change: 
n .
.F = 1 k R 
2 n 
(91) 
where k is the particle normal stiffness. Thus, the new mean normal force, Fp' , is
n 
nc n
F'= 1 .( F() + . F ) . 
N
p
c Nc
(92) 
Then, for the new mean normal force to be below the target normal force, set Fp'= HFtarget , where 
His a factor less than unity. Thus, 
(
( nn. 1 nc )
HF
target = 1 .( Fnc) + . F )= kR+. F 
2 Nc Nc 
N
c Nc 
(93) 
and 
.= - 2 ( F- HFm) k .
R 
pa 
n 
(94) 
This expression is identical to (89), except that F replaces the factor of two. It is found that setting 
r
F equal to 1.5 gives smoother convergence, because the radii of several neighboring particles are 
r
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-136 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
likely to be adjusted simultaneously. A value of F less than 2 provides some damping in the 
r
algorithm, preventing excessive oscillation and possibly instability. A value of H =0.9 also 
prevents noise, caused when particles satisfy the force criterion by only a small margin (thus 
possibly requiring multiple adjustments). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-137 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
7.7 Biaxial, triaxial and Brazilian testing procedures 
The macroscopic properties of the model material are obtained by performing biaxial, triaxial and 
Brazilian tests, in which each specimen is confined and loaded by pairs of opposing frictionless 
walls. These are the walls of the material vessel used during material genesis. For the biaxial and 
triaxial tests, the top and bottom walls act as loading platens, and the velocities of the lateral walls 
are controlled by a servo-mechanism that maintains a specified confining stress. Strictly speaking, 
the biaxial and triaxial tests simulate a polyaxial loading test  not a triaxial test, in which a 
specimen is encased in a membrane and confined by fluid pressure. Such a triaxial test could be 
simulated by replacing the side walls with a sheet of particles joined by parallel bonds to mimic the 
elastic membrane. The current biaxial and triaxial tests inhibit specimen bulging, whereby the 
specimen sides deform into a barrel shape, because the side walls remain straight. Such bulging 
should be minimal for granite, but may be important for softer rocks or cohesive soils. 
The lateral wall normal stiffnesses are set equal to a fraction (0.0010.02 in PFC2D and 0.0010.10 
in PFC3D for confinements of 0.170 MPa) of the average particle normal stiffness to simulate a 
soft confinement. For the Brazilian test, the specimen is trimmed into a circular (in PFC2D) and 
cylindrical (in PFC3D) shape that is in contact with the lateral walls, and the lateral walls act as 
loading platens. For all tests, the loading-platen normal stiffnesses are set equal to the average 
particle normal stiffness. The tests are run under displacement control such that the platens move 
toward one another at a constant rate. Hazzard et al. [49] ran similar tests with a servo-control to 
move the platens, so as to maintain a constant cracking rate, and observed a snap-back in the stress-
strain response. Platen velocities of 0.05 m/s are chosen to ensure quasi-static test conditions, which 
are confirmed by demonstrating that reducing the platen velocities does not alter the measured 
macroproperties. 
The advantage of using the material-vessel walls to perform these tests is that the boundary particle 
alignment produces a rather uniform force transmission from the walls to the specimen  i.e., there 
are no particles protruding from the specimen and producing localized loading. However, the 
boundary particles tend to be aligned with these walls (see Figure 5(d)) and, thus, are not fully 
representative of the internal microstructure. The model material mimics a sandstone created by first 
filling a vessel with sand, compacting the sand, and then cementing the sand at grain-grain contacts. 
A rock specimen that has been cored and polished is also not fully representative of the internal 
microstructure, but for a different reason  namely, there is grain-scale damage at the specimen 
boundaries. Both of these specimen-creation processes will affect measured properties, but if the 
grains in the real rock and the particles in the modeled rock are small relative to the specimen 
dimensions, then these effects should be minimal. A more representative measure of the internal 
microstructural properties of the model material can be obtained by removing all particles outside 
of a nominal core region, identifying a set of boundary particles and specifying their motion while 
monitoring stress and strain within the core using a stress-installation procedure. Such measures are 
used to measure the evolving properties within selected regions of the model surrounding an 
excavation. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-138 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Stresses and strains are computed using the specimen dimensions at the start of the test. Stresses are 
computed by dividing the average of the total force acting on opposing walls by the area of the 
corresponding specimen cross section. Stresses in the PFC2D models are computed assuming that 
each particle is a disk of unit thickness. Strains are computed by monitoring the motion of pairs of 
gauge particles that lie along the global coordinate axes at the centers of the specimen faces. (For 
both PFC2D and PFC3D models, the specimen axis is parallel with the global y-axis.) Computing 
strains via gauge particles removes the error introduced by particle-wall overlap when using the 
distances between opposing walls to compute strain. 
The elastic constants are computed using the stress and strain increments occurring between the start 
of the test and the point at which one-half of the peak stress has been obtained. For the PFC3D 
material, the Youngs modulus is computed by 
.s
y
E = (PFC3D material)
.e
y 
(95) 
and the Poissons ratio is computed by 
e
.e 1 (.+ 
ez ) 1 
.
. 
1 - 
.e . 
xx
.=- =- 2 = v . (PFC3D material)
.e .e 2 . .ey .
yy 
(96) 
where the average of the two lateral strains is used to approximate the lateral strain, and volumetric 
estrain .= 
e+ 
e+ e . These relations are valid for constant lateral stress during the test.
v xyz 
For the PFC2D material, first the Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus corresponding with a state 
of plane stress are computed as 
x
.'=- 
.e 
(PFC2D material, plane stress)
.e
y 
.s
y
E'= . 
.e
y 
(97) 
Equation (97) is valid for the case of plane stress (s =0) and constant lateral stress (.s= 0)
zx
during the stress and strain increments. Then, the elastic constants corresponding with a state of 
plane strain are obtained via 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-139 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
.' 
.= (PFC2D material, plane strain) 
1+.' 
2
EE'(1-. ) .
= 
(98) 
Equation (98) is the general relation between plane-stress and plane-strain conditions [90]. 
When calibrating the PFC2D model, E and . (not E' and .' ) are compared with the elastic 
constants measured during triaxial tests on real rock specimens. Recall that the PFC2D model 
behaves as an assembly of unit-thickness disks. The conditions are neither plane strain nor plane 
stress, because the corresponding stress-strain constitutive relations are not employed  i.e., the out-
of-plane forces and displacements do not enter into the force-displacement law. Therefore, the 
elastic constants of the PFC2D model are measured by interpreting the force-displacement response. 
For the same PFC2D model, one force-displacement response is measured, but two sets of elastic 
constants, corresponding with plane-stress and plane-strain conditions, are computed. If a region 
of a 2D isotropic elastic continuum were extracted and replaced with this model material, and the 
corresponding set of elastic constants were assigned to the remaining continuum, then the 
deformation state of the model material would match that of the continuum  i.e., there would be 
full displacement compatibility along the extraction boundary. This procedure is used in the 
construction of boundary-value models of excavation damage in which the model material is inserted 
into a pre-defined region within a larger continuum model. For a tunnel simulation, the continuum 
model is run in plane-strain mode and assigned the plane-strain elastic constants E and .. 
The initiation of cracking in the PFC models is controlled by the ratio of standard deviation to 
mean material strength. Increasing this ratio lowers the stress at which the first crack initiates. 
However, the axial stress at the time of the initiation of the first crack in a synthetic specimen 
will underestimate the crack-initiation stress, sci, measured in typical laboratory experiments. 
Therefore, sci measured during a biaxial or triaxial test of a PFC model is defined as the axial 
stress at which there exists a specified fraction (chosen as 1% in the present simulations) of the 
total number of cracks existing at peak stress. The choice of 1% is rather arbitrary, and sciserves as a qualitative calibration property providing a means to match the onset of significant 
internal cracking before ultimate failure. (For Lac du Bonnet granite, s= 0.45qu.)
ci 
References 
[1] Okui Y and Horii H. A micromechanics-based continuum theory for microcracking localization 
of rocks under compression. In Mhlhaus HB, Ed. Continuum Models for Materials with 
Microstructure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995: 2768. 
[2] Bieniawski ZT. Mechanism of brittle fracture of rock, part II  experimental studies. Int. J. 
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1967;4:407423. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-140 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[3] Hallbauer DK, Wagner H and Cook NGW. Some observations concerning the microscopic and 
mechanical behaviour of quartzite specimens in stiff, triaxial compression tests. Int. J. Rock 
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1973;10:713726. 
[4] Kranz RL. Crack growth and development during creep of Barre granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1979;16:2335. 
[5] Kranz RL. Crack-crack and crack-pore interactions in stressed granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1979;16:3747. 
[6] Lockner D. The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1993;30(7):883899. 
[7] Aubertin M, Julien MR and Li L. The semi-brittle behavior of low porosity rocks. In Proc. 3rd 
North American Rock Mech Symp., Vol. 2. Mexico: International Society for Rock 
Mechanics, 1998: 6590. 
[8] Blair SC and Cook NGW. Analysis of compressive fracture in rock using statistical techniques: 
part I. a non-linear rule-based model. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 
1998;35(7):837848. 
[9] Blair SC and Cook NGW. Analysis of compressive fracture in rock using statistical techniques: 
part II. effect of microscale heterogeneity on macroscopic deformation. Int. J. Rock Mech. 
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1998;35(7):849861. 
[10] Kemeny JM. A model for non-linear rock deformation under compression due to sub-critical 
crack growth. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1991;28(6):459467. 
[11] Kemeny JM and Cook NGW. Micromechanics of deformation in rocks. In Shah SP, Ed. 
Toughening Mechanisms in Quasi-Brittle Materials. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic 
Publishers, 1991: 155188. 
[12] Lockner DA and Madden TR. A multiple-crack model of brittle fracture, 1, non-time-
dependent simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 1991;96:1962319642. 
[13] Lockner DA and Madden TR. A multiple-crack model of brittle fracture, 2, time-dependent 
simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 1991;96:1964319654. 
[14] Lockner D. A generalized law for brittle deformation of westerly granite. J. Geophys. Res., 
1998;103(B3):51075123. 
[15] Okui Y and Horii H. Stress and time-dependent failure of brittle rocks under compression: 
a theoretical prediction. J. Geophys. Res., 1997;102(B7):1486914881. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-141 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[16] Cundall PA, Potyondy DO and Lee CA. Micromechanics-based models for fracture and 
breakout around the mine-by tunnel. In Martino JB and Martin CD, Eds. Proc. Excavation 
Disturbed Zone Workshop, Designing the Excavation Disturbed Zone for a Nuclear 
Repository in Hard Rock. Toronto: Canadian Nuclear Society, 1996: 113122. 
[17] Cundall PA, Drescher A and Strack ODL. Numerical experiments on granular assemblies, 
measurements and observations. In Vermeer PA and Luger HJ, Eds. Deformation and 
Failure of Granular Materials. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1982: 355-370. 
[18] Krajcinovic D. Damage mechanics. Mech. Mater., 1989;8:117197. 
[19] Herrmann HJ and Roux S. Statistical Models for the Fracture of Disordered Media. New 
York: North-Holland, 1990. 
[20] Charmet JC, Roux S and Guyon E. Disorder and Fracture. New York: Plenum Press, 1989. 
[21] Schlangen E and Garboczi EJ. Fracture simulations of concrete using lattice models: 
computational aspects. Engr. Frac. Mech., 1997;57:319332. 
[22] DAddetta GA, Kun F and Ramm E. On the application of a discrete model to the fracture 
process of cohesive granular materials. Granular Matter, 2002;4:7790. 
[23] Donz F and Magnier SA. Formulation of a 3-D numerical model of brittle behaviour. 
Geophys. J. Int., 1995;122:790802. 
[24] Handley MF. An investigation into the constitutive behaviour of brittle granular media by 
numerical experiment. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, USA, 1995. 
[25] Jirasek M and Bazant ZP. Discrete element modeling of fracture and size effect in 
quasibrittle materials: analysis of sea ice. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Discrete Element 
Methods. Cambridge, Massachusetts: IESL Publications, 1993: 357368. 
[26] Bazant ZP, Tabbara MR, Kazemi MT and Cabot GP. Random particle model for fracture of 
aggregate or fiber composites. J. Eng. Mech., 1990;116(8):16861705. 
[27] Trent BC, Margolin LG, Cundall PA and Gaffney ES. The micro-mechanics of cemented 
granular material. In Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials: Theory and Applications. 
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987:795802. 
[28] Lorig LJ and Cundall PA. Modeling of reinforced concrete using the distinct element 
method. In Proc. SEM/RILEM Int. Conf. on Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Bethel, 
Connecticut: SEM, 1987:459471. 
[29] Plesha ME and Aifantis EC. On the modeling of rocks with microstructure. In Rock 
Mechanics  Theory-Experiment-Practice. New York: Assoc. of Engr. Geologists, 
1983:2735. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-142 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[30] Zubelewicz, A and Mroz Z. Numerical simulation of rockburst processes treated as problems 
of dynamic instability. Rock Mech., 1983;16:253274. 
[31] Napier JAL and Malan DF. A viscoplastic discontinuum model of time-dependent fracture 
and seismicity effects in brittle rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 
1997;34(7):10751089. 
[32] Steen B, Vervoort A and Napier JAL. Numerical modelling of fracture initiation and 
propagation in biaxial tests on rock samples. Int. J. Frac., 2001;108:165191. 
[33] Fang Z and Harrison JP. Development of a local degradation approach to the modelling of 
brittle fracture in heterogeneous rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 
2002;39:443457. 
[34] Tang CA. Numerical simulation of progressive rock failure and associated seismicity. Int. 
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1997;34(2):249261. 
[35] Jing L. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues in numerical modelling for 
rock mechanics and rock engineering. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 
2003;40:283353. 
[36] Ingraffea AR and Wawrzynek PA. Crack propagation. In Encyclopedia of Materials: 
Science and Technology. New York: Elsevier Science, 2001. 
[37] Potyondy DO, Cundall PA and Lee C. Modeling rock using bonded assemblies of circular 
particles. In Aubertin M, Hassani F and Mitri H, Eds. Rock Mechanics Tools and 
Techniques. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1996:19371944. 
[38] Robertson D and Bolton MD. DEM simulations of crushable grains and soils. In Kishino Y, 
Ed. Powders and Grains 2001.Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:623626. 
[39] Potyondy D and Autio J. Bonded-particle simulations of the in-situ failure test at 
Olkiluoto. In Elsworth D, Tinucci JP and Heasley KA, Eds. Rock Mechanics in the 
National Interest, Vol. 2. Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:1553-1560. 
[40] Autio J, Wanne T and Potyondy D. Particle mechanical simulation of the effect of schistosity 
on strength and deformation of hard rock. In Hammah R, Bawden W, Curran J and 
Telesnicki M, Eds. NARMS-TAC 2002. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002:275 
282. 
[41] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D/3D (Particle Flow Code in 2/3 Dimensions), 
Version 2.0. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 1999. 
[42] Cundall PA. A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in blocky 
rock systems. In Proc. Symp. Int. Soc. Rock Mech. (Nancy, France, 1971), Vol. 1, 
1971:paper No. II-8. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-143 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[43] Cundall PA and Strack ODL. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. 
Gotechnique, 1979;29(1):4765. 
[44] Cundall PA. Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model  part I. a scheme 
to detect and represent contacts in a system composed of many polyhedral blocks. Int. J. 
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1988;25(3):107116. 
[45] Hart R, Cundall PA and Lemos J. Formulation of a three-dimensional distinct element model 
 part II. mechanical calculations for motion and interaction of a system composed of many 
polyhedral blocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 1988;25(3):117125. 
[46] Cundall PA and Hart R. Numerical modeling of discontinua. J. Engr. Comp., 1992;9:101 
113. 
[47] Cook BK and Jensen RP. Discrete element methods: numerical modeling of discontinua 
(Proc. 3rd int. conf. on discrete element methods), Geotechnical special publication No. 117. 
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002. 
[48] Cundall PA. Distinct element models of rock and soil structure. In Brown ET, Ed. 
Analytical and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics. London: Allen and 
Unwin, 1987;129163. 
[49] Hazzard JF, Young RP and Maxwell SC. Micromechanical modeling of cracking and failure 
in brittle rocks. J. Geophys. Res., 2000;105(B7):1668316697. 
[50] Feustel AJ. Seismic attenuation in underground mines: measurement techniques and 
applications to site characterization. Ph.D. thesis, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, 
Canada, 1995. 
[51] Hazzard JF and Young RP. Simulating acoustic emissions in bonded-particle models of rock. 
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2000;37:867872. 
[52] Holt, RM. Particle vs. laboratory modelling of in situ compaction. Phys. Chem. Earth (A), 
2001;26(12):8993. 
[53] Potyondy D and Cundall P. The PFC model for rock: predicting rock-mass damage at the 
underground research laboratory. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management 
Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-10061-R00, May 2001. 
[54] Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K and Belitz K. Verification, validation, and confirmation of 
numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 1994;263:641646. 
[55] Martin CD. The strength of massive lac du bonnet granite around underground openings. 
Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, June 1993. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-144 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[56] Hoek E and Brown ET. Underground Excavations in Rock. London: Institute of Mining and 
Metallurgy, 1980. 
[57] Read RS. Interpreting excavation-induced displacements around a tunnel in highly stressed 
granite. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 1994. 
[58] Brady BHG and Brown ET. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. London: Allen and 
Unwin, 1985. 
[59] Mosher S, Berger RL and Anderson DE. Fracture characteristics of two granites. Rock 
Mech., 1975;7:167176. 
[60] Boutt DF and McPherson BJOL. Simulation of sedimentary rock deformation: lab-scale 
model calibration and parameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 
2002;29(4):10.1029/2001 GL013987. 
[61] Everitt RA and Lajtai EZ. The influence of rock fabric on excavation damage in Lac du 
Bonnet granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., this issue. 
[62] Paterson MS. Experimental Rock Deformation  The Brittle Field. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 
1978:35. 
[63] Read RS and Chandler NA. An approach to excavation design for a nuclear fuel waste 
repository. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 
06819-REP-01200-10086-R00, 2002. 
[64] SAFETI. Seismic validation of 3D thermo-mechanical models for the prediction of rock 
damage around radioactive waste packages in geological repositories. Project for 
European Atomic Energy Community, 20012004. 
[65] Read RS and Martin D. Technical summary of AECLs mine-by experiment, phase 1: 
excavation response. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Report AECL-11311, 1996. 
[66] Martin CD and Read RS. AECLs mine-by experiment: a test tunnel in brittle rock. In 
Aubertin M, Hassani F and Mitri H, Eds. Rock Mechanics Tools and Techniques. 
Rotterdam: Balkema, 1996:1324. 
[67] Chandler N, Dixon D, Gray M, Hara K, Cournut A and Tillerson J. The tunnel sealing 
experiment: an in-situ demonstration of technologies for vault sealing. In Proc. 19th 
Annual Conf. Canadian Nuclear Society. Toronto: Canadian Nuclear Society, 1998. 
[68] Read RS, Martino JB, Dzik EJ, Oliver S, Falls S and Young RP. Analysis and interpretation 
of AECLs heated failure tests. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management 
Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0070-R00, 1997. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-145 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[69] Read RS, Martino JB, Dzik EJ and Chandler NA. Excavation stability study  analysis and 
interpretation of results. Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management 
Division Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0028-R00, 1998. 
[70] Martino JB. A review of excavation damage studies at the underground research laboratory 
and the results of the excavation damage zone study in the tunnel sealing experiment. 
Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste Management Division Report No. 06819-REP-
01200-10018-R00, 2000. 
[71] Anderson OL and Grew PC. Stress corrosion theory of crack propagation with applications 
to geophysics. Rev. Geophys. and Space Phys., 1977;15(1):77104. 
[72] Atkinson BK and Meredith RG. The theory of subcritical crack growth with applications to 
minerals and rocks. In Atkinson BK, Ed. Fracture Mechanics of Rock. London: 
Academic Press, 1987:111166. 
[73] Potyondy DO and Cundall PA. Modeling notch-formation mechanisms in the URL mine-by 
test tunnel using bonded assemblies of circular particles. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & 
Geomech. Abstr., 1998;35(45), Paper No. 067. 
[74] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), Version 4.0. 
Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 2000. 
[75] Fakhimi A, Carvalho F, Ishida T and Labuz JF. Simulation of failure around a circular 
opening in rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2002;39:507515. 
[76] Lau JSO and Chandler NA. Innovative laboratory testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & 
Geomech. Abstr., this issue. 
[77] Johnson S. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New 
York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. 
[78] Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. Boca Raton, Florida: 
CRC Press, 1991. 
[79] Bazant ZP and Planas J. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle 
Materials. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1998. 
[80] Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 
1920;221:163198. 
[81] Griffith AA. The theory of rupture. In Biezeno CB and Burgers JM, Eds. Proc. 1st Int. 
Congr. Appl. Mech.. Delft: Tech. Boekhandel en Drukkerij J. Walter Jr., 1924:5463. 
[82] Eringen AC. Continuum mechanics at the atomic scale. Crystal Lattice Defects, 1977;7:109 
130. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-146 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
[83] Huang H. Discrete element modeling of tool-rock interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, University of 
Minnesota, USA, 1999. 
[84] Zhang ZX. An empirical relation between mode I fracture toughness and the tensile strength 
of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 2002;39:401406. 
[85] Li L and Holt RM. Simulation of flow in sandstone with fluid coupled particle model. In 
Elsworth D, Tinucci JP and Heasley KA, Eds. Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, Vol. 
1. Lisse, The Netherlands: Balkema, 2001:165-172. 
[86] Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D (Particle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions), Version 3.0. 
In Optional Features Volume, Thermal Option. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 2002. 
[87] Linkov AM. Keynote lecture: new geomechanical approaches to develop quantitative 
seismicity. In Gibowicz SJ and Lasocki S, Eds. Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines. 
Rotterdam: Balkema, 1997:151166. 
[88] Hazzard JF and Young RP. Dynamic modelling of induced seismicity. Int. J. Rock Mech. 
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., this issue. 
[89] Fung YC. A First Course in Continuum Mechanics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977. 
[90] Ugural AC and Fenster SK. Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity, second SI ed. New 
York: Elsevier Science, 1987:71. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-147 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
APPENDIX D 
DOCUMENTATION OF USE OF QUALIFIED SOFTWARE 
The material in this Appendix, which includes a total of 18 CDs, provides sufficient information to 
allow a technically qualified person to understand the report and verify the results without recourse 
to the originator. 
All results described in this report, with the exception of those described in the manuscript in 
Appendix C, were produced using PFC2D 2.00-081 and PFC3D 2.00-081, which are the qualified 
versions of the software for this project. The runs were performed on personal computers running 
the Windows 2000 operating system. 
The results were produced by testing PFC specimens in a polyaxial cell and in a direct-tension 
device, and measuring material properties as described in Section A.2. The PFC specimens were 
created using the material-genesis procedures described in the 2003 paper of Potyondy and Cundall 
(Appendix C). FISH is an embedded language within PFC, and the material-genesis and specimen-
testing procedures are implemented as an environment of FISH functions known as the Augmented 
Fishtank (Itasca, 1999). All runs used the Augmented Fishtank, FisT_04lb, and an additional set of 
FISH functions contained in FisT_04l-YM. Upon completion of each test, the material properties 
(elastic constants and peak strength) were extracted automatically from histories of relevant stress 
and strain quantities and written to an ASCII log file by restoring the SAV file and calling the FISH 
functions et2_gd_biax and et3_gd3_triax, for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively. These 
properties were manually extracted from this log file (by searching for the string results), and 
entered into the relevant EXCEL spreadsheet; derived quantities, such as cohesion and friction angle, 
were computed within the spreadsheet using the equations in Section A.2. Some of the PFC 
specimens contained discrete voids, and the procedures by which these voids were produced are 
described in Section A.3. The void porosity for each specimen is returned by the FISH functions 
lt_vporos in lt.FIS and lt3_vporos in lt3.FIS for PFC2D and PFC3D, respectively. 
The material on the CDs is divided into a single master CD, and a set of 17 additional CDs that 
include the SAV files. The SAV files are binary files containing all program-state information 
(including any defined FISH functions and variables, histories, tables and plot views), and these files 
are not included on the master CD. 
D.1 Contents of the Master CD 
The material on the master CD, labelled 1, is stored in the following directories. 
 FISH-env. The PFC executables and Augmented Fishtank functions are contained in the 
directory FISH-env. 
 PFC_runs. The input files that produce each set of results are arranged in separate 
directories, each of which contains a file doall.DVR, which produces the associated set 
of SAV files and ASCII log files. The EXCEL spreadsheets containing the PFC material 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-148 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
properties, and the laboratory data with which these properties are compared, are also in 
this directory. 
The PFC_runs directory contains the following subdirectories. 
 Sec_A.5.1 contains the EXCEL spreadsheet and associated input files for Section A.5.1 
of the report. 
 Sec_A.5.2 contains the EXCEL spreadsheet and associated input files for Section A.5.2 
of the report. 
 ShapeStudy contains the EXCEL spreadsheets and associated input files for the body of 
the report. The input files are contained in the following subdirectories. 
 circles(90 mm) 
 stars(197 mm) 
 triangles(139 mm) 
 stencils contains 18 directories, each with the input files for the corresponding panel 
map that served as a stencil to produce the stenciled-lithophysae specimens. 
Additional information describing the input files in the ShapeStudy directory follows. 
D.2.1 Circles, triangles and stars 
The file doall.DVR is the main driver file, which generates all of the PFC specimens and 
conducts the unconfined compressive strength tests. The contents of doall.DVR is described as 
follows. 
sC1_mK-spc.DVR ; create initial specimen (no lithophysae) 
This file generates a 1 by 1 meter PFC specimen with bf5-material properties assigned 
with the file mK-param.DAT. The specimen is generated with the specimen-genesis 
procedure assigned by the file et2.FIS. 
sC1_mKb1-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-1 
sC1_mKb2-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-2 
These files invoke the lithophysal generation procedure assigned by lt.FIS, 
lt_ori_tri_139.FIS and lt_ori_str_197.FIS for the circles, triangles and stars, 
respectively. The lithophysal parameters are assigned by the file mXb-param.DAT. 
sC1_mKb1_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-1 
sC1_mKb2_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-2 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-149 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
These files conduct the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix -bw0.sav 
are generated at the beginning of the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix 
-bw1.sav are generated during the unconfined compression test, when the axial stress has 
dropped to 80% of the peak stress. The test control parameters are assigned by the file 
tD00-param.DAT. 
extendstrain.DVR ; extend strain 
This file continues the unconfined compression test to an axial strain of 5e-3. Save files 
with the suffix -bw3.sav are generated. 
get_porosity.DAT 
This file generates the log file get_porosity.log, which contains the actual void porosity 
of each specimen. 
p2d-results.DVR 
This file generates the log file results.log, which contains the Youngs Modulus and peak 
strength of each specimen. The value of Youngs Modulus used in the results is E (plane 
strain, fully wall-based), while the peak strength is peak strength (wall-based). 
D.2.2 Stencils 
The file doall.DVR is the main driver file, which generates all of the PFC specimens and conducts 
the unconfined compressive strength tests. The contents of doall.DVR is described as follows. 
sC1_mK-spc.DVR ; create initial specimen (no lithophysae) 
This file generates a 1 by 1 meter PFC specimen with bf5-material properties assigned with 
the file mK-param.DAT. The specimen is generated with the specimen-genesis procedure 
assigned by the file et2.FIS. 
sC1_mKb1-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-1 
sC1_mKb2-spc.DVR ; create lithophysal specimens, set-2 
These files invoke the lithophysal generation procedure. The panel maps of the walls of the 
ECRB cross drift were used as stencils to generate the true lithophysal shapes in PFC. The 
lithophysal panel map drawings were opened in Corel Draw (version 11). The layer 
containing the lithophysal cavities was isolated, then divided into three square pieces. Each 
piece was then converted into a 100 pixel by 100 pixel black and white bitmap (literally, a 
1 bit bitmap containing black and white only). 
The bitmaps were then opened in Corel PhotoPaint (version 11). A macro was created using 
the program's built-in Visual Basic for Applications facility. The macro was used to map 
the entire array of 10000 pixels contained in each bitmap, noting whether the pixel at each 
coordinate pairing contained either white or black. The results were stored in a Microsoft 
Excel spreadsheet as x and y coordinates of the pixels that represent lithophysal void space. 
This data was then directly mapped into a FISH file to delete PFC particles with centroids 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-150 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
lying within each x and y range of the pixel data. These FISH files are located in the subdirectory 
FisT_04l-YM of the folder FISH-env. 
sC1_mKb1_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-1 
sC1_mKb2_tDy-bt.DVR ; polycell tests, set-2 
These files conduct the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix -bw0.sav 
are generated at the beginning of the unconfined compression test. Save files with the suffix 
-bw1.sav are generated during the unconfined compression test, when the axial stress has 
dropped to 80% of the peak stress. The test control parameters are assigned by the file 
tD00-param.DAT. 
extendstrain.DVR ; extend strain 
This file continues the unconfined compression test to an axial strain of 5e-3. Save files with 
the suffix -bw3.sav are generated. 
get_porosity.DAT 
This file generates the log file get_porosity.log, which contains the actual void porosity of 
each specimen. 
p2d-results.DVR 
This file generates the log file results.log, which contains the Youngs Modulus and peak 
strength of each specimen. The value of Youngs Modulus used in the results is E (plane 
strain, fully wall-based), while the peak strength is peak strength (wall-based). 
D.2 Contents of the 17 Additional CDs 
The 17 additional CDs, labelled 2 to 18, contain information that corresponds with the directories 
on the master CD as follows. 
2. Sec_A.5.1 
3. Sec_A.5.2\P2D-LithTuff_bf2\sC1_mHbX-ALL 
4. Sec_A.5.2\P3D-LithTuff_bf2\p3d_21par_bf2-CD1 
5. Sec_A.5.2\P3D-LithTuff_bf2\p3d_21par_bf2-CD2 
6. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-A 
7. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-B 
8. ShapeStudy\circles(90 mm)-C 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-151 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
9. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-A 
10. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-B 
11. ShapeStudy\stars(197 mm)-C 
12. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-A 
13. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-B 
14. ShapeStudy\triangles(139 mm)-C 
15. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1493_96, 1551_54, 1610_13, 1624_27, 1641_44} 
16. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1641_44R, 1656_59L, 1726_29L, 1768_71L, 1768_71R, 
1805_08L} 
17. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{1886_89L, 1919_22L, 2018_21L, 2069_72L, 2124_27, 
2232_35} 
18. stencils\sC1_mKbX_tD-DPS-{2294_97} 
D.3 References 
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. PFC2D/3D (Particle Flow Code in 2/3 Dimensions), Version 2.0. 
In Fish in PFC2/3D Volume, Augmented Fishtank. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ICG, 1999. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A V-152 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VI
LITHOPHYSAL ROCK MODELING USING UDEC
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VI
LITHOPHYSAL ROCK MODELING USING UDEC
The total sample size in all UDEC models for calibrating the lithophysal rock properties was 1.0 
m by 1.0 m. Each sample starts out as an assemblage of small blocks. The shapes of the small 
blocks are generated by a technique known as Voronoi tesselation. In this technique points are 
first randomly positioned. The point locations are then adjusted such that each point moves 
toward a location that is equidistant from each of its neighbors. This is done incrementally and 
the final position depends on the number of iterations. Increasing the number of iterations 
increases the uniformity of the block sizes and shapes. The line segments between points are 
then bisected by perpendicular cracks and connected to form polygons. This process results in 
the Voronoi polygons of the sample. Changing the initial seed of a random number generator 
can modify the point placement. This allows different test samples to be created. 
VI.1 CALIBRATION OF NONLITHOPYSAL BASE CASE 
The objective of the calibration process is to produce numerical sample behavior that matches 
the mechanical properties of a nonlithophysal tuff (no lithophysae or voids are present). The 
following parameters characterize the mechanical behavior of the UDEC Voronoi model and 
these micro properties are illustrated in Figure VI-1. 
 The block size scaled to the model size, or a number of blocks in the model. 
 Elastic properties of blocks (Em , .m). 
 Properties of joints (interfaces between the blocks), both elastic (normal stiffness, kn, and 
shear stiffness, ks) and plastic (tensile strength, tm, cohesion, cm, and friction, fm). Note that 
plastic joint parameters are functions of shear and tensile plastic strains. In the simulations 
presented in this report, it is assumed that cohesion and tensile strength soften to zero at the 
onset of yield. 
Figure VI-1. Micro Properties of the UDEC Voronoi Model 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The cohesion and friction angle of the micro-joints are used to control the samples unconfined 
compressive strength. The normal and shear stiffness of micro-joints as well as the bulk and 
shear modulus of the intact rock (blocks) are used to control the sample modulus. 
The elastic and strength properties can be decoupled during the iteration process (i.e., model 
deformability and strength can be calibrated separately). It is common to calibrate model elastic 
parameters first. Clearly, calibration of the elastic properties is a problem with a non-unique 
solution. The two elastic macro-properties (E and .) are functions of block size and four micro 
properties (kn, ks, Em, and .m). The average block size is determined based on having a sufficient 
number of blocks to allow for consistent and repeatable results in the two-dimensional sample 
given the sample size and lithophysal void size and shape (e.g., fracture development and 
propagation is independent of block size and orientation). In this preliminary exercise, 
experience was relied upon to choose the block size, and a full evaluation according to the 
preceding criterion will be carried out in the next phase of the UDEC analysis. The Poissons 
m
ratio of the blocks is selected to be equal to the macro Poissons ratio, such that .= .. The 
additional requirement needed to match the macro Poissons ratio is that the ratio between 
normal and shear joint stiffnesses is larger than 1. Simulations confirmed that a Poissons ratio 
of 0.2 is matched when kn / ks  2. It is reasonable that the contribution of joints to model 
deformability is larger than the contribution of blocks, but it was desirable, from the perspective 
of convergence of the numerical model, that stiffnesses of blocks and joints were of the same 
order of magnitude. Therefore, based on guidance in the UDEC Users Manual (Itasca 2002, 
Manuals/UDEC/Users Guide/Section 3: Problem Solving, Section 3.2.3), it was selected that 
4 m
Km + G 
5 < 3 < 10 (Eq. 16)
bk
n 
where b is the average block size, and Km and Gm are the bulk and shear moduli of the blocks, 
respectively. With these considerations, there is a single independent elastic micro-parameter 
(e.g., kn). The proper macro deformability of the model was than matched by rescaling of the 
elastic micro-properties (kn, ks, Km, and Gm). 
Calibration of strength micro-properties involved matching the macro (laboratory scale) failure-
envelope and post-peak behavior by adjusting strength micro-properties. Note that model plastic 
deformation appears to be a function of the size and shape of blocks. The failure envelope, 
which, in general, is a surface in the principal stress space, reduces to a line if it is assumed that 
the failure envelope is not a function of the intermediate principal stress. Test runs have proven 
that the micro friction angle, which is initially equal to 35 and softens in a brittle fashion to 15, 
results in the desired post-peak behavior and strength increase as a function of confinement. In 
order to match the observed mode of failure of non-lithophysal tuff under unconfined loading 
conditions (i.e., axial splitting), the micro tensile strength is assigned to be less than 50 percent of 
the micro cohesion. After these relations are established, the proper peak strength is matched by 
rescaling micro cohesion and tensile strength. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Each sample was tested with a loading condition that simulates tensile, unconfined compression 
(UCS) or triaxial compression (with confinement pressure of 1 MPa, 3MPa, and 5 MPa). The 
loading of each sample was controlled by a Fish function that adjusts the axial loading velocity 
to limit the axial stress difference between the top and the bottom of the sample. This insures 
that the sample is not loaded faster than the stresses can be numerically transferred through the 
entire sample. 
The axial stress is defined by the sum of the reaction forces at the loading platen divided by the 
original sample width. The axial strain is defined as the change in distance between the platens 
divided by the original sample height. The volumetric strain is calculated by integrating the 
sample width over the current sample height and dividing by the original sample volume. These 
quantities are automatically calculated and recorded at regular intervals during the test. 
The target modulus and unconfined compressive strength were selected to match the sample 
properties derived in the PFC shape study. The values of 20 GPa for Youngs modulus and 60 
MPa for unconfined compressive strength were used as the target values in the nonlithophysal 
calibration. As shown in Figures 9-2 and 9-3 from the PFC simulations, these values correspond 
to a lithophysal tuff with a zero percent porosity. The calibration process produced the micro-
and fracture properties given in Table 9-2. The average values from five model samples (with 
different Voronoi seeds) were 19.8 GPa and 58.7 MPa for the modulus and UCS, respectively. 
VI.2 LITHOPHYSAE GENERATION 
The generation of the lithophysal samples consisted of cutting 90-mm diameter holes in the 
nonlithophysal samples as described above. The position of the holes was controlled using one 
of two techniques. Some of the samples were created so as to match specific samples used in 
the PFC shape study. The rest of the samples were generated using a fish function with a 
random number generator that selected the hole location. A file named litho.fis exists for each 
sample tested and contains the commands required to recreate each sample. New holes are cut 
until the total area of the removed material matches the desired void ratio. In both techniques of 
hole placement, there are general rules which are used for placement. The first rule is that the 
distance between the edges of adjacent holes can never be less than 0.041 m. The second rule is 
that there must be at least a 0.045-m distance between the edge of a hole and the sample sides 
(unless the hole intersects the side). If the hole intersects the sample side then the intersection is 
limited to half of the diameter or less. 
The samples with holes (lithophysae) were run through the same sequence of tests that were used 
in the nonlithophysal samples. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
VI.3 DATA REDUCTION 
For each sample, histories of the axial stress, axial strain, and volumetric strain were recorded. 
The history data were transferred to Excel spreadsheets for post processing. An Excel 
spreadsheet was created for each test conducted. In the Excel spreadsheet are the raw history 
data of axial strain, volumetric strain and axial stress. The following quantities are calculated in 
each Excel summary file: Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, dilation angle, UCS, internal angle 
of friction, cohesion, and the Hoek Brown factors s ci and mi. These quantities were calculated 
using the following methods: 
UCS 
The value of UCS was taken as the greatest compressive stress achieved during the unconfined 
test. 
Youngs Modulus 
Youngs modulus is taken as the ratio of the axial stress to axial strain calculated at a stress equal 
to 50% of the UCS value (secant method). 
Poissons Ratio 
Poissons ratio (. ) is calculated (at 50% of UCS) using the following formula (which can be 
derived from elastic theory for plane strain): 
volumetric strain
S= 
e 
axial strain 
1- S
e
.= 
2 - S
e 
Dilation Angle 
The dilation angle (. ) is calculated from the slope of the expansive (plastic) portion of 
volumetric strain versus axial strain curve. The slope is calculated by a linear fit to the data from 
the greatest volumetric contraction to the end of the test. The calculation is performed using the 
internal LINEST function in Excel. The slope is then used to calculate the dilation angle using 
the following formula: 
volumetric strain
S = 
p 
axial strain 
. Sp . 180
.= arcsin.
. 2 + Sp ...
 
p
. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Internal Angle of Friction 
The internal angle of friction (f ) is calculated from the slope of the graph s 1 vs. s 3. The slope 
(Sf ) is calculated by a linear fit to the data using the internal trend function in excel. The friction 
angle is calculated by the following formula: 
. Sf- 1.
. 180
f= arcsin..
. Sf+ 1. 
p
. 
Cohesion 
The cohesion (c) is calculated from the friction angle and the UCS using the following formula: 
1- sinf 
c = UCS  
cos 2 f 
Hoek-Brown Failure Parameters 
The Hoek-Brown (HB) failure parameters s ci and mi were calculated from the triaxial 
compression test results using the spreadsheet formulae presented by Hoek (Hoek 2000, Section 
11.6, pg. 179). 
Graphical Results 
Microsoft Excel was used for limited post-processing of the data. UDEC output data was first 
imported into Excel summary files. Then several standard types of graphs were produced from 
the test data including: stress vs. strain, axial strain vs. lateral strain, and s 1 vs. s 3. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VI-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VII
DESCRIPTION OF LITHOPHYSAL ABUNDANCE AND LITHOPHYSAL
CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VII 
DESCRIPTION OF LITHOPHYSAL ABUNDANCE AND LITHOPHYSAL 
CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT 
With the large volume of the proposed repository located in the lower lithophysal zone, a 
detailed study of the lithostratigraphic features in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the 
ECRB Cross-Drift has recently been completed (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The data 
package documents the distributions of size, shape, and abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, 
spots, and lithic clasts, and these data can be displayed and analyzed as (1) local variations, 
(2) along the tunnel (a critical type of variation), and (3) as values for the total zone. The percent 
of lengths and areas of features on the tunnel wall are typically referred as abundance. Because 
of the variations in scale of the features from lengths measured in millimeters to meters and 
variations in similar rock characteristics from tens to hundreds of meters, a variety of methods 
have been used to document the features in the rocks (Table VII-1). Full Peripheral Maps, 
Detailed Line Surveys, and Small-Scale Fracture Surveys are primarily to document fractures, 
although lithophysae are described or annotated in some of these products. 
Table VII-1. Methods Used to Document the Distribution of Lithostratigraphic Features in the Lower 
Lithophysal Zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Method Location Procedure/Configuration Data Collected 
Full peripheral 
mapping 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+44 to 
23+26) 
Map visible tunnel surfaces Discontinuities >1 m, 
contacts, tunnel supports 
Detailed line surveys 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+44 to 
23+26) 
Tape line along one side of 
tunnel Discontinuities >1 m 
Small-scale fracture 
surveys 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 6 
selected locations 
(11+15 to 24+30) 
Each 6 meter long horizontal 
traverse intersects three 2 
meter long vertical traverses 
Discontinuities <1 m 
Panel maps 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 18 
selected locations 
(14+93 to 22+94) 
1 x 3 meter maps, 1:10 scale, 
overlays on photographs 
Lithophysae, rims, spots, 
lithic clasts 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 187 Traverses across tunnel, 
Tape traverses at 5 meter intervals 
(14+05 to 23+35) 
measured with tape attached 
to pole 
Lithophysae cavities only 
Angular traverses 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 22 
selected locations 
(14+60 to 22+00) 
Traverses across tunnel, laser-
prism measurements with 
geometric solutions 
Length of lithophysal cavities, 
rims, spots, stringers, lithic 
clasts, and matrix-
groundmass 
Large-lithophysae 
inventory 
ECRB Cross-Drift, 
continuous (14+40 to 
17+55) 
528 Lithophysae with long axis 
0.5 m and greater 
Long axis, short axis, station, 
wall position 
VII.1 TAPE AND ANGULAR TRAVERSE DATA 
Tape and angular traverses, which are variations in linear or one-dimensional measurement 
techniques, include data from the upper half of the tunnel (typically from the compressed air pipe 
to the top of the conveyor belt, Figure VII-1). In linear traverses, total abundance (percent) of a 
type of feature is the sum of lengths of the features divided by the total length of the traverse. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Tape traverses include the measured length of lithophysal cavities along the traverse, length of 
the traverse, and a visual estimate of the abundance of rims and spots; therefore, tape data are 
discontinuous data (not all features are mapped). The advantage of tape traverses is that these 
data are every 5 m along the tunnel and indicate variations in the lithophysal cavity abundance 
along the tunnel (Figure VII-2; see Section VII.6.3), but abundance values are typically greater 
than those documented with angular traverses and panel maps. There are 22 angular traverses, 
but they consist of continuous data (specific lengths of each lithophysal cavity, rim, spot, lithic 
clast, and matrix-groundmass), and measurements are to the nearest 5 to 10 mm. Angular 
traverses consist of continuous data (all features are mapped) and provide a similar resolution of 
data to that of panel maps. Abundance of lithophysal cavities determined in angular traverses is 
similar to, or slightly less than, the abundance determined with tape traverses (Figure VII-2). 
Angular traverse data (Table VII-2; see Section VII.6.2) can be used to adjust the lithophysal 
cavity, rim, and spot data from tape traverses (Section VII.6.6). 
cm 
iib ib 
lt 
A) 
25 cm 
Rail road tie 
250 cm 175 
Compressed ar pipe 
Left rRight rCrown 
Invert 
Top of conveyor be
.
cm 
cm 
(
) 
(
) 
e 
f) 
C)B) 
250 cm 200 
100 
15 degrees 
of arc 
0, 2.0) 
(0, 00, 2.5) 
(g, h(j, karc obstructed 
by vent line 
50 cm 
FROM DTN: GS021008314224.002 
Notes: A) Cross section view of tunnel (looking toward the heading) with parts of the tunnel (crown, ribs, and invert), positions of the 
compressed air pipe, conveyor belt, and railroad ties, and position of the laser-prism (175 cm above railroad tie). The shaded area 
is the most typically measured part of the tunnel. B) Tape traverse data are discontinuous in that only the length of the lithophysal 
cavities are measured. C) Angular traverse data are continuous in that the edges of all features are measured and lengths are 
calculated with analytical geometric relations. 
Figure VII-1. Geometric Relations of Tape and Angular Traverse Data from the Tptpll 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
1400 1500 1600 1800 2100 2300 
Abundance 
1700 1900 2000 2200 
Station 
Tape Percent Tape 10-m average Tape 20-m average Angular Percent 
NOTES: Abundance (percent of traverse length) of cavities are from angular traverse data. These tape data are 
from DTN: GS021008314224.002 and have not been adjusted as they are in Figure VII-9. 
Figure VII-2. Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverse Data Collected at 5-m Intervals 
from the Tptpll in the ECRB Cross-Drift with 10- and 20-m Moving Averages 
VII.2 PANEL MAP DATA 
In addition to the along-the-tunnel variation in the abundance of features such as lithophysae, 
there are variations in the sizes, shapes, and distances between features. These types of 
variations are most easily observed with the panel map data (Figures VII-3 to VII-8). Locations 
of the panel maps were positioned to capture representative variations in the rocks along the 
tunnel, and they were not positioned to capture a specific feature such as the largest lithophysae. 
The tunnel walls at panel map locations were washed prior to photographing and mapping the 
site. At each panel map location, three photographs were taken at 90 to the wall and with low-
angle illumination to accentuate the relief of the wall caused by cavities (and fractures). The 
three photographs are merged (to form a mosaic) of an area about 1.6 x 4.3 m, and the 1 x 3 m 
map area is positioned to minimize the number and amount of partially included features. The 
panel maps, which have a 1:10 scale, are two-dimensional, continuous data because all features 
are mapped and documented Boundaries of all the features were drawn on the photographs in 
the field. During the mapping, the mapper attempted to represent the projected intersection of 
the feature with the tunnel wall, so there might be a slight difference in the mapped shape of the 
feature compare to the perceived shape in the photograph. On the panel maps, the boundaries of 
lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts are depicted with different colors (red, green, 
blue, and gold, respectively) and the alpha-numeric labels of the features are L (lithophysal 
cavities and rims), S (spots), and C (clasts). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-2. Summary of Traverse Lengths and Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, 
Spots, Lithic Clasts and Matrix-Groundmass Based on Angular Traverses from Stations 
14+60 to 22+00 in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Station (m) 
Station (m) 
(numerical) 
Total arc length of 
traverse (degrees) 
Total length of 
traverse (mm) 
Total length of 
visible traverse (mm) 
Matrix-Groundmass 
(percent) 
Lithophysal cavities(percent)
Rims (percent) 
Spots (percent) 
Lithic Clasts(percent) 
14+60 1460 228.50 10851 7829 64.2 7.9 11.0 16.8 0.2 
14+95 1495 232.33 11003 8967 62.0 18.7 7.2 12.1 0.0 
15+25 1525 202.00 9784 7457 59.1 17.4 7.2 15.8 0.5 
15+53 1553 202.08 9786 7759 59.9 22.5 8.0 9.6 0.0 
16+10 1610 209.58 10095 7393 53.5 26.5 7.0 13.0 0.0 
16+42 1642 360.00 15081 11614 70.7 13.1 6.3 8.8 1.1 
16+58 1658 206.25 9960 7932 68.0 14.4 8.1 9.5 0.0 
16+75 1675 192.25 9369 7316 49.6 30.7 13.7 6.0 0.0 
17+00 1700 196.92 9569 7281 63.0 14.6 11.0 11.4 0.0 
17+27 1727 208.33 10044 7958 68.2 16.1 8.0 7.7 0.0 
17+50 1750 184.17 9016 6916 69.8 14.4 10.6 4.0 1.2 
17+70 1770 233.67 10980 8989 74.9 15.0 6.9 3.2 0.0 
18+00 1800 191.50 9292 7111 64.0 21.1 10.2 4.8 0.0 
19+00 1900 195.08 9450 7046 60.8 17.7 13.9 6.6 1.0 
19+20 1920 194.08 9404 7424 67.0 11.1 19.6 2.3 0.0 
20+00 2000 192.25 9314 7353 70.3 13.7 6.4 7.2 7.2 
20+70 2070 193.83 9387 7049 68.6 20.4 7.5 3.1 0.5 
21+00 2100 180.08 9513 7367 66.1 17.8 10.5 5.5 5.5 
21+25 2125 193.67 9372 7396 78.6 5.6 8.8 7.0 0.0 
21+70 a 2170 a 176.67 8826 5731 57.9 12.0 5.7 24.3 0.0 
21+75 a 2175 a 171.58 8532 6470 68.0 2.2 8.3 20.9 0.0 
22+00 2200 198.00 9628 9196 67.2 3.9 4.8 23.5 0.6 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTE: aOnly cavity data was collected in the angular traverse; however, the amounts of rims and spots were 
estimated in the field and all values were recalculated to 100 percent. 
Table from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet SEP-Angular Trav. Data. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTES: Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. 
Figure VII-3. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1493 Located on the Right Rib from Station 14+93 to 14+96 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: 
Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from 
DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Figure VII-4. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1641 Located on the Left rib from Station 16+41 to 16+44 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-
7 
December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: 
Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from 
DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Figure VII-5. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1641 Located on the Right Rib from Station 16+41 to 16+44 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-
8 
December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: 
Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from 
DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Figure VII-6. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 1726 Located on the Left Rib from Station 17+26 to 17+29 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-
9 
December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: 
Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from 
DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Figure VII-7. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 2124 Located on the Left Rib from Station 21+24 to 21+27 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-10 
December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
NOTES: 
Meter scale is on the left. Red rectangle is the 1x3 m panel map area. Lithophysae have red L identifiers with cavities outlined in red and rims in 
green. Spots have blue S identifiers with cyan outlines. Lithic clasts have orange C identifiers with gold outlines. Photograph and map are from 
DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Figure VII-8. Lithophysae, Spots, and Clasts of Tptpll in Panel Map 2232 Located on the Left Rib from Station 22+32 to 22+35 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-11 
December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
The selected panel maps (Figures VII-3 to VII-8) display good examples of many of the 
lithostratigraphic features. Some of these features are listed below. 
 Simple lithophysae: L25, L26, and L34 on Figure VII-3; L34 on Figure VII-4; L4 and 
L41 on Figure VII-6 
 Merged lithophysae: L2 on Figure VII-4 
 Lithophysae with expansion cracks where small cracks occur along the cavity wall: L44 
on Figure VII-3 
 Expansion-crack lithophysae where the expansion cracks dominate the geometry of the 
cavity wall: L17 and L25 on Figure VII-4; L7, L12, L21, and L24 on Figure VII-5 
 Backfilled lithophysae (some partial): L26 on Figure VII-4; L2 on Figure VII-7 
 Large-lithophysae (> 50 cm diameter): L2, L25, and L26 on Figure VII-4; L7, L12, 
L21, L24, and L42 on Figure VII-5 
 Vapor-phase partings (and stringers): Figure VII-6 (lower half) 
 Spots: Any map, but especially Figure VII-7 and Figure VII-8 
 Fractures mapped with detailed line survey: Red lines in Figure VII-8 
 Small-scale fractures: Any map, especially the left side of Figure VII-5 and the right 
side of Figure VII-6. 
Panel maps provide 2-dimensional (area) data for specific features or as the total of the map area 
(DTN: GS021008314224.002; Table VII-3). Additionally, the Data files for the panel maps 
in the data package include 3-dimensional measurements (height, width, and depth) from which 
an equivalent ellipsoid can be calculated. The methods used in making panel maps and point-
counting the areas of features result in values accurate to about 2 to 5 percent of the listed value 
(DTN: GS021008314224.002). To test the influence of positioning the map area, the panel map 
for 16+41 on the left wall was used to compare the reported values with values from four 
alternative positions. The descriptive statistics on the area percent determined from the five map 
positions indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent confidence 
levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent confidence 
levels of less than 0.5 percent (DTN: GS021008314224.002, see data summary documentation 
in the records package). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-3. Summary of Abundance (Percentage) of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, and Matrix-
Groundmass Based on Panel Maps in the ECRB CROSS-DRIFT from Stations 14+93 to 
22+94 
Station 
(m) 
Station (m) 
(numerical) 
Panel 
Maps 
Matrix /
Groundmass 
(percent) 
Lithophysal 
Cavities 
(percent) 
Rims 
(percent) 
Spots(percent) 
Lithic Clasts 
(percent) 
14+93 1493 14+93L 69.5 13.3 13.3 3.7 0.2 
15+51 1551 15+51L 77.3 15.8 3.6 2.0 1.3 
16+10 1610 16+10R 78.2 15.3 3.6 2.8 0.1 
16+24 1624 16+24R 72.6 13.4 11.3 2.6 0.1 
16+41 1641 16+41L 71.6 19.0 5.7 3.5 0.1 
16+41 1641 16+41R 80.4 12.6 5.9 1.0 0.1 
16+56 1656 16+56L 75.6 13.2 7.3 3.7 0.1 
17+26 1726 17+26L 81.9 16.4 0.9 0.7 0.0 
17+68 1768 17+68L 83.2 13.6 2.1 0.9 0.1 
17+68 1768 17+68R 84.5 10.1 4.6 0.6 0.1 
18+05 1805 18+05L 76.7 14.0 5.6 3.5 0.2 
18+86 1886 18+86L 73.8 17.4 5.4 3.0 0.3 
19+19 1919 19+19L 83.6 12.8 2.1 1.3 0.3 
20+18 2018 20+18L 77.5 15.3 4.9 2.1 0.2 
20+69 2069 20+69L 83.8 9.2 3.9 3.0 0.2 
21+24 2124 21+24L 78.2 8.5 9.7 3.2 0.5 
22+32 2232 22+32L 62.4 5.3 7.4 24.6 0.2 
22+94 2294 22+94L 86.1 7.5 0.3 5.7 0.4 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTES: Table is from file Tptpll Lithop SEP Data File.xls, worksheet SEP - Panel Map Data 
VII.3 VARIATION IN ABUNDANCE IN LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, AND 
SPOTS ALONG THE TUNNEL 
The abundance of lithophysal cavities varies along the Cross-Drift partially from actual 
variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to collect the data (i.e., tape or 
angular traverses or panel maps) (Figure VII-9). The abundance of cavities determined from the 
panel maps and angular traverses have not been adjusted. However, the original abundance 
values for lithophysal cavities from tape data (Figure VII-2) have been corrected using a 
typical traverse length, a 15-m moving average, and a linear equation of correlation for co-
located tape and angular traverse data (Sections VII.6.3 and VII.6.6). Numerous correlation 
equations were examined, but in the end, a linear equation fitted to all the co-located data and 
having an intercept at 0, 0 with an R2 of 0.6204 was used which results in the corrected curve 
Ct in Figure VII-9. A set of cavity values were calculated for each location with two of more 
types of data using the weighting ratios 60:30:10 (panel:angular:tape) where all three data occur 
and 60:40 (panel:tape or angular:tape) where there are only two types of data (Cpat fit in 
Figure VII-9). These weighting ratios are empirically determined based on the relative detail of 
each type of data. The tape data was corrected one last time using an empirically determined 
proportional adjustment (i.e., corrected value (Ctc) equals tape value (Ct) plus the tape value (Ct) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
times a percent) (Section VII.6.6). The percents used include -0.05 from 14+05 to 21+40, -0.35 
from 21+45 to 22+70, and 0.70 from 22+75 to 23+35. These percents, especially the larger 
amounts from 21+45 to 23+35, were used to correct large cavity abundance values inherited 
from the original tape data that resulted from initially identifying the abundant spots (some with 
thin veinlets in them) as lithophysal cavities. This correction of the tape data is warranted on the 
basis of comparisons with the angular traverse and panel map data (there are no angular traverse 
data from 22+00 to 23+35) and estimates of lithophysae described in Mongano et al. (1999) 
(Figure VII-9; see Section VII.6.5). 
Abundance (length) (%) 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 
0 
1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 
Station (m) 
Cp Ca Ct )Cpat fit Ct c Lit hop (M
NOTES: Ct data has been corrected based on an equation for correlation of tape and angular data. Cpat fit is the 
calculated value where two or more types of data occur together (map, angular, or tape data). Ctc has 
been corrected, especially from Station 21+25 to 23+35, to emulate the smaller amounts of lithophysal 
cavities determined from panel maps and angular traverses. Correlations and calculations for Ct, Cpat fit, 
and Ctc are described in Section VII.6.6. 
Figure VII-9. Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities from Panel Maps (Cp) and Angular and Tape Traverses 
(Ca and Ct, Respectively) Compared to the Cavity Values from Mongano et al. (1999) 
(Lithop M) 
Similar to the lithophysal cavity data, the abundance of rims and spots varies along the Cross-
Drift partially from actual variations in the rocks and in part resulting from the methods used to 
collect the data (i.e., tape or angular traverses or panel maps) (Figure VII-10). The abundance of 
rims and spots determined from the panel maps and angular traverses have not been adjusted. 
However, the original visual estimates of rims plus spots in the tape traverses (see Section 
VII.6.3 and RSt in Figure VII-10) have been corrected using 5-m and a 2nd-order polynomial 
equation of correlation for co-located tape and angular traverse data (Section VII.6.6). 
Numerous correlation equations were examined, but in the end, a 2nd-order polynomial equation 
(which because of the very small x2 value approximates a linear equation) was fitted to the co-
located data from 17+60 to 22+00, and although the Y-axis intercept is +11.086, the R2 is 0.7973 
(Section VII.6.6). As with the lithophysal cavity data, a set of rim+spot values were calculated 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
for each location with two or more types of data using the empirically determined ratios of 
60:30:10 (panel:angular:tape) where all three data occur and 60:40 (panel:tape or angular:tape) 
where there are only two types of data. These values were used during curve fitting, but are not 
displayed in Figure VII-10. The totals of rims plus spots from the panel and angular data have 
been calculated and compare well to the corrected rim plus spot: tape values (R+Sp, R+Sa, and 
RStc, respectively in Figure VII-10). There are no visual estimates of rims plus spots in the tape 
traverse data from 22+00 to 23+35, so these values are estimated from the panel map data and 
descriptions from Mongano et al. (1999) (Sections VII.6.3, VII.6.5, and VII.6.6). The sharp 
decrease in spots depicted in curves RStc and Spot (M) (Figures VII-10 and VII-11) result 
from changes in the abundance of spots across a fault at 22+38 (Mongano et al. 1999). 
0 
4 
8 
12 
16 
20 
24 
28 
32 
36 
40 
1450 1550 1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350 
(m) 
Abundance (length) (%) 
Rp Ra (M) 
StationRSt R+Sp R+Sa RSt c Spot s
NOTES: R+Sp is rims plus spot values in panel maps. R+Sa is rims plus spot values in angular traverses. 
RStc is the corrected tape values based on an equation for correlation of tape and angular data. 
Correlations and calculations for R+Sp, R+Sa, and RStc are described in Section VII.6.6. Spot values from 
Mongano et al. (1999) are described in Section VII.6.5. 
Figure VII-10. Abundance of Rims From Panel Maps (Rp) and Angular (Ra) and the Combined Rim and 
Spot Values from Tape Traverses (Rt) Compared to the Spot Values from Mongano et al. 
(1999) (Spot M) 
The rim plus spot values from the corrected tape data was separated into rim and spot values 
based on the general ratios of each feature in the panel and angular traverse data respectively. 
These proportions are not the same along the tunnel, so a series of proportions were empirically 
determined. The ratios of rims to spots include 0.50 from 14+45 to 15+35, 0.40 from 15+40 to 
16+52, 0.53 from 16+55 to 17+35, 0.55 from 17+40 to 21+25, and 0.22 from 21+30 to 23+35. 
The total corrected rim plus spot (RStc) was multiplied by these ratios to calculate the amount 
of rims, and the amount of spots was determined by difference (Rtc and Stc, respectively in 
Figure VII-11). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
4 
8 
12 
16 
20 
24 
28 
32 
36 
40 
1450 1550 1750 1850 2050 2150 2250 2350 
(m) 
Abundance (length) (%) 
Rp Sp Ra Sa (M) 
1650 1950 
StationRSt Rt c St c Spot s
NOTES: Rtc represents fitted rim values from the corrected RStc (Figure VII-10) based on the ratio of rim and 
spot values in panels and angular data. Stc represents fitted spot values from the corrected RStc 
(Figure VII-10) based on the ratio of rim and spot values in panels and angular data. Correlations and 
calculations for Rtc and Stc are described in Section VII.6.6. Spot values from Mongano et al. (1999) are 
described in Section VII.6.5. 
Figure VII-11. Abundance of Rims and Spots from Panel Maps (Rp and Sp), Angular (Ra and Sa), and 
the Original Estimated Combined Rim and Spot Values from Tape Traverses (RSt) 
Compared to the Spot Values from Mongano et al. (1999) (Spot M) 
VII.4 LARGE LITHOPHYSAE 
The large-lithophysae inventory was designed to document the large lithophysae (those with a 
minimum diameter of 50 cm) in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Station 14+00 to 17+56. The 
inventory stopped at 17+56 because of a closed bulkhead and the field work to complete the 
inventory to 22+00 has been done, but the information is not yet in the record system. A few 
large lithophysae were documented (entirely or partially) in the tape and angular traverses and 
panel maps, but most were not included in these other techniques because of the scales and 
locations at which the other measurements were made. The long and short axis exposed on the 
wall of the tunnel was measured (with the same tape on a pole technique used in the tape 
traverses), and the station and position on the tunnel wall was recorded 
(DTN: GS021008314224.002; Figure VII-12). All large lithophysae have accurately surveyed 
station, northing, easting, and elevation values (DTN: GS021008314224.002). The 
large-lithophysae data can be displayed by station along the tunnel as discrete features and 5-m 
abundance (simply the number count) (Figure VII-12), or a cumulative frequency and frequency 
plots of axis length and area (Figure VII-13). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
l () lii0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
1475 1500 1525 1550 1600 1625 1675 1725 1750 
) 
Abundance of arge> 50 cm diame te rthophys ae in 5-m nte rvals 
1450 1575 1650 1700 1775 
Station (m 
Abundance 
Abundance 
15m Run. Ave. 
17+62 
Bulkhead 
RW 
Position of large lithophysae 
Sym bol s 
1 - Left below equipment , 2 - Left wall, 3 - Left arch, 4 -Crown 
C 
LA 
LB 
RA 
RB 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
78 
LC RC 
Invert 
LW 
along the ECRB and around the tunnel (3.5 and 4.5 are left and right side of t he crown) 
5 - Right arch, 6 -Right wall, 7 -Right below equipment , and 8 -Invert 
1 
Niche 5 
Position of segments in 
tunnel with view toward 
heading. 
Large lithophysae 
from 14+69 to 17+54 
Lithophysae 
Position per meter 
Position around tunnel 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
LW (2) 0.50 
1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 
C (4) 0.47 Station (m)
RW (6) 0.50 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTES: Diagram of tunnel cross-section shows the nomenclature used to identify the position of large lithophysae. 
The small inserted table lists the average number of large lithophysae per meter of tunnel for the left and 
right walls (LW and RW, positions 2 and 6, respectively) and the crown (C, position 4) from Stations 14+70 
to 17+56. 
Figure VII-12. Abundance (number of large lithophysae) per 5-m Intervals and Locations of Large 
Lithophysae in the Tptpll from ECRB Cross-Drift Station 14+50 to 17+56 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
Figure VII-13. Frequency and Cumulative Frequency of the Long Axes and Areas of Large Lithophysae 
in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift 
VII.5 CALCULATED POROSITY OF LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS AND 
TOTAL POROSITY ALONG THE TUNNEL 
The corrected tape traverse data for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots results in fitted 
abundance curves and indicates substantial variations along the tunnel in these features 
(Figure VII-14). Using these fitted abundance curves for lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots, 
and (by difference) the matrix-groundmass (and ignoring the trace amount of lithic clasts), the 
porosity of these features and the total porosity along tunnel can be calculated (Figure VII-15). 
The porosities of each of the component features are variably constrained. Lithophysal cavities 
have a porosity of 1.00 cm3/cm3. The matrix-groundmass has a mean porosity of 0.13 cm3/cm3 
(Flint 1998). Porosities of the rims and spots have typically not been specifically measured, but 
are estimated to range from 0.20 to 0.30 cm3/cm3. Although not used in these calculations, 
measured porosity values of the matrix-groundmass in samples from the lower lithophysal zone 
in the ECRB Cross-Drift range from 0.08 to 0.12 cm3/cm3, and rims and spots in these same 
samples range from 0.24 to 0.37 cm3/cm3 (DTN: GS030483351030.001). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
(m) 
() ) ) ) ) (M) 
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 
StationAbundance (length) (%) 
Cavitiesfitt edRims (fit t edSpot s (fit t edL-Lit ho (5mLit host rat . cont act Bulkheads Lit hop (MSpot s
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTE: Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. 
Figure VII-14. Abundance Curves of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots (Determined by Combining Panel Map and Tape and Angular 
Traverse Data), Large-Lithophysae Based on 5-m Segments of the Tunnel, and Estimates of Lithophysae and Spots from 
Mongano et al. (1999) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
1500 1700 1900 2200 
(m) 
Percent (vol.) (%) 
() () (fi) () ) 
() 
1400 1600 1800 2000 2100 2300 
StationCavitiesfittedRimsfit t edSpot st t edMGMfittedT ot al (fit t edL-Lit ho5-mLit host rat . cont act Bulkheads Equipment 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTES: Porosity of the 5-m averaged large-lithophysae inventory is not included in the total. Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. 
Figure VII-15. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, Spots, Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed Along 
the ECRB Cross-Drift 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Because the large-lithophysal inventory is (for the near future) limited to Stations 14+50 to 
17+56, with large lithophysae only from 14+70 to 17+56, the contribution of the large 
lithophysae to the total porosity along the tunnel has not been included in Figure VII-15. 
However, the large lithophysae can contribute as much as 8 percent to the total porosity in some 
5-m sections of the tunnel (see sections 16+05 to 16+15; Figure VII-16). 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
45 
50 
(m) 
() ) ) ) 
1425 1450 1475 1500 1525 1550 1575 1600 1625 1650 1675 1700 1725 1750 1775 
StationPercent (vol.) (%) 
CavitiesfittedRims (fit t edSpot s (fit t edMGM-LL5 T otal+LL5 L-Lit ho (5-mLithostrat. contact Bulkheads 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 
NOTE: Additional details provided in Section VII.6.6. 
Figure VII-16. Calculated Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities (Including Large Lithophysae), Rims, Spots, 
Matrix-Groundmass, and the Total Porosity in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
from Station 14+70 to 17+50 
VII.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE TOTAL LOWER LITHOPHYSAL 
ZONE 
In addition to the along-the-tunnel variations in abundance, size, and shape of lithophysal 
cavities, rims, and spots, the distributions of these features can be summarized for the total lower 
lithophysal zone. For example, using the tape traverse data, the abundance of cavities in each 
traverse has a mean of 18 to 19 percent depending on the length of tunnel used in the calculation 
(Table VII-4, Figure VII-17, and Section VII.6.3). The tape data used in this figure has been 
adjusted to the typical traverse length but has not been corrected with the several 
correlation functions described previously and in Section VII.6.6. Similarly, the abundance 
(percent) of individual lithophysal cavities within a traverse indicates most lithophysal cavities 
form about 2 percent of a traverse length (Table VII-5, Figure VII-18, and Section VII.6.3), and 
the typical length of lithophysal cavities along the traverses is about 150 mm (Table VII-6, 
Figure VII-19, and Section VII.6.3). Descriptive statistics comparing the 5-m traverse data with 
10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m moving averages indicates no effective change in the mean 
of 18.9 percent lithophysal cavities, but many of the statistics decrease with increasing length of 
the moving average (Table VII-7 and Section VII.6.3). However, the most significant change 
in the statistics for the abundance of lithophysal cavities, especially in the standard deviation and 
sample variance, occurs from the 5-m to 10-m or 15-m data (Table VII-7 and Section VII.6.3). 
The typical abundance of rims plus spots from the tape traverse data is about 8 percent 
depending on the length of tunnel used in the calculation (Table VII-8 and Section VII.6.3). 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-4. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities in Individual Tape 
Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift 
Statistic Data Package Revised 
Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 
Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 
Mean 19.4 18.0 18.7 18.9 18.9 
Standard Error 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 
Median 18.8 17.6 17.8 17.8 17.8 
Mode 15.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.6 
Standard Deviation 10.2 9.3 8.8 8.7 8.7 
Sample Variance 103.3 86.7 76.9 74.8 75.4 
Kurtosis 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 
Skewness 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 
Range 53.9 48.4 47.2 47.2 47.2 
Minimum 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 
Maximum 53.9 48.4 48.4 48.4 48.4 
Sum 3,608 3,355 3,298 3,254 2,793 
Count 186 186 176 172 148 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 
NOTE: Data in Data Package column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 40 44 48 52 
) 
0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
l 
36 
Percent of lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses 
Cumulative Frequency (%
Frequency 
Cum % - DT N 
Cum.% - AlCum..% - T runc. 
Freq - DT N 
Freq. - All 
Freq. - T runc. 
NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by DTN, and the 
All and trunc. data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). 
Figure VII-17. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Abundance (Percent) Lithophysal 
Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 
(All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or trunc.) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-5. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Individual Lithophysal Cavities in Individual Tape Traverses 
for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift 
Statistic Data Package Revised 
Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 
Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 
Mean 2.17 2.02 2.02 2.06 2.00 
Standard Error 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 
Median 1.49 1.34 1.34 1.46 1.34 
Mode 1.49 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 
Standard Deviation 1.99 1.85 1.83 1.82 1.84 
Sample Variance 3.96 3.43 3.35 3.32 3.38 
Kurtosis 6.32 6.05 6.13 6.16 6.34 
Skewness 2.03 2.01 2.00 2.00 2.03 
Range 17.91 16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09 
Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Maximum 17.91 16.09 16.09 16.09 16.09 
Sum 3607.71 3355.24 3297.95 3254.38 2792.89 
Count 1664 1664 1630 1583 1393 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 
NOTE: Data in Data Package column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
Frequency 
Percent of individual lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses 
Cumulative Frequency (%) 
Cum. % - DT N 
Cum. % - All 
Cum. % - T runc. 
Freq. - DT N 
Freq. - All 
Freq. - T runc. 
NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by DTN, and the 
All and Trunc. data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). 
Figure VII-18. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Abundance (Percent) of Individual 
Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll in the Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 
23+35 (All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or trunc.) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-6. Descriptive Statistics for the Lengths (mm) of Individual Lithophysal Cavities in Individual 
Tape Traverses for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll zone in the Cross-Drift 
Statistic Data Package Revised 
Stations 2335 to 1405 2335 to 1405 2326 to 1444 2320 to 1460 2200 to 1460 
Length along tunnel (m) 930 930 882 860 740 
Mean 152.6 152.6 152.9 155.4 151.6 
Standard Error 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 
Median 100 100 110 110 100 
Mode 100 100 100 100 100 
Standard Deviation 138.6 138.6 137.0 136.3 137.6 
Sample Variance 19208.3 19208.3 18757.0 18586.5 18926.2 
Kurtosis 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.3 
Skewness 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 
Range 1200 1200 1190 1190 1190 
Minimum 0 0 10 10 10 
Maximum 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 
Sum 251723 251723 247413 244143 209393 
Count 1650 1650 1618 1571 1381 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 6.69 6.69 6.67 6.74 7.26 
NOTE: Data in Data Package column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0% 
10% 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
60% 
70% 
80% 
90% 
100% 
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 
Cumulative Frequency (%) 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
450 
Frequency 
Lenghts (mm) of individual lithophysal cavities in 5-m spaced traverses 
Cum. % - All 
Cum. % - All 
Cum. % - T runc. 
Freq. - All 
Freq. - All 
Freq. - T runc. 
NOTES: Data submitted in the original data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) is indicated by DTN, and the 
All and Trunc. data are from the adjusted length traverses (see Section VII.6.3). 
Figure VII-19. Frequency (Number) and Cumulative Frequency of the Lengths (mm) of Individual 
Lithophysal Cavities from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from 
14+05 to 23+35 (All) and 14+60 to 22+00 (Truncated Data or trunc.) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-7. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities in Tape Traverses 
Calculated with 10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m moving averages for the Total Tptpll 
in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Statistic Value 
Stations 2200 to 1460 
Length along tunnel (m) 5-m 
traverses 
10-m 
average 
15-m 
average 
20-m 
average 
25-m 
average 
30-m 
average 
Mean 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 
Standard Error 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 
Median 17.8 18.3 18.1 18.3 18.1 18.3 
Mode 16.6 16.7 15.5 23.3 11.8 22.0 
Standard Deviation 8.7 7.0 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.7 
Sample Variance 75.4 48.6 41.8 37.6 35.3 33.0 
Kurtosis 0.2 0.29 0.20 0.00 -0.15 -0.14 
Skewness 0.6 0.55 0.59 0.56 0.49 0.48 
Range 47.2 39.0 31.4 27.9 26.6 27.0 
Minimum 1.2 3.4 7.6 8.9 8.4 8.1 
Maximum 48.4 42.4 39.0 36.8 35.0 35.1 
Sum 2,793 2,890.5 2,887.6 2,890.4 2,897.1 2,897.0 
Count 148 153 153 153 153 153 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.4 1.10 1.02 0.97 0.94 0.91 
NOTE: Data in Data Package column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
Table VII-8. Descriptive Statistics for the Abundance of Rims Plus Spots in Individual Tape Traverses 
for Various Lengths of Tunnel in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Statistic Data package Revised 
Stations 2200 to 1405 2200 to 1405 2200 to 1460 
Length along tunnel (m) 795 795 740 
Mean 8.0 8.0 8.4 
Standard Error 0.6 0.6 0.6 
Median 5.0 5.0 7.5 
Mode 7.5 7.5 7.5 
Standard Deviation 7.1 7.1 7.1 
Sample Variance 50.1 50.1 50.5 
Kurtosis 3.3 3.3 3.1 
Skewness 1.9 1.9 1.9 
Range 32.0 32.0 31.5 
Minimum 0.5 0.5 1.0 
Maximum 32.5 32.5 32.5 
Sum 1257 1257 1233 
Count 157 157 146 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.1 1.1 1.2 
NOTE: Data in Data Package column from DTN: GS021008314224.002. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Comparison of the descriptive statistics for abundance of lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots in 
panel maps, angular traverses, and corrected tape traverses in the lower lithophysal zone indicate 
the corrected tape values are consistent with the values determined from the other methods 
(Table VII-9 and Section VII.6.6). These relations are also consistent for various lengths of the 
tunnel such as comparing the segments from 14+60 to 23+20 and 14+60 to 22+00 (Tables VII-9 
and VII-10 and Section VII.6.6). The prime section of the tunnel for the lower lithophysal 
zone is from 14+60 to 23+20 where the tunnel is entirely within the lower lithophysal zone (i.e., 
there is no mixing from the adjacent rock units). The more restricted section from 14+60 to 
22+00 is better to use for many detailed descriptions and comparative statistics because there is 
good overlap of the various types of data (panel maps and angular and tape traverses) and there 
is minimal need to extrapolate and convert some of the data. The abundance values for each of 
the lithostratigraphic features can be converted into rock-mass porosity values (using the porosity 
values of each component). This conversion indicates the lower lithophysal zone (as a whole 
and not including the large lithophysae) averages 13.1 percent lithophysal cavities, 1.4 percent 
rims, 1.9 percent spots, 10.9 percent matrix-groundmass for a total porosity of 27.3 percent 
(Table VII-10). 
VII.6.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, 
AND LITHIC CLASTS IN PANEL MAPS IN THE Tptpll OF THE ECRB 
CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+93 TO 22+97 
The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in panel maps in 
the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+93 to 22+97 were determined to support 
the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.2 
and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined using data provided in 
DTN: GS021008314224.002 and are reproduced in Attachment VIII. Descriptive statistics are 
provided for the sizes (actually areas in mm2) and percent of the total area for lithostratigraphic 
features including lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts. The descriptive statistics 
were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft 
Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AA PMap.xls 
(Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: 
MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 
VII.6.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, 
AND LITHIC CLASTS IN ANGULAR TRAVERSES IN THE Tptpll OF THE 
ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+60 TO 22+00 
The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, lithic clasts, and matrix-
groundmass in angular traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 
22+00 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic 
features as described in Sections VII.1 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined on 
data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were determined in support of this report. 
Descriptive statistics are provided for the sizes (actually lengths in mm) and percent of the total 
lengths for lithostratigraphic features including lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, lithic clasts, and 
the matrix-groundmass. The descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions 
of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AB A-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed 
through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-9. Descriptive Statistics for Abundance of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots in Panel Maps, Angular Traverses, and Corrected 
Tape Traverses in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 23+20 and 14+60 to 22+00 
Descriptive Statistics 
1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 
2200 m 1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 
2200 m 1460 to 2320 m 1460 to 
2200 m 
Cp Ca Ct Ctc Ctc-m Rp Ra Rtc Rtc-m Sp Sa Stc Stc-m 
Mean 12.9 15.5 15.0 13.1 14.0 5.4 9.1 5.6 6.0 3.8 10.1 7.8 7.4 
Standard Error 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 
Median 13.4 15.0 14.6 12.9 13.6 5.2 8.1 5.2 5.3 2.9 8.3 5.7 5.7 
Mode #N/A 15.0 17.9 17.0 17.0 2.1 11.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 #N/A 2.4 2.4 
Standard Deviation 3.6 6.3 5.0 5.3 5.1 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.4 6.5 6.2 5.7 
Sample Variance 12.9 39.8 24.7 28.6 26.0 11.9 11.2 9.2 8.5 28.7 42.3 38.4 32.4 
Kurtosis -0.1 0.8 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.4 3.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.1 1.3 1.7 
Skewness -0.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 3.8 1.0 1.5 1.5 
Range 13.7 28.5 24.7 25.2 25.2 13.0 14.8 12.5 11.7 24.0 22.0 23.5 23.0 
Minimum 5.3 2.2 6.0 4.0 4.0 0.3 4.8 0.9 1.7 0.6 2.3 1.4 1.4 
Maximum 19.0 30.7 30.7 29.2 29.2 13.3 19.6 13.4 13.4 24.6 24.3 25.0 24.4 
Sum 232.7 418.7 2693.3 2352.8 2182.9 97.5 200.8 1005.7 934.8 68.1 223.1 1402.7 1151.6 
Count 18 27 180 180 156 18 22 179 155 18 22 179 155 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.7 2.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.5 2.7 0.9 0.9 
Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 
Notes: Symbols Cp, Ca, Ct, Ctc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-9, and Ctc-m are the Cavities in the converted tape data in the main (or prime) part of the 
tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. Symbols Rp, Ra, Rt, Rtc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-11, and Rtc-m are the Rims in the converted tape data in the main 
(or prime) part of the tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. Symbols Sp, Sa, St, Stc are defined in the caption for Figure VII-11, and Stc-m are the Spots in the converted 
tape data in the main (or prime) part of the tunnel from 1460 to 2200 m. The symbol #NA indicates not applicable. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-10. Descriptive Statistics for Porosity of Lithophysal Cavities, Rims, and Spots in Panel Maps, Angular Traverses and Corrected Tape 
Traverses in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+60 to 23+20 
Descriptive Statistic Cavities 
(panel) 
Rims 
(panel) 
Spots(panel) 
Cavities 
(angular) 
Rims 
(angular) 
Spots(angular) 
Cavities 
(tape) 
Rim-
Spot(tape) 
MGM 
(fitted) 
Cavities 
(fitted) 
Rims 
(fitted) 
Spots(fitted) 
Total 
(fitted) 
Mean 12.9 1.4 0.9 15.3 2.3 2.5 16.4 2.1 10.9 13.1 1.4 1.9 27.3 
Standard Error 0.8 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 
Median 13.4 1.3 0.7 14.8 2.0 2.1 16.0 1.6 10.8 12.9 1.3 1.4 27.4 
Mode #N/A 0.5 0.9 #N/A 2.8 #N/A 16.2 1.3 10.5 17.0 0.7 0.6 30.0 
Standard Deviation 3.6 0.9 1.3 6.9 0.8 1.6 4.8 1.7 0.7 5.3 0.8 1.6 4.5 
Sample Variance 12.9 0.7 1.8 47.2 0.7 2.6 22.9 2.9 0.5 28.6 0.6 2.4 20.2 
Kurtosis -0.14 0.42 15.49 0.37 3.45 0.08 0.14 3.58 0.66 -0.17 0.00 1.26 0.66 
Skewness -0.51 0.76 3.82 0.10 1.63 0.98 0.44 1.99 -0.42 0.42 0.67 1.48 0.42 
Range 13.7 3.2 6.0 28.5 3.7 5.5 27.0 7.8 3.5 25.2 3.3 6.2 23.2 
Minimum 5.3 0.1 0.2 2.2 1.2 0.6 5.5 0.3 8.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 
Maximum 19.0 3.3 6.2 30.7 4.9 6.1 32.5 8.1 12.2 29.2 3.3 6.2 41.7 
Sum 232.7 24.4 17.0 336.8 50.2 55.8 2894.3 311.4 1955.9 2352.8 251.4 350.7 4910.7 
Count 18 18 18 22 22 22 177 150 180 180 180 180 180 
Confidence Level (95.0%) 1.7 0.4 0.6 2.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.7 
NOTE: Rim-Spot (tape data) is only from 14+60 to 22+00. 
Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 
Notes: The symbol #NA indicates not applicable. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
VII.6.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LITHOPHYSAL CAVITIES, RIMS, 
SPOTS, AND LITHIC CLASTS IN TAPE TRAVERSES IN THE Tptpll 
OF THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+05 TO 23+35 
The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in tape 
traverses in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+05 to 23+35 were 
determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of lithostratigraphic features 
as described in Sections VII.1 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined on data 
provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were determined in support of this report. 
The lengths of the tape traverses in the original data package (DTN: 
GS021008314224.002) were longer or shorter than those determined at the same 
locations with the angular traverses, so the tape traverse lengths were corrected using the 
angular traverse lengths and resulted in typical traverse lengths. The typical traverse 
lengths used to determine the abundance of lithophysal cavities are 7.46 m from 14+20 
to 17+55 (double vent line), and 7.53 m from 17+65 to 23+35 (single vent line). 
Descriptive statistics and histograms are provided for the sizes (actually lengths in mm) 
and percent of the individual and total lengths for lithophysal cavities and the total 
percent of the visually estimated amounts of rims plus spots. Descriptive statistics were 
determined for individual traverses, 10-m, 15-m, 20-m, 25-m, and 30-m running 
averages and for total lithophysal cavities. The descriptive statistics and histograms 
were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg 
AMR AC T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: 
MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 
Adjustments were made to the tape data in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AC 
T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII), for the calculation of moving averages where there is a 
gap in the data. A gap occurs where a tape traverse was not made including the 
locations of a few panel maps. A description of the calculation of moving averages 
includes the following: 
1. Running averages of tape traverse data were made for 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 
meters. These cells (Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls) have 
no color fill. 
2. The standard averaging practice includes: 
 10 meter: value averaged with next value below (down tunnel to next 
station) 
 15 meter: value averaged with value above and value below 
 20 meter: value averaged with value above and next 2 values below 
 25 meter: value averaged with 2 values above and 2 values below 
 30 meter: value averaged with 2 values above and next 3 values below. 
3. Where a gap in data occurs, the affected cell contains a comment, and may be 
color-coded. A gray color-coded cell indicates a null value was adjusted by 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
averaging values of adjacent cells. Gray cells may indicate adjustments of null 
values on 5-m increments or on less than 5-m increments. 
4. In some cases where a gap in data occurs in an adjacent cell on an increment 
less than 5 m, the affected cell was not color coded, but a comment was 
included indicating a default to standard averaging practice using next the 5-m 
increment. Where a gap in data occurs on a 5-m increment, adjustments were 
made, and affected cells were colored light turquoise. 
5. The standard adjustment (rule 1) for data gaps consists of: 
 10 meter: two values below null value averaged 
 15 meter: one value above and 2 values below null value are averaged 
 20 meter: one value above and 3 values below null value are averaged 
 25 meter: two values above and 3 values below null value are averaged 
 30 meter: two values above and 4 values below null value are averaged. 
6. A light yellow cell located in the first 12 rows indicates a gap in the data. A 
light yellow cell located in the running average section indicates a situation 
where rule 1 was altered to avoid using null values in adjacent cells. In an 
effort to lessen the effect of data spikes in the tape traverse data, the above 
procedure (rule 1) for adjustments was departed from to capture a smaller value 
in place of a larger value where the choice was available. (light green cells). 
Sample variance of the summed lengths of lithophysal cavities in the 5-m data and the 
10-m to 30-m moving average data indicates (1) variations along the tunnel and (2) the 
most significant minimization in variance in the 10-m and 15-m moving average data. 
Sample variance is a measure of the variability of the values relative to the mean value, 
so variations in the variance provide insight into the internal lithostratigraphic features of 
the lower lithophysal zone. Sample variance along the tunnel indicates there are 
segments (from Stations 15+00 to 18+05 and 19+90 to 21+80) that have significantly 
greater amounts of cavities than is typical for the lithostratigraphic unit as a whole 
(Figure VII-20). As discussed elsewhere inSection VII-3, the amounts of lithophysal 
cavities measured behind the bulkhead at 22+01 are probably over estimates, so the larger 
variances from 22+45 to 23+35 must be viewed with caution. Comparison of the 
variance in the 5-m data and 10-m to 30-m moving average data provides a measure of 
length scales across which the data have large or small variations. The 5-m data has the 
largest variation in values and progressively longer moving average values have smaller 
variations, but regardless of moving average or not, all the data maintain the along-the-
tunnel variations in the abundance of lithophysal cavities (Figure VII-20). Differences in 
sample variance pairs of data at each station indicate the greatest step in minimizing the 
variance is with the 10-m or 15-m moving averages (Figure VII-21). For example, 
subtracting the 10-m moving average value from the 5-m data results in numerous values 
larger or small than 4,000, and subtracting the 15-m moving average value from the 10m 
moving average value results in only a few values larger or smaller than 2,000. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00AVII-35December 20030200004000060000800001000001200001400001600001400150016001700180019002000210022002300Station (m)
Sample Variance5 m data10-m ave.
15-m ave.
20-m ave.
25-m ave.
30-m ave.
NOTE:Data and graph are from the adjusted length traverses (see Attachment VIII, file Drift Deg AMR ACT-Trav.xls).
Figure VII-20. Sample Variance in the Summed Length of Lithophysal Cavities Based on 5-mData and 10-m to 30-m Moving Average Data from Tape Traverses in the Tptpllof the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
0 
1400 1500 2300 
(m) 
-100000 
-80000 
-60000 
-40000 
-20000 
20000 
40000 
60000 
80000 
100000 
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 
StationDifference in sample variance 
5m - 10m 
10m -15m 
15m -20m 
20m -25m 
25m -30m 
NOTES: Data and graph are from the adjusted length traverses (see Attachment VIII, file Drift Deg AMR AC 
T-Trav.xls). 5m-10m is the difference in sample variance at each station of the 5-m data minus 
the variance of 10-m data. 
Figure VII-21. Differences in Sample Variance in the Summed Length of Lithophysal Cavities 
with Pairs of Various Moving Average Data from Tape Traverses in the Tptpll of 
the ECRB Cross-Drift from 14+05 to 23+35 
VII.6.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR LARGE LITHOPHYSAE FROM 
THE LARGE-LITHOPHYSAL INVENTORY IN THE Tptpll OF THE 
ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM STATIONS 14+50 TO 17+56 
The descriptive statistics for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and lithic clasts in largelithophysal 
inventory in the Tptpll of the ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+50 to 
17+56 were determined to support the distribution of size and abundance of 
lithostratigraphic features as described in Sections VII.4 and VII.6.6. Descriptive 
statistics were determined on data provided in DTN: GS021008314224.002, and were 
determined in support of this report. Descriptive statistics are provided for the sizes 
(actually areas in mm2) and percent of the individual and total area for lithophysal 
cavities for 5-m long and 10-m long tunnel segments. The descriptive statistics were 
determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft 
Excel 97 SR-2, and are documented in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AD L-
Litho.xls (Attachment VIII), which can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: 
MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-36 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
VII.6.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ABUNDANCE OF LITHOPHYSAE 
AND SPOTS IN THE Tptpll ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT FROM 
STATIONS 14+05 TO 23+35 (MONGANO ET AL. 1999) 
The descriptive statistics for the abundance of lithophysae and spots in the Tptpll of the 
ECRB Cross-Drift from Stations 14+05 to 23+25 were compiled in support of the 
calculation of the distribution of the abundance of lithostratigraphic features as described 
in Sections VII.3 and VII.6.6. Descriptive statistics were determined from (and are 
consistent with) values described in Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 and 4). The 
descriptions presented in Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 and 4) are summarized in the 
Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AE Mongano.xls (Attachment VIII), and specific 
values are listed in 5-m station increments. The estimated median and maximum 
values are summarized in Table VII-11 where the median values do not include local 
maximum values and the maximum values include only the maximum values. The 
descriptive statistics were determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-
shelf software Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2. The Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AE 
Mongano.xls, can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) 
or CD#1 attached to this document. 
VII.6.6 CORRELATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO TAPE TRAVERSE DATA 
AND DETERMINATION OF BEST FIT VALUES OF LITHOPHYSAL 
CAVITIES, RIMS, SPOTS, AND MATRIX-GROUNDMASS IN THE 
Tptpll ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT 
To produce the best fit values for lithophysal cavities, rims, spots, and matrix-
groundmass located every 5 m along the ECRB Cross-Drift, the tape traverse data output 
for cavities and rims plus spots were initially corrected to the angular traverse data, 
then panel map data, and finally with one more set of empirical correction factors. The 
panel map and angular traverse data are not corrected and are from the original 
lithophysal study data package (DTN: GS021008314224.002) and the tape traverse data 
are from the file Drift Deg AMR AC T-Trav.xls (Attachment VIII). The basic data 
including 10-m to 30-m moving averages of tape data, correlation equations, and 
empirical corrections are included in the Microsoft Excel file, Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P 
Fit.xls (Attachment VIII), and can be accessed through the TDMS (DTN: 
MO0306MWDDDMIO.001) or CD#1 attached to this document. The descriptive 
statistics in the Length - Fit and Stats and Volume Percent - Stats worksheets were 
determined with the standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software Microsoft 
Excel 97 SR-2. A description of the worksheets contained in Drift Deg AMR AF T-A-P 
Fit.xls is provided as follows: 
1. The T-A-P Cav Fit worksheet contains lithophysal cavity data from the tape and 
angular traverses and panel maps, and compares and correlates the tape and angular 
traverse data using equations of correlation. The abundance of cavities are calculated 
using the tape data and correlation equation and results in values every 5 meters along 
the tunnel (symbol Ct). The Ct values are used in the Length - Fit and Stats 
worksheet. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-37 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VII-11. Descriptive Statistics for Median and Maximum Abundance (Percent) of 
Lithophysal Cavities and Spots in the Tptpll Exposed in the ECRB Cross-Drift 
from Stations 14+44 to 23+26 Estimated from Mongano et al. (1999, Tables 3 
and 4) 
Descriptive Statistics 
1444 to 2326 1460 to 2320 
Lithop (M) Spots (M) Spot(M Por) Lithop (M) Spots (M) Spot(M Por) 
Estimated Mean Values 
Mean 8.67 13.52 3.38 8.81 13.35 3.34 
Standard Error 0.33 0.89 0.22 0.34 0.90 0.23 
Median 7.50 7.00 1.75 7.50 7.00 1.75 
Mode 10.00 6.00 1.50 10.00 6.00 1.50 
Standard Deviation 4.56 12.15 3.04 4.57 12.14 3.03 
Sample Variance 20.82 147.63 9.23 20.84 147.31 9.21 
Kurtosis 3.21 -0.58 -0.58 3.18 -0.47 -0.47 
Skewness 1.53 1.09 1.09 1.52 1.14 1.14 
Range 23.00 37.00 9.25 23.00 36.00 9.00 
Minimum 2.00 3.00 0.75 2.00 4.00 1.00 
Maximum 25.00 40.00 10.00 25.00 40.00 10.00 
Sum 1612.00 2514.50 628.63 1586.00 2403.50 600.88 
Count 186 186 186 180 180 180 
Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.66 1.75 0.44 0.67 1.77 0.44 
Estimated Maximum Values 
Mean 12.27 12.27 4.20 12.48 16.63 4.16 
Standard Error 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.40 0.99 0.25 
Median 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 
Mode 15.00 15.00 1.75 15.00 7.00 1.75 
Standard Deviation 5.39 5.39 3.33 5.35 13.27 3.32 
Sample Variance 29.05 29.05 11.06 28.59 176.00 11.00 
Kurtosis 1.78 1.78 -0.95 1.82 -0.86 -0.86 
Skewness 1.13 1.13 0.87 1.15 0.92 0.92 
Range 27.00 27.00 9.25 27.00 35.00 8.75 
Minimum 3.00 3.00 0.75 3.00 5.00 1.25 
Maximum 30.00 30.00 10.00 30.00 40.00 10.00 
Sum 2283.00 2283.00 781.75 2247.00 2994.00 748.50 
Count 186 186 186 180 180 180 
Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.77 0.77 0.48 0.78 1.94 0.48 
Source: DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001 
2. The T-A-P R-S Fit worksheet contains estimated rims plus spot data from the 
tape traverses and angular traverse and panel map data, and compares and correlates 
the tape and angular traverse data using equations of correlation. The abundance of 
rims plus spots is calculated using the tape data and correlation equation and 
results in values every 5 meters along the tunnel. These calculated tape values are 
adjusted by to the angular traverse and panel map values by empirically determined 
correction factors and result in best fit values Rims+Spots (tape-cor). The 
Rims+Spots (tape-cor) values are used in the Length - Fit and Stats worksheet. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
3. The Length - Fit and Stats worksheet summarize lithophysal cavity, rim, and spot 
data from the corrected tape traverses and the angular traverses and panel maps, and 
is used to develop fitted abundance along the tunnel. The Ct values are from 
the T-A-P Cav Fit worksheet, and the Rims+Spots (tape-cor) values are from 
the T-A-P R-S Fit worksheet. Fitted cavity, rim, and spot curves are developed 
using corrected tape values that are adjusted by to the angular traverse and panel 
map values with empirically determined correction factors. Descriptive statistics 
for abundance of cavities, rims, and spots are determined for data along the tunnel 
from Stations 14+60 to 23+20, the best technical data from 14+60 to 22+00, and 
as a average for the entire Tptpll zone. 
4. The Volume Percent - Stats worksheet replicates the Length - Fit and Stats 
worksheet, but the porosity is calculated every 5 meters along the tunnel and is 
averaged for the total length of the Tptpll zone. The amount of matrix-
groundmass is determined by difference (100 minus the sum of cavities, rims, and 
spots). Porosity of lithophysal cavities are assumed to be 1.00 (cm3/cm3), rims and 
spots are 0.25 (cm3/cm3), and the matrix-groundmass is 0.13 (cm3/cm3). 
Descriptive statistics for the porosity of cavities, rims, and spots are determined for 
data along the tunnel from Stations 14+60 to 23+20, the best technical data from 
14+60 to 22+00, and as a average for the entire Tptpll zone. 
VII.6.7 ACCURACY OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED VALUES 
The accuracy of measured values must be understood in the context of three conditions: 
(1) the specific measurements made on features, (2) conditions that affect the 
measurements, and (3) how well the measurements and the summed and calculated 
values represent the three-dimensional distributions of the features. 
Accuracy of measured data for each of the four data collection methods. The panel 
maps are at a 1:10 scale and measurements are recorded to the nearest millimeter. 
Individual measurements in the panel maps can be accurate to 1 or 2 mm for small or 
narrow features; however, large, irregularly shaped objects (those with dimensions of 
several decimeters) can be accurate to 10 to 50 mm depending on how the data collector 
identifies the long and short axes. 
Angular traverses are measured in degrees and minutes, and the recorded values are 
rounded to the nearest 5 minutes (5). In the ECRB Cross-Drift, an arc of 5 calculates to 
about 4 mm on the tunnel wall, and this is also about the diameter of the laser beam. 
Pragmatically, the identification of the edge of a feature is a function of how sharp (or 
gradational) is the edge and the conditions in the tunnel. The edges of most features 
including lithophysal cavities, rims, and spots are relatively sharp (can be identified to 
less than 2 mm in width) with close examination. However for most features, the 
distance from the data collector to the tunnel wall was 1 to 3.5 m, so even with 
binoculars, the accuracy of the measurement is about 15 (about 10 mm). The conditions 
in the tunnel during collection of the angular traverse data included the need to wear 
safety glasses (and at times respirator), irregular distribution of tunnel illumination, dust 
cover on the tunnel walls, irregularities (breakouts) along the tunnel walls, and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-39 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
obstructions to the line of sight and the need to estimate positions of features. With these 
various conditions, a practical accuracy is probably 5 to 40 (about 4 to 30 mm) for any 
given measurement. 
The tape (stadia rod) used for the tape traverses is divided into decimeters and 
centimeters, and the data can be recorded to the nearest 1 cm. However, based on the 
projection of the cavity walls to the tape and the difficulties in positioning the tape along 
the wall results in a practical accuracy of probably 2 to 10 cm for any given 
measurement. 
Similar to the tape traverse measurements, the tape (stadia rod) used in the largelithophysae 
inventory is divided into decimeters and centimeters, and the data can be 
recorded to the nearest 1 cm. However, based on the projection of the cavity walls to the 
tape and the difficulties in positioning the tape along the wall results in a practical 
accuracy probably 2 to 10 cm for any given measurement. 
Conditions that affect the accuracy and use of measurements. In the panel maps 
there are a three main conditions that can affect the accuracy of the values (others are 
described in the data package for DTN: GS021008314224.002): 
1. The boundaries of features in the Corel Draw panel maps are based on photographic 
interpretation, hand-drawn maps compiled in the tunnel, and values measured in the 
tunnel and recorded in the Excel workbooks. Boundaries of features are typically 
sharp (as described above); however, the portrayal of the boundaries, regardless of 
being observations in the tunnel or as photographic interpretation, is a bit 
subjective; therefore, it can affect the accuracy of the feature boundaries. The 
subjective aspects typically arise where the edge of a feature does not occur on the 
tunnel wall (i.e., in a broken out lithophysal cavity or block bounded by fractures). 
The attempted balance used by the mapper is to project the contact to the plane of 
the tunnel wall, which is the plane on which the map is made, but also depict the 
contact where it appears to be on the photograph and would be viewed by other 
users. In part, this is an issue of perspective, but it probably does not affect the total 
percent of features by more than 1 to 3 percent. 
2. A few of the panels from 17+63 to 23+00 were not washed as well as the ones from 
14+90 to 17+63; therefore, the photographs of the tunnel walls were not as helpful 
for mapping the features. One result of the incomplete washing was that some of 
the features were more difficult to identify in the photograph than in other locations. 
A second result was that some of the lithophysal cavities that had been backfilled 
with rock-flour from the tunnel boring machine were not cleaned out; therefore, 
they were excavated by hand and hammer. Because the photographs were taken 
before this additional excavation, the edges of the lithophysae were approximated 
and drawn on the photograph. 
3. Rocks in the panel maps have distributions in the sizes and spatial positions of 
lithostratigraphic features; therefore, the position of the map-area (1x3 m) box can 
result in variations in areas. Panel map 1641-44L was used to compare the original 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-40 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
position of the map area (that which is included in the data package) and four other 
alternative positions. The alternative positions were selected such that one position 
is to the upper left of the original position, and the other alternative positions are to 
the upper right, lower right, and lower left (respectively) of the original position. 
Descriptive statistics on the percent areas determined from the five map positions 
indicate the matrix-groundmass and lithophysal cavities have 95 percent confidence 
levels of less than 4 percent and the rims, spots, and lithic clasts have 95 percent 
confidence levels of less than 0.5 percent (Table VII-12). 
Table VII-12. Comparative Values from the Original Position of the Panel Pap and Four 
Alternative-Position Maps 
Map positions No. of Objects MGM % L-cavities % L-rims % Spots % C-Lithic % 
Original position (OP) 117 71.61 19.01 5.75 3.49 0.14 
Alternative position 1 (AP1) 90 70.35 21.70 5.13 2.77 0.05 
Alternative position 2 (AP2) 110 75.69 15.52 5.01 3.54 0.24 
Alternative position 3 (AP3) 106 76.75 14.45 4.91 3.65 0.24 
Alternative position 4 (AP4) 99 75.77 15.89 5.20 3.08 0.05 
Descriptive statistics No. of Objects MGM % L-cavities % L-rims % Spots % C-Lithic % 
Mean 104.40 74.03 17.31 5.20 3.31 0.15 
Standard Error 4.63 1.28 1.33 0.15 0.17 0.04 
Median 106.00 75.69 15.89 5.13 3.49 0.14 
Standard Deviation 10.36 2.85 2.98 0.33 0.37 0.09 
Sample Variance 107.30 8.15 8.89 0.11 0.14 0.01 
Range 27.00 6.40 7.25 0.84 0.88 0.19 
Minimum 90.00 70.35 14.45 4.91 2.77 0.05 
Maximum 117.00 76.75 21.70 5.75 3.65 0.24 
Confidence Level(95.0%) 12.86 3.54 3.70 0.40 0.46 0.12 
NOTES: MGM = matrix-groundmass, L-cavities = lithophysal cavities, L-rims = rims on lithophysae, C-Lithic = lithic 
clasts. 
In the tape traverse data there are three main conditions that can affect the accuracy of the 
values (others are described in the data package for DTN: GS021008314224.002): 
1. In the data package, the amounts of lithophysal cavities in the tape traverses from
21+25 to 23+35 are greater than (and from 22+01 to 23+35 much greater than)
those documented in panel maps and angular traverses. This segment of the tunnel
was the first to have data collected and it contains abundant spots. Re-examination
of the exposures from 21+25 to 22+01 indicates many of the initially identified
lithophysae are spots, although some spots have a thin stringer or veinlet inside, and
this appears to have lead to the identification as lithophysae.
2. Tape traverse data were collected by three collectors, and there appears to be a
slight variation in the estimated amounts of rims and spots depending on the
different collectors. There are slightly smaller estimates in the section from 14+00
to 17+63 compared to the section from 17+63 to 22+01. Additionally, some of the
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-41 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
measurements of rims and spots from the panel maps and angular traverses in these 
sections of the tunnel appear to confirm the smaller visual estimates determined in 
the tape traverse. However, other panel map and angular traverse data appears to 
indicate the visual estimates determined in the tape traverse are a little small. 
Adjustments of the tape data are described in Sections VII.3 and VII.6. 
3. In the tape traverse data, one component used in calculating the abundance of 
lithophysal cavities is the total length of the traverse. The length of the traverse 
results from the amount of construction materials in the tunnel and the height of the 
laser-prism above the invert (see Figure VII-1 and the data package for DTN: 
GS021008314224.002 for a detailed discussion). The traverses began at the top of 
the compressed air pipe and ended at the top of the conveyor belt, and the 
construction materials that affected the length include pipes, electrical lines, steel 
sets, vent lines, the conveyor belt and frame, and other equipment. Although the 
influence of the laser-prism height on the length was discussed by investigators, it 
was never specified and not explicitly recorded. Initially (from Station 22+00 to 
19+80), the total and visible lengths were measured for each traverse with a wheel 
on the end of the extension rod/handle. At Station 19+80 the compiler determined 
that most measured lengths and tunnel conditions were similar enough that the 
visible length of 6.7 m was used as the standard value for the remainder of the 
traverses to Station 14+05. Some of the angular traverses were measured at the 
same locations as the tape traverses, and the calculated visible lengths vary from 7.0 
to 7.8 m (these values do not include the traverses where there is no vent line or 
conveyor). This comparison indicates the 6.7-m visible length is probably too short 
for most of the tape traverses. The amount of difference in the calculated percent 
based on the total length of the traverse is proportional to the amount of cavities 
measured such that a traverse with only a few percent cavities is barely affected 
whereas the traverse with the most cavities is affected the most. For example, the 
greatest effect occurs in the traverse at 16+00 with 3.6-m length of cavities, so with 
a 6.7-m length, the cavities form 53.9 percent of the tunnel wall. If the visible 
length of the tape traverse is adjusted to 7.2 m, the calculated abundance of 
lithophysal cavities locally decreases by much as 3.7 percent (a 6.9 percent 
decrease). Additionally, and if the adjusted visible length is 7.4 m, the cavity value 
decreases by as much as 5.8 percent (a 10.7 percent decrease). The correction of 
tape data is described more in Sections VII.3 and VII.6. 
There were three main restrictions on the amount of time allowed to collect the data from 
Stations 17+63 to 23+35. The first two time constraints were related to the closing of the 
bulkheads at Stations 22+01 and 17+63. The bulkhead at 22+01 was closed on 
November 14, 2001 and the bulkhead at 17+63 was closed on December 20, 2001. The 
main affect of these closures was that a lot of data had to be collected in a very short 
amount of time, and some of the basic techniques of collection had not been thoroughly 
tested. The data behind the 22+01 bulkhead had to be technically reviewed prior to the 
closing of the bulkhead. All the data behind the 17+63 bulkhead was collected in 
respirators and Tivex suites as a result of issues with mold. The third time constraint 
was the 6-week long stand-down of work at the site from late March to early May when 
no one was allowed to work in the tunnel. These restrictions in access to the tunnel 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-42 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
necessitated a greater reliance on photographic interpretations than would be desirable. 
For example, the short time frame in which to collect all the panel data prior to closing of 
the bulkheads resulted in the mappers focusing on the lithophysal cavities and rims, and 
less attention was on the spots. In a few panel maps, spots appear to be slightly under 
represented and some spots were added to the maps during the photographic 
interpretation. 
Qualitatively, there are reasonably good comparisons of values measured with different 
techniques, and some data can be compared quantitatively. Differences in the values 
measured by the three methods (panel maps, angular traverses, and tape traverses) are 
expected because of how the data are collected, and these relations are implicit in the 
need to design three methods of data collection. The lithophysal cavity values from the 
tape traverses tend to be 1 to 3 times greater than in adjacent or co-located panel map 
and/or angular traverse values. The angular traverse values (for lithophysal cavities, 
rims, spots, and clasts) tend to be slightly greater than those for the panel maps; however, 
locally the panel map values can be greater. The average lithophysal-cavity value that is 
fully within the lower lithophysal zone (from Station 14+60 to 23+20) is 18.9 percent 
from tape traverses (nonadjusted values from Table VII-4) compared to 15.5 percent 
from angular traverses and 12.9 percent from panel maps Table VII-9). 
How well measurements represent the three-dimensional distributions of the 
features. Determining the 3-dimensional size, shape, and distribution of features and 
objects is one of the ultimate results of all the measurements described in this section. 
Most measurements in solid objects that can not be disaggregated (such as rocks) are 
made with 2-dimensional cross sections and 1-dimensional traverses, so it is important to 
appreciate the geometric relations of the three-dimensional objects with respect to how 
they are measured. For example, an ellipsoid consisting of three axes (A is the longest, B 
is intermediate in length, and C is the shortest) can be cut along many planes to create 
various two dimensional cross sections (Figure VII-22). The smallest cross sectional area 
is for a plane through the B-C axes, an intermediate cross sectional area is through the AC 
axes, and the maximum cross sectional area is through the A-B axes. An ellipsoid is a 
simplified rendition of many lithostratigraphic features, especially where a foliation is 
well developed such as rocks in the lower lithophysal zone exposed in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. With respect to the lower lithophysal zone in the tunnel, the left and right ribs 
approximate cuts along planes parallel to the one that contains the A-C axes, and the 
crown and invert approximate cuts along planes parallel to the one that contain the A-B 
axes. Cross sections that contain the primary axes and transect the center of the ellipsoid 
have the maximum area (for example, a and c in Figure VII-22). However, any plane cut 
parallel to the primary plane (for example A-C) that does not transect the center of the 
ellipsoid has the same cross sectional shape, but the axes are shorter (a2 and c2) and the 
area is smaller. If a 1-dimensional linear traverse transects an object, then the maximum 
length of the intercept occurs only if the transect is along the primary axis (for example, c 
in Figure VII-22). However, if the transect is parallel to the C axis, but does not intersect 
the center of the ellipsoid, then the length of the intercept is less than the length of the 
axis (for example, c and c2 in Figure VII-22). These relations are the basis of the 
observation in the YMP-USGS Technical Procedure GP-20 R1 (Estimating Abundance 
of Features in Core and in Outcorp, Including Lithophysae, Spots, Clasts, and Fractures) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-43 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
that 2- and 1-dimensional measurements typically result in under estimates of the true 
measurements of a feature. This review of geometric relations of measurements indicates 
that even with all the methods used and documentation of measurements and correlations 
of values between the various techniques, the actual values at a specific location or the 
descriptive statistics probably represent minimum values. 
NOTES: The A axis is the longest axis, the B axis is the intermediate length, and the C axis is the shortest. 
Figure VII-22. Geometric Relations of Three-Dimensional Ellipsoid with Two-Dimensional Cross 
Sections and One-Dimensional Transects 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VII-44 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VIII
ELECTRONIC COMPUTER FILES SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT VIII 
ELECTRONIC COMPUTER FILES SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS 
The computer files developed for this report can be accessed from the Compact Discs (CDs) 
attached to this report, and include the following: 
 Calculation support files (CD Disc 1) 
 PFC Inputs & Outputs (PFC Files, CD Disc 2 through Disc 19) 
 UDEC Inputs & Outputs (UDEC Files, CD Disc 20 through Disc 24) 
Calculation files were developed in this model report to perform support calculation activities as 
described in Section 8, Section 9, and associated attachments. These calculations use the 
standard functions of commercial off-the-shelf software, including both Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 
and Mathcad 2001i Professional. Table VIII-1 provides a listing of all calculation files, 
including the location in this report where the calculation is used. All calculation files listed in 
Table VIII-1 can be accessed from CD#1 attached to this report. The Drift Deg AMR files 
(first 6 files listed in Table VIII-1 can also be accessed through the Technical Data Management 
System (TDMS) (DTN: MO0306MWDDDMIO.001, directory Drift_Deg_Model_in_out/ 
Calculation Files/readme2.txt). 
Table VIII-1. List of Electronic Calculation Files 
File Name File Type Brief Description 
Drift Deg AMR AA 
PMap.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.1). 
Drift Deg AMR AB 
A-Trav.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.2). 
Drift Deg AMR AC 
T-Trav.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.3, VII.6.6). 
Drift Deg AMR AD 
L-Litho.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.4). 
Drift Deg AMR AE 
Mongano.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.5). 
Drift Deg AMR AF 
T-A-P Fit.xls 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2 Calculation file for descriptive statistics for lithophysal 
abundance and lithophysal characteristics in the ECRB Cross-
Drift. Application: lithophysal rockfall model. Calculation 
details provided in Attachment VII (Section VII.6.6). 
Compressive and 
Porosity Data.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core compressive strength, both 
unconfined and confined, Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, 
and porosity. The sheet also includes sample test conditions 
including temperature, strain rate, size, and length-to-diameter 
ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Sections 8.2.3.4, 
8.4.2.1, 8.4.2.2, 8.4.4.2, and 8.4.4.3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VIII-1 (continued). List of Electronic Calculation Files 
Dynamic Elastic 
Master Sheet.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core dynamic Youngs modulus, and 
Poissons ratio. The sheet also includes sample test conditions 
including temperature, strain rate, size, and length-to-diameter 
ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Sections 8.4.3.2 
and 8.4.3.3) 
ITS Master 
Sheet.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Spreadsheet of intact rock core indirect tensile strength and 
sample porosity. The sheet also includes sample test 
conditions including temperature, size, and length-to-diameter 
ratio. Notes and source DTNs are provided. (Section 8.4.4.4) 
Correct Tptpln.mcd MathCAD 2001i MathCAD calculation file that fits a Hoek-Brown failure curve to 
intact rock compressive and indirect tensile data for the Tptpln 
lithostratigraphic rock unit. (Section 8.4.4.5) 
Correct Tptpln.xls Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Excel file that houses the discrete selections of data selected by 
the GoldSim file Tptpln.gsm. This file feeds the MathCAD 
Hoek-Brown curve fitting file Correct Tptpln.mcd. (Section 
8.4.4.5) 
Results of 
MathCAD General 
Fit Routine for 
Tptpln Data.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Results of the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting routine. 
These results develop the input distributions for the GoldSim file 
Tptpln Final Model.gsm. (Section 8.4.4.5) 
Tptpln Final 
Model.gsm 
GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that calculates rock mass parameters including 
rock mass compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of 
elasticity, friction angle, and cohesion. (Section 8.5.2) 
Tptpln.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that selects discrete sets of intact rock strength 
values from correlated laboratory rock test result distributions 
for the Tptpln lithostratigraphic rock unit. This file produces 
results saved in the file Correct Tptpln.xls. (Section 8.4.4.5) 
Correct Tptpmn Hot 
2.mcd 
MathCAD 2001i MathCAD calculation file that fits a Hoek-Brown failure curve to 
intact rock compressive and indirect tensile data for the Tptpmn 
lithostratigraphic rock unit. (Section 8.4.4.5) 
Correct Tptpmn Hot 
2.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Excel file that houses the discrete selections of data selected by 
the GoldSim file Tptpmn Hot.gsm. This file feeds the MathCAD 
Hoek-Brown curve fitting file Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.mcd. 
(Section 8.4.4.5) 
Results of 
MathCAD General 
Fit Routine for 
Tptpmn Hot 
Data.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 The results of the MathCAD Hoek-Brown curve fitting routine. 
These results develop the input distributions for the GoldSim file 
Tptpmn Hot All Data Final Model.gsm. (Section 8.4.4.5) 
Tptpmn Hot All 
Data Final 
Model.gsm 
GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that calculates rock mass parameters including 
rock mass compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of 
elasticity, friction angle, and cohesion. (Section 8.5.2) 
Tptpmn Hot.gsm GoldSim 7.50.1 GoldSim model that selects discrete sets of intact rock strength 
values from correlated laboratory rock test result distributions 
for the Tptpmn lithostratigraphic rock unit. This file produces 
results saved in the file Correct Tptpmn Hot 2.xls. (Section 
8.4.4.5) 
65A-642-
specimen.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory 
direct shear test on specimen number 65A-642 (Section 
8.6.5.2) 
65A-643-
specimen.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory 
direct shear test on specimen number 65A-643 (Section 
8.6.5.2) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Table VIII-1 (continued). List of Electronic Calculation Files 
65A-646-
specimen.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory 
direct shear test on specimen number 65A-646 (Section 
8.6.5.2) 
65A-647-
specimen.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory 
direct shear test on specimen number 65A-647 (Section 
8.6.5.2) 
65A-657-
specimen.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for determination of shear stiffness of laboratory 
direct shear test on specimen number 65A-657 (Section 
8.6.5.2) 
DirectShearRockJo 
intData_SGPR00A. 
xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for descriptive statistics of fracture mechanical 
properties from direct shear testing (Sections 8.6.4.2 and 
8.6.5.2) 
RotaryRockJointDa 
ta_SGPR00A.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for descriptive statistics of fracture mechanical 
properties from rotary shear testing (Sections 8.6.4.1 and 
8.6.5.1) 
PanelUnitPercenta 
ge_SGPR.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Calculation file for the determination of the percentage of 
lithostratigraphic units for all emplacement drifts (Section 5.4) 
Lithophysal 
projection to 
vertical plane.xls 
Microsoft Excel 2000 SP-3 Input data, intermediate calculations, and results of the 
assessment of the distribution of lithophysal cavity porosity 
(Section 9.4.3) 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A VIII-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT IX
INTACT ROCK MECHANICAL DATA
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-1 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
ATTACHMENT IX 
INTACT ROCK MECHANICAL DATA AND SOURCE CORRECTIONS 
IX.1 INTRODUCTION 
The Projects intact rock mechanical data originated from testing that began in the late 
1970s and is ongoing. Test data was submitted to the Project incrementally as work was 
completed, and each submission came in different form. The results of the various 
testing were submitted to the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) in the form 
of multiple data tracking numbers (DTNs). 
The data was collected over a long period of time, and therefore, was collected under 
several evolving quality programs having various requirements and purposes. A recent 
qualification effort described in procedure AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified 
Data, has located and researched the appropriateness of data documents under our current 
quality expectations. This work looked only at the documentation supporting the 
collection and movement of data, not at the data itself. The result of this recent 
qualification effort produced three data qualification reports related to intact rock 
mechanical data: 
1. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on 
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, Triaxial Compressive Strength, Friction Angle, 
and Cohesion by E.M. Cikanek, T.A. Grant, and R.J. Blakely. The output data 
appears in DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002. 
2. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on 
Poissons Ratio and Youngs Modulus by E.M. Cikanek, L.E. Safley, and T.A. 
Grant. The output data appears in MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. 
3. Data Qualification and Data Summary Report: Intact Rock Properties Data on 
Tensile Strength, Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness, and Rock Triaxial Creep 
by E.M Cikanek, R.J. Blakely, T.A. Grant, and L.E. Safley. The output data 
appears in DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. 
IX.2 CORRECTIONS TO SOURCE DATA 
While these reports located and organized data for use, many errors have been found in 
data source reports and TDMS data summaries that must be corrected. Corrections have 
been submitted to the Corrective Action Program (CAP) program and the next revision of 
this report will produce output DTNs with these corrections. The corrections needed for 
static strength testing (DTN MO0308RCKPRPCS.002) and associated elastic parameters 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-2 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
(MO0304DQRIRPPR.002) are presented in Table IX-1. Each group of errors is 
associated with a CR identifier in the CAP system. 
Table IX-2 presents the differential strength, Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, and 
porosity for all currently known data. The data in Table IX-2 contains both qualified and 
unqualified data. At times, strength values were qualified, but corresponding elastic 
modulus values of the same sample were not located in the elastic parameters data search. 
The effort of locating, qualifying, and summarizing the strength values was performed 
separately from the locating, qualifying, and summarizing of the related elastic 
parameters. The locating, qualifying, and summarizing of porosity for the samples 
discussed in this report has not yet occurred, and is expected to begin in November of 
2003. 
The data presented in the tables highlighted in yellow indicates that the data is different 
than that presented in the appropriate data qualification summary report, but the changed 
data exists as qualified and verified in the originating DTN or data report. Results with a 
indigo background are different than the data presented in the appropriate data 
qualification report, but the results in the originating DTN are not qualified and/or 
verified. The data included as part of this report or changed from the data qualification 
reports were thoroughly investigated and believed to be correct and appropriate and 
qualified for use. These data will be tracked and updated, if necessary, to reflect the final 
results from the technical reviews of the data and the continuing qualification efforts. 
Comments are shown providing more information about the highlighted cells in the 
electronic file, Compressive and Porosity Data.xls (Attachment VIII). 
Sources for the indirect tensile data summary, DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002, were all 
qualified at the start of the qualification and summary effort. Changes in listed 
lithostratigraphic unit and an incorrect sample depth were found and changes are being 
initiated. Details of the specific differences between the data presented in this report and 
the data in the data qualification summary DTN, MO0306DQRIRPTS.002, are presented 
in Table IX-3. The indirect tensile data currently used in presented in full in Table IX-4. 
Additional comments are shown providing more information in the electronic file, ITS 
Master Sheet.xls (Attachment VIII). 
Dynamic Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio data came primarily from the 
qualification efforts summary DTN, MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Several corrections to 
this source were needed to allow the data to be properly summarized, and are presented in 
Table IX-5. These issues have been corrected in the data provided in this report, and 
source data is expected to be corrected for the next revision of this report. The actual 
dynamic Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio data supporting summary Tables 8-30 and 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-3 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
8-31 appears in Table IX-6 of this attachment. The data is appended electronically to this 
report as Dynamic Elastic Master Sheet.xls (Attachment VIII). 
IX.3 CONCLUSIONS 
Several data corrections with attached Condition/Issue Identification and Reporting/ 
Resolution System (CIRS) or Condition Reports (CRs) are proposed in Tables IX-1, IX3, 
and IX-5. These issues are currently being resolved and source data will be corrected 
as soon as the associated error has been corrected. Corrective Action Report 107 will 
address many of the failures that occurred that allowed these errors to occur. The 
Geotechnical Engineering Group of Design and Engineering within the Repository 
Development group will be making a thorough technical evaluation of the geotechnical 
data in the spring of 2004, and will likely find other necessary corrections as the data is 
examined. After this work is completed, it is intended to produce a relational database of 
geotechnical parameters that will become the basis for data used for detailed design of 
engineered geotechnical components and for geotechnical analysis. 
As with all engineering work, input data should be analyzed by the user to determine its 
correctness, appropriateness of use, and quality prior to using it for design activities. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-4 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1: Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
1 
R ock com pre ssive strength values from 
D T N SN L02030193001.001 values were 
used in the sum m ary and not included in 
the M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002. T he elastic 
values for this DT N were used in 
M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002. 
SN L02030193001.001 
Lines 74-75, 101104, 
125-126, 
135, 144-145, 
157-158, 165167, 
211-216 
T he qualification report for intact rock 
com pressive strength did not include 
DT N SN L02030193001.001 strength 
data, but the m odulus and Poisson's ratio 
value s fro m this D T N were used in 
M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002. The DTN is 
currently qualified and verified. 
865 
DT N G S 921283114220.008 is AQ V and 
2 
V alues of Young's M odulus and Poisson's 
ratio included, were not included in 
M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 
G S921283114220.008, Accession 
NN A.19930614.0024 
Lines 26-28, 36, 
45-47, 70, 72-73 
values of strength were used in 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002. The 
associated qualified verified elastic 
values have been added 
870 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 164 to 167 of 
3 C orrect units of T pcpm n are used instead 
of the reported T pk. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 917-920 Lines 63-66 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 92-94 
and 478 in M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 
reporting strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpm n 
872 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 113-126 of 
4 C orrect units of T pcpll are used instead of 
the reported T pc. 
M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 828-829, 
834-845 Lines 74-87 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 12-19 
and 296-299 in M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002 
reporting strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpll 
873 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 130-131 of 
5 C orrect units of T pcpln are used instead of 
the reported T pk . M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 914 and 915 Lines 91-92 M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 and lines 76-77 
in M O 0308R C KPRPC S.002 reporting 
strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln 
875 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 136 of M O 0304D Q R IR P P R.002 
6 C orrect units of T pcplnc are used instead 
of the reported T pk and T pcln. M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 916 Line 123 
re ports it as T pcpln, line 916 of the sam e 
DT N reports it as Tpk, and line 78 in 
M O 0308R C K PR PCS.002 reporting 
strength state the correct 
876 
lithostratigraphic unit is T pcplnc. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-5 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 109-112 of 
7 Correct units of T pcpln are used instead of 
the reported T pk and T pc. 
M O 3034D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 909-913 
and 109-112 Lines 93-97 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as 
T pc and lines 415 and 421-423 in 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting 
strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The 
Youngs m odulus values in lines 909-913 
of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the 
specim ens as originating from the T pk. 
877 
8 M issing Poisson's ratio of 0.20. D ata 
added. SN L02030193001.016 SEP S99112_003 Line 97 
T he data from SN L02030193001.016 
from sam ple N R G -7/7A-55.4-SN L-A is 
qualified and verified. All other values 
used. This value was also used. It 
appears as if though it was just left out. 
879 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 137-145 of 
9 Correct lithostratigraphic unit from Strength 
M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002 M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 921 to 929 Lines 98-100 
and 113-118 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as 
T pcpln and lines 86-91 and 475-477 in 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting 
strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The 
Youngs m odulus values in lines 921-929 
of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the 
specim ens as originating from the T pk. 
880 
T he corresponding Poisson's values in 
lines 132-135 of 
10 Correct lithostratigraphic unit of Tpcpln 
used instead of T pc M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 830-833 Lines 101-104 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as 
T pcpln. T he Youngs m odulus values in 
lines 830-833 of 
882 
M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 reports the 
specim ens as originating from the T pc. 
T he Poisson's values in lines 101-108 of 
11 Correct lithostratigraphic unit of Tpcpln 
used instead of T pc and Tpk 
M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 101-108 
and 894-901 Lines 105-112 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports it as 
T pc and lines 309-316 in 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 reporting 
strength state the correct 
lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpln. The 
Youngs m odulus values in lines 894-901 
of M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports the 
specim ens as originating from the T pk. 
883 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-6 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
12 Correct units of T pcpv2 used instead of 
Tpcpv 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 line 95 and 
M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 185 and 875 Line 124 
T he lithostratigraphic unit for Poisson's 
ratio and Young's m odulus in DTN 
M O 0304D Q R IR P PR .002 is T pcpv2 and 
is m ore specific than the unit of T pcpv 
used in M O 0308R CKPR PC S.002 for 
884 
strength. 
13 
T he unit of T pbt4 for sam ple SD -12-267.1-
SNL-A in DT N M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 is 
corrected to T pbt3 
M O 0308RCKPR PCS.002 line 474, 
M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 Lines 98 and 824 Line 142 
T he lithostratigraphic unit for Poisson's 
ratio and Young's m odulus in DTN 
M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002 is T pbt3. T he 
unit unit of T pbt4 used in 
M O 0308R C K PR PC S .002 for strength. 
T he correct unit is T pbt3. 
885 
14 
T he unit of T pp for sam ple N R G -6-222.0-
S NL-A in DT N M O 0304DQ R IRPPR.002 is 
corrected to T pbt2 from T pp 
M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 86 and 932 Line 165 
T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is 
T pbt2. Line 932 of 
M O 0304D R Q IR PPR .002 incorrectly 
reports the unit to be T pp. Line 86 of 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports 
Poisson's ratio values for the sam e 
886 
specim en and reports the specim ens 
originate from T pbt2 unit. 
T he differentiation to finer units is 
15 T he unit of T pcpv and T pcpv3 are 
corrected to T pcpv2 
M O 0308R C KPR PC S .002 Lines 424-425 
M O 0304D Q RIR PR .002 Lines 874 and 876, 
and lines 183 and 184 
Lines 127, 128 
necessary for proper sum m ary. T he 
correct lithostratigraphic unit is T pcpv2 
for lines 874, 183, and 184 in DT N 
M O 0304DQ RIRPPR .002. This unit is 
correct. T he incorrect unit of T pcpv3 for 
line 876 needs to be changed to T pcpv2. 
Lines 424 and 425 of D T N 
887 
M O 0308R C K PR PC S .002 also need bo 
be correct to unit T p cpv2 from T p cpv. 
T he correct lithostratigraphic unit is 
T pcpm n. Lines 917:920 of 
M O 0304D R Q IR PPR .002 incorrectly 
report this. Lines 164 through 167 of 
S am ples reporting Young's m odulus M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 reports 
values from the T pk lithostratigraphic unit Poisson's ratio values for the sam e 
16 were actually collected in the T pcpm n unit. M O 0304D Q RIR PPR .002 lines 917 to 920 Lines 63 to 66 specim ens and reports the specim ens 890 
T he correct unit is reported in the sum m ary 
table. 
originate from T pcpm n. Lines 274, 279, 
280, and 385 of 
M O 0308R C KPR PC S.002 reports 
strength and that the specim ens 
originated from the T pcpm n unit. The 
hole SD -12 never sam pled T pk rock. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-7 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
T he differentiation to finer units is 
necessary for proper sum m ary. T he 
correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpv1 
for lines 177-178 and 869-870 as 
17 T he unit of T pcpv is corrected to T pcpv1 
from T pcpv and 
M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 426-427 
M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 177-178, 
and 869 -870 
Lines 130, 131 
suggested in DT N 
M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002. This unit is 
correct. T he unit of T pcpv for line 426427 
of DT N M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002 
894 
needs to be changed to T pcpv2. T he 
unit with grater differentiation is now 
included. 
T he differentiation to finer units is 
18 T he unit of T pcpv is corrected to T pcpv1 
from T pcpv and T pbt4 
M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 416, 501 
M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 826, 871, 
179-180 
Lines 129,132 
necessary for proper sum m ary. T he 
correct lithostratigraphic unit is Tpcpv1 
for lines 871, 179, and 180 in DT N 
M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002. This unit is 
correct. T he incorrect unit of T pbt4 for 
line 826 needs to be changed to T pcpv1. 
Lines 416 and 501 of DT N 
895 
M O 0308RCKPRPC S.002 need to be 
changed to T pcpv1. 
19 
Elastic properties from D T N 
LL990205304243.032 included. T hey were 
excluded from M O 0304D Q RIRPPR.002 
LL990205304243.032 Lines 334-363 
Elastic properties were m issed in elastic 
qualification report. They need to be 
qualified and verified before inclusion in 
the SG PR . 
896 
20 Value of Poisson's R atio excluded (-0.01) 
is not a possible value M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 388 Line 571 
T he value of -0.01 for Poisson's Ratio is 
physically im possible. The value is 
removed for summary 
897 
21 
E lastic properties from accession 
NNA.19890825.0178 Table 5 were 
excluded from DT N 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 but strength 
values were included in 
M O 0308R CKPR PCS.002. T he elastic 
values will be included in the SG PR. 
NNA.19890825.0178 T able 5 Specim ens: 
BB-10-AE-19Y, BB-10-AE-44Y, BB-10-AE-
13Y, BB-10-AE-43X, BB-10-AE-49Y, BB-10-
A E-13W , BB-10-AE-34X, BB-10-AE-41X , 
B B -10-AE-45Y. M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 
Lines 206-206 and 893-898 
Lines 477-478, 
482-484, 489492 
Strength values frot hese sam ples are 
given in rows 206-208 and 893-898 in 
DT N M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 but were 
not included in the elastic sum m ary. 
T hey will be included in the SG PR . 
898 
22 T he incorrect lithostratigraphic unit of 
T ptpln is corrected to T ptpll 
M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 Lines 239 and 
997. M O 0308RCKPRPC S.002 line 317 Line 695 T he correct unit is T ptpll for line 997 of 
M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 899 
23 P oisson's ratio included for sam ple G U-3 
1195.1/1 SNSAND83164600.000 Line 858 Poisson's ratio of 0.18 included for 
sam ple G U -3 1195.1/1 900 
24 Duplicate data rem oved M O 0304D Q RIRPPR.002 Lines 360-362, 
364-368 
Lines 580, 586, 
593, 591, 581, 
585, and 592 
Lines 360-362 and 364-368 of 
M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 are duplicates 
of 345-347 and 348-352 of the sam e 
sheet 
901 
25 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from 
Tptpv to Tptpv3 M O 0308R C KPR P CS.002 Lines 185-188 Lines 850-853 T he further differntiation is necessary to 
properly sum m arize test results 905 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-8 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
26 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from 
Tptpv to Tptpv3 
M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 582-585 
and 1344-1348 M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 
Lines 483, 101, 102, 294, and 282 
Lines 854-858 
T he further differntiation is necessary to 
properly sum m arize test results. Lines 
from M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 are labled 
T ptpv. T he specim ens were determ ined 
to be from T ptpv3 and this is supported 
from lines from M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 
906 
27 Lithostratigraphic units differentiated from 
Tptpv to Tptpv2 
M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1341-1343 
and 579-581. M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 
Lines 293, 292, and 295. 
Lines 859-861 
T he further differntiation is necessary to 
properly sum m arize test results. Lines 
from M O 0308RC KPRPC S.002 are labled 
T ptpv. T he specim ens were determ ined 
to be from T ptpv2 and this is supported 
from lines from M O 0304DQ R IR PPR.002 
907 
Lines 880-895, 
941-942, 947948, 
955-969, 
28 Elastic data included from DT N 
SNSAND82131500.000 included SNSAND82131500.000 SEP S99007_002 
977-980, 985991, 
996-1009, 
1015-1016, 
1019-1022, 
Report says that DT N 
SNSAND82131500.000 repeats or 
sum m arizies data, so will not be used. 
T here is no ther location found in the 908 
1028-1029, 
1032-1033, 
report that provides inform ation from this 
DTN. T he data is included in the SG PR. 
1036-1047, 
1065-1066, 
1069-1072 
29 Young's M odulus values included from 
DTN SNSAND81166400.000 
SNSAND81166400.000 SEP S96149_001 
M O 0308RCKPRPCS.002 Lines 152-158 
Lines 951-954 
and 972-974 
Since the strength values were qualified, 
there is no reason the Young's m odulus 
values should not be qualified and used 
in the sum m ary. T hey are used in the 
SG PR. 
912 
30 
Added m issed Poisson's ratio for specim en 
G 12996.9 SLB from DT N 
SNSAND82105500.000 R ow 7 
M 00308RCKPRPC S.002 Line 608 Line 1034 
T he data point for Poisson's ratio was not 
included in D T N 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 but is included 913 
SNSAND82105500.000 M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 781 as the Young's m odulus value and 
strength w ere 
31 
Strength and elastic data not included in 
qualification reports. R esults from sam ple 
108 from DTN SNL02030180001.001 
NNA.19930316.0044 shows strength and 
elastic values for specim en 108 Line 1077 Data was not included, but the rest of the 
D TN was. Data was m issed. 914 
No data from original D T N (Accession 
32 Data m islabled and dulplicated M O 0304DQ R IR PPR .002 Line 1480 Line 1081 NN A.19930316.0045) for specim en 104. 915 
104 is duplicate of 105 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-9 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
T he addition of the elastic test results 
need to be included with the strength 
results of M O 0308RC KPR PC S.002 Lines 
Elastic data included from D T N SNSAND84110100.000 R ows 43-57 181-18 and 797-806. The 
33 SNSAND84110100.000 and further 
differentiation of units needed 
M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 181-184 
and 797-806 
Lines 862 to 875 lithostratigraphic unit should also be 
differentiated to T ptpv1 as this is the unit 
which the specim ens were sam ples. 
Som e of the data from the originating 
DTN was included and som e was not. 
916 
34 Duplicate data rem oved M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1190-1191, 
1031-1032, 463-464, and 304-305 
Lines 619 and 
622 
Lines 1190-1191 are duplicate lines of 
1031-1032 and 463-464 are duplicated of 
304-305. T he duplicate data needs to be 
rem oved 
919 
35 P oisson's ratio rem oved in sum m ary M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 line 151 Line 62 Unrealistic Poisson's R atio (1.13) 920 
36 P oisson's ratio rem oved in sum m ary M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 line 98 Line 142 Unrealistic Poisson's R atio (1.06) 920 
37 T ensile strength elastic m odulus rem oved 
from com pressive stre ngth sum m ary sheet M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 1030 Not in Sum m ary 
Line 1030 of M O 0304D Q RIRPPR .002 lis 
an elastic m odulus of a tensile test and 
should not be included in the sum m ary 
report. 
551 
38 Dynam ic inappropriately used in static 
sum m ary sheet M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Lines 1292-1317 Not in Sum m ary 
Dynam ic data treated as static data. T his 
data is inappropirate and was not used in 
the static sum m ary report 
551 
39 
Additional elastic data from DT N 
SNSAND85070300.000 which was 
excluded from DT N 
M O 0304D Q R IR PPR .002 is included. 
SNSAND85070300.000 SEP S97290_005 
and SEP S97290_006. 
Lines 170-172, 
200-201, 282289, 
623-631, 
637, 647-648, 
850-853, 10931096, 
1100-1102 
V alues o f Yo ung's M odulus an d 
Poisson's ratio were not included in the 
sum m ary DT N. 
CIRS 4671 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-10 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data 
Table IX-1 (continued): Corrections to Source DTNS MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 and MO0308RCKPRPCS.002 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
A ll other data from originating DT N were 
40 Elastic values from DTN 
SNSAND85070300.000 included M O 0308R CKPRPCS.002 Lines 807-813 Lines 1093-1096 
and 1100-1102 
included, so data from rows 30-63 of 
DT N S NSAND85070300.000 SEP 
T ables S97290_005 and S97290_005 
CIRS 4671 
were included in the SG PR 
41 Sam ple nam e boobus corrected to 
G 12996.9 SLB M O 0304DQ RIRPPR.002 Line 62 Line 1034 
S am ple nam e was corrected as 
presented in originating D TN 
S NSAND82105500.000 
590 
42 Young's M odulus value added for sam ple 
G 4-686.6-B 
S NSAND84110100.000 SEP T able 
S 98225_003 Row 2 Line 401 
A ll other data from originating DT N were 
included, so data from row 2 of D TN 
S NSAND84110100.000 SEP Table 
S 98225_003 were included in the SG PR. 
923 
43 Incorrect confining pressures listed with 
specim en results S NL02072983001.001 Lines 555-560 
Correct C onfining Pressures were used 
instead of incorrect confining pressures 
reported in the TDM S 
166 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-11 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2: Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-12 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-13 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-14 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-15 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-16 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-17 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-18 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-19 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-20 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-21 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-22 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-23 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-24 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-25 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-26 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-27 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-28 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-29 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-30 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-31 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-32 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-33 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-34 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-35 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-36 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-37 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data_______________ _________________ __________ __ 
Table IX-2 (continued): Static Differential Strength, Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio, and Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-38 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-3: Corrections to Source DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 for Indirect Tensile Data 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
1 
Sample depth corrected to 
reflect proper depth of 
sample recovery. 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
Line 105 Line 203 
The sample is reported in originating 
DTN to have been recovered from 
DTN SNL02030193001.009 (row 19) 
from a depth of 762.1, not 828.4 as 
reported in MO0306DQRIRPTS.002. 
CIRS 4722 
Data in rows 43-48 of DTN 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are currently 
labeled Tpc un. Rows 43-44 of DTN 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 should be 
2 
Appropriate 
lithostratigraphic units used 
instead of incorrect or 
insufficiently differentiated 
units provided in DTN 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 
Lines 43-48, 66-74, 90-95, 
182-185 
Lines 12-13, 1821, 
34-40, 43-43, 
102-107, 194197 
labeled Tpcpll and rows 45-48 should 
be labeled Tpcplnc. Rows 66-74 of 
DTN MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are 
also labeled Tpc un. They should be 
labeled Tpcplnh. Lines 90-95 of DTN 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 should be 
labeled Tpk or Tpki; they are currently 
labeled Tpkbt1, which does not exist. 
Lines 182-185 of DTN 
985 
MO0306DQRIRPTS.002 are currently 
labeled Tptrf. The Vulcan model 
shows that they should be labeled 
Tptprl for this borehole at the 
specified depth. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-39 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-4: Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-40 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-41 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-42 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-43 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-4 (continued): Indirect Tensile Strength and Sample Porosity Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-44 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-5: Corrections to Source DTN MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 for Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio 
Difference Source DTN(s) Location in 
Summary Reasoning for Difference CIRS/CR 
Data from specimens 9.5-16.2FT,-0, 16.2-
21.8FT,-03, and 21.8-30.6FT,-01-03 from 
report with accession 
NNA.19930614.0016 were incorrectly 
entered into the DTN 
1 Data provided as GPa, the appropriate unit 
for Dynamic Young's Modulus MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 1483-1488 Lines 169-174 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Values given 
in the originating document 
(NNA.19930614.0016 ) are in psi and not 
converted into GPa for the summary 
qaulification DTN. This affects 6 
samples. The data needs to be correctly 
converted fromEnglish (psi) to SI units 
(Gpa) to be properly reported in the table. 
605 
Data is duplicated in the DTN 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Lines 1509 
2 Duplicate data is removed from summary 
sheet 
MO034DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 1509-1510, 
1515-1516, 1667-1668, and 1673-1674 Not used and 1510 are repeated as lines 1515 and 
1516. Lines 1667 and 1668 are repeated 
as lines 1673 and 1674. Half of the data 
606 
needs to be removed. 
3 Duplicate data is removed from summary 
sheet 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 Lines 3871-3872 
and 3877-3878, 3706-3707 and 3700-3701 Lines 155, 162 
Data in rows 3877-3878 are duplicates of 
rows 3871-3872. Data in rows 37063707 
are duplicated of 3700-3701. 
Duplicate data is removed from the 
summary. 
1004 
4 Impossible Poisson's values excluded from 
SGPR 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002 - All Poisson's 
ratios less than 0, specifically rows 388 and 
1803-1805 for the SGPR. Other rows 
include 2035-2038, 2907, 3036, 3163, 
3173, 3176, 3180, 3181, 3826, 3831-3833, 
3840, 3842, 3950, 5068. 
Lines 47-49, 
117-118, 279, 
282, 285 
The values of Poisson's ratio less than 
zero are impossible and should not be 
included in summary data. 
1005 
5 
Appropriate data included in the SGPR that 
was not included in qualification summary 
DTN. 
GS940408312232.010 
Lines 2-135, 
164-168, 
302-341 
Appropriate and qualified data from DTN 
GS940408312232.010 was not included 
in qualification and summary DTN 
MO0304DQRIRPPR.002. Only select 
data from the originating DTN was 
included, when all was appropriate. 
1006 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-45 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6: Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-46 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-47 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-48 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-49 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-50 December 2003 

Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report 
Attachment IX Intact Rock Mechanical Data__ __ 
Table IX-6 (continued): Dynamic Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio Data 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A IX-51 December 2003