sand82-1315, 'analysis of rock mechanics properties of ...analysis of rock mechanics properties...
TRANSCRIPT
SANDIA REPORT SAND82-1315 * Unlimited Release * UC-70Printed August 1983
Analysis of Rock Mechanics Properties ofVolcanic Tuff Units from Yucca Mountain,Nevada Test Site
Ronald H. Price
Prepared bySandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550for the United States Department of Energyunder Contract OE-AC04-76DP00789
I
SF 2900-Q(6-82)
l
Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United StatesDepartment of Inergy by Sandia Corporation.NOTIClb This report wae prepared ae an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United State. Govern-ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employee., nor any of theircontractors, subcontractor, or their employees, makes any waranty ealpress or implied, or assumes any lega liability or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or useulnese of information, app s, prod-uct, or pro a diclosd, or repreaenb st its uae not infineprivatel owned rghts Reference hrein to any specific comeri product,process, or serve by tre nae, trademark, manufacture, o othe ,doe. not neceu arib constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,or favoring by the United State. Govrnment, any agency thereof or any dtheir contractorn or ubcontracto The views and opini erp ed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those f the United State Government,any agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors.
Printed in the United States of AmericaAvailable fromNotional Technical Information ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield. VA 22161
NTIS price code.Printed copy A05Microfiche copy: AO1
A
i
DistributionCategory UC-70
SAND82-1315Unlimited Release
Printed August 1983
Analysis of the
Rock Mechanics Properties of
Volcanic Tuff Units from
Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site
R. H. PriceGeotnechanics Division 1542
Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87185
ABSTRACT
Over two hundred fifty mechanical experiments have been run on samplesof tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. Cores from the TopopahSpring, Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram tuff units were deformed to collectdata for an initial evaluation of mechanical (elastic and strength) propertiesof the potential horizons for emplacement of commercial nuclear wastes.The experimental conditions ranged in sample saturation from room dry tofully saturated, confining pressure from 0.1 to 20 MPa, pore pressure from0.1 to 5 MPa, temperature from 23 to 200'C, and strain rate from 10-7 to10-2 s-1. These test data have been analyzed for variations in elastic andstrength properties with changes in test conditions, and to study the effectsof bulk-rock characteristics on mechanical properties. In addition to thesite-specific data on Yucca Mountain tuft, mechanical test results on silicictuff from Rainier Mesa, Nevada Test Site, are also discussed. These databoth overlap and augment the Yucca Mountain tuff data, allowing moredefinitive conclusions to be reached, as well as providing data at some testconditions not covered by the site-specific tests.
V
Contents
Page
8Introduction
Test Procedures and Sample Preparation.
Elastic Properties ............
Unconfined Strength ...........
Compressive Strength ........Tensile Strength ...........
Effects of Water .............
Effects of Pressure ............
Confining Pressure.Pore Pressure ............
Effects of Temperature .
Effects of Rate ..............
Estimate of Average and Limit Mechanical
Summary.
References .
Tables.
Figures .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
IProperties
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
6
7
8
99
9
10
1011
11
11
12
12
14
16
29
Appendix. . A p p e n d.i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 04
Tables
Page
Table 1. Symbols, Conventions and Units .1.8..... . . . . . . .. . . . le
Table 2. Abbreviations ................ ... .... ... . 17
Table 3. Model Fits to Young's Modulus Data ...... . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4. Model Fits to Poisson's Ratio Data ......... . .. . .. .. . 19
Table 5. Comparative Statistics of SNLA-TT Elastic Moduli Data ..... . 20
Table 6. Model Fits to Unconfined Compressive Strength Data .... . 21
Table 7. Comparative Statistics of SNLA-TT Unconfined Compressive StrengthData . . 22
Table 8. Test Results on the Effects of Changes in Water Content ..... . 23
Table 9. Parameter Values for the Coulomb Failure Criteria ........ . 24
Table 10. Test Results on the Effects of Changes in Temperature .... . . 25
Table 11. Test Results on the Effects of Changes in Strain Rate .... . . . 28
Table i2. Average-Case Mechanical Properties for each of the Yucca MountainThermal/Mechanical Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 13. Limit-Case Mechanical Properties for each of the Yucca MountainThermal/Mechanical Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3
Figures
Page
Figure 1. Yucca Mountain stratigraphic column at drillhole USW-GI. 29
Figure 2. A plot of Young's modulus as a function of grain density for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-5 9-1 conditions ....................... . 30
Figure 3. A plot of Young's modulus as a function of effective porosityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10-5 9-1 conditions ................. . 31
Figure 4. Plots of Young's modulus as a function of effective porosity forA. zeolitized and B. nonzeolitized SNLA data from the Calico Hills,Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All tests were run on saturatedsamples under unconfined, room temperature and 10-5 s-1 condi-tions ................................. . 32
Figure 5. A plot of Poisson's ratio as a function of effective porosity for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-5 9-1 conditions ....................... . 34
Figure 6. A plot of Poisson's ratio as a function of grain density for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-5 s-1 conditions ....................... . 35
Figure 7. A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function of porosityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10-5 8-' conditions ................. . 36
Figure 8. A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function of effectiveporosity for SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ashflow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined,room temperature and 10-5 s-1 conditions .............. . 37
Figure 9. Plots of unconfined compressive strength as a function of effectiveporosity for A. zeolitized and B. nonzeolitized SNLA data from theCalico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All tests were run onsaturated samples under unconfined, room temperature and 10-5 s1conditions ............................... . 38
4
Figure 10. A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function of graindensity for SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ashflow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined,room temperature and 10' 81' conditions ............. . 40
Figure 11. A plot of axial strain at failure as a function of effective porosityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 1Ows 8-s conditions ................. . 41
Figure 12. A plot of axial strain at failure as a function of grain densityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10-5 8-l conditions ................ . 42
Figure 13. A plot of unconfined tensile strength as a function of porosity.All data were obtained from Brazilian (indirect-tensile) tests ..... . 43
Figure 14. A plot of maximum (ultimate) stress (strength) as a function ofnegative log strain rate for Grouse Canyon tuff data. The tests wererun on dry (oven dried) and wet (saturated) samples under unconfinedand room temperature conditions .................. . . 44
Figure 15. Mohr-Coulomb plots of shear stress as a function of normal stressfor all pressure-effects test series on Yucca Mountain tuff samples. Theexperimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fits are notedon each figure ............... .............. . 45
Figure 16. A plot of cohesion as a function of effective porosity for allpressure-effects test series on Yucca Mountain tuff samples. The ex-perimental conditions for each data point are noted on the figure. . 58
Figure 17. A plot of angle of internal friction as a function of effectiveporosity for all pressure-effects test series on Yucca Mountain tuffsamples. The experimental conditions for each data point are notedon the figure ............................. . 59
Figure 18. Plots of ultimate strength as a function of negative log strain ratefor A. Tram, B. Calico Hills, and C. Topopah Spring tuff test series.All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined and roomtemperature conditions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 19. Yucca Mountain -thermal/mechanical zonation correlated withdrillhole USW-GI stratigraphy .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5
Introduction
Yucca Mountain (YMl), near the southwest margin of the Nevada Test Site (NTS)in southern Nevada, is being evaluated as a potential site for underground storage ofnuclear wastes. Yucca Mountain primarily consists of layered volcanic tuff a. Samplesfrom four stratigraphic units have been tested for physical, thermal and mechani-cal properties as part of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations (NNWSI)Project, administered by the Nevada Operations Office of the U. S. Department ofEnergy. The four units, in order of decreasing stratigraphic position (increasing depthand age), are as follows: 1. Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff (Tpt), 2.Tuffaceous beds of Calico Hills (Tc), 3. Bullfrog Member of the Crater Flat Tuff (Tcfb),and 4. Tram Member of the Crater Flat Tuff (Tcft). A complete stratigraphic columnfor Yucca Mountain at drill hole USW G-1 is shown in Figure 1.
Four data reports have presented mechanical data from samples of Topopah Spring18 Calico Hills 15, Bullfrog 13, and Tram 14 tuffs. In addition to these test series, othermechanical experiments have also been reported 1,89,g10,18,20 on samples from YuccaMountain. A compilation of all compressional test conditions and results from the abovereferenced reports is contained in Appendix 1. All of the above data will be discussedin this report in order to summarize the present state of knowledge of the mechanicalproperties of tuffs from Yucca Mountain.
Supplementary to the site-specific data, many data have been collected on similarsilicic tuff material from Rainier Mesa (RM) at the Nevada Test Site. Olsson andJones '0 and Wawersik 20 have deformed tuff specimens at various water contents,temperatures and rates. These data will also be analyzed here.
All symbols and abbreviations used in this report can be found in Tables 1 and 2.Within these tables the terms are defined, conventions explained, and standard unitsassigned.
Test Procedures and Sample Preparation
While all of the above mentioned data will be presented in summary, individualtest curves will not be presented. These results, as well as detailed discussions of sampletreatment, equipment, experimental procedures and calibrations, are available in theindividual data reports.
The large majority of samples tested were right circular cylinders with diameters of2.54 cm and a length-to-diameter ratio of approximately 2:1. This specimen size allowed
6
the number of test samples to be maximized, since the amount of raw core material waslimited in amount and size (approximately 6 cm in diameter). For the large majorityof samples, the grain and flaw (pore) sizes were less than one-tenth of the samplediameter; thus, individual grain and pore effects on the bulk mechanical propertieswere minimized. The 2:1 length-to-diameter ratio reduces end effects (i.e., sample-loading piston interaction), which are much more of a problem at lower ratios, andmisalignment (i.e., the production of bending moments), which occurs more frequentlywhen higher ratios are used. Calibrations of force and displacement gages prior toeach experimental series have shown that errors in these measurements are in all casesless than three percent. Any major differences in mechanical properties for adjacenttuff samples are, therefore, a result of sample variability (mineralogy, porosity, graindensity, etc) or testing procedures. Since the experimental techniques were designed tominimize alignment and other problems, the data scatter is predominantly a result ofsample variability.
Elastic Properties
Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio data have been collected in several experimen-tal studies 8,g,10,13.14,16,16,1s,20 on tuffs from Yucca Mountain. A statistical analysis 17
of these elastic constants as a function of effective porosity, grain density and zeolitiza-tion has been done on unconfined test data using samples of Calico Hills, Bullfrog andTram tuffs 8,13,14,15,18 All of the mechanical experiments were run on fully saturatedsamples at atmospheric pressure (i.e., unconfined), room temperature (230 C) and a10-5 s-1 nominal strain rate. The data were fit by the following models:
MODEL : Log Y = Bo + B1 Log X
MODEL 2: Log Y = Bo + Bi Log X1 + B2 Log X 2 ,
where Log is a common logarithm to the base 10; X is effective porosity or grain density;XI is effective porosity; X 2 is grain density; Y is Young's modulus or Poisson's ratio;and Bo, B1 , B 2 are fitting parameters.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Six sets of fittingparameters are given by combining the results obtained from tests performed at SandiaNational Laboratories - Albuquerque (SNLA) 8,13,14,15 and Terra Tek Inc. (TT) 18 to-gether with three data sets: A. all tuff data, B. zeolitized tuff (i.e., Pa < 2.52 Mg/mi3 )data and C. non-zeolitized tuff (i.e., pa > 2.52 Mg/M3 ) data. Only the statisticallysignificant fits (i.e., an a < .05) of the model to the data have been listed.
7
Using grain density as the basis for dividing the tuffs into zeolitized and non-zeolitized is not a rigorous, unique criteria. This material property was chosen sincezeolites (hydrous silicates) tend to lower the average grain density of a silicic tuff.Furthermore, all of the test samples (considered in this statistical analysis) with azeolite content of greater than 5 percent (by weight) were found to have grain densitiesof less than 2.52 Mg/M3 .
The fits were calculated using an effective porosity equal to the volume of clay(montmorillonite) material in addition to the actual porosity. This action was takenafter careful analysis of the data in an effort to increase confidence in the predictivecapability of the models. Since clay is a relatively weak, compliant material, consideringits volume in an effective porosity is deemed appropriate.
A statistical comparison 7 of the SNLA data and the TT data has been performeddue to major differences in the calculated fitting parameters from the two data sets.These results are summarized in Table 5. The average differences for paired data (i.e.,data from samples at the same depth) are given, with a positive difference indicatinghigher SNLA data values The two labs are beginning discussions of possible explana-tions for the differences; however, since the reasons are not clear at this time, the results-from analyses of each of the data sets are presented, but only the SNIA results willbe discussed here.
Statistically, Young's modulus is significantly fit by using both effective porosityand grain ci'sity (Model 2) with all of the data. This result does not appear to have anyreal significance, however, since the fitting constant for grain density (B2 ) is negative.Intuitively, this is not realistic because grain density should be directly related toYoung's modulus. This is shown by the Model 1 fit of Young's modulus to grain density,and also graphically in Figure 2, with a general trend of increasing Young's moduluswith grain density. As a result, the fits of all data to effective porosity (Figure 3) orof a split of the data, on the basis of zeolitization, fit to effective porosity (Figures 4Aand 4B) appear to be the best predictive tools available.
Poisson's ratio appears graphically to be neither related to effective porosity (Figure5), nor to grain density (Figure 6). A statistically significant fit was made, however,to Model 2 with both bulk-rock properties.
Unconfined Strength
Ultimate stress values have been determined for tuff samples from Yucca Mountainunder a wide range of experimental conditions 1,8,O,10,13,14,15,16,18,20 There is a broaddata base of unconfined compressive test results which has allowed a statistical analysisto be run on the fit of strength to bulk-rock properties with a power-law model. Theonly tensile data available are from Brazilian (indirect-tensile) tests, which have beenlinearly fit to porosity. These analyses will be discussed in the following subsections.
8
Compressive Strength
The same sets of unconfined, room temperature, constant strain rate experimentsS,13,14,1~,1S analyzed in the elastic properties section were also studied " for the effectsof effective porosity, grain density and zeolitization on unconfined compressive strength(i.e., Co). Both the models (1 and 2) and the data sets (A, B and C) are identical tothose described in the previous topic. The resultant model parameters are given inTable 6.
As mentioned in the Elastic Properties section, an effective porosity, equal tothe matrix porosity plus the volume of clay, is being used. Figures 7 and 8 are log-log plots of ultimate stress (strength) versus porosity and versus effective porosity,respectively. These graphs illustrate the more distinct trend when effective porosity,instead of porosity alone, is used. As a result, effective porosity appears to be a goodindicator of strength, especially when the data is divided on the basis of zeolitization(Figures OA and 9B). The addition of grain density in Model 2 results in unrealistic fits(i.e., a negative B2 parameter for data set A), in statistically insignificant fits to themodel (data set B), or in very minor increases in the indices of determination (data setC). Figure 10 is a log-log plot of strength versus grain density, showing the large datascatter, with -an indistinct trend of strength directly proportional to grain density, aswould be expected.
Figures 11 and 12 are graphs of axial strain at failure versus effective porosity andversus grain density, respectively. Graphically, ultimate strain appears to be insensitiveto these bulk-rock properties.
A statistical comparison 17 of the SNLA and TT data has been performed for theultimate strength and failure strain values. These results are presented in Table 7. Asin Table 5, positive average differences indicate higher SNLA data values.
Tensile Strength
Indirect, Brazilian test, measurements of the tensile strengths of samples from allfour Yucca Mountain tuff units have been made at Los Alamos National Laboratory l.The relationship between unconfined tensile strength (To) and porosity is approximatelylinear (see Figure 13). This linear relationship can be used for the first-order approxima-tions of tensile strength of any Yucca Mountain tuff sample with determined porosity.
Effects of Water
The effects of water saturation on silicic tuff were initially studied on samples ofGrouse Canyon tuff (Tbrg) from 'Rainier Mesa l A total of eighteen water-saturated
and oven-dried samples of Grouse Canyon welded tuff were deformed at atmosphericpressure; room temperature; and nominal strain rates of 10-S, 10- 4 and 10-2 s-l.
Results are tabulated in Table 8 and graphically presented in Figure 14. The datarevealed, at each strain rate, saturated specimen strengths were an average of 30%lower than the corresponding dry sample strengths. As explained by Olsson and Jones10: 'The fact that the trend lines drawn through the data are parallel suggests thatthe water effect is primarily chemical", and not mechanical.
Four experiments were run on samples of Calico Hills Tuff 15 at essentially thesame test conditions (unconfined, 23°C, 10-5 s-1 ). These results are also presentedin Table 8. In this study, two test specimens were fully saturated and two were room-dry. Similar to the Grouse Canyon study, the average strength for the water-saturatedsamples was approximately 23% less than for the room-dry samples.
Effects of Pressure
Confining Pressure
Thirteen sets of tests on intact samples from drill holes USW G-1 and UE-25a#u 1 have been run to examine the effects of confining pressure on failure strength0,10,15,18. The experimental data were fit by linear regression of ultimate stress on toconfining pressure and then transformed to the Coulomb equation in the same manneras described by Olsson and Jones lo. The Coulomb failure criteria is as follows:
r = rO + oa(tan 0),
where r is shear stress, 7o is cohesion, o° is normal stress, and 0s is the angle of internalfriction. These results are summarized in Table 9 and plotted in Figures 15A-15M.
Five of the test sets were run with room-dry samples. These data illustrate arelatively small range of cohesion values (10.2-17.5 MPa) and a large range of frictionangles (25.0-67.00). Three sets of Calico Hills samples were deformed fully saturated,but with no exit for pore fluid during the course of the tests (i.e. "undrained"). Theresulting ranges, and magnitudes, of Coulomb parameters are quite small, with cohesionand friction angle ranging from 9.7 to 13.2 MPa and 4.8 to 7.8°, respectively. The threeremaining test series were performed saturated and drained, with two sets at roomtemperature and one set at 200'C. As a result, no trends can be observed due to thewide variations in test conditions.
10
Figures 18 and 17 are plots of cohesion and angle of internal friction, respectively,against effective porosity. Even with the wide variations in experimental conditions,the general inverse relationship between each of the Coulomb parameters and effectiveporosity is quite evident.
Pore Pressure
To date, only one series of tests has investigated the effects of pore fluid pressureon Yucca Mountain tuffs. Olsson 9 reported two test sets on Bullfrog samples deformedin compression at effective pressures of 5, 12.5 and 20.7 MPa; a temperature of 200'C;and a nominal strain rate of 10-4 s-1. Four experiments were run on dry samples andthree on saturated specimens with pore pressures of 5, 5 and 3.4 MPa. Considering theexpected strength decrease in the saturated sample test data (i.e., water-weakening),the curve trends and ultimate strengths from tests run at the same effective pressurewere very similar to each other. As a result, it is assumed that the concept of effectivestress (i.e., PC = P, - Pp) holds for tuff, as it has been shown by Handin and others 2
to hold for many other porous rock types (e.g. sandstone, porous limestone, etc.).
Effects of Temperature
Three studies g,10,20 refer to experimental data on tuff at elevated temperatures.The mechanical test results are summarized in Table 10.
In general, ultimate strength is inversely related to temperature, as would beexpected. More specifically, the higher porosity (> 25%) ash fall tuffs decrease instrength 30 to 40% when the experimental temperature is increased from 23 to 200'C.One experimental series 20, however, found no difference in strength between two weldedtuff samples (approximately 10% porosity) from Rainier Mesa deformed at 23 and200C.
Effects of Rate
Tests have been run at a range of laboratory strain rates (IO- to 10-2 s~I) tostudy the effects of changes in rate on mechanical properties. The data from threeseries of experiments on site-specific tuffs 14,1S,16 are listed in Table 11 and presentedin Figures 18A-18C, while the results from two series on tuffs from Rainier Mesa to arelisted in Table 8 and presented in Figure 14.
11
The Tram (Figure 18A) and two Grouse Canyon (Figure 14) test series resulted inaverage strength decreases of approximately seven percent per decade decrease in strainrate. The decrease was somewhat less (about four percent per decade) for the CalicoHills (Figure 18B) tests. The Topopah Spring (Figure 18C) sequence of experimentsresulted in no definitive rate effect on strength. It is believed that this result wasdue to physical property and mineralogical variability of the samples tested. The testspecimens were taken from USW G-1 core over the depth range 371.3-390.0 m, andtherefore probably had a wide range of physical and mineralogical characteristics,resulting in the large data scatter.
Estimate of Average and Limit Mechanical Properties
In order to aid in the numerical modeling of the Yucca Mountain tuff response tothermal and mechanical loading, the tuff sequence has been divided into nine thermal-mechanical zones 3 (see Figure 19). The zone boundaries were defined to reflect changesin mineralogical and bulk-rock properties (hence, significant changes in the mechanicalproperties) and are not always the same as the formal (geologic) stratigraphic divisions.
Lists of the input mechanical properties for each zone, and for the average andlimit cases, are given in Tables 12 and 13. The elastic moduli and strength valueswere calculated using the parameters from previously discussed fits to the existingdata, combined with the known average and limit bulk-rock properties 1i,12* The limitphysical properties were defined as 'worst-case" values, at two standard deviationsbelow the mean. The angle of internal friction values were determined by using anestimated linear relationship with effective porosity, then these results, together withthe unconfined compressive strength values, were used to back calculate the appropriatecohesion parameters. As a double check, the calculated cohesions were compared withthe experimentally determined values and found to be reasonable.
Summary
Over two hundred and fifty mechanical experiments on tuff from Yucca Mountainhave been performed. Other deformational tests have also been run on similar silicictuff from Rainier Mesa. These data have been presented and analyzed for variationsin elastic and strength properties with changes in porosity, effective porosity, graindensity, zeolitization, water saturation, confining pressure, pore pressure, temperature,and strain rate.
A power-law model has been used to fit the elastic and strength data from un-confined compressive tests to bulk-rock properties. The results show that effective
12
porosity is the best predictor of unconfined compressive strength and Young's modulus,especially when the data is divided on the basis of zeolitization. For Poisson's ratio, acombination of effective porosity and grain density fits the data best. In addition, theunconfined tensile strength data (from Brazilian tests) has been linearly fit to porosityas a first-order predictive tool.
Water saturated samples were found to be 23 and 30% weaker than room-dry andoven-dry samples, respectively. This water-weakening effect is an expected result for allsilicate rocks, and in this case appears to be chemical, and not mechanical, in nature.
The pressure test series run to date were fit by the Coulomb failure criteria. Theseresults, although obtained under a wide variety of experimental conditions, have shownthat both the angle of internal friction and cobhesion are inversely related to effectiveporosity. One sequence of experiments has indicated that the law of effective stressholds for the porous tuffs.
The strengths of the higher porosity tuffs are 30 to 40% lower at 2000C than atroom temperature (about 230C). The strengths of the lower porosity tuffs, however,may be affected very little by the same temperature variation.
Under normal laboratory axial strain rates (lo-7 to 10-2 S-I), an average decreasein ultimate strength of four to seven percent per decade decrease in strain rate has beenobserved.
13
References
1. Blacdc, J., Carter, J., Halleck, P., Johnson, P., Shankland, T., Anderson,R., Spicochi, K., and Heller, A.Effects of Long-Term Exposure of Tuffs to High-Level Nuclear Waste-RepositoryConditions LA-9174-PR, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, Feb1982
2. Handin, J., Hager, R., Friedman, M., and Feather, J.Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary Rocks under Confining Pressure: PorePressure Tests A.A.P.G. Bullet., V.47, n.5, 717-755, May 1963
3. Langkopf, B. S.Discussion of Thermomechanical Cross-Section CC ' as Given to RE/SPEC forFar-Field Unit Selection Calculations Unclassified memorandum to Distribution,Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Jul 23, 1982
4. Lappln, A. R.Bulk and Thermal Properties of the Functional Tuffaceous Beds, Here Defined toInclude the Basal Topopah Spring, All of the Tuffaceous Beds of Calico Hills, andthe Upper Portion of the Prow Pass Unclassified memorandum to Distribution,Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Mar 26, 1982
5. Lappin, A. R.Bulk and Thermal Properties for the Welded, Devitrified Portions of the Bullfrogand Tram Members, Crater Flat Tuff Unclassified memorandum to Distribution,Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Apr 19, 1982
d. Lappin, A. R.Bulk and Thermal Properties of the Potential Emplacement Horizon Within theDensely Welded, Devitrified Portion of the Topopah Spring Member of the Paint-brush Tuff Unclassified memorandum to Distribution, Sandia National Laborato-ries, Albuquerque, NM1, May 25, 1982
7. Lappin, A. R., Vanfuskirk, R. G., Enniss, D. 0., Butters, S. W., Prater,F. M., Muller, C. B., and Bergosh, J. L.Thermal Conductivity, Bulk Properties, and Thermal Stratigraphy of Silicic TuffsFrom the Upper Portion of Hole USW G-1, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NevadaSAND81-1873, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Mar 1982
8. Olsson, W. A.Comparative Test Sequence Documentation Unclassified memorandum to A. R.Lappin, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Jul 1, 1981
9. Olsson, W. A.Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressure on the Mechanical Behaviorof Bullfrog Tuff SAND81-1664, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,Feb 1982
1-1
10. Olsson, W. A. and Jones, A. K.Rack Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuffs from the Nevada Test Site SAND80-1453, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Nov 1980
11. Peters, R. R. and Lappin, A. R.Revised Far-Field Thermomechanical Calculations for Four Average PropertyCases Unclassified memorandum to T. Brandshaug, Sandia National Laboratories,Albuquerque, NM, Aug 17, 1982
12. Peters, R. R. and Lappin, A. R.Revised Far-Field Thermomechanical Calculations for Four Limit Property CasesUnclassified memorandum to T. Brandshaug, Sandia National Laboratories, Albu-querque, NM, Sep 22, 1982
18. Price, R. H., Jones, A. K., and Nimlck, K. G.Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Bullfrog Tuff SAND82-0481, Sandia NationalLaboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Apr 1982
14. Price, R. H. and Nimick, K. G.Uniaxial Compression Test Series on Tram Tuff SAND82-1055, Sandia NationalLaboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Jul 1982
16. Price, R. H. and Jones, A. K.Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Calico Hills Tuff SAND82-1314,Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, November 1982
15. Price, R. H., Nimick, K. G., and Zirzow, J. A.Uniaxial and Triaxial Compression Test Series on Topopah Spring Tuff SAND82-1723, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Nov 1982
17. Sheldon, D. D.Soil Mechanical Properties as a Function of Physical Properties Unclassified memo-randum to R. H. Price, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Jul 30,1982
18. Terra Tek, Inc.Tram, Bullfrog, and Calico Hills Tuff Mechanical Data Personal communication,1982
10. Waters, A. C. and Carroll, P. R. (eds.)Preliminary Stratigraphic and Petrologic Characterization of Core Samples fromUSW G-1, Yucca Mountain, Nevada La-8840-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory,Los Alamos, NM, 1981
20. Wawersik, W. R.Compression Tests on Ashfall Tuff and Welded Tuff at Ambient Temperature and2000C Unclassified memorandum to L. D. Tyler, Sandia National Laboratories,Albuquerque, NM, Mar 27, 1978
15
Table 1. Symbols, Conventions and Units
SYMBQL DEFINITION UNITS
01, 02, 03 Principal stresses; compressive stresses MPaare positive
f I , e2, f 3 Principal strains; compressive strains Sare positive
Pc Confining pressure MPaPP Pore pressure MPaPI Effective pressure (PC = Pc - Pp) MPa
Aar Differential stress (o1 - 03 or 0i - Pe) MPa
Co Unconfined (uniaxial) compressive strength MPaTo Unconfined (uniaxial) tensile strength MPa
(Ao°). Ultimate (maximum or peak) differential MPastress
(f I ) Greatest principal strain at the ultimate %differential stress
e Nominal strain rate 8-1T Temperature 0c
S Saturation of test sample (Y: fully saturated,R : room dry , N: oven dried)
D Drained experiment (i.e., the sample wasallowed to vent pore fluids during theexperiment) (Y: yes, N : no)
E Elastic constant: Young's modulus GPaV Elastic constant: Poisson's ratio
r= ro + °in(tan A) Coulomb failure criteria
r Shear stress MPaT0 Cohesion (inherent shear strength) MlPaorn Normal stress MPa0 Angle of internal friction 0
tan , Coefficient of internal friction
n Effective porosity (porosity + clay volume) Spat Average grain density Afg/tn3
16
Table 2. Abbreviations
ABBREVATION
SNLATT
NNWSI
NTS
RMTbrg
YMTpcTptTc
Tcf pTcfbTcft
C1Al
Model IModel 2
XXlX2By
Bo, Bi , B2
DEFIMTION
Sandia National Laboratories - AlbuquerqueTerra Tek, Inc.
Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations
Nevada Test Site
Rainier Mesa, Nevada Test SiteGrouse Canyon Member of the Belted Range TufO
Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test SiteTiva Canyon Member of the Paintbrush TuffTopopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush TuffTuffaceous beds of Calico HillsProw Pass Member of the Crater Flat TuffBullfrog Member of the Crater Flat TuffTram Member of the Crater Flat Tuff
Drill hole USW G-l at Yucca MountainDrill hole UE-25a#1 at Yucca Mountain
Log Y Bo + Bi Log XLog Y Bo + Bt Log Xi + B2 Log X2
Effective porosity or Grain densityEffective porosityGrain densityYoung's modulus or Poisson's ratioFitting parameters
Data setData setData set
ABC
aF.S.
SER2
All tuff samplesZeolitized tuff samples only (p1 < 2.52 Mg/m 3 )Non-zeolitized tuft samples only (pg > 2.52 Mg/m 3 )
Average difference between comparative valuesFit significance (S: significant X a < .05
NS: not significant =* a> .05)Standard ErrorIndex of determination
17
00
Table 3. Model Fits to Young's Modulus Data
LAB X(SNLA ,TI) (a .P)
SNLA ni
SNLA pgSNLA n .Pq
Y I)A A SEi.I((',, . I'. I') (.N I} C)
MODEL(1, 2)
I" S.(S , NS)
Bo BI B2 S, of Y
SNLASSNLASNLA
SN LASN LASNLA
nPg
U , ,g
nPg
n g, p
I.'
E
E
'I
i1,
AAA
'3BB
(CCc,
2
2
12
SSS
SNSNS
SNSS
3.611-.39404.766
4.375
4.108
.4652
-1.8003.411-1.949
-2.245
-2.155
-2.43.3
-2.241
9.727
.12 1
.212
.122
.127
.101
.085
.676
.056
.696
.708
.730
.813
TT n A I S 2.648 -1.178 - .217 .213'TT Pg E A 1 NS - - - - -rr n .Pg E A 2 NS - - - - -
TT E L3 I S 2.970 - I.347 - .17t8 .291TT pg E B I NS - - - - -
TT u ,Pg E B 2 NS - - - - -
TT n E C I S 3.799 -2.017 - .229 .306IrT pg E C I NS - - - - -Ti nPg r C 2 NS - - - - -
Table 4. Model Fits to Poisson's Ratio Data
LAB X Y DATASET MODEL F.S. Bo B1 B2 S,orY R2
(SNLA,TT) (n,p) (Co,E,v) (A,B,C) (1,2) (S,NS)
SNLA n v A 1 NS - -
SNLA Pv A 1 S -2.364 4.138 - .176 .135SNLA n ,p v A 2 S -3.932 .6760 5.560 .169 .229
SNLA n v B I S -2.385 1.067 - .156 .291SNLA Pv B I NS - -
SNLA npt v B 2 NS - - - -
SNLA n v C 1 NS - - - -
SNLA pt v C I NS - - - -SNLA npt v C 2 NS - - - - -
TT n v A I S .1514 -.7310 - .175 .139TT Pt v A 1 S -2.916 4.928 - .172 .165TT nPt v A 2 S -1.698 -.4724 3.641 .168 .212
TT n v B I S .1249 -.7330 - .182 .104TT pt v B I NS - - - -TT n,p, v B 2 NS - - - -
TT n v C I NS - - - -
TT pt v C I S -5.919 12.16 .149 .192vTT n ,po v C 2 S -6.125 -.6321 14.84 .1-14 .265
Table 5. Comparative Statistics of SNLA-TT Elastic Moduli Data
Calico Hills Bullfrog Tram All Data
Variable (units) d (F.S.) d (F.S.) d (F. S.) d (F.S.)
E (CPa) -1.81 (S) 3.66 (S) 1.60 (S) 1.19 (S)
v .13 (S) .01 (NS) .08 (S) .07 (S)
Table 6. Model Fits to Unconfined Compressive Strength Data
LAB X Y DATASET MODEL F.S. Bo B1 B2 Sof Y 1i2
(SNLA, TT) (n, p9) (Co,E, v) (A,B,C) (1,2) (S ,NS)
SNLA n Co A 1 S 4.103 -1.724 - .155 .553
SNLA p, C0 A I NS - - - -
SNLA ,pt C0 A 2 S 6.096 -2.008 -3.963 .147 .606
SNLA n Co B I * S 5.728 -2.741 - .132 .770
SNLA pI C0 B I NS - -
SNLA 1l,Po C0 B 2 NS - -- -
SNLA n C0 C I S 4.579 -2.123 - .114 .667
SNLA PI C0 C I NS - - - - -
SNLA n , PI Co C 2 S .4797 -2.435 10.94 .097 .766
TT n C0 A I S 3.827 -1.510 - .167 .428
TT Pg C0 A 1 S .1652 3.542 - .214 .061
TT n,Pt C0 A 2 NS - - - -
TT n C0 B 1. S 4.350 -1.821 - .139 .550
TT Po C 0 B I NS - - - -
TT n , pt C0 B 2 S 1.791 -1.862 6.756 .128 .6(35
TT n C0 C I S 4.419 -1.951 - .178 .406
TT Po C0 C .1 NS - - - - -
TT n, P C0 C 2 S -.7916 -2.318 13.82 .162 .519
Table 7. Comparative Statistics or SNLA-l1"' Unconfined Compressive Strength Data
Calico Hills Bullfrog Tram All Data
Variable (ulnits) d (F.S.) d (fX S.) d (F.S.) d (F.S.)
(a)7, (MPa) -10.09 (S) 3.17 (S;) -18.62 (S) -7.9.1 (S,
((0.u (5(s) .001 (NS) II1 (S) -..10 (S) -.07 (S)
,I
Location Unit Depi 1i(m)
'i'able 8. Test Results on the Effects of Changes in Water Content
Pe T e S D (AU),(Ml'a) (°C) (s-') (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%)
E(CPa)
v [ter
YM Te 507.6 ((;1) 0 23 10-5 R Y 41.0 .58 8.12 .29 15
YM Tc 507.6 (GI) 0 23 10-5 R Y 32.7 .54 6.50 .31 15
YM Tc 507.6 (CI) 0 23 10-5 Y Y 26.2 .50 6.86 .18 15
YM Tc 507.6 (Cl) 0 23 10-5 Y Y 34.1 .42 9.52 - 15
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-2 N Y 175 - 25.9 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 102 N Y 189 - 28.7 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-2 N Y 177 - 28.4 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 N Y 160 - 26.2 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 N Y 155 - 28.5 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 N Y 160 - 27.4 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10- N Y 135 - 27.4 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-6 N Y 141 - 28.3 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-6 N Y 134 - 29.5 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-2 y y 142 - 26.1 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-2 y Y 114 - 22.8 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-2 y Y 118 - 23.8 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 Y Y 112 - 24.8 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 Y Y 122 - 25.3 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-4 Y y 102 - 24.0 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-6 y Y 81.1 - 25.9 - l0
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10-c y Y 110 - 25.4 - 10
RM Tbrg - 0 23 lo-, Y Y 91.8 26.8 - 10
Table 9. Parameter Values for the Coulomb Failure Criteria
Unit * Depth (Gl) IDpLJIi (Al) . 1'' f S D ro(m) OI) (NM11a) (0C) (s-) (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) ( 0)
Tpe - 26.7 0,10,20 23 10-4 R N 28.1 68 10
Tpt - 220-:181 0,10,20 23 10-4 It N 17.5 (i7 10
'I'pt 352-362 - 0,5,10 23 10-5 Y Y 34.5 2:3.5 16
Tc 453.4 - 0,10,20 23 10-5 Y Y 10.2 11.1 15Te 453.4 0,10,20 23 I()-5 Y N 10.6 7.81 15
Tc - 454-516 0,20 23 10-, R. N 12.9 25 10
'Ic 507.6 - 0,10 23 10-r it N 10.2 :32.2 15Te 507.6 - 0,10,20 23 10-s y N 13.2 6.81 15
Ic 508.4 - (),10 23 10-5 y N 9.67 1.78 15
Tcfp - 600-614 0,20 2: lo0-, It N 32.2 :17 10
Tcfb - 738-759 0,20 23 l0-, It N 12.1 .13 10
Tcfh 759 - 5,12.5,20.7 200 1(-4 Y Y 23.6 19.6 9Icfb 759 - 5, 10,20.7 200 lo-, N Y 16.5 37.4 9
Table 10. Test Results on the Effects of Changes in Temperature
Location Unit Depth P. T S D (AO)Y (( 1). E v Rer(M) (MP&) (OC) (S-) (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%) (GPa)
YM Tpt 225.2 (Al) 20.7 200 10-4 R Y 133 - 23.9 .15 10
YM Tcfb 759 (GI) 5.0 200 10-4 R Y 87 - 16.5 - 9YM Tcfb 759 (GI) 5.0 200 10-4 Y Y 70 - 13.1 - 9
YM Tcfb 759 (GI) 10.0 200 10-4 R Y 93 - 15.7 - 9YM Tcfb 759 (G1) 12.5 200 10-4 Y Y 83 _ 17.8 - 9
YM TCrb 759 (G1) 20.7 200 10-4 R Y 119 - 17.6 - 9YM TCfb 759 (Gl) 20.7 200 i0-4 R Y. 149 - 20.5 - 9YM Tcfb 759 (GI) 20.7 200 10-4 Y Y 86 - 13.8 -. 9
RM - - 0 23 10-5 R Y 36.3 .48 8.83 - 20RM - - 0 200 10-S R Y 22.6 .38 6.76 - 20
RM - - 10.3 23 10-5 R Y 53.5 1.05 8.83 .18 20RM - - 10.3 23 10-5 R Y 51.9 1.06 8.76 .20 20RM - - 10.3 200 10-5 R Y 35.6 .98 6.76 - 20
RM Tbrg - 0 23 10- R Y 120.7 - - - 20
RM Tbrg - 0 200 10-5 R Y 115.4 - - - 20
Table 11. rest Results on the Effects or Changes in Strain Rate
Location Unit Depth (( I) Pe 'I' S D (((()u E Ref
(111) (Mlja) (°C) (s-I) (Y,11,N) (Y,N) (Mpa) (8) (C Pa)
YM rllpt 37 2.; 0 23 10-2 y y 157.2 .48 29.2 .31 V;
YM 'I'pt 3?A.8 0 23 10-2 Y Y 149.7 .49 :36.6 - 1(6
YM IPt 372.5 0 23 10-4 Y y 13:3.8 .57 27.7 - 16
YM l'pt 373.0 0 23 10-4 Y Y 157.2 .46 37.5 .25 16
YM rpt 371.3 0 23 10-f Y Y 176.6 .51 40.8 .25 16
YM Ipt 373.0 0 23 10-(, Y Y 156.6 .47 35.3 .21 16
YM 'I'pt 390.0 0 23 10-6 Y Y 44.9 .41 22.9 .27 16
YM Tc 508.4 0 23 lo-." Y Y 24.7 .61 5.41 .33 15
YM 'I'c 508.4 0 23 103 Y Y 23.4 .58 5.45 - 15
YM 'Ie 508.4 0 23 10-5 Y Y 25.4 .57 6.13) .36 15
YM I'e 508.4 0 23 IO- Y Y 16.7 .43 4.92 .18 15
YM Ic 508.4 0 23 10-7 Y Y 21.5 .55 7.86 .21 15
YM Ic 508.4 0 23 10-7 Y Y 19.9 .51 7.03 .22 15
YM Tcft 976.2 0 23 10-2 Y Y 31.1 .52 6.63 - 14
YM 'Icft 976.2 23 10-2 Y Y 24.4 .50 5.17 14
YM T'cft 976.2 0 23 l0o- Y Y 25.3 .50 6.42 - 14
YM 'left 976.2 0 23 10-, Y Y 22.1 .32 8.76 - 14
YM ITcrt 976.2 0 23 10-, Y Y 32.6 .1.1 8.97 .)9 14
YM 'I'eft 976.2 0 23 10 -Y Y 14.5 .31 7.01 .3( 11I
YM Teft 976.2 0 2:3 Y Y 26.5 .50 .26 .14 14
Zone
(#)
I
HIA
fIB
m
IVA
IVB
IVC
VA
VB
VI
VHA
VIIB
vic
vEi
Ix
Table 12. Avera,'t( Case Mlechanical
(%) (Mg/ms)
25 2.40
27(12/15) 2.55
17(12/5) 2.55
25 2.39
33 2.39
25 2.50
30 2.39
22 2.58
24 2.44
23 2.59
24 2.46
24 2.54
24 2.50
19 2.61
17 2.62
Properties for each the of the Yucca Mountain Thermal/Mechanical Zones
E C, T.
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (0)
13.3 .13 49.3 6.0 20.8
11.6 .20 43.2 4.3 19.5
26.7 .14 95.9 12.8 26.0
13.3 .13 49.3 6.0 20.8
8.1 .16 .30.6 0.1 15.6
13.3 .17 49.3 6.0 20.8
9.6 .15 36.0 1.8 17.5
16.8 .18 61.5 8.6 22.7
14.3 .14 52.9 6.9 21.4
15.5 .19 56.9 7.7 22.1
14.3 .15 52.9 6.9 21.4
14.3 .18 52.9 6.9 21.4
14.3 .16 52.9 6.9 21.4
21.8 .19 79.2 11.1 2-1.7
26.7 .17 95.9 12.8 26.0
To
(MPa)
16.1
14.4
28.5
16.1
10.9
16.1
12.4
19.3
17.0
18.1
17.0
17.0
17.0
24.0
28.5
From reference I1.
Zone
(#)
IJJIIA
ILB3
-
Table 13. Iimit-iCase Mechanical
n' ... . .no Pg
($;) (MNg/lrn)
31 2.34
41(16/25) 2.541
21(16/5) 2.54
Properties for each of the Yucca Mountain Thermal/Mechanical Zones
E v CO T0
(GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
9.0 .13 34.0 0.9
5.5 .26 21.0 0.1
18.2 .16 66.6 9.4
_ .
2( 0)
16.9
10.4
23.4
_ _
ru
( slI ''
I I .9
8.2
20.7
_,
Ll 31
IVA 38
IVB 39
IVC, 38
VA 28
VB 14
VI 24
VIIA 34
VI13 34
VI11 34
Vill 25
IX 23
2.33
2.31
2.34
2.32
2.52
2.32
2.54
2.34
2.42
2.38
2.51
2.56
9.0
6.3
6.0
6.3
10.9
7.7
11.3
7.7
7.7
7.7
13.3
15.5
.13 34.0
.14 24.0
.16 22.9
.15 24.0
.19 40.6
.14 29.0
.18 52.9
.14 29.0
.17 29.0
.16 29.0
.18 49.3
.18 56.9
0.9 16.9
0.1 12.3
0.1 11.7
0.1 12.3
3.5 18.8
(.1 14.9
6.9 21.4
0.1 14.9
0.1 14.9
0.1 1.1.9
6.0 20.8
7.7 22.1
._
I 1 ."
9.0
1 .7
9T0I1)..5
1 O..;)
I C. 5
I11). 5
I 1.1
* I'roni rererenice 12.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN STRATIGRAPHY
DEPTH (USW-C
FEET METER
0 r 0r%I)
is_-
TIVA CANYON. YUCCA MTY/PAH CANYON MEMBERS
1001_
200k
1000F 300
4001
500
2000p 6001
7001
U-IL
TOPOPAHSPRING cMEMBER Z
I..
0.
TUFFACEOUS BEDSOF
CALICO HILLS
PROW PASSMEMBER U-
U.-
BULLFROGMEMBER
-ILL
TRAM MEMBER EU
FLOW BRECCIA
LITHIC-RICH TUFF
800
9003000F
10001-
100-
120014000[
5000
1300-
1400 I
1500LUNDIVIDED ASH FLOWAND BEDDED TUFF
Figure 1 IYucca Mountain stratigraphic column at drillhole USW-G1.
29
30 ~~~~~~III I IASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)
+ SATURATED, UNCONFINED10- 5 SEC-1, T-230C-
22 + + ++0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
18_ +
30 ++ +
8 +-
a + + ++
° 6 + +M - +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
b 8 ++ + +z +
+ +
0 6- + +
+
4 4
2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70
GRAIN DENSITY (gm/cc)
Figure 2
A plot of Young's modulus as a function of grain density for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-5 8-' conditions.
30
30 +
ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)22 SATURATED
_ - ., + UNCONFINEDeL 18 _ \ - f -1 0-5 SE C- 1
0
,110\~~T-30 \l 31-0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(R 2 -=.68 )4 E =( 4.38 x 1 GPa )n 1.80 -
+~~~~~~~~~~
+ +
20 25 30 35 40 45
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
POROSITY + CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 3A plot of Young's modulus as a function of effective porosity for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow truffs.. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperaturcand iD-s a ' conditions.
31
aI F%I R
22
+ I
0.
-J
a0
z0
18
1 4
ASH FLOW TUFF (p!52.52 gm/c;\ SATURATED, UNCONFINED
\ f , 10-5 SEC-1. T, 23°C
\ +
BEST FIT LINE: +
log E = 4.38 -2.25 log n +
2(R =.71)
�cy
1 0 _
8[_
6 _
E =( 2.37 x 104 GPa)n -2.254 +
j
4 -4
+
I I a I
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY + CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 4A
Plot of Young's modulus as a function of effective porosit~y for zeolit-ized SNLA data from the Calico Hills, 3ullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs. All tesls were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10'5 i- condition-;.
32
30 _ I a IASH FLOW TUFF (p > 2.52 gm/cc)
SATURATED22 + UNCONFINED
'W18 \ e 10-5 SEC-1
14 -
4- _ _
10 2 30
z ~ ~~~ BESTIT FI CAICNTNT(%
6- log E = 4.11Y -2.16 logfn o0 R2 .3
E (1.28 x 10 GPa) n- 2 .1 6
4
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+ CLAY CONTENT (%
Figure 4B
Plot of Young's modulus as a function or effectiv porosity for non-zeolitized SNLA data from the Calico H-ills, Bullfrog and Tram ashflow tuiTs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined,room temperature and 10-f a- conditions.
33
IlI I I
ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)SATURATEDUNCONFINED( , 10 5 SEC- 1
.46 t T - 23 0C0 +
e -+ +..30 - 4
Z .22 _0I +
Z+)+ + + + +
0 .14 + +0.4. ~~~~~4- +
+ + 1t
.10 _
.06
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 5A plot of Poisson's ratio as a function of effective porosity for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-& 8-1 conditions.
34
II I I I
ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)SATURATEDUNCONFINEDCS In-5 Cr- i
.46 - . -I %°CO T-- 23 0C
+
.30 - X + +X a + .4
+
O .22 +
Cl) + + + + ++~~~
0 + +. .14 +_++ + + 4
.10 _
.06 -2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70
GRAIN DENSITY (gm/cc)
Figure BA plot of Poisson's ratio as a function of grain density for SNLA datafrom the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All tests wererun on saturated samples under unconfilned, room temperature and10-' a-' conditions.
35
I A34 "I F %UOI - I I I I I I I I
+ ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA) I140- SATURATED
UNCONFINED1 E 10-5 SEC -1
100 T- 23 0C
X 80_+_> ~~~~+ + +
w 60 _ + + +
W +
, 40 _+ + ++ + + W
40 - +
+-J 30 - +4 -
+ -4 + 4
20 ~~~~~~~~~ + 4-
15 _ + +4-
I I II I
1 6 18 20 22 24 28 32 36 40 44
POROSITY (%)
Figure 7
A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function of porosityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtufis. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10- a-1 conditions.
36
180 ,,,ISO
140 - ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)+ SATURATED
UNCONFINEDE. - ~10 -5 SEC -1
o - + - T - 230 C
M 60 - +
I.- +E 40 + ++
4+a 30- ++4 ++
BEST FIT LINE: +
0 logAau =4.10-1.72 logn +
au-( 1.2 7 x 10 4 MPa) n -1.72 + +
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+ CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 8A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function of effectiveporosity for SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ashflow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined,room temperature and 10- 81 conditions.
37
180
140
100
II I I I+ ASH FLOW TUFF (p<2.52 gm/cc)
SATURATED
2
0~
MIcnwI-
I--J
80
601_
UNCONFINED\ - .10-5 SEC-1T - 230 C
+ \~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~+
EST FIT LINE: 4
Dg 3a u = 5.73 - 2.74 log n X
(R2=.77)An -I=. ,= - .4f 5 D -2.74 * + 4
40 _
30H- BI
Ik
20_% IV Mr-CM111 --- -
+
15 +
I I iI
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+ CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 9A
Plots of unconfined compressive strength as a function of effcctivcporosity for zeolitized SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog andTram ash flow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples underunconfined, room temperature and IO- R-' conditions.
38
180
1401-
I IASH FLOW TUFF (p > 2.52
SATURATEDUNCONFINED
0C--10-5 SEC-'
gm/cc)
n
0.
(IlwI-U)Lu
I.
-a
1001_
801
60
401
T - 230C
I- .4~~~~~~4
+ *.
t
_ ~~~ ~~+
BEST FIT LINE:log dou- 4.58 - 2.12 log n *
- lR2= .67) A ,, 0%
301
20
1 5 A60U= ( 3.79 x I 0" 1M1 a)n-4-1l I I
1. . .
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+ CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure OB
Plots of unconfined compressive strength as a function of effectiveporosity for nonzeolitized SNTLA data from the Calico Tills, Bullfrogand Tram ash flow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples underunconfined, room temperature and 1o" 8` conditions.
39
180 I- * ASH FLOW TUFF
140- SATURATEDUNCONFINED
100 10-5 SEC- 1
X 80 +T - 230Ca. 60 _ , +
z + '~ +++ +
Cn 60 - .ww
(04 +
_304-. ~+
20-
15 - +
2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70
GRAIN DENSITY (gm/cc)
Figure 10A plot of unconfined compressive strength as a function or graindensity for SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ashflow tuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined,room temperature and 10-6 8- conditions.
40
ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)SATURATED
ae .78 - UNCONFINED_.8 - .10O5 SEC-1 +wcc T- 23 0CM .62 -
.j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4-_. + + + 4 +
LL + +~~ 4
z .46 - + +t -
< + + + + +
.38 _ . + + _U) + + +
+s + +x.30 -+
.26 -_ _ - ~I I I I
20 25 30 35 40 45
POROSITY+ CLAY CONTENT (%)
Figure 11A plot of axial strain at failure as a function of effective porosityfor SNLA data from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flowtuffs. All tests were run on saturated samples under unconfined, roomtemperature and 10-' o-1 conditions.
41
I I I I I IASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)
.-- %. ~~~~SATURATEDaR.78 -+ UNCONFINED
9X -o10- 5 SEC-1i .62 T - 230 C
7t.62 -
U. +++ + +
+ + + +. 4 64 4 + + 4.
1- + ~ ~ ~ + + +
:38E ;+++-++t&;+X+ + +
.30 -
.26
2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70
GRAIN DENSITY (gm/cc)
Figure 12
A plot of axial strain at failure as a function of grain density for SNLAdata from the Calico Hills, Bullfrog and Tram ash flow tuffs. All testswere run on saturated samples under unconfined, room temperatureand 10-' s-' conditions.
42
30
0.
1--
(im1-J
LU
10a.z
25
20
15
10
5
0
''I-1--- 1----- I--J-I-- I I I j' I IT I ' ~ t~ 1" I 1 l jl I l I,BRAZILIAN TESTS -
0 YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUFFS
BEST FIT
Tn=27.2 MPa - (0.847 MPa)n
0 o* . _f
0
*... 0
* ~~00 *..
1,111 11111 I11111 1I1II I II Il*I ..I I I. I-.................................
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
POROSITY (%)
Figure 13
A plot of unconfined tensile strength as a function of effective porosity.All data were obtained from Brazilian (indirect-tensile) tests. (Datafrom'Referenct I.).
43
200
S
I
150kA
A
(-, i - *A\
D \
50 L GROUSE CANYON WELDED TUFF
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
| DRYA WET
02 4 6
- Ioq STRAIN RATE, S
Figure 14
A plot of maxitnum (ultimate) stress (strength) as a function of nega-tive log strain rate for Grouse Canyon tuff data. The tests were run ondry (oven dried) and wet (saturated) samples under unconfined androom temperature conditions. (Figure from Reference 10.)
*1t
600
2400
200tLU
~20
0 200 400 600 800
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
-Figure 15A
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forTiva Canyon 'Puff samples from a depth of 87.6 m in drillhole UE25-Al. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters are noted on the figure.
45
600 l l l lTOPOPAH SPRING TUFFUE2 5-A 1,220.4 - 381.0 mROOM T
To-17.5 MPa fi0- s 1~~~ 400 ~~~~~ROOM DRY
_ /
4020 6700 00JI
00 200 400 600 800
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15B
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a fiinction of normal stress forTopopah Spring Tuffsamples from, depths of 220.4-181.0 m in drillholeUE25-Al. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure crite-ria fit parameters arc noted on the figure.
46
150
SATURATED, DRAINED0100
C,) ~ /o = 34.5 MPaU)
Cl)' -
w 50
00 50 100 150 200
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15C
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forTopopah Spring Tuff samples from depths of 352.0-362.4 m in drillholcUSW-Gi. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure crite-ria fit parameters are noted on the figurc.
47
60
SATURATED, DRAINED
C 40
w _ T o= 10.2 MPa
i .0
w 20
00 20 40 60 80
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15D
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forCalico Hills TufT samples from X depth of 453.4 m in drillhole UTSW-GI. The experimental conditions and the Coulonmb failure criteria litparameters are noted on tho figure.
48
60
EU 40 -SATURATED, UNDRAINEDen 40
- r To 10.6 MPa+ = 7.80
U' 20
00 20 40 60 80
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15E
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forCalico Hills Tuff samples from a depth of 453.4 m in drillhole UsW-GI. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters arc noted on the Iigerc.
49
150
_ e- 113 ~S
C1 - ROOM DRYE 100
encoz - To = 12.9 MPa
(A * 250
x 50X
00 50 100 150 200
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
FIg.ire 16F
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function or normal stress forCalico Hills Tufr samples from depths or 451.1-515.7 m in drillholeUE25-A1. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure crite-ria fit parametcrs arc noted on the figure.
50
60
_ t ~~~~~~~~~- *v- S -
SATURATED, UNDRAINED40
C,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~to0 13.2 MPa
I.-= 6.8°
uw 20
00 20 40 60 80
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15G
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forCalico Hills Tuff samples from a depth of 507.6 m in drillhole USW-G1. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters are noted on the figure.
60CALICO HILLS TUFFUSW-G1,507.6 mROOM T
10-B 3-1ROOM DRY
0 _ / JO- ~~~~~~~~~10.2 MPa _40
wI'-co
ia 20
00 20 40 60 80
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15H
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forCalico Hills TufT samples from a depth of 507.6 m in drillhole USW-GI. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters are noted on the figure.
52
30
20/
'U%0.
a.
cowIt
co10
00 20 30 4
NORMAL STRESS (MpPa)
Figure 151
Mohr-Coulomb plot Of shear stress as a function of normal stress forCalico Hills Tuff^ samples from a depth of 508.4 m in drillhole USW-Gl. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria {Itparameters are noted on the fgure.
53
300PROW PASS TUFFUE25-A1,599.8 - 613.8 mROOM T_-10- 4 s-1
a. / ROOM DRY! 200
To=3 2.2 MPaVu / 370c-
w 100
00 100 200 300 400
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15J
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stressfor Prow Pass Tuff samples from depths of 599.8-613.8 m in drillholeUE25-AI. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure crite-ria fit parameters are noted on the figure.
54
150BULLFROG TUFFUE25-AI,737.9 - 759.2 mROOM T
ROOM DRYa100
T =12.1 MPa0
cc~
C,)
(50-
(0
0 50 100 150 200
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 16K
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forBullfrog Tuff samples from depths of 737.9-759.2 m in drillhole UE25-Al. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters are noted on the figure.
55
150
T= 23.6 MPa_= 19.60
co
cr- 50 -w
0 0 50 100 150 200NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 15L
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forBullfrog Tuff samples from depths of 758.9-759.2 m in drillhole USW-Gi. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters arc noted on the figure.
58
150
°.100-o=16.5 -Sa
I.-
50
U)
-00 50 100 150 200
NORMAL STRESS (MPa)
Figure 1iM
Mohr-Coulomb plot of shear stress as a function of normal stress forBullfrog Tuff samples from depths of 758.9-759.2 m in drillhole USW-GI. The experimental conditions and the Coulomb failure criteria fitparameters arc noted on the figure.
57
40 ,, I I , , I I, I- I I- I I I I I I IJ SATURATED, DRAINED; _
a 23°C, 10-5 s-10 A SATURATED, DRAINED, -
30 200°C, 10-4 s-1
_ o)n SATURATED, UNDRAINED,
CL 23°C, 10-5 s-1-
A o ROOM DRY,Z 230C,10-4 s1-o 20 DRY, 200;C, 10 4 s-1
w 0
0
o[lo o10 - C1 G
YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUFF
0 I I I I I I I I I I I i I
0 10 20 30 40 50
EFFECTIVE POROSITY (%)
Figure 1B
A plot of cohesion as a function of effective porosity for all pressure-effects test series on Yucca Mountain tuff samples. The experimentalconditions for each data point are noted on the figure.
58
80 8 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
d-.
0
z0
rU.ILJ
zw1--zIL
U--I0z
aa
0
0
0
SATURATED, DRAINED, 23°C, 10-5 ss1
SATURATED, DRAINED, 200°C, 10-4 s-1
SATURATED, UNDRAINED, 230C, 1O-5 s 1
ROOM DRY , 23°C, 10-4 s- l
DRY, 200"C, 10-4,-1
60
40
20
0
0 0
0
0U
- YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUFF a
n nUI I I I t I II I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I m i
0' I. . . . . .
I 10 20 30 40 50
EFFECTIVE POROSITY (%)
Figure 17A plot of angle of internal friction as a function of effective porosityfor all pressure-effects test series on Yucca Mountain tuff samples. Theexperimental conditions for each data point are noted on the figure.
59
200 I I r I I I I I I I I | z V r l l x
200~~~~~~~~~~~
0 00E- 150 o
z ~~~~~~~0
zwC 100
Q1) _ TOPOPAH SPRING TUFFwI- USW-G1,371.3 - 390.0 mROOM P AND TSATURATED
50~~~~~~~~~~~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
- log STRAIN RATE (s- 1 )
Figure 18A
Plot of ultimate strength as a function of negative log strain ratefor Topopah Spring Tuff test series. All tests were run on saturatedsamples under unconfined and room temperature conditions.
60
40 _
0~~~~
20~~~~~~~~~~
W - TRAM TUFF-. -F - ~USW-G1,976.2 m.oE _ ~ROOM P AIYD T
z 10 0 SATURATED
J 20
1 S2 3 4 :5 6 7 . 8
-log STRAIN RATE (s 1 )
Figure 18B
Plot of ultimate strength as a function of negative log strain rate forCalico Hills Tuff test series. All tests were run on saturated samplesunder unconfined and room temperature conditions.
61
40
a.
I-_azwcc
I-_
(n-J
301
-- T- -7 I I f I T F F T i I [ r I I I I -T T _ T - T
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 0
- CALICO HILLS TUFFUSW-G1,508.4 mROOM P AND T
- SATURATED10I
0 a ; !I . -L __1 L LLL. I I I -L LI i L l .I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-log STRAIN RATE (s 1)
Figure 18C
Plot of ultimate strength as a function of negative log strain rate forTram Tuff test series. All tests were run on saturated samples underunconfined and room temperature conditions.
8_J
8
62
YUCCA MOUNTAIN ZONATION AND STRATIGRAPHY
DEPTH (USW-G1)FEET METERS
Or Or-
-TIVA CANYON, YUCCA MT.\ PAH CANYON MEMBERS
100
_ . .
I4
200[ A
8
IITOPOPAN
SPRINGMEMBER
U-U-I-
to
rZjoool- 300h
400 I _III _ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _
Soo0A
B
IVTUFFACEOUS BEDS
OFCALICO HILLS
..v.,
2000 1 600 - AVB
PROW PASSMEMBER
BULLFROGMEMBER
IL
700
L80900
VIl
Vlll
U-U.-
JI.-IL
U-
wI.3000
4000
TRAMMEMBER
1000- A
1 100O8 FLOW BRECCIA
-1200 Ix
1300LITHIC-RICH TUFF
CI 400
5000 1 50 UNDIVIDED ASH FLOWAND BEDDED TUFF
Figure 19
Yucca Mountain thermal/mechanical zonation correlated with drill-hole USW-G1 stratigraphy.
63
Appendix-
Unit l)epth P). 1) 1)e(m) (Ml'a) (NI Pa) (MPa)
'I' e ii 1) la°). h). j
(°(,) (s - ) (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%E)E£ -.- 1 py lHef
(GPa) (%/() (mg/w¾1 "
TC 26.7 (AI) 0TC 26.7 (AI I 10TC 26.7 (Al) 20
'1' 56.4 (Al) 20.7
TC' 64.8 (Al) 0
TS 220.4 (Al) (1
Is 225.1 (Al) 20.7
'I'S 311A 1(;G) 0
IS 323.3 (G 1) 0
''S 3:31.0 (G I) 0
'T'S 35)2.0 (6 1) 0'I'S :352.() ((i 1) 5
lS 356(1) 5
'l"' : 339.5)((i6) ;
TIS 362.1(( 1) 10
'I'S 371.3 (1) )
IS 372'.3s(61) ()'I'S :372.5 ((-'I)
'I's :372.()(;( I (I S :1373.() (( I ) 0
0
10
20
20.7
0
232323
200
23:
10-4
104
104
lo-,10-4
R11R
R
Y
y
y
364396875
105
7.03
57.5 .31 943.9 .30 958.3 .22 9
-- 27
.41 .28 54
101010
10
10
0 23
20.7 200
0 23
0 23
0) 's23
0 2:35 23
2:3
10 23I ( 2
0 230) 2:3
0 23
() 23
o- 4 Rt
lo-, I?
I -- S, y
lo- y
lo_5) i
1o-', Y10-r' Y
IQ- 5 Y
I ()~ Y
10-6 Y
I-- y1(_4 Y
It I Y
Yy
y
y
N
N
y
y
y
yYY
Y
138 -
133 -
75.2 .38
142.8 .50
59.8 .34
106.2 .3772.5 .59
219.3 .74
109.7 .69
19.3 .66
I 76.6 .51
1 57.2 .48133.8 .57
17 .2 .716-( .47
40.1
23.9
25.5
38.1
24.9
32.519.2
35.6
23.2
25.6
40.8
29.227.7
:37.535.3
.22
.15
.25
.32
.15
.33
.14
.:30
.32
.30
.25
.31
.31
.25
.21
13$111
10
10
16
16
16
1616
I;
16
I6
I16
1 616
16I6
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth PC PP P, T t S D (Aa). (f00. E v -n ~ Pt Her
(in) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (°C) (s-') (Y,R,N) (YN) (MPa) (%) (GPa) (O,) (Mg/ 3 )
TS 381.0 (A1) 0 0 0 23 l0o- R Y 166 - 61.8 .30 9 - 10TS 381.0(AI) 10 0 10 23 10-4 R Y 412 - 73.0 .23 9 10
TS 381.0(A1) 20 0 20 23 10-4 R Y 618 - 59.9- .21 9 10
TS 384.8(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-2 Y Y 149.7 .49 36.6 - - - 16
TS 390.0(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-,6 Y Y 44.9 .41 22.9 .27 16
CH 439.5 (G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 21.7 .43 6.40 - 39 2.51. 15
CH 439.5(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 y y 22.0 .43 5.79 - 39 2.51 15
CH 439.5(G1) 0 0 0 23 IO-5 Y y 24.3 .43 6.03 .09 39 2.51 18
CH 439.5(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 34.2 .56 8.84 .07 39 2.51 18
CH 453.4 (G1) 0 0 0 23 10- 5 Y Y 22.9 .58 4.87 - 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 0 0 0 23 1O-5 Y Y 45.3 .62 9.42 .09 40 2.50 18
CH 453.4 (G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 23.2 .69 5.45 .09 40 2.50 18
CH 453.4(GI) 10 0 10 23 I0 -5 Y N 25.4 .45 6.85 .34 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 10 0 10 23 10-5 Y N 26.0 .41 7.79 .34 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G0) 10 0 10 23 1O -5 Y Y 29.9 .68 5.57 - 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 10 0 10 23 10o Y Y 31.4 .66 6.16 .22 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 20 0 20 23 10 - Y N 26.7 .50 7.38 - 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 20 0 20 23 10-5 Y N 36.1 .52 7.93 - 40 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (GI) 20 0 20 23 10-5 Y Y 17.1 .71 3.92 .18 410 2.50 15
CH 453.4 (G1) 20 0 20' 23 10-5 Y Y 34.4 .64 6.24 .17 40 2 50 15
CH 454.1 (Al) 0 0 0 23 10-4 R Y 47.7 - 12.3 .14 28 - 10
CH 463.3(G1) 0 0 0 23 lo-,' Y Y 18.9 .76 4.93 - 39 2.19 15
CH 463.3((1) 0 0 0 23 10 -5 Y Y 20.7 .54 5.14 - 39 2.49 15
CH 463.3( 1) 0 0 0 2:3 lo - y y 22.6 .60 5.61 .10 39 219 18
C11 463.3 (;) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 29.6 .60 4.41 .17 39 2.419 18
Qs0n
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth Pt P',(m) (Ml'a) (MI'a) (.\llsts
'I'(0Ot)
S 1) (Aa). (f ). E(Y,R,Ni) (Y,N) (MPa) ( G') (Pa)
1, - 11 -~ Py er
I (' C~ ) ( I Ng/ III 3 )
CH 472.6(G1) 0CH 472.6 (G I) 0CH 472.6 (G I) 0CH 472.6 (G I) 0
CHI 486.1 (GI) 0CH 486.1 (G(i) 0CHl 486.1 (GI) 0CH 486.1 (GI) 0
CHl 489.2 (AI) 20CH 492.9 (G 1) 0CH 492.9 (Gl ) 0CII 492.9 (G I) 0('H 492.9(G(1) 0
CH 498.0 (A I) 20.7
(CH 506.6 (A I) 20
('CI 507.6 (G) I 0CHI 507.6 (G() 0CII 507.6(GC) 0Cll 507.6 (GI) 0CH 507.6 (GI) 0Cll 507.6 ((l ) 0CH 507.6(G) 10CH 507.6(G) 10CH 507.6(G1) 10CH 507.6 (( I) 10(11H 507.6 (G ) 20CHl 507.6 (G I) 20
0000
0000
00000
000
0
000
20
20000
0)
23232323
23232323
232:323232:3
10-5I-5
Ilo-,,50 -550-5
10-5
lo-,
10-5
I 0- r5ot
YY
Y
Y
YYY
Y
Y
YyYY
yYYy
YYyyY
35.9:30.55;3.140.6
11.215.322.322.3
26.126.519.412.726.6
.61
.54
.70
.61
.41.42.43.42
.43
.37
.48
.36~
7.037.4512.89.12
3.514.236.376.60
7.997.867.1711.09.41
.07.07
.19
.10.09
.22
.'26
.25
.10
.10
43431343
1040*010
3037373737
''., IXA
2.182.18
2.382.382 .382 .38
2.112.II2.112.41
I .;I I
I1818
1 .,151818
1(1I .1518I8
0 20.7 23 10-4 It y 67.5
0) 20 2:3 lo-4 It Y 70:3
8.50 .27 :32 10
9.57 .25 35 10
0()00000000
0
0
00
00010101010102(
20
232:3232;323232:3
232 32:3
23
10-3
10-s,
10- ,
I o0
yYyy
Y[1
YItYTYY
yyy
y
y
y
N
.NNNN
N
26.234.123.7:37.6411.032.735.727.66 :1357.6:31.8I3i.'2
.50
.42
.57
.47
.58
.54
.50
.591.1.99..4A.1
6.869.526.399.8;58.126.508.908.487.207.319.3 19.72
.18
.18.14.29.3 1A: I
.30.27,
.28
.25
3838:383838
383838:38348
348:3X
2.11
2.112.11
2.1 12.112.412.112.412..lI2. 11
.,1- 11
1 5151818I s1515I:,I .15I r1 5l
I .5
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth Pc P Pc(m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
T I S D(°C) (s-') (Y,R,N) (Y,N)
(Ma), (s), ( E(MPa) (56) (CPa)
1 -n - pg Ret(%) (Mg/nl 3l
CH 508.4 (GI) 0CH 508.4 (G1) 0CH 508.4 (GI) 0CH 508.4 (G 1) 0CH 508.4 (GI) 10CH 508.4 (G1) 10CH 508.4 (G6) 0CH 508.4 (G1) 0
CH 515.7(Al) 0
CH 524.2(GI) 0CH 524.2 (GI) 0CH 524.2 (G 1) 0CH 524.2(G1) 0
CH 530.9(G 1) 0.CH 530.9 ( 1) 0CH 530.9(G1): 0CH 530.9 (G 1) 0
CH 544.0(GI) 0CH 544.0 (6 1) 0CH 544.0 (G 1) 0CH 544.0 (G 1) 0
00000000
0000101000
2323232323232323
10-s10-310 -5
50-5
10-5
105
107
10-7
YYYYYyYY
y
y
y
y
NNyy
24.723.425.416.718.926.821.519.9
.61
.58
.57
.43
.49
.57
.55
.51
5.415.456.154.924.286.017.867.03
.33
.49
.36
.18
.36
.21
.22
37 2.45 1537 2.15 1537 2.45 1537 2.-I5 15:37 2.45 1537 2.45 1537 2.45 1537 2.45 15
0 0 23 10- 4 R Y 40.8 14.0 .20 37 tO
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
23232323
23232323
23232323
10- s
105
i0-5
5o--
i0-5105
10-5io~s
i0-5
10-5
Io- S
yYYY
YYyY
YyYY
yYyy
YYYY
YYyY
20.127.423.734.6
39.142.055.570.7
15.414.820.821.6
.43
.41
.50
.51
.87
.71
.63
.71
.79
.75
.73
.64
5.837.936.819.52
8.418.1412.412.7
2.552.524.054.61
.29
.30
.21
.10
.27
.32
.14
.15
.34
.37
.21
.20
37 2.46 1537 2.46 1537 2.46 1837 2.46 18
36 2.61 1536 2.6I IS:16 2.61I 1836 2.6 1 18
29 2.65 1529 2.65 1529 2.65. 1829 2.03 18
PP 593.7 (Al) 100
PP 599.8 (A 1) 20
0 100 23 10-4 it Y 299 - 2'2.0 .20 19 10
0 20 23 10-4 It Y 1762 - 27.0 .20 18 - 10
Appendix- Continued
Unit l)epth 1"(IU) (MPa)
D , I <
(Ml'ia) INII'a)T e S I) (A(7)X ((I). E v n - Pg 1J'f
(°C) (S- 1) (Y,Rl,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%v) l(GA Pa) ('M' (MVg/u l
PP 604.9 (G1) 0 0 0 23 10 5 Y Y 14.7 .36 4.91 .43 32 2.54
PP 604.9(61) 0 0 0 23 10 5 Y Y 13.5 .30 5,25 .39 32 2.51I
IP 604.9(C1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 11.7 .35 3.11 .09 32 2.51
PP 604.9 (G 1) 0 0 0 23 I0- Y Y 1 3.6 .0 3.21 .05 32 2.51
PP 604.9(A1) 20.7 0 20.7 23 10-4 11 Y 207 - 31.0 .25 15 -
PP 613.8 (AI) 0 0 0 23 104 R Y 130 - 417.9 .30 1 7 -
IP 621.5(AI) 0 0 0 23 104 it y 32.2 - 7.84 .18 31 -
1818
10
10
10
1u 661.4 ((6 I) 0
Bu 661.4 (G 1) 0Bu 661.4 (G 1) 0
13u 680.3 (C l) 0Bu 680.3 (G 1) 0
Bu 689.1 ((1) 0
flu 693.7 (G 1) 0Bu 6f93.7 (G 1) 0Bu 693.7 (61) 0Blu 693.7 ((; 1) 0
Bu 704.7 (1) 013u 704.7(G 1) 013f1 704.7 (G61) ()
Hu 721.((;1) ()flu 7'21.4 (I 0
13u 731.8(AI) 50
0
00
00
0
0000
00
0
0
000
00
0
0
0050
0()()
()
5()
23
2323
23
23
232323
23
23
2323
23
23
23
23
l0--,
i0-~,
I0-- ,0o - 510 5
10-1
I o -
lo5lo-S
lot,)
l-S"
1() - 5
Io-- l
yyy
y
Y
Y
y
Y
YV
Y
Y
I?
yyY
y
y
Yyy
N,
Y
Y
Y
47.147.542.3
19.317.9
23.7
26 .719.1
30. 429.9
41.(;32.7'24.1
29.229.2
17,-
.49
.416
.4f6
.45
.52
.40
.28.54.58.46
.34
.81
.5(
.5(
11.5g.588.67
5.3412.76
6.24
1 (.2.723.735.76
I5.89).5_j8.17
8 388.38
18.7
.11
.11
.11
.12
.08
.06
.12
.03
.()1
.07
.11
.0(
.18
.1 1
.1 1
.19
282828
:3939
3fj34
341
:36:363(6
2727
2.482.182.48
2a.4 12.412.11
2.10.1(0
2. lil
,, -
2.6 I2.6 I
131818
18
18
1I181 8
1:3IX
1 8
I :
18
1(3
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth Pc PP 1)- (ni) (MPa) (MPa) (Mla)
T i S D(°C) (s-') (Y,R,N) (Y,N)
(MAo). ((%) E(MPa) (%) (GPa)
L' -n - Py Ref(% (Mg/rn3 )
Bu 733.4 (G1) 0Bn 733.4 (GI) 0Bn 733.4 (G1) 0Be 733.4 (G 1) 0
Bu 736.0(GI) 0Bo 736.0(G1) 0Bu 736.0(GI) 0Bn 736.0 (C1) 0Bu 736.0 (G1) 0Bu 736.0(G1) 0
Bu 737.9 (Al) 20
Bu 740.3 (G 1) 0Bu 740.3 (G 1) 0Bu 740.3(G1) 0Bu 740.3 (C 1) 0Bu 740.3 (G 1) 0
Bu 747.3 (Al) 0
Bu 752.2 (GI) 0Bu 752.2 (0 1) 0Bu 752.2(GI) 0Bu 752.2 (G 1) 0
Bu 757.8 (G 1) 0Bu 757.8(G1) 0Bu 757.8(GI) 0Bu 757.8 (G 1) 0Bu 757.8(G1) 0Bu 757.8(GI) 0
0000
000000
0000
000000
23232323
23.2323232323
105
105
10-5
105
10-5
105
0-S
yYYy
yYYYyy
yYYy
YYYYYy
34.735.82732
38.036.030.4353629
.41 9.82
.39 9.73
.50 7.74
.53 8.89
.42 10.2
.40 10.0
.38 8.10
.60 9.20
.60 9.26
.53 8.67
- 25 2.5;6 825 2.56 8
.11 25 2.56 18
.13 25 2.5-; 18
.12
.13
.16
28 2.5'; 828 2.59 828 2. -9 828 2.51) 1828 2.59) 1828 2.59 18
0 20 23 10-4 R Y 145
00000
00000
2323232323
I0o5
50-5
i0-5
50-5
I0-5
YYyYY.
YYYYY
30.629.029.226.423.6
19.2
.55 8.71
.52. 8.01
.67 3.18
.66 3.24
.69 2.64
.23 22
.11
.16
.13
.13.13
27 2.6127 2.t i27 2.6!27 2.6 127 2.61I
10
1313181818
0 0 23 10 - 4 R Y 54 6.37 .05 20 10
0000
00000'0
0000
000000
23232323
2323232:32:323
I0-5
5
105
10 5
I0-5
IO-5
yyY
yYY
Y
YYYY
Y
Y
36.646.3.37.245.2
38.349.960.1
174f659
.56 12.6
.74 3.82
.60 6.56
.36 12.0.40 15.8.40 18.2.52 13.7.51 13.1.58 14.6
.14
.12
.12
.11.09.14
28 2.60 1328 2.60 1328 2.0') 1828 . 2.60 18
23 2.57. 823 . 2. 5 8
23 2,.7 823 2.57 1823 2.57 1823 21. ',7 I 8
co
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth Pc ',P I', '1'(m (M~a) IMll'ai (.NlI'a) (°C) /s- 1)
S D(YR,N) (Y,N)
(A'). (h). E(Ml'a) (%) ((Pa)
v ' r -py hg Her(,o( ) (MNg/110 )
13u 759 (GI) 5 0 : 200 0o-4
Bu 759 (GI) 10 5 5 200 10-4Bu 759 (C1) 10 0 10 200 10-4
Bu 759 (GI) 17.5 5 12.5 200 10--4
Bu 759 (G1) 20.7 0 20.7 200 10-4flu 759 (G1I 20.7 0 20.7 200 i0-4Bu 759 (GI) 24.1 3.4 20.7 200 10- 4
Bu 759.2 (Al) 20.7 0 20.7 23 10-4
RyRyitIty
yYYYYYy
87709:38:311914886
16.513.115.717.817.620.513.8
27 2.6127 2(6 127 2.627 2.6 127 2.6127 2.6127 2.(1
9999999
}H Y 140 22.1 .28 1 8 10
Bu 762.4 ((1) 0Bu 762.4 (GI) 0Bu 762.4 (1I) 0Blu 762.4 (GI) 0Bu 762.4 (G1) 0Bu 762.4 (G1) 0
Bu 773.5(GI) 0
000000
000000
23 10-5
23 1O-523 10-523 10-23 10-523 10-5
YYYYYY
YyYYYY
58.072.973.2595958
.41
.49
.40
.45
.48
.47
15.117.220.817.216.415.8
.14.11.13
24 2.6 124 2.6124 2.6 124 2.6 124 2.6!24 2.(il
888181818
0 0 23 0-5 Y Y 117 .75 14.0 .09 24 2.58 18
Bu 781.2 (G 1) 0Bu 781.2 ((; 1) 0Bu 781.2(G1) 0Bu 781.2 (G 1) 0
Bu 787.9(G1) 0Bu 787.9 (01) 0Bu 787.9 (;1) 0Bu 787.9 (C1 1) 0
0000
0000
0000
0000
23 10 s23 10-523 10-523 10-5
23 1o-523 10-5'23 10 -i5
23 10
yyy
Y
yy
Y1
Yy1yY
Y
y
Y
1201 53101104
71.783.773.967.1
.58
.54
.52
.55
.51
.58
.69
.64
21.928.920.622.7
15.213.712.51 1.6
.14
.14.12.19
.08.12.13.17
2 1 2.1721 2.1721 2.1721 2.17
2 1 2.:8924 2.:3924 2.:3924 2.:3
1313:1818
1:1
18lx
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth P, l 'p Ie T e S D (Wa). (I E v n -'- [t1cr
(n) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (°C) (s-i) (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%) (GPa) (%) (Mg/rn13 _
Bu 794.9(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 71.9 .45 18.4 .14 24 2.17 13
Bu 794.9(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 y y 73.5 .47 19.4 .13 24 2.47 13
Bu 794.9(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 y y 60.4 .51 11.7 .10 24 2.47 18
Bu 794.9(G1) 0 0 0 23 10- y y 72.7 .49 17.2 .16 24 2.47 18
Bu 804.9(G1) 0 0 0 23 i0- 5 Y y 50.2 .57 10.4 .14 28 2.49 13
Bu 804.9 (GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 45.2 .63 6.99 .12 28 2.49 18
Bu 804.9(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 47.0 .69 6.66 .11 28 2.49) 18
Tr 822.7(C1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 60.1 .46 14.5 .16 33 2.52 14
Tr 822.7 (GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 53.6 .51 13.3 .18 33 2.52 14
Tr 822.7(G1) 0 0 0 23 1O-5 Y Y 45.3 .50 9.47 .11 33 2.52 18
Tr 822.7 (G1) 0 0 0 23 10-s y y 63.9 .58 10.9 .11 33 2.52 18
Tr 856.5(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 42.0 .36 15.2 .38 23 2.ti 14
Tr 856.5(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 46.0 .43 14.2 .31 23 2.(i1 14
Tr 856.5(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 76.2 .39 14.9 .17 23 2.ii 18
Tr 856.5(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 y y 66.4 .42 14.2 .21 23 2.6l1 18
Tr 883.0(C1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 68.1 .43 21.3 .27 21 2.62 14
Tr 883.0 (G 1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 69.2 .45 19.9 .24 21 2.(i 14
Tr 883.0(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 95.8 .50 18.3 .27 21 2.62 18
Tr 883.0(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 115 .55 20.0 .22 21 2.62 18
Trr 913.4 (GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 67.6 .36 22.5 .23 21 2.5!' 14
Tr 913.4(GI) 0 0 0 23 105 Y Y 40.9 .29 18.9 - 21 2.59 14
Tr 913.4(G1) 0 0 0, 23 10- Y Y 84.2 .63 10.1 .07 2 1 2.5i) 18
Tr 913.4(CI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 90.7 .39 21.8 .24 21 2.5!9 18
-1
Appendix - Continued
UJnit Depth P) lP l y
(m) (MT'a) (Ml'ai) OMl';iTI' t S D
(°C) (s 1-) (Y,R,N) (Y,N)(AM) (f ) ( E(MPa) (%.) (CPa)
',-'1 n Pg 1ter
Tr 923.8 (C l) 0Tr 923.8(G1) 0Tr 923.8(GI) 0Tr 923.8 (G 1) 0
Tr 945.6 (Gl ) 0'Tr 945.6 (G 1) 0I'r 945.6(G1) .0
Tr 975.4 (Gl) 0Tr 975.4 (GI) 0Tr 975.4(GI) 0Tr 975.4A(G1) 0
Tr 976.2(G1) 0Tr 976.2(G1) 0Tr 976,2 (GI) 0'' 976.2 (G 1) 0'I'r 976.2 (G 1) 0Tr 976.2((;1) 0T'r 976.2(GI) 0
'Tr 1008.3 (G1) 0T'r 1008.3((;1) 0Tr 1008.3(G(1) 0
Tr 1037.9 ((; 1) 0'Tr 10:7.9 ((..1) 0Tr 1037.9( G I) 0Tr 1037.9(G1) 0
0000
0000
23232323
000
000
232323
0000
0000000
0000
0000000
2323232:3
2323232:3232323
1 0 -S y10-5 y
10-5 y
10-5 y
lo-S y
I0-5 Y
10-5 Y
Io-S y
O-5 y
1-5 y
10-2 y
10-2 y
10-4 Y
10-4 Y
lo-, Y
10-6 Yl-6 y
I0-5 Y
I0-5 +Y
_5-~, y
IO-5 y
10"~- Y
_o-5 y
I -' Y
yyyy
33.128.651.764.7
.37
.46
.45
.51
13.410.510.911.9
yyy
20.2 .4211.5 .5037.1 .50
5.80 .207.20 .I 16.78 .16
33 2.5633 2.5633 2,56
141418
.28.14.21
26 2.5826 2.5826 2.5826 2.58
1 4141818
Yy
.V
y-V-VY
33.025.832.252.6
31.124.425.322.132.614.526.5
.47
.48
.78
.55
.52
.50
.50
.32
.44
.31
.50
8.607.362.617.92
6.635.176.428.768.977.048.26
.176
.07
.19
.09.3o.14
26 2.6126 2.6126 2.6126 2.61
25 2.6125 2.6125 2.6125 2.6 125 2.6125 2.6125 2.61
14141818
141414I141414III
000
000
23232:3
y
y
25.6 .3346.4 .5151.7 .57
8.47 .269.39 .118.26 .11
33 2.61:33 2.6433 2.6f1
14181 8
000
0()0()
2:3232323$
YY-V-V
30.037.329.9
'11.2
.35.l3.39.37
8.8512.46.669.95
.18
.31
.23.29
28 2.6628 2.6628 2.i6628 2.66
I 1
18
Appendix - Continued
Unit Depth P, P, Pe T i S D (Aa). ((O) E v '- n Py Ref(m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (IC) (s-1) (Y,R,N) (Y,N) (MPa) (%) (GPa) (to) (Mg/m3)
Tr 1066.3(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 17.8 .34 5.56 .31 42 2.69 14Tr 1066.3(G1) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 17.4 .31 5.47 - 42 2.69 14Tr 1066.3 (GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y Y 27.6 .41 6.30 .17 42 2.69 18Ti 1066.3(GI) 0 0 0 23 10-5 Y y 26.1 .46 4.90 .15 42 2.69 18
Distribution:
J. W. Bennett, DirectorGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
M. W. FreiGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
C. R. CooleyGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
C. H. GeorgeGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 2"0545
J. J. FioreGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
J. G. NlahakisGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
74
T. P. LongoGeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
C. Klingsbergdeologic Repository DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyS-10Washington, D. C. 20545
NTS Project ManagerHigh-Level Waste Technical Development BranchDivision of Waste ManagementU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
Chief, High-Level Waste Technical Development BranchDivision of Waste ManagementU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555
J. 0. Neff, Program ManagerNational Waste Terminal Storage Program OfficeU. S. Department of Energy505 King AvenueColumbus, OH 43201
N. E. CarterBattelleOffice of Nuclear Waste Isolation505 King AvenueColumbus, OH 43201
75
ONWI Library (5)
BattelleOffize of Nuclear Waste Isolation
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OI 43201
0. L. Olson, Project Manager
Basalt Waste Isolation Project Office
U. S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office
P. 0. Box 550
Richland, WA 99352
R. DejuRockwell International Atomics
Rockwell. Hanford Operations
Richland, WA 99352
C. TomsicUtah Department of Community Economic Development
Room 8290, State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 89114
Governor's Office Planning Coordinator
Nevada State Planning Coordination
State Capitol Complex, Second Floor
Carson City, NV 89710
P. J. IversonDepartment of Minerals
State of Nevada
400 West King Street
Carson City, NV 89710
R. R. Loux, Jr.
c/o Department of Minerals
State of Nevada
400 West King Street
Carson City, NV 89710
76
V
K. Street, Jr.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryMail Stop L-209P. 0. Box 808Livermore, CA 94550
L. D. RamspottTechnical Project OfficerLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryP. 0. Box 808Mail Stop L-204Livermore, CA 94550
D. C. HoffmanLos Alamos National LaboratoryP. O. Box 1863Mail Stop E-515Los Alamos, NM 87545
D. T. OakleyTechnical Project OfficerLos Alamos National LaboratoryP. 0. Box 1863Mail Stop F-671Los Alamos, NM 87545
A. R. Hakl, Site ManagerWestinghouse - AESDP. O. Box 708Mail Stop 703Mercury, NV 89023
P. L. AamodtLos Alamos National LaboratoryP. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
77
D. L. Vieth, Director (6)Waste Management Project OfficeP. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
D. F. Miller, DirectorOffice of Public AffairsU. S. Department of EnergyP. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
D. A. Nowack (11)U. S. Department of EnergyP. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
B. W. Church, DirectorHealth Physics DivisionU. S. Department of EnergyP. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
A: E. GurrolaHolmes & Narver, Inc.P. 0. Box 14340Las Vegas, NV 89114
W. W. Dudley, Jr.Technical Project OfficerU. S. Geological SurveyP. 0. Box 25046Mail Stop 418Federal CenterDenver, CO 80225
M. E. Spaeth (3)Science Applications, Inc.2769 South Highland DriveLas Vegas, NV 89109
78
W. S. Twenhofel820 Estes StreetLakewood, CO 80215
H. D. CunninghamReynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, Inc.P. 0. Box 14400Mail Stop 555Las Vegas, NV 89114
J. A. CrossFenix & Scisson, Inc.P. 0. Box 15408Las Vegas, NV 89114
R. H. MarksU. S. Department of EnergyCP-1, MS 210P. 0. Box 14100Las Vegas, NV 89114
Center for TectonophysicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843
RE/SPEC, Inc. (2)P. 0. Box 725Rapid City, SD 57701AttD:
P. F. GnirkD. K. Parrish
79
1500 W. 11errmann
1510 D. B. Hayes
1520 T. B. Lane
1521 R D. Krieg
1521 R. K. Thomas
1530 L. W. Davison
1534 J. R. Asay
1540 W. C. Luth
1541 H. C. Hardee
1542 13. M. Butcher
1542 L. S. COstin
1542 D. J. 1o1comb
1542 W. A. OIsson
1542 R. Hi. Price (25)
1542 L. W. Teufel
1542 W. R. Wawersik
1542 D. H. Zeuch
1543 T. M. Gerlach
3141 L. J. Erickson (5)
3151 W. L. Garner (3)
3154-3 C. Dalin (25)
7417 F. L. McFarling
8214 M. A. Pound
63106311 L. W. Scully
6312 L. D. Tyler
6312 J. K. Johnstone
6312 B. S. Langkopi
6312 R. R. Peters
6313 J. R. Tillerson (15)
6313 F. B. Nimick
6313 B. M. Schwartz
6313 R. M. Zimmerman
6314$6314 J. L. Jackson
6314 A. E. Stephenson
6331 A. R. LapPin
so
O rg. Bldg. Name R >X- d by
I I
-3/t) i i
Ii I
iIIiiI
Orj BA'l. 'iam.n Rec'd by
Sandia National Laboratories