/o- J¢- _/

SANDIA REPORT
SAND89--0837 • UC--814
Unlimited Release
Printed December 1991

Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project

b

Drift Design Methodology and

Preliminary Application for the Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Project

M. P. Hardy, Stephen J. Bauer

Prepared by
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Department of Energy
under Contract DE-ACO4-76DPOO789

k.,J
"Prepared by Yucca Mountain Site Characterizatiop Project (YMSCP) par-
ticipants as part of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
(CRWM). The YMSCP is managed by the Yucca Mountain Project Office of
the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Field Office, Nevada (DOE/NV).
YMSCP work is sponsored by the Office of Geologic Repositories (OGR) of
the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)."

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States

Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account oi"work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern-
ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their
contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any
agency thereof or any of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced
directly from the best available copy.

Available t_) DOE and DOE contractors fr(nn

Office of Scientific and Technical lnformati_m
PO Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN :_7831
Prices available from {615) 576-84()1, F]'S 626-8401

Available t_ the public from

National Technical lnf_rmati_m Service
[TS Department _t' ('_mmerc'e
5285 Port Royal Rd
Springfield. VA 22161
NTIS price c:c_des
Printed copy: A()8
Microfiche copy: A()I
 " SAND--89-0837

. DE92 004788

Distribution
Category UC-814

o SAND89-0837
Unlimited Release
Printed December, 1991

DRIFT DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND PRELIMINARY APPLICATION

FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT

by

M. P. Hardy
J. F. T. Agapito & Associates, Inc.
Grand Junction, CO 81506 ,-

and

Stephen J. Bauer
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185

ABSTRACT

Excavation stability in an underground nuclear waste repository is required during construction,

emplacement, retrieval (if required), and closure phases to ensure worker health and safety, and to
prevent development of potential pathways for radionuclide migration in the post-closure period.
Stable excavations are developed by appropriate excavation procedures, design of the room shape,
design and installation of rock support reinforcement systems, and implementation of appropriate
monitoring and maintenance programs. In addition to the loads imposed by the in situ stress field,
the repository drifts will be impacted by thermal loads developed after waste emplacement and,
periodically, by seismic loads from naturally occurring earthquakes and underground _mclear events.
A priori evaluation of stability is required for design of the ground support system, to confirm that
the thermat loads are reasonable, and to support the license application process. In this report, a
design methodology for assessing drift stability is presented. This is based on site conditions,
together with empirical and analytical methods. Analytical numerical methods are emphasized at
this time because empirical data are unavailable for excavations in welded tuff either at elevated
temperatures or under seismic loads. The analytical methodology incorporates analysis of rock
• masses that are systematically jointed, randomly jointed, and sparsely jointed. In situ thermal and
seismic loads are considered. Methods of evaluating the analytical results and estimating ground
b support requirements for the full range of expected ground conditions are outlined. The results of
a preliminary application of the methodology using the limited available data are presented. This
methodology is expected to evolve as excavation observation at the Exploratory Shaft Facility
demonstrates the controlling deformation mechanisms and allows site-specific evaluation of in situ
properties. As more experience is gained at the site, design based on empirical and observational
methods will emerge for application during construction of the repository.

MASTER
 n

This report was prepared under WBS Element 124232.

 PREFACE

The drift design methodology outlines procedures for drift design for a potential repository
in welded tuff at the Yucca Mountain Site, but does not discuss who will be responsible for
o implementing these procedures. Until this date, the repository design has been the responsibility
of Sandia National Laboratories with architect engineering (A/E) support.

" Implementation of the drift design procedures includes interpretation of data from laboratory,
field and prototype tests; compliance with regulatory requirements, numerical analysis, and tradeoff
studies; integration with other aspects of the repository layout and operations; consideration of
licensing strategies; postclosure performance constraints; and development of specific procedures
suitable to meet Quality Assurance requirements, lt is anticipated that most of this work will be
completed by the repository designer with input and review from other departments. Once
underground excavation begins, procedures for data collection from exposed rock surfaces and
feedback to the drift design team must be developed.

lt is recommended a drift design review team be established by the Project Office during the
prelicensing phases of repository design to advise an implementation of the drift design methodology
and to review proposed drift designs, including the ground support/reinforcement details. This
review team should include representatives with expertise in the geological sciences, laboratory
testing, computation mechanics, construction, waste handling, repos!tory design and performance
assessment.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared by the authors with significant assistance from supporting staff and
review consultants, and input from technical reviewers. Mr. B. Ehgartner, A. Mansure, and
R. Stinebaugh of Sandia National Laboratories were instrumental in initiating the concept of the °
drift design methodology and contributed to the overall report outline. Dr. C. St. John, formerly
of J. F. T. Agapito & Associates, Inc. and presently acting as a consultant, was also initially involved
in development of the concept of the drift design methodology and has been involved throughout
its history of development as a technical reviewer.

Significant technical contributions have been made by Mr. C. E. Brechtel and M. Lin of
J. F. T. Agapito & Associates, Inc. They are responsible for the ground support designs and ali
numerical analyses, respectively, in the preliminary application of the drift design methodology,
Chapter 12.

Dr. L. S. Costin and Mr. R. E. Finley of Sandia National Laboratories performed a formal
technical review. Messrs. R. H. Price and E. E. Ryder of Sandia National Laboratories also provided
review comments to a draft version of the report.

Prof. W. Hustrulid of the Colorado School of Mines and Dr. Z. T. Bieniawski of Pennsylvania
State University have performed external technical reviews.

The authors also wish to acknowledge the professional contribution of Ms. K. L. Greathouse
for her typing and editing of ali drafts of this report.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Eitgg

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1

o

1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Report Organization ....................................................................... 1-1

2.0 DRIFT DESIGN METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 2-1

2.1 Methodology Outline ..................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Limitations of Design Methodology .............................................. 2-4
2.3 Implementation of Drift Design Methodology .............................. 2-4

3.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND GOALS ................................................ 3-1

3.1 Functional Requirements ............................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Size and Shape ................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Drift Cross-Sectional Area ............................................. 3-2
3.2 Performance Goals ......................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Temperature .................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Stability .......................................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Materials ......................................................................... 3-5

4.0 DRIFT DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Ground Support/Rock Reinforcement Design ................................ 4-1

4.2 Safety Factors .................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Drift Design Criteria ...................................................................... 4-4

5.0 DESIGN B ASIS ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Stress at Drift Location .................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 In Situ Stress ................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Thermal ........................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Seismic ........................................................................... 5-2
5.1.4 Stress Combinations ....................................................... 5-6
5.1.5 Design Basis Loads for Specific Rock
Categories ....................................................................... 5-7
• 5.2 Information for Design ................................................................... 5-7
5.2, 1 Stratigraphy and Rock Structure ..................................... 5-7
5.2.2 In Situ Conditions ........................................................... 5-8
5.2.3 Thermal Properties ......................................................... 5-8
5.2.4 Mechanical Properties .................................................... 5-9
5.2.5 Waste Characteristics ..................................................... 5-14
5.2.6 Ground Support Properties ............................................. 5-15
5.3 ESF Repository Layout .................................................................. 5-15
5.3.1 Exploratory Shaft Facility .............................................. 5-19
5.3.2 Repository ....................................................................... 5-19

6.0 ANALYSIS OF UNSUPPORTED DRIFTS ................................................ 6-1

6.1 Candidate Drift Designs ................................................................. 6-1

6.2 Parametric and Tradeoff Studies .................................................... 6-1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

SectWon
6.3 Select Preliminary Drift Configurations ........................................ 6-1 o
6.4 Empirical Methods ......................................................................... 6-1
6.4.1 Technique Selection ....................................................... 6-6
6.4.2 Application of Empirical Techniques ............................. 6-7
6.4.3 Results of Empirical Techniques .................................... 6-8
6.4.4 Interaction of Empirical and Numerical
Methods .......................................................................... 6-8
6.5 Numerical Methods for Unsupported Drifts .................................. 6-8
6.5.1 Model Selection .............................................................. 6-8
6.5.2 Application of Numerical Models .................................. 6-11
6.5.3 Results of Analyses ........................................................ 6-16
6.6 Drift Intersections .......................................................................... 6-17
6.7 Borehole Drift Intersections ........................................................... 6-19
6.8 Fault Zones and Zones of Poor Rock Quality ................................ 6-19
6.9 Preliminary Ground Support Design .............................................. 6-20

7.0 EVALUATION OF DRIFT ANALYSIS ..................................................... 7-1

7.1 Evaluation of Drift Design ............................................................. 7-1

7.1.1 Evaluation of Thermal Goals .......................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Evaluation of Drift Stability ........................................... 7-1
7.1.3 Drift Stability Criteria ..................................................... 7-2
7.2 Evaluation of Field Demonstration Studies ................................... 7-4
7.3 Preliminary Modifications ............................................................. 7-4

8.0 GROUND SUPPORT DESIGN .................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Inputs for Ground Support Design ................................................. 8-1

8.1.1 In Situ Stress Relief and Ground Support
Loading .......................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Rock Mass Failure Mechanisms ..................................... 8-4
8.1.3 Functional Requirements of Ground Support ................. 8-4
8.1.4 Ground Support Material Behavior ................................ 8-5
8.1.5 Ground Support Failure Mechanisms ............................. 8-5
8.2 Ground Support Design Analysis ................................................... 8-6
8.2.1 Uncoupled Analysis ........................................................ 8-7 ..
8.2.2 Coupled Analysis ............................................................ 8-7
8.3 Ground Support Evaluation ............................................................. 8-7

9.0 FINAL DESIGN EVALUATIONS .............................................................. 9-1

9.1 Evaluation of Final Design ............................................................. 9-1

9.2 Final Modifications ........................................................................ 9-1
9.3 Final Design Specifications ............................................................ 9-1
9.4 Field Procedures .............................................................................. 9-1

10.0 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 10-1

11.0 DEVELOPMENT OF DRIFT DESIGN METHODOLOGY .................... 11-1

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

Section

12.0 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF DRIFT DESIGN

° METHODOLOGY AT YMP ...................................................................... 12-1

12.1 Establish Functional Requirements, Performance Goals

and Develop Drift Stability Requirements ................................... 12-1
12.2 Establish Site Characteristics and Credible Range
for Design ..................................................................................... 12-1
12.2.1 Rock Mass Quality ....................................................... 12-3
12.2.2 Properties for the Compliant Joint Model .................... 12-7
12.2.3 Elasto-Plastic Mechanical Properties ........................... 12-12
12.2.4 Thermal Properties ........................................................ 12-15
12.3 Repository Layout ........................................................................ 12-15
12.4 Design Basis Loads ...................................................................... 12-15
12.4.1 In Situ Stresses .............................................................. 12-18
12.4.2 Thermal Stresses ........................................................... 12-18
12.4.3 Seismic Stresses ............................................................ 12-20
12.4.4 Combined In Situ, Thermal, and Seismic Stresses ....... 12-21
12.4.5 Finite-Element Boundary Conditions in Drift
Analysis ........................................................................ 12-21
12.5 Develop Candidate Drift Designs and Perform Parametric/
Tradeoff Studies ........................................................................... 12-21
12.6 Select Preliminary Drift Shapes and Sizes ................................... 12-22
12.7 Perform Analysis of Drift and Intersections ................................ 12-22
12.7.1 Empirical Analysis ........................................................ 12-22
12.7.2 Numerical Methods ...................................................... 12-31
12.7.3 Preliminary Ground Support Parameters ....................... 12-35
12.8 Evaluate Drift Design ................................................................... 12-36
12.9 Modify Drift Shape/Loads and Review Goals and Criteria ......... 12-37
12.10 Ground Support Design ................................................................ 12-38
12.10.1 Uncoupled Analysis ...................................................... 12-38
12.10.2 Coupled Analysis .......................................................... 12-41
12.11 Final Design Evaluation ............................................................... 12-44

13.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 13-1

APPENDLX A--Maximum Allowable Compressive Strain .............................................. A-1

APPENDIX B--Repository Drift Performance Using Compliant Joint Model .............. B-1

APPENDIX C--Information from, and Candidate Information for, the Site

and Engineering Property Data Base and _'ae Reference
Information Base ......................................................................................... C- I

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table

2-1 Output/Product From Each Design Step ........................................................ 2-5 D

3-1 Stability Performance Measures and Goals for Repository

Drifts ............................................................................................................. 3-4 ,_

4-1 Drift Design Stability Criteria ....................................................................... 4-2

4-2 Safety Factor for Concrete Design Using Ultimate

Strength Theory ............................................................................................. 4-4

4-3 Recommended Safety Factors for Design of Ground

Support/Rock Reinforcement Components .................................................... 4-4

5-1 Free-Field Strains Caused by Earthquake Events for

Steep Angle of Incidence ............................................................................ 5-4

5-2 Free-Field Strains Caused by UNE Events for Shallow

Angle of Incidence ......................................................................................... 5-4

5-3 Criteria for Assessing Seismic Wave Impact Angle ...................................... 5-6

6-1 Material Properties for the Elasto-Plastic Continuum

Model ............................................................................................................ 6-14

6-2 Material Properties for Equivalent Continuum Model and

Compliant Joint Model .................................................................................. 6-15

8-1 Suggested Percentage of Excavation-Induced Ground

Deformation ................................................................................................... 8-4

12-1 Function of Drift During Phases of Repository Development ...................... 12-2

12-2 Classification Parameters and Estimated Range of Value ............................. 12-4

12-3 Level of Probability for Selected NGl Parameters ........................................ 12--9

12-4 Level of Probability for Selected RMR Parameters ...................................... 12-9 "

12-5 Final RMR Values for Levels of Probability ................................................. 12-10

12-6 Fracture Frequencies Derived from Yucca Mountain Core Hole

Data ............................................................................................................... 12-11

12-7 Fracture Frequency and Spacing Based on RQD .......................................... 12-11

12-8 Preliminary Characterization of Fracture Continuity in TSw2 ....................... 12-13

12-9 Estimated Joint Continuity for Probability Level .......................................... 12-13

viii
 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Table

12-10 Range of Joint and Intact Rock Strength Parameters .................................... 12-13

12-11 Joint Intact Rock and Weighted Average Joint Strength

Used for the CJM Model ............................................................................... 12-14

12-12 CIM Joint Stiffness Parameters for Probability Levels ................................. 12-14

12-13 Estimated Strength of Intact Blocks .............................................................. 12-15

12-14 Power Law Failure Criteria for Levels of Probability ................................... 12-16

12-15 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criteria for Various Rock Mass Quality .................. 12-16

12-16 Rock Mass Tensile Strength for Rock Mass Quality ..................................... 12-17

12-17 Rock Mass Elastic Modulus for the Range of Rock Mass Quality ............... 12-17

12-18 Magnitude and Orientation of In Situ Principal Stresses ............................... 12-19

12-19 Thermal Stress Change Used for Midpanel Access Drift .............................. 12-19

12-20 Thermal Stress Change Used for Tuff Main Access Drift ............................. 12-20

12-21 Seismic Loads for All Drift Analysis ............................................................ 12-21

12-22 Combined Loads (in MPa) for Midpanel Access Drift at 100 Years ............ 12-22

12-23 Parameters in Assessing Ground Support Requirements for

Hoek Method ................................................................................................. 12-25

12-24 Rock Support Requirements Based on NGI-Q System Design

Tables ............................................................................................................ 12-26

' 12-25 Modified Q (QU) Adjusted for Thermal and Seismic Loads ......................... 12-27

12-26 Rock Support Requirements Based on NGI-Q System Design Tables

" for In Situ + Thermal + Seismic Loadings .................................................... 12-28

12-27 Rock Support Pressures (MPa) Based on Equation 13

and Q_ .......................................................................................................... 12-29

12--28 Standup Time Based on Bieniawski's RMR Rock Mass Rating ................... 12-29
12-29 Maximum Extent of Failed Zone for the Tuff Main Access
Drift .............................................................................................................. 12-32

12-30 Maximum Extent of Failed Zone for the Midpanel Access

Drift .............................................................................................................. 12-33

ix
 LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)

Table

12-31 Maximum Ex,ent of Failed Zone for Waste-Emplacement Drift •

for In Situ Plus Thermal Loads ...................................................................... 12-34

12-32 Maximum Extent of Failed Zone for Waste-Emplacement Drift for *

In Situ Plus Thermal Plus Seismic Loads ...................................................... 12-35

12-33 Rockbolt Support Systems Based on Numerical Analysis

of Unsupported Drifts .................................................................................... 12-36

12-34 Cases Where Maximum Allowable Compressive Strain Exceeded When

Loaded by In Situ Plus Thermal Plus Seismic Stresses ................................. 12-37

12-35 Predicted Bolt Loads (MPa), Tuff Main Access Drift, Uncoupled
Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12-39

12-36 Predicted Shotcrete Loads (MPa), Tuff Main Access Drift,

Uncoupled Analysis ....................................................................................... 12-39

12-37 Predicted Bolt Loads (MPa), Midpanel Access Drift, Uncoupled

Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12-40

12-38 Predicted Shotcrete Loads (MPa), Midpanel Access Drift, Uncoupled

Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12-40

12-39 Predicted Bolt Loads (MPa), Vertical Waste Emplacement

Drift, Uncoupled Analysis ............................................................................. 12-41

12-40 Predicted Shotcrete Loads (MPa), Emplacement Drift, Uncoupled

Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12-42

12-41 Comparison of Coupled and Uncoupled Shotcrete Stresses for

Elastic Rock Mass ......................................................................................... 12-42

12-42 Comparison of Coupled and Uncoupled Shotcrete Stresses for

Compliant Joint Rock Model ......................................................................... 12-43
,b

12-43 Comparison of Coupled and Uncoupled Shotcrete Stresses for

Mohr-Coulomb Rock Model ......................................................................... 12-43

12-44 Preliminary Ground Support Systems for Three Repository

Drift Types .................................................................................................... 12-45
 LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Summary of Drift Design Methodology ........................................................ 2-2

2-2 Logic Chart for Drift Design Methodology ................................................... 2-3

5-1 Wavefront Angle of Incidence 0 Relative to Drift ........................................ 5-5

5-2 Estimation of In Situ Deformation Modulus from Classification

Methods ........................................................................................................ 5-10

5-3 Averaging of Hock and Brown and Yudhbir Failure Criteria

for RMF 32.5 ................................................................................................ 5-12

5-4 Repository Layout (from SCP-CDR) ............................................................ 5-16

5-5 Exploratory ShJt Facility, Main Test Level Layout ..................................... 5-17

5-6 Isometric and Profile Views of the Waste-Emplacement Panels

as Modeled with STRES3D ........................................................................... 5-18

5-7 Panel Detail for Vertical Emplacement ......................................................... 5-20

5-8 Drift and Ramp Cross Sections (Vertical Emplacement) .............................. 5-21

6-1 Range of Rock Mass Quality, Q, Projected for Excavation Conditions

at the Repository Horizon .............................................................................. 6-3

6-2 Approximate Support Guidelines for Underground Excavations Proposed

by Hock (1981) ............................................................................................. 6-4

6-3 Chart for Estimating Modes of Failure Around Drifts Proposed by

Schmidt (1987) .............................................................................................. 6-5

6-4 Calculated Peak Particle Velocities and Acceleration and

Associated Damage Observations on Underground Openings ...................... 6-6
dip

6-5 Selection of Appropriate Rock Model for Design Analysis .......................... 6-l0

" 6-6 Idealized Diagram Showing the Transition from Intact Rock
" to a Heavily Jointed Rock Mass with Increasing Sample Size ....................... 6-12

6-7 Schematic Illustrating Geometry and Loads for Calculation

of Wall Support Pressure ................................................................................ 6-18

7-1 Flowchart Illustrating Application of Drift Support Design

Criteria to Drift Analysis ................................................................................ 7-3

xi
' V4' _
 LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)

8-1 Illustration of Interaction of the Ground Reaction Curve and

Ground Support System ................................................................................. 8-2 "

12-1 RQD Data (Langkopf and Gnirk, 1986) for Four Yh,_ Core Holes
Showing an 80-ft Interval Used to Develop the Estimate of
Lateral Variation ........................................................................................... 12-5

12-2 RQD Versus Cumulative Probability of Occurrence Showing Selected

Levels of Probability Used for Parameter Selection ...................................... 12-6

12-3 RMR Joint Frequency Parameter Versus Cumulative Frequency of

Occurrence Assuming a Uniform Distribution of the Range Reported
by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986) ...................................................................... 12-8

12-4 Approximate Support Guidelines for Underground Excavations

Proposed by Hoek (1981) With Range of Expected Conditions for
Emplacement Drifts at the YMP ................................................................... 12-23

12-5 Chart for Estimating Modes of Failure Around Drifts Proposed

by Schmidt (1987) With Projected Conditions for Emplacement
Drift at YMP ................................................................................................. 12-23

12-6 Range of Rock Mass Quality, Q, Projected for Excavation Conditions

at the Repository Horizon .............................................................................. 12-24

12-7 Expected Conditions Shown on Barton Rock Mass Quality Design

Shaft .............................................................................................................. 12-30

xii
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), a participant in the Yucca Mountain Site Charac-
terization Project (YMP), is investigating the feasibility of locating a high-level nuclear waste
" repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The conceptual design of the repository includes shafts
and ramps as accesses to the repository horizon, which are 200 to 300 m below the surface within
8 the densely welded section of the Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush tuff formation. At
the repository level, main access and emplacement drifts will be excavated to allow disposal of the
waste in either horizontally or vertically oriented boreholes. These drifts must provide safe access
for waste emplacement, inspection, and maintenance following emplacement, closure, and possibly,
waste retrieval. The design methodology presented in this report defines the steps for repository
drift design to ensure that the drifts meet stability and other regulatory requirements through
repository decommissioning.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to define, for the underground excavations of a repository in
tuff, a design methodology, establish a design criteria, and demonstrate the application of the
methodology to the Yucca Mountain Site. For the purposes of this document, the design of
underground excavations cot. ;ists of two components: (1) the drift dimensions and shape, and (2)
the ground support/rock reinforcement. Repository drift size and shape depends primarily on
functional requirements, whereas the ground support/rock reinforcement depends on local geologic
conditions and loadings. The ground support/rock reinforcement design can, at this stage, consist
of only multiple design possibilities to be selected after local ground conditions have been estab-
lished.

Not included in the drift design, but considered in the methodology, is the design of the
mining, ventilation, utility, backfill, and sealing systems. The design of the emplacement borehole
(borehole, liner, and plug), repository panels (layout, drift spacing, and standoff), and shafts
is outside the scope of this document, although the interaction and effect on drift design are
considered where appropriate. For example, density of emplaced waste [areal power density (APD)]
and standoff to the waste are parameters of panel design that may require adjustment if thermal
loads on the drift become excessive.

1.2 Report Organization

o The report is structured to follow the application of the proposed design methodology.
Chapter 2 provides a synopsis of the methodology. This is followed by chapters which describe in
detail major elements of the methodology. These are:

Chapter 3---Design Requirements and Goals

Chapter 4--Drift Design Criteria
Chapter 5--Design Basis
Chapter 6---Analysis of Unsupported Drifts
Chapter 7mDrift Evaluations
Chapter 8---Ground Support Design
Chapter 9uFinal Drift Evaluations and Design

" 1-1
A summary of the methodology is presented in Chapter 10. Chapter 11 briefly outlines how data
developed from the Exploratory Shaft Facility (ESF) program will be used to enhance the design
methodology. To illustrate the use of the methodology, it has been applied using the available
site-specific data and the current reference repository layout. The results of this preliminary
application are presented in Chapter 12. ,

Appendixes A and B provide example analytical results for two of the analytical models:
the elasto-plastic continuum and compliant joint models (CAM). Appendix C provides examples
of coupled analysis of the interaction between the rock and ground support system. These appendixes
support the design study documented in Chapter 12.

1-2
 2.0 DRIFT DESIGN METHODOLOGY

D
2.1 Methodology Outline

The methodology, which is divided into a determination phase and a two-part design
• process, is presented in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Figure 2-1 provides a summary of the entire meth-
odology, while Figure 2-2 provides a more detailed logic chart of the methodology. In the fh'st part
(Part A) of the design process, analyses are performed on unsupported drifts and a preliminary
ground support design is established to support any yielding rock. In the second part (Part B), the
drift including the ground support components is analyzed to assess ground support component
loadings and drift stability. A final ground support system is selected when ali design criteria are
met by the drift and ground support system.

The first step in the design methodology is to define the functional requirements of the
drifts and to establish criteria and goals for their performance. Once functional requirements and
the range of expected site characteristics are established, a range of appropriate drift sizes and shapes
can be selected. The second step is analysis using ali the appropriate tools that are available. Analysis
includes application of heuristic, empirical, and numerical methods to assess the structural impacts
of excavation, thermal, and seismic loads on candidate drift configurations for the range of expected
site characteristacs. At this stage, only the general characteristics of the rock mass at the repository
horizon are known. Hence, it is not possible to define a single set of parameters that describe the
rock mass, or even how such parameters might vary throughout the site. The expected ground
conditions are grouped into five categories and the thermomechanical properties are assessed for
each category. Analysis is then completed for each rock mass category. In Part A the analysis does
not explicitly include the function of the ground support. The intent is to verify that for most of
the expected ground conditions and loads, the drifts are stable and require only minimal ground
support or reinforcement. The third step (evaluation) is a review of the candidate designs relative
to the performance goals, criteria, and when appropriate, the results of in situ _,nd demonstration
tests, resulting in a judgment as to the practicality and feasibility of the design.

After completion of the evaluation phase in Part A, attention is directed to Phase B, the
detailed design of a compatible ground support system. The performance of the ground support
system and drifts is assessed by coupled numerical analysis using models that account for interaction
between the rock mass and the ground support, as well as the effect of seismic and thermal loadings.

For the repository drifts, several alternative ground support designs will be developed to
accommodate the complete range of expected ground conditions. Part of the overall drift design
, is to describe the conditions appropriate for each alternative ground support system.

The logic chart (Figure 2-2) shows in some detail the application of the basic design steps
, in the proposed drift design methodology and emphasizes that iteration loops may be required if
one or more of the design criteria are not met for a particular proposed design. During Part A, if
the design criteria are not met by a particular drift, it is possible either to modify its shape or size
or to reduce the thermal loads by modifying the repository layout. If the design criteria can be
proven overly conservative or if the performance goals can be achieved in some other manner, the
design criteria may be reevaluated and modified. After practical drift shapes and loads have been
selected during Part A of the design methodology, detailed ground support design (Part B) is
completed. Part B may also require modification of the drift shape or loads to accommodate par-
ticular ground support requirements.

2-1
 BASIC DESIGN STEPS

CRffERL_ FOR TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS DEFINITION

AND STABILITY AND LOADS *

t,

ESTABLISH RANGE
OF DRIFT
SHAPE AND SIZES

(,,,oP_.FO.,,,
!
s.,.,_,_,_o
"_
I_lJktERICALTECHNIQUES | ANALYSIS

GFE3LR_SUPPORT_NI_
PART A

PRELIMINARY
DRIFT I

I F.O_
EMP,.,C_L..D
L SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS

1
EVALUATE DRIFTPERFORMANCE"_
FROMTEMPERATUREAND II EVALUATION

STABILITY CRITERIA J

I
PERFORMCOUPLEDANALYSIS
DRIFTS WITHGROUND SUPPORT II ANALYSIS

PART B J '_'
DRIFT

SUPPORT '

EVALUATE DRIFT/ EVALUATION

SUPPORTPEF__

DESIGN I )

Figure 2-1. Summary of Drift Design Methodology

2-2
 DEFINE IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL GOALS GOALS

CRITERIA REQUREMENTS I 3.1 TEMPERATURE, STABILITY 3.2 I IIMATERIALS 3.2

1 i

"- DESK3N CRrTERLA CHARACTERLSTICS BASIS LOADS/

t ESTABLLSH DRIFT fl3ENTIFY RANGE
CREDIBLE SITE 5.2 N3ENTIFY DESIGN
REPOSITORY LAYOUT
l IIII I I
-
ANALYSIS DRIFT DESK_NS
OF DRIFTS DEVELOP CANDIDATE s.1.
WITHOUT I
IPERFORM PARAMETRIC/i

GROUND
SUPPORT I TRADEOFF
STUDIES|e=

;,,
ANALYSIS OF DRIFTS
,
DRIFT DESIGNS

6.4
'
SELECT PRELIMINARY

I
/_

rs ._

ANALYSIS OF DRIFTS
6.$
MO_FY
DRIFT
DESIGN

i ii i t&9OF'Y
LAYOUT
LOADS/ CRITERIA
GOALS/

¢,.,
DEVELOP PRELIMINARY I i NO NO
DESIGN OF GRCXJND I

SUPPORT SYSTEM i..,

t
EV ALU ATION DRIFT DESIGN
OF DRIFTS L .............. STABILITY/
TEMPERATURE
7.0
MEET TRIED TRIED
I STABILITY/ AODIFICATIO_ qOOIFICATION
TEMPERATURE OF DFUFT OF LOADSJ
GOALS? DESk3N? LAYOUTS?

m
YES
-- t
DETERMINE GROUND i
OF DRIFTS _ENTS PRELIM_IARY GROUND
AND
ANALYSIS
GROUND
CHARACTERLSTk3S
SLIPPOFIT I e. 1 SUPPORT
ANALYSLSSYSTEM
OF e. I OF
TRIED
SUPPORT?

• -" SUPPORT ITc_W_OFIM

C.X:)UPLEDANALYSIS

< 7 OF DRIFTS WITH NO

EVALUATE DRIFT/
EVALUATION .............. SUPPORT DESIGN
OF DRIFTS/ ALL CRITERIA
SUPPORT
,. r. _ _ GROUND
SUPPOCn'I e.2
IIIIIIII .2

YES
I

Fieure
,_ 2-2. Logic Chart for Drift Design Methodology [
"i
RECOMMEND
DRIFT/SUPPORT
DESKSN FINAL
i
/ 9.3

?-3
 The design methodology will be used first in Title II design of the ESF. As more dctail is
developed during the site characterization phase, the design methodology will be verified or
modified and reapplied for repository design before license application and constniction initiation.
Validation of the design methodology can be achieved by prototype testing and demonstrations of
drift performance. Comparisons of analyses incorporating the ground support components with
results of in situ tests and demonstrations will also be performed as part of the model validation °
process.

The design steps and output of each step shown in Figure 2-2 are listed in Table 2-1. Also
shown in the table are the report sections that provide detailed discussion of each step.

2.2 Limitations of Design Methodology

The application of drift design methodology to the Yucca Mountain site presented in
Chapter 12 is considered preliminary for two important reasons: first, our knowledge of the ground
conditions at the repository location is limited; and second, the application of empirical and ana-
lytical design techniques for drifts in a thermal environment are novel and largely unproven by
practice. Empirical methods are limited by the lack of case studies of excavations in similar rock
subjected to combinations of in situ stress, seismic loads, and thermally induced loads, in application
of the methodology, practical considerations may limit analyses to simplified idealizations of the
rock mass structure and repository geometry. It is expected that limitations in the empirical and
analytical methods used in this methodology will be reduced as a result of experiments, tests, and
field demonstrations in the ESF.

2.3 Implementation of Drift Design Methodology

The drift design methodology uses empirical and analytical techniques that require, in
some instances, input data that are poorly defined and/or can be expected to be variable througho,:t
the repository. The implementation of the drift design methodology incorporates estimates of the
mean and range of those parameters based on comparable case examples, laboratory data, limited
site-specific data, and engineering judgment. Combinations of parameters from those ranges must
recognize coupling between parameters such as strength and porosity, strength and modulus, etc.
It is proposed that five ground support options be designed to accommodate the credible range of
rock characteristics and loadings at the repository location. The design methodology will be applied
to each set of conditions, and part of the product of the initial designs will be to define the subranges
and combinations of rock characteristics for each of these limited sets.

Chapter 12 provides a preliminary application of the methodology to the YMP for the tuff °
main, midpanel, and emplacement drifts. Procedures to incorporate the existing database into the
design are illustrated. .¢

The drift design methodology will be applied and improved during construction of the
ESF. Improvements will be derived from the abundance of site characterization data collected
during this phase and also from the verification/validation of the methcxiology from back analysis
and comparison with drift performance. Should this comparison be unacceptable, the field data
will provide a basis for modifications and improvements of the design methodology.

2-4
2-5
2-6
 3.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND GOALS

The repository layout, drifts, and support systems must meet the design requirements.
Violation of a requirement results in unsatisfactory performance of the reposito E, and possibly
' violation of a licensing requirement. Requirements include the highest level technical directives
issued by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other government agencies con-
. cerned with worker health and safety and environmental protection, such as the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Goals may be established to promote desirable characteristics but are not necessary for stable drift
design or long-term repository performance. Goals may also be established when considerable
interpretation and judgment are required in evaluating subjective performance measures. Failure
to meet one or more of the goals does not indicate noncompliance with a requirement.

Both requirements and goals should propose numbers that can be compared to the results
of performance analyses so that an evaluation or assessment can be made. Functional requirements
(Section 3.1) and performance goals (Section 3.2) are discussed below. For application to drift
desig11, these requirements and performance goals are summarized as drift design criteria
(Chapter 4).

The goals have been proposed in the Site Characterization Plan (SCP) (U. S. Department
of Energy (DOE), 1988) and in this document. Their impact on design and the sensitivity of the
design to these goals and criteria have yet to be assessed. After the results of preliminary scoping
studies and field data are available from the ESF, the goals and criteria may be modified or expressed
using different control parameters.

3.1 Functional Requirements

Functional considerations, such as the ability of the drift to accommodate equipment,

ventilation, and auxiliary systems, lead to functional requirements that specify drift shape and
cross-sectional area. The functional requirements for individual drifts also dictate the stability
requirements. For example, the main access drifts will be in constant use throughout the preclosure
period, so rock falls that impact operations should be avoided. In contrast, minor roof fallouts can
be tolerated in the emplacement drifts after waste emplacement. Minor deterioration of the support
system is tolerable if routine and planned maintenance can ensure stability and uninterrupted
operation of the repository.

Functional requirements dictate two basic parameters, shape and area, during the preclosure
• period (up to 100 years after waste emplacement). There are no functional requirements placed on
the drifts during the postclosure period.

- The shape and area functional requirements imply that the drift should be available when
required and not unusable because of concern for worker health and safety. An unstable drift is
unusable, so a basic requirement for the drift is stability and availability when required. This implies
that maintenance or rehabilitation, if required, should be regularly scheduled and not interfere with
operations.

3.1.1 Size and Shape

The drift must be sized and shaped to accommodate mining and waste emplacement
equipment. Adequate clearances for traveling, turning, passing, and rotation of equipment or
equipment components (such as booms and emplacement equipment), utilities, auxiliary systems,
and ground support components will be required.

3-1
3.1.2 Drift Cross-Sectional Area

The drift cross-sectional area requirements stem from ventilation requiren_nts. Minimum
air velocities and quantities are required for worker health and safety during mining, emplacement,
maintenance, and retrieval. These constraints are met by proviaing a sufficient cross-sectional area
for the drift. Maximum air velocities are also imposed in areas where personnel are exposed.
II,

3.2 Performance Goals

Performance goals that influence the design of drifts relate to temperature, stability
(nonradiological health and safety), materials, and long-term performance. In most instances, the
performance goals are determined by the specific function of each drift. Stability requirements
differ depending on the function of each drift. Preliminary performance goals are presented and
discussed in the SCP in the context of the issue resolution strategy. These goals serve as an initial
definition of performance goals for repository drift design, but are to be interpreted to be compatible
with specific design methods and r_valuated periodically as more data become available and the
repository design matures.

3.2.1 Temperature
--

Thermal goals are aimed at maintaining the feasibility of drift reentry by personnel for
drift inspection, maintenance, or possible waste retrieval after drift cooling. Thermal goals that
limit access drift temperature to 50"C at the latest possible retrieval time (50 years after waste
emplacement) have been proposed. Design variables that allow this goal to be achieved are waste
emplacement spacir,_gsand the extent of ventilation. Other temperature goals imposed on the waste,
canister or container, and rock in the immediate vicinity of the waste may also control waste
emplacement spacings.

3.2.2 Stability

3.2.2.1 Preciosure Performance Several 10 Codes of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60

regulatior.s address _ock stability in the repository. Regulations addressing preclosure stability are
concerned with nonradiological worker safety and with maintai,.ing the option to retrieve waste up
to 50 years after it is emplaced. The regulations do not define the specifics that are needed to judge
rock stability. In the SCP (DOE, 1988), goals are identified for closure rates, total closure, drift
maintenance, and rock fall quantity and type to ensure drift stability.

Although rock stability is a regulatory requirement, the performance measures used to

interpret stability are goals. These goals have been identified in tile SCP (DOE, 1988) in discussion
of stability requirements to ensure (nonradiological) worker health and safety.

The major factors that impact worker safety are opening stability and ventilation. Opening
stability requires that design and construction procedures be established to accommodate conditions
expected in construction, waste emplacement, and waste retrieval. The design methodology for
the repository drift must include the following:

• the ability to identify unacceptable or marginal areas of ground;

• the ability of the repository construction to adapt to constraints imposed by rock

characteristics; and

3-2
 • maintenance of underground openings during the repository operational period,
retrieval operation, and closure.

Section 8.3.2.4 of the SCP (DOE, 1988) discusses project-imposed goals such as the
maximum size of rock fall, total rock fall per length of drift, acceptable opening closure, and
maintenance frequencies. The goals specific to drift stability from Section 8.3.2.4 of the SCP are
° summarized in Table 3-1. lt is recommended that ground support/rock reinforcement for the areas
that are highly trafficked throughout the operational life of the repository, such as the main access
drifts and underground workshops, be designed and installed such that no major maintenance or
rehabilitation _ required during that time. In Table 3-1, minor maintenance refers to maintenance
activities sched_ded with normal operations and may be completed daily or weekly. Major main-
tenance requires _hat the drift be taken out of operation while the ground support/rock reinforcement
is rehabilitated or replaced.

3.2.2.2 Postc?osure Performance Long-term performance of the drifts refers to post-

closure stability of ti_erepository and drifts in particular. Postclosure performance of the repository
is concerned with cot_tainment of the nuclear waste within the cani:ter and .'solation of radionuclides
from the accessible e_:vironment. Specific concerns directly related to drift stability are the potential
for deleterious rock movement and development of preferential pathways, within the host rock, that
could affect waste containment and isolation. Concerns about waste containment are not directly
related to drift stability but could be impacted by stability of the boreholes. The drift(s) could
conceivably be the initiation location of deleterious rock movements that could develop preferential
pathways in the rock mass.

Specific postclosure drift stability goals are identified in Section 8.3.2.2 of the SCP (DOE,
1988) where the issue resolution strategy for Issue 1.11 is presented. Part of the resolution of this
issue involves development of the postclosure repository design. The current design basis in the
Site Characterization Plan_Conceptual Design Report (SCP-CDR) (SNL, 1987) is that the
underground excavations will be backfilled before closure of the underground facility.

Performance measures related to postclosure rock movements around the drifts are iden-
tified in Tables 8.3.2.2.1 and 8.3.2.2.4, Volume VI, Part B of the SCP (DOE, 1988). The intent of
defining these measures is to ensure that deleterious rock movement is limited and that there is no
development of preferred pathways to the accessible environment. The tentative goals derived from
these performance measures are:

• to limit relative motion along the top of the upper Topopah Spring Member (TS w 1)
to less than 1 m,

• to avoid intact rock failure beyond the disturbed zone, and

. • to avoid continuous joint slip from the surface to the disturbed zone or from the
disturbed zone to the water table.

Another performance measure identified in the SCP that impacts postclosure drift design
is the requirement to limit the potential for excavation-induced changes in rock mass permeability.
The tentative performance goal listed in the SCP limits the permeability change in the rock 3 m
beyond the drift perimeter to be less than one order of magnitude.

Specific detailed evaluation of postclosure performance of the drifts is not part of the drift
design methodology because the postclosure drift performance will be assessed as part of per-
fomaance confirmation. Should the specific drift design not meet the postclosure requirements,
goals will be defined and incorporated into the criteria.

3-3
 Table 3-1

STABILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND GOALS FOR REPOSITORY DRIFTS

,, au i, , , i,, ,J , r

Performance Tentative Goal from SCP Impact '

Measure (DOE, 1988) on Design
i |iii iii if i f , , i, i

Limit rock damage Overbreak < 15 cm average Selection of construction method "
(all drifts)
Measurable excavation-technique-
induced damage limited to within 1 m of
the excavation'

Closure
Access drifts Closure rate < 1 mm/yr Conservative ground support design
Total closure in ramps < 7 cm in 100 yr b Conservative ground support design
Emplacement drift Closure rate < 3 mm/yr Moderately conservative ground
support design
Total closure < 15 cm in 100 yrb Moderately conservative ground
support design
Rock fall
Main access drifts No rock falls c Conservative ground support design
Ali other drifts < 5 tonne average/300 m of drift/yr Ground support/rock reinforcement
spacings and capacities recognizing
potential variability down drift and
fallout mechanism
Maximum rock or slab size < 2 tonnes Ground support/rock reinforcement
spacings and capacities
Rock fall contained by support system Design spacings and capacities of
support/reinforcement components
Maintenance
Main access drifts Inspection and minor maintenance will be
performed on a continuing basis
Major maintenance frequencies d> 100 yr Selection of ground support materi-
als, conservative design
Emplacement drift Inspection and minor maintenance fre- Selection of ground support materi-
quencies > 5 yr als "
Major maintenance frequencies > 25 yr Selection of ground support materi-
als, conservative design
,,.... ,,. ,, __

a. SCP recommends bla,st-induced fracture extent into intact rock < 7.5 cm average.
b. Deformation expected to be significantly less.
c. Not currently in SCP, recommended in this report.
d. SCP recommends > 25 yr.

3-4
 3.2.3 Materia|s

Goals that are identified for the materials used in the drift result from potential geochemical
interactions, corrosion, and usable life considerations. The concerns, mechanisms, and chemistry
are not developed sufficiently to allow quantification of specific design goals. However, some
• restriction may be placed on the use of Portland cement based grouts and concretes in areas where
groundwater could contact both the cement and the waste package because of the adverse effect of
o these materials on water pH and possible reduction of the waste package containment period (see
SCP Section 8.3.4.2, page 8.3.4.2-31, Volume VI, Part B (DOE, 1988)). Additional studies are
required to define specific goals related to the types and quantities of cementitious, organic, and
metallic materials emplaced in a drift. The use of specific materials in the repository is primarily
a postclosure concern; however, material design life is a preclosure concern affecting maintenance
frequency.

_ 3-5/3-6
 4.0 DRIFT DESIGN CRITERIA

The stability, material, and postclosure drift performance goals are a mix of qualitative
and quantitative goals that are the basis for the drift design criteria. The drift design criteria are
• directly used in the evaluation of the adequacy of a particular design. For the numerical design
methods, the drift design criteria become limits set on the ground support/rock reinforcement system
and components.

Criteria used in assessing the stability of drifts may be specific to either the particular
design method or the particular deformation mechanism of concern. For example, an empirical
method, such as proposed by Barton et al. (1974) and discussed in Section 6.4, cannot be used to
predict the drift closure rate, although by selection of the appropriate excavation support ratio (ESR)
a parameter specific to that methodology- a stable opening suitable for civil engineering
applications (which implies low closure rates) would result. An adequate drift design system is
one that meets the functional requirements, is constructable, and whose ground support/rock
reinforcement system is both practical and economical to install. A practical and economical ground
supportc?ock reinforcement is one that meets the maintenance frequency goals and is not excessive.
Selection of ground support components anchored in elastic rock with a high safety factor (SF) on
the capacity of the support components would be expected to yield a stable opening.

4.1 G.r00nd Support/Rock Reinforcement Design

In Part A of the methodology, a conservative loading on the ground support/rock rein-

forcement componems is assumed, that is, the ground support/rock reinforcement system must
support the gravity-induced load of the yielded rock material. If there is no yield in the rock, then
no ground support/rock reinforcement is required. This approach is considered conservative because
the rock mass will maintain some post-yield strength that is not accounted for in the design method.
In Part B of the methodology, the interaction of the rock and the ground support/rock reinforcement
components are analyzed and the ground support/rock reinforcement components designed with a
suitable SF.

The degree of conservatism in the overall design is reflected in the SF of the ratio of strength
to load in those components. The criteria listed in Table 4-1 combine the performance goals of the
previous sections and the additional quantitative criteria selected specifically for drift design. These
additional quantitative criteria are proposed either to satisfy the qualitative goals identified in the
SCP or translate the goals into criteria directly applicable to drift design.

- 4.2 Safety Factors

• The SF is defined as the assumed strength divided by the applied stress. This is a difficult
parameter to determine for an underground excavation since the SF for the rock mass can only be
calculated on a point by point basis and there is no accepted method for integrating such information
to obtain a single value representative of the excavation. This problem can be avoided by focusing
on the design of the engineered components intended to ensure stability.

For the design of underground ground support/rock reinforcement components, there is

no universally accepted standard for assessing the loads on the components nor for selecting the
SF for design, however, some guidance in this selection of the SF can be found from the design of
structural steel and concrete.

Gaylord and Gaylord (1957) suggest that the magnitude of the SF must be based upon
considerations of the following:
m

4-1
 Table 4-1

DRIFI" DESIGN STABILITY CRITERIA

Perf. Measurei ,.. ,,., J Tentative Goal Drift Design Criteria •

Limit rock damage see Table 3-1 No criteria
Closure
Main access drift Closure rate < 1 mm/yr SF, see Table 4-3. Stability equivalent
and ramps to major road and railway tunnels
Total closure in ramps < 15 (ESR=I.0).
cmin 100yr
All other drifts Closure rate < 3 mm/yr, SF, see Table 4-3. Stability equivalent
total closure < 15 cm in to storage rooms, water treatment plants,
100 yr minor railway tunnels (ESR=I.3).
Rock falls
Main access drifts Rock falls Full lining of drift.
and ramps
All other drifts < 5 tonne average/300 m of Same as for drift closure.
drift/yr
Maximum rock or slab size Spacing between support components*
< 2 tonne not greater than 1.5 times the average
joint spacing, crown bolts anchored in
elastic rock.
Rock fall contained by sup- Appropriate safety factor for ground
port system support components*.
Maintenance
Main access drifts Inspection and minor main-
and ramps tenance will be performed
on a continuing basis
Major maintenance frequen- Selection of ground support materials
cies > 100 yr and sizes to provide adequate unaltered
cross section at 100 yr.
Ali other drifts Inspection frequency > 5 yr
Major maintenance frequen- Selection of ground support materials
cies > 25 yr and sizes to provide adequate unaltered ,,
cross section at 25 yr.
Postclosure effects No intact rock failure Final evaluation of drift/repository per- ,
beyond disturbed zone formance.
No continuum joint slip
beyond disturbed zone
Permeability change within
3 m of excavation limited to
one order of magnitude
* Components including mesh, straps, shotcrete, etc.
 • variability of the material with respect to strength and other pertinent physical
properties,

• uncertainty in the expected live loads in regard to possible future change as well
b as with respect to present magnitude,

• precision with which the internal forces in the various parts of a swucture are
. determined,

• possibility of deterioration due to corrosion and other causes, and

• extent of damage and loss of life which might result from failure.

For structural steel components, SF are described for various uses. For example, the allowable
tension in steel American Institution of Steel Construction (AISC) (Art 9-6) specifies a basic
allowable unit tensile stress, F, = 0.6F_ where F_is the yield strength of the steel. For bridges,
American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (Art 9-6)
specifies allowable tensile stresses as the smaller of 0.55 F_ or 0.46 Fu where F, is the ultimate
strength. Those numbers were recommended to give a SF range from 1.7 to 1.8 on the yield strength
and 2.2 on the ultimate strength.

For design in concrete (or shotcrete) using the working stress theory for reinforced concrete
beams, the allowable stress for flexure is 0.45 f'c in buildings and 0.4f'c for bridges, where f'c is
the specified compressive strength in psi at 28 days. This is a SF of 2.2 or 2.5. Using the ultimate
strength theory of reinforced concrete beams, the loads are increased to represent a margin of safety.
For example, the member should be designed to have the following ultimate strength U under the
following combinations of loads:

U - 1.4D + 1.7L (1)

when wind and earthquake loads are not applied,

U = 0.9D + 1.3W (2)

when wind loads are applied, or

U =0.9D + 1.43E (3)

, when earthquake loads are applied, where D is the effect of basic loads consisting of dead loads
plus any shrinkage or temperature loads, L is the live load plus impact, W is the wind load, and E
is the earthquake load. The strength of the concrete used to assess the ultimate strength of the
• member is 0.85 lc. The combination of the reduction in strength and the increased loads result in
a SF as listed in Table 4-2. The simplified representation shown in Table 4-2 can be misleading
because when the wind and earthquake loads are considered, the dead load is reduced to 0.9D. The
worst combinations of loads as expressed in Equations 1, 2, and 3 would be used for design.

The SF for the design of ground support/rock reinforcement components have been selected
to reflect the materials used and the nature of the loads, and are considered conservative with regard
to the design methods in structural steel and concrete. Table 4-3 lists the SF for design of the ground
support/rock reinforcement components; the steel refers to the steel in rockbolts, plates, straps, or
shotcrete/concrete reinforcement and any structural steel that might be specified. Different SF are
recommended for the main access and the other drifts and when acted on by "static" and "dynamic"
loads. The values listed in Table 4-3 should be used during both Part A and B of the design

4-3
 Table 4-2

SAFETY FACTOR FOR CONCRETE DESIGN

USING ULTIMATE STRENGTH THEORY

Load Type Factor of Safety for Ultimate Strength Design for

Reinforced Concrete
i i ii | , ,

Dead 1.6
ii iii

Live 2.0
Wind 1.7
Earthquake 1.7 ' j

Table 4-3

RECOMMENDED SAFETY FACTORS FOR DESIGN OF

GROUND SUPPORT/ROCK REINFORCEMENT COMPONENTS
i j ,

Emplacement'and Other -
Main Access Drift and Ramps Access Drifts

i
Load Type ii
Concrete/Shotcrete Steel Concrete/Shotcrete Steel
In situ + Thermal 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.7
In situ + Thermal + Seismic
.....
2.0 1.5 1.8 1.4
i ii i i iiii

methodology. The SF is higher for shotcrete/concrete components because of the higher variability
in the strength of concrete as compared to steel. If other materials are used, appropriate SF should
be selected.

4.3 Drift Design Criteria

The drift design criteria are summarized in Table 4-1. Incorporated in this table are the .,
SF for the ground support/rock reinforcement components listed in Table 4-3.

The criteria listed above do not specifically address the performance goals listed in
Table 3-1, such as rates of movement, rock fall volumes, or maintenance frequency; however, it is
argued that the criteria listed above are conservative and should result in stable underground
openings with low deformation rates. The selection of the specific ground support components
with appropriate hardware (plates, straps, wire mesh, or shotcrete) should ensure that the maximum
block fallout between the bolts will be smaller than the 2-tonne limit. The SF on the bolts, shotcrete,
or concrete should be adequate to inhibit large roof falls. The conservatism of these evaluation
criteria must be validated by field data from the ESF excavation and confirmation testing, and
detailed analyses incorporating coupled interaction of the drift, loadings, and ground support
components (see Chapter 8).

4-4
 5,0 DESIGN BASIS

The design basis comprises three components: the stress at the drift location (Section 5.1 ),
the information base (Section 5.2), and the repository conceptual layout (Section 5.3). The stress
• at the drift location can be considered to be the load(s); the information base, the materials properties,
and the repository layout provide a conceptual presentation of the drifts and their functions. At ali
times, the best data available for the site should be used, for design. Ultimately, this will be the
" site-specific data collected during detailed investigation of the repository horizon. Both now and
in the future, a range of feasible rock mass characteristics must be recognized. The partitioning of
this range into five design categories is discussed in Section 5.2 of this chapter.

5.1 Stress at Drift Location

Stresses resulting from three sources must be considered in designing the drifts: in situ,
thermal, and seismic [caused by earthquakes or underground nuclear explosions (UNE)]. The stress
at the drift location assumed in the discussion refers to the stress that would exist at the center of
the drift if the drift were not present.

The stress at the drift location can be used as an independent input to drift design if the
rock mass remains essentially elastic after drift construction. The site was selected because of its
overall suitability for repository construction and waste isolation, and preliminary indications are
that the tuff at the repository location will respond elastically; see, for example, Dravo Engineers,
Inc. (1984), Langkopf and Gnirk (1986), and St. John (1987a). However, if significant rock yielding
or joint slip were to occur, the approach of superposition of the regional stresses at the drift locations
would be inaccurate, but most probably conservative. (Large-scale rock yielding or slip along a
joint or fault would relieve the thermally induced loads thereby reducing the compressive stresses.)
The requirement that the rock mass remain essentially elastic does not preclude the potential for
localized inelastic behavior around the drift following construction or accompanying thermal
loading.

The assessment of the stress effect at the drift location due to each of the loading mechanisms
provides a preliminary assessment of the stress environment at the drift location. For the waste
emplacement drifts, more detailed assessment of the thermal/mechanical interaction is recom-
mended and discussed in Section 6.5.

The stress at the drift location will change during the life of the repository because of the
thermal and seismic loads. In situ stresses are present before drift excavation and will remain
unchanged during the preclosure period. Thermal stresses occur after waste emplacement; the
" timing and magnitude of the temperature-induced load at _ny particular location is primarily
dependent upon its position relative to waste containers, the APD of the waste, the thermal output
, of individual containers, and the rock mass thermomechanical properties. Seismic induced stress
magnitudes and duration are a function of the intensity of the earthquake or UNE, the distance from
the event to the drift, and the direction and size of the seismic wave relative to the drift axis.

Superimposed upon the general distribution of stress there will be spatial variation of
stresses within the repository caused by material anomalies, the presence of faults, variations in
stratigraphy, surface topography, and drift elevations.

5.1.1 In Situ S!ress

The state of stress existing before disturbance by excavation is the in situ or geostatic state
of stres.,. Bauer et al. (1985a) indicate that three main components contribute to that state of stress

5-1
in shallowly buried tufts at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). One component, gravitational stress, is
induced by the weight of the overburden. A second component, residual stress, is contributed by
strain energy stored in the rock during the geologic past. The third component, tectonic stress, is
caused by current tectonic forces affecting the region. Stress measurements sense the combined
effects of all three components.

The in situ stress state has not been measured directly at the proposed repository horizon.
In situ stress values to be used for design will be recommended by the project.

5.1.2 Thermal

The thermally induced stresses are generated by the thermal expansion of the rock mass
that accompanies temperature change associated with the thermal energy released by the waste.
Because the confinement of the rock is principally in the horizontal direction, the horizontal stress
component of the the_wnally induced loads tends to be greater than the vertical stress component.

Thermal stresses at any location depend on the proximity and timing of waste emplacement,
the waste heat generation, the age of the waste, and the thermomechanical properties of the rock
mass. Repository ventilation during emplacement, maintenance and possibly retrieval can reduce
the thermal loads. The thermal loads are dependent on the overall repository design and are a design
variable. The thermal loads on the drifts are primarily sensitive to the APD and thermomechanical
characteristics, with minor sensitivity to local standoff distance and repository layout details. The
thermal stresses ca_ be calculated using two- and three-dimensional thermal and thermomechanical
models (discussed in Chapter 6) and the current conceptual layout of the repository, presented in
Section 5.3 of the SCP-CDR (SNL, 1987). The thermal stress should be calculated during design
at representative locations throughout the repository using the waste forms, ages, and spacings for
the candidate repository design.

For waste-emplacement drift design, the thermal loads can be calculated directly in the
thermomechanical model as part of the stability analysis. This is possible because symmetry
conditions can be assumed at the center of the drift and pillar.

5.1.3 Seismic

Ground motion associated with either earthquakes or underground nuclear weapons testing
could influence the design of the drifts. Such motion may cause damage either as a consequence
of shear displacement along faults intersecting the drifts or by failure of the rock mass due to the
transient seismic event. This section of the report describes a simplified method of assessing the
consequences of ground shaking. Specified provisions for the support of drifts intersected by faults
are addressed in Section 6.6.

For the drift design methodology, the seismic events will be assessed analytically following
procedures established in the shaft design methodology (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Inc. (PBQD), 1990) and with the event magnitudes established in the Working Group Report,
Explorator 3, Shaft Seismic Design Basis (SNL, 1990). The Working Group was convened to
determine appropriate seismic events for the design of the shafts associated with the ESF, but their
report states that much of the design base is also appropriate for seismic design of other shafts and
underground structures that do not affect public safety.

The procedures adopted for the shaft lining design assume that the seismic impact can be
assessed by static analysis. St. John and Zahrah (1987) conclude that static analysis should be
perfectly acceptable when evaluating the response of simple excavations and structures to ground
motion with dominant wavelengths typical of earthquakes. Hendron and Fernandez (1983) propose
 that there will be little dynamic amplification if the wavelength is at least eight opening diameters.
Frequencies in the range of 0.2 to 20 Hz, which includes both UNEs and earthquakes, and seismic
velocities of 2 to 3.2 krn/sec, result in a minimum wavelength of approximately 100 m, or
approximately 15 times the drift cross-sectional dimension.

, Recommended control motions from the Exploratory Shaft Seismic Design Basis (SNL,
1990) are as follows:

- For Earthquakes:

Maximum horizontal component of acceleration 0.3 g

Maximum vertical component of acceleration 0.3 g
Maximum horizontal component of velocity 30 crn/sec
Maximum vertical component of velocity 20 cm/sec

For UNEs:

Maximum vertical component of acceleration 0.2 g

Maximum radial component of acceleration 0.1 g
Maximum traverse component of acceleration O.1 g
Maximum vertical component of velocity 9 cm/sec
Maximum radial component of velocity 12 cm/sec
Maximum traverse component of velocity 12 cm/sec

where g is acceleration caused by gravity, 9.8 m/sec 2. The Working Group Report further rec-
ommends that the performance of the exploratory shaft be confm'ned using best estimate conditions
when subject to ground motions that are a factor of 1.67 times the proposed control motions on drift
stability.

The control motions converted into quasi-static strains or stresses can be treated in the
opening design as additional quasi-static design loads. The seismic stresses can be either tensile
or compressive and both need to be assessed because different failure mechanisms can be induced
by the tensile or compressive stresses. The orientation of the seismic wave relative to the drift axis
and rock structure affects the impact of the seismic event on drift stability. In the absence of a
preferred direction for earthquakes or UNEs, drifts of all orientation are assumed equally impacted
by the seismic events.

The Working Group Report (SNL, 1990) provides guidance as to the methodology to
translate the control motions to design strains or stresses. The ground motions can be converted
into strains using Tables 5-1 or 5-2, depending on the orientation of the incident wave. In these
" tables, the ground motion has been decomposed into three different wave forms, each traveling with
a different velocity but in the same direction. The propagation speed of the compressional wave
(P-wave) is c,, while the propagational speed of the shear waves (SH and SV) is c,. The Working
" Group Report suggests that earthquake waves be restricted to an angle of incidence of 0 to 30
degrees from the vertical, whereas the UNEs are expected to arrive at angles of incidence that are
near horizontal. Figure 5-1 illustrates the coordinate system and defines the angle of incidence, 0.
As noted earlier, the direction of the x and y coordinates or the direction of travel of the seismic
wave is not restricted.

Alternate incidence angles and combinations of P, SV, and SH waves should be evaluated
to assess the maximum impact of the seismic wave on drift stability. When P, SV, and SH waves
are combined, it must be recognized that the compressional and shear waves do not travel at the
same velocity, but because of uncertainty in the duration of the wave and the source location, a
conservative assumption regarding addition of P and S waves must be adopted. The approach
adopted for the YMP shaft design methodology (PBQD, 1990) is recommended. This approach is

5-3
 Table 5-1

FREE-FIELD STRAINS CAUSED BY EARTHQUAKE EVENTS

FOR STEEP ANGLE OF INCIDENCE
, , ,,, I1' , ,,, ,,,,,, , "= ,,,, , ,,, , , , ,¢

Free-Field Strains

Wave e:_ I_. e:,, x_ xy, x.. .

Type
' "
--.
,! ' Illl , fllPI "1" , ,,

vv vv
*vm2o 0 -- cos 0 0 0 -- 2 sin 0

vk vk vk co_ 20

SV c_sin 0 0 c_sin 0 0 0 c. mo

vk vk

SH 0 0 0 _,,sin 0 _,,cos 0 0
, , i i Hi ,q ,,

Table 5-2

FREE.FIELD STRAINS CAUSED BY UNE EVENTS

FOR SHALLOW ANGLE OF INCIDENCE

............... Free-Field strains ..........

Wave E_ e:. E. z_ Zyz z..

Type
,, ,,,, ,, , ,, , , , ,,, ,

vk
,, v, _2 o 0 0 -- 2 cos 0
P _ sin 0 0 cp mo cp

Vv Vv vv cos 20

SV _cos0 0 c_COS0 0 0 c, .,_o

vk vk

SH 0 0 0 c_sin 0 c_cos 0 0 "

,,,

where v, = horizontal component of velocity in x direction

v, = vertical component of velocity
Cp = compressional wave velocity
c, = shear wave velocity
0 = angle of incidence (from vertical)

5-4
 FAR-FIELD STRAINS

.
_7_

_X

y Z DRIFT'
Z

Angle of Incidence 0
(Body wave propagating in X-Z plane)

° Figure 5-1. Wavefront Angle of Incidence 0 Relative to Drift

5-5
based on the 100-40-40 combination rule published by Newmark and Hall (1977). Simply stated,
this rule combines 100% of the peak of ali stress combinations that must occur simultaneously with
40% of the peak value of those stress effects caused by different wave types. The combinatk, n that
produces the most adverse conditions for drift stability is chosen for the design basis.

For drift design, several criteria for determining the maximum impact of the seismic wave ,,
on drift stability are suggested in Table 5-3. Incidence angles and combinations of P, SV, and SH
waves should be varied to maximize one of the listed criteria (Table 5-3). The first criterion is
directed toward the potential for compressive failure in the roof or floor. The second criterion
evaluates the impact of the seismic load on existing joints in the geologic unit of interest, and the
third and fourth assess the possibility of tensile stresses allowing block movement in the ribs or
crown. The concentration of the seismic wave caused by the excavation must be taken into account
in assessing the orientation of the seismic wave that causes the most impact on drift stability. To
simplify the assessment of the critical seismic wave orientation, the drift can be assumed circular.
Once the critical angles are assessed, the equivalent far-field stress can be calculated.
Table 5-3

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SEISMIC WAVE IMPACT ANGLE

I ' Criterion , " .... P'oteniiai impact

Maximum compressive stress in the crown or floor of the drift Roof or floor slab-
bing
Maximum shear stress on joints (one or more sets) Slip along joints
Maximum tensile stress in ribs of the drifts Wall slabbing

L
Maximum tensile stress in the crown of the drift ,
Block fallout .-

5.1.4 Stress Combinations

Seismic stresses are considered transient. On the other hand, themaal stresses are considered
s_afic because the rate of change of the thermal stresses are low relative to the response of the rock
and the period of interest (preclosure period). In situ stresses are static and do not change over the
time period of concern. Because of these differences (static versus transient), the in situ and thermal
stresses are analyzed separately from the seismic loads.

For elastic rock and support system response, the stress contribution from seismic, in situ,
and thermal sources can be added algebraically. If any component of the system responds non-
linearly, then the time sequence of stress application should be evaluated. Combinations of stresses o
should consider the following:

• in situ plus seismic stresses,

• in situ minus seismic stresses,

• in situ plus thermal stresses,

• in situ plus thermal plus seismic stresses, and

• in situ plus thermal minus seismic stresses.

5-6
 5.1.5 Design Basis Loads for Specific Rock Categories

For specific rock categories, the rock mass modulus and other propenics may differ; Hence,
the seismic and thermally induced stresses will not be the same for each category. If ali other
. parameters are the same but the elastic modulus differs between each category, then the strcss
change can be scaled as illustrated in Equation 4.

• EDA

AffOa= "_R A OR , (4)

where Aetna = stress change in drift analysis,

AaR = stress change from reference analysis,
ED,t = elastic modulus in drift analysis, and
ER -- elastic modulus used in reference calculation.

5.2 Information for Designw

Data on the stratigraphy, thermal and mechanical properties, and characteristics of waste,
rock structure, and ground support are required to perform the analyses and evaluate the design.
The database for design is presented in the YMP (1989). The methodology document identifies
additional parameters that need to be included in the RIB. These new parameters will have to be
defined during the site characterization phase.

To simplify the application of the design methodology to the spacially variable in situ
condition s, it is recommended that the methodology be applied to five categories selected to represent
the credible range of expected conditions. The assumption has been made that the range of a
parameter is normally distributed about the mean value, unless site-specific data or other funda-
mental considerations indicate otherwise. The parameters for each of the five categories ranging
from poorest to best (from a structural stability viewpoint) can be selected so that the percentage
of rock better than each individual category is 95, 80, 60, 30 and 10. Note that the percentage of
rock encountered underground in each of the five categories will differ from the percentages
indicated by this section because the least and most favorable characteristics are combined into
Categories 1 and 5, respectively.

Both naturally occurring structural characteristics and the effect of construction method
on the rock and structural characteristics local to the drift wall must be considered in the design of
the drifts. Although this design methodology will not provide input to the decision or selection of
" the excavation method, it is necessary to assume that the excavation method will be benign with
respect to stability; i.e., the blast damage zone will be minimized (as required by 10 CFR 60)
. through the use of either smooth wall blasting or mechanical mining.

5.2.1 Stratigraphy and Rock Structure

5.2.1.1 StratilzraDhv Analyses typically require information on the three-dimensional

distribution of strati-gral_hic-units or subunits as well as their thermomechanical properties. Gen-
erally, the Topopah Spring Formation is gently dipping and will encompass ali repository exca-
vations, excluding ramps and shafts. However, the Formation is intersected by faults, is fractured,
and exhibits variability in the degree of welding and porosity. The relationship between porosity
and welding and other rock mechanical properties should be assessed to assist in the prediction of
variability of the mechanical properties throughout the Topopah Spring Fomaation.

5-7
5.2.1.2 ,[.9_[ll.t[llg_ The geometric description of the jointing is important in estimating: drift
stability. This description includes the orientation of joints or joint sets, join! spacings, joint con-
tinuity, and joint roughness, as well as the nature and thickness of any infilling materials.

The mechanical characteristics of the jointing include the relationship between joint clo-
sure, shear deformation, normal and shear stresses. Parameters required for models of the joir, ted
rock system include half-closure stress, friction, cohesion, continuity, dispersion, length, and
orientation. Each is discussed briefly in Section 5.2.4. The empirical design methods use specific
numbers such as the rock quality designation (RQD), joint set number (J,v),joint roughness coef-
ficient (JR), and joint alteration coefficient (Ja) to define joint parameters. These parameters are
specifically defined by Barton et al. (1974).

5.2.1.3 Rock Quality Designation The RQD is a convenient and simple index used to
quantify the degree of jointing in a rock mass. lt is used in many of the empirical schemes and as
an important index in the estimate of the rock mass physical properties.

lt is recommended that the RQD be assessed for the five rock mass quality categories based
on the available core hole or drift mapping data. For the ESF drift design, the RQD data for core
holes intersecting the main test level and exploratory drift horizons plus or minus 12 m within the
repository block should be used to assess the statistical variability of RQD.

The joint spacings required for many analytical models can be determined directly from
core, drift mapping, or estimated from RQD data. Variations in the RQD provide a rational basis
for developing the different spacings for each rock quality category. Equation 5, proposed by
Hudson and Priest (1979), can be used to relate total joint frequency to RQD:

RQD = 100e "°_" (0.1_ + 1), (5)

where k = mean joint frequencym _.

5.2.2 In Situ Conditi0n_

In situ conditions refer to the initial conditions existing before repository construction and
waste emplacement. Initial conditions include the temperature distribution, in situ stress and
groundwater saturations, pore pressures, and groundwater velocity gradients. The in situ stresses
have been discussed in Section 5.1.1.

The temperature distribution is generally described by the surface temperature and thermal
gradient. The surface temperature fluctuates with the seasons, but 20 to 30 m below the surface,
temperature is generally independent of the seasons. For repository design, the temperature profile
near the repository horizon is of consequence and can be obtained from borehole data in the
repository block.

For a location above the water table, the degree of saturation describes the groundwater
condition. Many thermal/mechanical properties are dependent on the degree of saturation and vary
with temperature because of vaporization of the groundwater. Heat transfer can also be affected
by migration of fluid or fluid vapor.

5.2.3 Thermal Propertie_;

Conduction is assumed to be the predominant heat transfer mechanism of concern for drift
design. Thermal properties include thermal capacitance, thermal conductivity, and the thermal
expansion coefficient. The thermal diffusivity can be calculated from the thermal capacitance and

5-8
 thermal conductivity. The above properties are known to be dependent on temperature, moisture,
and porosity for the rock units at the repository location. For drift design, the effect of moisturc on
the thermal properties is accommodated in a temperature dependence of the thermal capacitance.
The thermal properties of the rock mass can be determined by laboratory tests on small representative
samples of rock, whereas the mechanical rock mass properties are more complex and dependent
" on joint and matrix properties.

• 5.2.4 Mechanical Prooerties

--

Mechanical properties are required to describe the deformational response of the rock
mass to changes in stress or temperature. Mechanical properties are defined for different con-
stitutive models used to characterize the deformational response. These models include
equivalent-continuum, ranging from linear elastic to compliant joint, and discontinuum. The
equivalent-continuum, linear elastic models use rock mass properties selected to represent the
response of a large-scale rock mass including the response of joint and intact rock. The rock mass
properties often are scaled down from the intact rock properties to account for size effects, jointing,
and inhomogeneities. The compliant joint continuum models incorporate the specific properties
of joints and intact rock to develop a continuum model that generally assumes a uniform and per-
vasive presence of joints. These models may be nonlinearly elastic and/or incorporate yielding
along joint planes. Both static and dynamic mechanical properties are required for design.

Values for mechanical rock properties, such as strength and modulus, are generally
scale-dependent and can represent laboratory (intact) or rock mass scales. Laboratory values are
generally based on small samples of rock with neither local nor large-scale discontinuities nor
inhomogeneities present. Intact values determined in the laboratory represent the behavior of the
rock between discontinuities. The intact rock modulus and strength values are generally based on
laboratory values determined at standard room temperature with strain rate and moisture conditions
following standardized procedures from the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) or
International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). Laboratory values form the basis for estimating
in situ field or design values to account for such _actors as strain rate, water saturation, temperature,
and sample shape, which in laboratory tests may differ from the field conditions. Rock mass values
incorporate the effect of intact rock properties with the effect of joints and inhomogeneities evident
in large volumes of rock containing a representative sampling of large-scale discontinuities. The
presence of joints reduces the modulus (stiffness) of the rock and reduces the overall strength in
most cases.

5.2.4.1 Elastic Modulus Values of parameters defining the rock mass properties are
required for application of any numerical model in which the properties of individual joints are not
recognized (the equivalent-continuum model). Unfortunately, there are no standardized methods
" for calculat,ng rock mass properties from intact rock, and joint characteristics have been developed.
Given the ¢omplexity of natural jointed rock mass systems, it is unlikely that a simple, universally
. applicable method will evolve.

The methods used to estimate rock mass properties include empirical schemes and
mechanistic approaches that include intact and joint properties; see, for example, Singh (1973) and
Gerrard (1982). The empirical methods correlate indices of rock mass quality, such as the Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute (NGl) geomechanics Q classification (Barton et al., 1974) or rock mass rating
(RMR) (Bieniawski, 1979), to the rock mass modulus (Lr) measured in the field--see, for example,
Figure 5-2. One such correlation, originally suggested by Serafim and Pereira (1983) and recently
recommended by Hock and Brown (1988), is as follows:

E= 10" ,o j, (6)

5-9
 NGl CLASSIFICATION (Q)
VERY EXTRM. EXCPT
POOR FAIR G330
GOCO GOCO ODDO
1.0 4 10 40 100 400 1000

n = 2RMR -100

(._.._ 70 _" /=' from RMR Method

O3
60 //
E
o 40
"=' .lE= 40 log E! 13
¢_
o 50 Trom _ I0__1
E 3o / /®
=.. Method I-I //
0
"6 20 _,,m o

10 of__- ° o

_.= o
50 60 70 80 90 100

' FAIR
I ' GOCO
' I
VERY C__X3D

LEGEND

• RMR Classification System .

n Barton Data

Figure 5-2. Estimation of In Situ Deformation Modulus from Classification Methods

(Barton et al., 1980)

, 5-10
 where E is in GPa. This expression is considered preferable to alternatives shown in Figure 5-2,
and has been adopted for this methodology because it does not generate negative E values. One
obvious limitation of all the empirically based formulae is that the resulting E value is independent
of the intact rock elastic modulus. But in practice, the upper limit for the rock mass modulus should
be the intact, rock modulus.

5.2.4.2 Poi_son's Ratio Poisson's ratio is defined for isotropic rock as the ratio of lateral
strain to vertical strain when stressed in the vertical direction. Very few full-scale field measure-
- ments of the Poisson's ratio have been recorded and there is no evidence of how it might vary with
rock quality. Accordingly, it is recommended that the value obtained through laboratory testing of
intact samples be used for design analysis.

5.2.4.3 Mechanical Properties of Intact Blocks The mechanical properties of blocks

of intact rock are required for input to the equivalent-continuum and discrete block models. For
these the laboratory elastic modulus parameters are used. To assess crushing of intact blocks, the
strength of the intact blocks is required.

The strength of individual, intact blocks of matrix material should recognize the influence
of size on the block strength as indicated by Price (1986). Block size can be defined by the frequency
of vertical joints with the strength of the block calculated by the size-strength relationship developed
by Price (1986),

c c = 1944D-°846 + 69.5, (7)

where cc = uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), and

D = sample diameter (mm).

Failure of confined intact blocks can then be evaluated using a Hoek and Brown strength equation
of the form shown in Equation 9, with the uniaxial compressive strength defined by Equation 7 and
s= 1.0.

5.2.4.4 Rock ..Mass Strength The estimation of the rock mass strength from empirical
evidence follows similar logic to that adopted for the elastic modulus, but because field measure-
ments are fewer, the algorithms for estimating rock mass strength are based more on analogy with
small-scale testing of fractured materials and engineering judgment. The empirical methods start
from the assumption that the strength can be characterized by a failure envelope involving the least
confining stress, but provides no description of the post-yield behavior of the rock mass. The
recommended procedure for estimating rock mass strength is to average two credible methods and
fit the resulting curve to a power law form. The empirical strength criteria of Yudhbir et al. (1983)
, and Hoek and Brown (1988) are both considered credible because they are based on laboratory
testing of fractured rocks and extensive field experience. Their estimated strengths are not the same
as shown in Figure 5-3. Both algorithms include the RMR and the laboratory compressive strength
. of the rock (c_).

Yudhbir et al. ( 1983) used the generalized form of the equation first proposed by B_eniawski
(1974) to represent the rock mass strength dependence on confining stress. The Yudhbir et al.
(1983) general equation is:

o l=Acr_+Bo c _ , (8)

5-11
 100 -
RMR- 32.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
CONFINING PRESSURE (MPa)

Figure 5-3. Averaging of Hoek and Brown and Yudhbir Failure Criteria for RMR = 32.5

5-12
 where oc is the lab scale intact compressive strength; parameters or, 13and A are determined for a
number of rock types. For tuff rock, Yudhbir et al. (1983) recommended that
ot = 0.5046 and
B = 1.144.

The parameter A was found to be dependent on the RMR as follows:

A = e (0.0765
RMR- 7.65).

The Hoek and Brown (1988) equation for undisturbed rock is

0"1= 0 3+ _m o_ as + s _, (9)

m e c_vmt00)as and
where m =---
S e?_m -100), '

m, is determined from laboratory triaxial strength data. For tuff, laboratory data indicates a value
of approximately 3.0.

Values for the parameters ct and B (Equation 8), and s and rn, (Equation 9) are found by
best fit procedure for laboratory test data from the repository horizon.

Predicted values of ol for various levels of confining stress from the two criteria are
averaged and the resulting ol, 03 pairs fit with the power law criteria of the form ot = A + B o7.
Figure 5-3 illustrates this process for a rock mass rating (RMR) equal to 32.5. To develop the
Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters, a linear-least-square-best-fit-straight-line-curve can be
developed for the ct1- o3 relationship to approximate the power form for each rock mass category.
The best fit procedure should include the range of confining pressures controlling drift stability
notable from zero to approximately 3 MPa.

5.2.4.5 Rock Mass Tensile Strength Correlations between rock mass tensile strength
and rock mass quality are not available, although it can be expected to be dependent on the joint
strength and persistence. The rock mass tensile strength is required in several continuum models
of the rock mass. For drift design, it is recommended that the rock mass tensile strength be set at
the value of one-half the rock mass cohesion, predicted using the joint persistence criteria derived
in the following section. Sensitivity of drift stability to the rock mass tensile strength should consider
the zero tensile strength condition.
,e

5.2.4.6 Joint Properties For the mechanistic methods of estimating rock mass properties,
an estimate of the joint orientation, patterns (number of joint sets), spacing, and continuity are
" required, as well as estimates of their mechanical properties such as stiffness, strength, and
roughness. The mechanical response of joints to normal and shear displacements is complex and
variable requiting definition of a joint model. The CJM of Thomas (1982) and Chen (1987) uses
a joint model describing the normal closure, normal stress relationship of the form

A,,u
ct.,, - , (10)
utm_- u

where A, = the half-closure stress,

u_, = the maximum closure of the joint,
u = the joint normal closure, and
t.,I M -- Ull,_ J1k.,$11ll. iIUIIIIILIkl _l[,..ltb.,d_O.

5-13
The shear characteristics are described by the elastic shear stiffness G,, a post-yield shear stiffness
G',, and a linear Mohr-Coulomb criterion to determine the onset of yield. Other methods of
characterization of the joints, such as that of Barton (1982) which incorporates joint dilation, have
also been used within the YMP (Costin and Bauer, 1991).
v

The most common method used to quantify the strength of a joint uses a Mohr-Coulomb
strength envelope that is described by the joint cohesion and friction angle. Barton (1982) uses the
joint roughness and rock wall strength in a formulation of strength. Cundall and Hart (1984) describe
the joint behavior using a continuously yielding model which allows for path dependence in the
joint response.

In practice, many joints are discontinuous, requiring both failure of intact material at the
termination of joints and slip along existing joints for large-scale failure to occur. One simple
method to approximate the strength of a discontinuous joint is to assign a strength to the joint that
is equal to the length-weighted average of the strengths of the joint and the unjointed material.
Brown (1971) evaluated the validity of such an approach using model materials and found the
approach reasonable for higher stress levels. For a Coulomb representation of the joint strength,
the weighted average strength for the effective joint properties would be

cf = Zcj + (1- X)c, (11)

and

*_ = Z*i + (1 -X)O,, (12)

where X = continuity of the joint,

i = refers to joint properties,
, = refers to intact rock properties,
c = cohesion, and
0 = friction angle.

For drift stability assessment, a 1 m zone around the drift perimeter is defined in which the joint
strength and response is controlled by the actual joint, not the average joint characteristics. In this
zone, the unweighted joint properties should be used. The actual zone in which damage or slip
occurs may exceed this 1 m but should not exceed 3 m if the damage control goal established in
Chapter 4 is to be met.

5.2.5 Waste Characteristics

Two types of fuel will be disposed of in the repository: (1) spent fuel consisting of a
mixture of rods from either pressurized water reactors (PWR) or boiling water reactors (BWR), and
(2) defense high-level waste (DHLW). The initial power per container and the decay over time is
different for both types of waste. In addition, the burnup, the degree of heavy metal concentration,
and the waste age influence the thermal decay characteristics. For convenience in analyses, the
decay is represented by a series of exponential functions.

In assessing drift stability, the thermal loading is a function of the waste characteristics
and the spacings of the waste and the timing of emplacement. One parameter used to quantify the
density of the emplacement waste which is directly correlated to the thermal loads on the drifts is
the APD. The APD is the total thermal power of waste containers in a panel at the time of

5-14
 emplacement divided by the area of the panel. For average spent fuel waste (60% 33,000
MWd/MTIHM* PWR, 40% 27,500 MWd/MTIHM BWR) at 8.55 years out of reactor, the APD
per emplacement panel given by the SCP-CDR is 57 kW/acre. The allowable APD of 57 kW/acre
was selected by Johnstone et al. (1984) to meet thermal and stability criteria established at that time.
The allowable APD for the Advanced Conceptual Design (ACD) should be reevaluated with regard
• to current performance assessment objectives, goals, and criteria for temperature and stability.

. For ACD drift design, the highest possible and the most probable thermal loading should
be considered. The highest possible thermal impact to stability may include younger waste at higher
APD or older waste. The most probable thermal loading should be based on the design basis APD
(currently 57 kW/acre) with the highest possible up to 40% higher. The least thermal load, although
less critical, should be evaluated in combination with seismic loads, lt is suggested that the design
basis APD be used in regional studies with local variations in APD loading being considered for
single drifts, but not averaged over an entire panel. Locally, higher APD may be specified at the
perimeter of the repository to ensure that temperature criteria are met throughout the emplacement
drifts and emplacement boreholes during the postclosure period.

5.2.6 Ground Support Properties

The mechanical and chemical properties of the ground support components are required
for the design of the drifts. The mechanical properties of supports (stiffness and strength) can be
more easily quantified than the mechanical properties of the rock and the potential water chemistry
interactions between the support components and the groundwater. The postclosure performance
goals may restrict the selection of materials available for ground support.

Properties of typical components for repository drift ground support include bolt strength
and stiffness; grout strength, stiffness, and durability; and shotcrete strength and corrosion potential.
Properties of bolts are generally available from commercial suppliers. The bonding and anchorage
characteristics depend on local conditions. Shotcrete and concrete mixes can be designed to meet
specifications for strength and deformability. The effect of elevated temperature on ground sup-
port/rock reinforcement components should be assessed before final selection.

5.3 ESF Repository Layout

The repository and ESF layout described in the SCP-CDR is presented for reference and
to provide the starting point for future drift designs. This layout provides the dimensions of panels,
the standoff between heated areas and drifts, and the size and shapes of the drifts. These sizes and
, shapes have been selected on the basis of earlier design efforts intended to ensure that the excavation
will meet the functional requirements. So far the methodology described in this report has not been
used to determine whether the design also meets stability requirements.
,t.

Layouts and three-dimensional perspectives of the repository and ESF are presented in
Figures 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6. The Main Test Level (MTL) of the ESF is designed to accommodate
specific tests and to explore ground conditions over a significant area of the repository. Provided
the site is acceptable, portions of the ESF are then converted for repository use. The ESF design
(Figure 5-5) represents the Title I design phase described in Section 8.4 of the SCP.

*megawatt day/metric ton of initial heavy metal

5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
 Many of the fundamental layout concepts of the ESF and repository design may be changed
before either is built. The ESF and repository layouts presented here are intended for illustration
purposes only. For example, the concept of a single-level repository, emplacement horizon, and
ESF area may be reviewed. Similarly, several geometric parameters are still under consideration.
These include standoff distances, drift and borehole spacings, waste-emplacement configuration,
ql,
drift shape, mains orientation, ground support, and some panel shapes.

5.3.1 Exploratory Shaft Facility

The Title I ESF design includes two levels: the MTL (Figure 5-5) and the Upper Dem-
onstration Breakout Room. The drifts in the MTL will function as ventilation routes during
repository operations. The long lateral drifts will be used later during repository development as
either access drifts for the waste panels or as repository mains. The drift in the Upper Demonstration
Breakout Room will probably not be used for repository operations. The exploratory shafts will
be convened to ventilation shafts should repository construction follow site characterization.

5.3.2 Repository

Figure 5-7 shows the panel layout detail with standoffs and some drift dimensions for the
vertical waste-emplacement configuration. Figure 5-8 shows emplacement drift dimensions for
vertical waste emplacement. The conceptual design has the option to emplace waste vertically in
boreholes in the floor of emplacement drifts.

The repository excavations comprise main drifts, access drifts, waste-emplacement drifts,
perimeter drifts, and drifts associated with the shop area. Two ramps and shafts, including ES 1
and ES2, will supply the necessary routes for ventilation, men and materials, and waste trans-
ponation. Waste will not be transported in the shafts.

The drift shape indicates that both conventional drill-and-blast and full-face boring
machines are anticipated as excavation methods. The ground support system identified in the
SCP-CDR includes five categories ranging from light to heavy support, depending on site conditions
exposed during construction.

5-19
 • I

5-20
S-21/5-22
 6.0 ANAI_YSIS OF UNSUPPORTED DRIFTS

In this section, we discuss the methodology for analysis of the drift exclusive of the ground
support system and the method of preliminary ground support selection. Here the designer has the
option to modify drift size or shape, and to impact the placement and density of waste containers.
" The major steps used to design the repository drifts are to develop candidate chift designs
(Section 6.1) that meet the functional requirements, perform parametric and tradeoff studies
, (Section 6.2) of the different design options; and to select the potentially suitable options
(Section 6.3) for detailed analysis using empirical (Section 6.4) and numerical (Section 6.5)
methods. Based on the analysis of the unsupported drifts, preliminary ground support/reinforcement
systems are selected (Section 6.9). The drift design is not complete until the analyses are evaluated
(Chapter 7) and the ground support is designed (Chapter 8). These steps, up through the analysis
of the unsupported drifts, are discussed below.

6.1 Candidate Drift Designs

The candidate drift designs are developed to meet the functional requirements such as size
and area (see Section 3.1), and shapes are chosen that enhance stability (see Section 3.2.2). In some
cases, such items as temporary ventilation ducting may be required during construction and could
affect drift size and shape. Candidate drift designs could include shapes and sizes to accommodate
more than one function or to combine two smaller parallel drifts into one larger drift. The candidate
drift designs should recognize alternate construction techniques; rock support system options; in
situ conditions such as in situ stress; variations in rock quality, rock structure, and joint orientations;
and thermal and seismic loads.

6.2 Parametric and Tradeoff S|odies

Parametric and tradeoff studies are performed on the candidate drift designs to narrow the
selection and to identify significant or controlling parameters in the design. The parametric studies
address tradeoffs in the areas of geologic variability, stability, economics, constructibility, safety,
construction method, support installation, and waste emplacement configurations, and use simple
analyses, empirical guidelines, construction experience, scheduling, and cost considerations. The
tradeoff studies may use specific analytic methods, as discussed below, to evaluate the impact of
such variables as loading or geologic features on potential drift shapes. The parametric tradeoff
studies should assess the various candidate drift design's compatibility with closure and postclosure
performance goals.

. 6.3 Select Preliminary Drift Configuration_

This step compiles the results of the parametric and tradeoff studies and synthesizes the
" restllts to select appropriate drift shapes and sizes. The selection process may use a formal meth-
odology and weighting factors. The product from the preliminary drift design is a number of
alternate drift shapes for each drift type (emplacement drift, mains, midpanel access drifts, etc.)
that meet the functional requirements and are compatible with construction techniques, loadings,
and expected geologic conditions. Suitability of the drifts to withstand the thermal and seismic
loadings must be assessed using empirical and numerical methods (discussed below).

6.4 Empirical Methods

Empirical methods are used to evaluate the impact of the ranges of expected natural
conditions on drift stability and ground support requirements. General purpose methods can be

6-1
augmented by specific case studies of excavations either in tuff or similar rocks subjected to load_,
within the range expected for the repository. Together these provide a basis for engineering judgment
and development of rules of thumb (heuristic rules) that might apply to repositor/design.

Generally, empirical methods are developed by relating key parameters that affect stability
to the support used in existing tunnels and caverns. Empirical techniques are useful in repositor3'
design to accomplish the following:
,lh

• Qup_ntify rock quality by an index that combines different characteristics of a rock

mas,,.

• Assess stability of a given opening span either by indicating the estimated standup
time or by indicating for what span ground support is required.

• Conduct preliminary assessment of ground support requirements for a given size

opening.

• Estimate rock mass mechanical properties stJch as rock mass modulus or strength.

Empirical methods for ground support/rock reinforcement design are presented by Terzaghi
(1946), Deere et al. (1967), Wickham et al. (1972), Barton et al. (1974) and Bi'.:niawski (1973;
1976; 1979). Einstein et al. (1979) provide a useful discussion of the development of empirical
methods and compare the predictive capability of the above five methods with actual experience
in a number of well documented tunnels, and conclude that none of the methods completely repre sent
ali the influencing factors.

The Barton Rock Mass Quality (Q) Method (Barton et al., 1974) and the RMR Method
(Bieniawski, 1973; 1976) both contain six rock parameters related to joint frequency, number of
joint sets, water conditions, joint roughness, joint alteration, intact rock properties, and stress. The
main difference between the two is that the stress state is not explicitly considered in Bieniawski's
method, whereas the discontinuity attitude is. In the Q Method, the stress reduction factor (SRF)
accounts for the ratio of the in situ stress field to the rock strength. This parameter can be used to
account for additional thermal and seismic loads in drift design (Barton, 1984).

Using the Q system requires an estimate of Q, the opening span, and the ESR. The
equivalent dimension is defined as the span divided by the ESR. By plotting the Q versus the
equivalent dimension on the design chart shown in Figure 6-1, the type of support, if any, can be
determined. Barton et al. (1974) provide specific details on the recommended support for 38 regions
on their design chart (not shown here). Barton et al. (1974) also provide methods to estimate the
roof and wall support pressures.

Several modifications of the RMR system have been proposed so that account can be taken
of such factors as induced stress and construction methods. The Modified Basic RMR (MBR)
proposed by Cummings et al. (1982) and Kendorski et al. (1983) was developed specifically for
block caving mines and introduces factors specific to that application, but it nonetheless indicates
a method of incorporating stress change, construction method (in the format of a factor related to
blast damage), and fracture orientation into an empirical method.

Hoek (1981) and Laubscher (1984) have both related ground support selection and
mechanisms of failure to the relationship between the rock mass strength and the local state of stress
around the drift. Where the design rock mass strength is high relative to the local stress, no failure
is predicted; hence, no ground support is required. Alternatively, where the local stress is high
relative to design rock mass strength, stress-induced failures can occur requiring ground support.
Figure 6-2, reproduced from Hoek (198I), indicates where stress-induced failure or structurally
controlled failures would be predicted and general ground support required for ranges of rock quality,

6-3
6-3
 TUNNEUNG QUALITY INDEX Q
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 4 10 40 100 400 1000

STRUCTURALLY

=:! - FAILURE _. GENERALLY - 0.1

_'_ 0.2- X X \ NOSUPF'_T

z
_=
_E
0.3
UGHT

o.
- 0.3
- 0.4
"

._ o.5 HEAVY

0.7 _ - 0.7

:_ _ 0.8 , , STABLEOPENINGS _ STRESS - 0.8

l. FAILURE - 0.9
_ 1.0 I 1 I I I I I ! I I ! 1.0
I.- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ROCKMASSP._T_NGSRMR

Figure 6-2. Approximate Support Guidelines for Underground Excavations Proposed by Hoek
(1981)

and stress/strength ratio. The design rock mass strength of Laubscher (1984) is estimated from the
laboratory rock strength modified by a factor developed from the RMR, and further reduced by
factors representing weathering effects, blasting damage, and joint orientation. These methods are
a little more appealing than the Q and RMR methods because they correlate support needs with the
stress-to-strength relationships around the opening.

The approaches of Hoek (1981) and Laubscher (1984) form the basis of an empirical
scheme proposed by Schmidt (1987) to identify the modes of failure around a drift. This method
is based on the stress-to-strength relationship and a rock-quality index (a modified RQD). Figure 6-3
shows the regions on the plot of stress/strength ratio versus modified RQD where particular
modes of failure are projected. With the mode of failure established, analytical techniques that
specifically address that mode of failure can be selected and a ground support system designed to ,,
effectively control the rock failure.

A criticism of empirical techniques in applying them to repository design is that case studies
upon which they are based do not include the conditions expected at the repository site, nor do they
incorporate some of the important thermal and seismic loads expected during the life of the
repos_tor),. In the Q system (Barton et al., 1984), the thermal or seismic loads can be incorporated
by combining the induced loads and treating this value as an in situ load. A similar approach could
be used with the MBR system where the thermal and seismic loads are equated to the stress change
induced by mining. The former procedures are recommended for assessing preliminary ground
support requirements under the thermal and seismic loads.

6-4
 1.2
"o Unstable

Unstable A
,'- Rockbursts
o _t_ Increasing

" _ 0.8-- _Y,eld /!nter. /,_ _ _

rr' _ /Locking/ _ X Mild Bursts
" _ 0.6 - Interlocking / Min°r/Interlocking,_ Slabbing
t.- Yie Stable

0.4-
Inte rd Yield,/, ,'/ _ Massive,Spalling
Stable

_ 0.2- Str.ucturally \_
'- _ "Cor_tr<led
\ X \
0.0 - Caving \ ", Raveling \Block
,, Falls \\ .... Tensile
Splitting
-o.2 i I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modified RQD (RQD.F)

Figure 6-3. Chart for Estimating Modes of Failure Around Drifts Proposed by Schmidt (1987)

A first indication of the potential impact of seismic loads can be obtained from empirical
evidence of damage in underground openings. Dowding and Rozen (1978) compiled case studies
of seismically induced damage to underground drifts and tunnels. Owens and Scholl (1981) updated
that work and provided a summary of these findings (Figure 6-4). Dowding and Rozen suggest
that no damage should be expected if the peak surface accelerations are less than 0.2 g, and only
minor damage should be experienced between 0.2 and 0.4 g. lt is worth pointing out that Figure 6-4
was deduced from earthquake data, whereas thresholds for damage caused by UNEs are much
higher. Applying the factor of 1.67 suggested by the Working Group to the recommended control
motions listed in Section 5.1.3 would increase the loads sufficiently to be above the 0.4-g transition
from "minor damage" to "damage." The "minor damage" described by Dowding and Rozen (1978)
included "fall of stones and formation of new cracks." Such occurrences would disrupt neither
waste-transport operation nor performance of emplacement drifts, and may be tolerable because of
the planned inspections and maintenance of underground openings. A limiting factor in applying
this empirical evidence to other situations is that neither the stability conditions of the underground
" opening before the seismic event nor the design basis of the ground support systems is known for
the cases included in the study.

In summary, all empirical systems inadequately account for the combined effects of in situ,
thermal, and seismic loadings, thus necessitating the need for more detailed analyses of the drift
stability (Section 6.5) and the interaction of the support/reinforcement components, as discussed
in Chapter 8. In the preliminary design stages, the results of the classification should not focus on
the _ound support design, but on classification of the expected in situ conditions into groups for
analysis, identification of the potential failure mechanisms that should be addressed analytically,
and identification of shapes or loading that, in combination with specific in situ conditions, would
pose constructibility problems and should be redesigned.

6-5
 0.8

0.7 -- _

- --.. ,, z_ Damage
'-"
gt _ 0.6 m
"" 0 O,*- v.

= 48 - -- t20 "cj I %" o

® "- Sz_
u " Q5 ....
o 0omage =
zL -- 100 o
= -& ..... _ o
_" _
o 0a-

>, 32 "
G -- SO ,_
E - _'- _ Minor damage
O u
-_ p -... _CP 03-- p
o Oi . j

• 24
-A Oa -- 60 u
u _;_
.._ O 0 eoe 0 •

" 0 p ep -ee --- e'O"c_ - le" .....

_ 16-- o . • I ..40 _ .....

ou q_o ao :
Minor /
damage11 o 0.2 [[9 l " •"
. _'_ • No damage
I
11 _,_ 0.1_

n 8] " _ "i8..
w "-'Q---"'---irn-'-._e'{
l Noda
_ _'I age 120 0I I I I I t"_" I "I t I
0 zo 30 50 70 90 I0 30 50 70 90
Ordinalnuml:)erof case inappendix C Ordinal number of case inappendix C
0wenand Scl'_otl (1981) Owen and $cholt (1981}

• No damage St` Near porlal • No damage St, Near portal

o Minordamage,
o Minordamage. Pt`Shallowcover Pt`Shallowcover
causedby shaking causedby shaking
t` Damage fromshaking A Damage fromshaking

Figure 6-4. Calculated Peak Particle Velocities and Acceleration and Associated Damage
Observations on Underground Openings (Owens and Scholl, 1981)

6.4.1 Technique Selection

In the absence of any important distinguishing characteristic, it is recommended that aspects

of both the Q and RMR systems be incorporated into the drift design methodology. Both have been
applied to the G-tunnel and expected repository conditions by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986), and -'
during the unit evaluation studies by Johnstone et al. (1984). Both methods are based on extensive
case histories, and the parameters included in each technique are considered appropriate for
repository design. The RMR system is used as an index property in assessing rock mass mechanical
properties (as shown in Section 5.2.4). The Q system can be used to develop preliminary recom-
mendations for ground support requirements.

However, because the database used to develop both of these methods does not include
case studies of excavations in welded tuff, a site-specific technique should be developed by reas-
sessing the case studies on which those methods are based and by the addition ofcase studies specific
to the tufts at the NTS. Construction experience at the ESF will provide a basis for assessing the
applicability of these empirical methods to the welded tuff, and for their adaptation to the specific
conditions of the repository drift.

6-6
6.4.2 Application of Empirical Techniques
The basic inputs of the rock mass classification methods include the unconfined rock
strength, the amount of water present, the applied stress field, the geometric characteristics of joints,
joint physical properties, and width of excavation. The empirical techniques should be applied to
the five rock quality categories representing the expected range of conditions.

In the Q System, the ESR is a design. _elected parameter that reflects the degree of con-
servatism desired in the design. For example, temporary mine openings have an ESR of 3 to 5,
whereas major road and railway tunnels should have an ESR of 1.0. Minor roads or railway tunnels
have an ESR of 1.3. For the repository, a high degree of conservatism is required, so a low ESR
is recommended; see, for example, Table 4-3. The Q system should be applied to all load combi-
nations identified in Section 5.1.4.

The empirical techniques can be used to accomplish the following:

• determine the expected standup time for the excavation shapes and sizes; con-
ditions with projected standup times of less than one week would be considered

inappropriate for waste emplacement, and those with projected standup times of
less than one day unsuitable for construction;

• define an expected range of ground support requirements;

• evaluate the probabilities of encountering each class of rock and ground support;

• evaluate the potential impact of encountering off-normal combinations of design

parameters; and

• make a preliminary estimate of ground support requirements (see Section 8).

The empirical approach assumes that the rock mass material properties are not affected by
heating of the rock and that the seismic loads are adequately represented by a quasi-static approach
presented in Section 5.1.3. Empirical evidence of the effect of heating on drift performance is even
further limited with only a handful of case examples available in the literature.

Barton et al. (1974) use the Q system to estimate the roof support pressure requirement.

P'_ = 3JR ' (13)

where Ju is the joint set number and JR, the joint roughness (see Table 12-2 in Section 12.2.1 for
example). The same expression is suggested by Barton et al. (1974) to estimate the wall pressure
with Q,. substituted for Q. Q,, is defined as

Qw=5Q when Q>10,

Q,,=2.5Q when 0.1<Q<10, and

Qw=Q when Q<0.1.

6-7
6.4.3 Results of Empirical Techniques

The results of the techniques include an estimate of the maximum unsupported span and
standup time, the rock mass strength (see Sections 5.2.4.4 and 5.2.4.5), and preliminary ground
support requirements. Because the database used in developing the technique includes few high-
stress cases, the appropriate application is to mains and other drifts that experience low to moderate
thermal loads.

6.4.4 Interaction of Empirical and Numerical Method_

Empirical methods are helpful in identifying possible modes of failure, providing input
for estimating the rock mass deformability and strength characteristics and in providing guidance
in the selection of analytical models appropriate for specific rock characteristics. The empirical
techniques also provide preliminary estimates of ground support requirements for all drifts and
final ground support requirements for the nonthermally loaded repository drifts. All final designs
must, however, explicitly consider thermal and seismic loads.

Numerical methods in repository drift design are primarily used to estimate the effect of
in situ thermal and seismic loads on stability conditions in the drift. The analyses are relied upon
solely to predict the thermal conditions and thermal loads in the drift, whereas empirical methods
can be used to evaluate the effect of in situ loads on drift stability.

6.5 Numerical Methods for Unsupported Drifts

The application of numerical methods to modeling the behavior of rock masses is limited
by the understanding of the rock structure, material properties, strength, and failure mechanisms.
Often, as a lh'st approximation, failure mechanisms and ground support/rock reinforcement com-
ponents are not incorporated into the model used in the analyses. Typically, the stresses are predicted
on the basis of an assumed linear elastic rock mass response and thc resulting state of stress in ti_e
vicinity of the drift processed to determine potential regions of appropriate inelastic rock or joint
slip. Such analysis may be used in conjunction with tradeoff studies of a!te_i_atedrift shapes.

The effect of processed ground support is not usually modeled in preliminary designs
because light bolting or thin coatings of shotcrete typically used in many stable openings have a
negligible effect on stresses and displacemem of the rock. Their function is to retain localized
blocks of rock defined by joints or blasting features, and thereby prevent larger blocks from moving.
More massive supports, such as thick coatings of shotcrete or concrete, utilized to inhibit massive
rock failouts resulting from yielding of the rock matrix and slip along joint surfaces can be modeled
explicitly. ..,

Incorporation of rockbolts and drift lining into the analytical design is desirable after the
basic drift geometries and thermal loadings have been established to assess stability in the poorer "
quality ground and to evaluate the thermal effects on the ground support component performance.
Analysis of ground support systems is deferred until Chapter 8.

6.5.1 Model Selection

Before undertaking any numerical modeling of the behavior of the rock mass in which the
repository is constructed, it is necessary to decide on geometrical material and other simplifications.
Such simplifications include the adoption of two-dimensional models of long tunnels, continuum
approximations of the rock mass, and the treatment of seismic loading as quasi-static. The following
subsections discuss the simplification considered appropriate to the implementation of this design

6-8
 methodology. At a future time, and as required for design confh'mation, detailed mesh assessment
and other purposes, several of the assumptions will be relaxed and detailed numerical modeling
will be completed.

6.5.1.1 Thermal Model In assessing thermal loads fordriftdesign, two distinct approaches
" can be adopted. The tru'st is appropriate for waste-emplacement drifts in the interior of an
emplacement panel. Here, at least immediately after waste emplacement, it is reasonable to assume
' that the drift centerline and the center of the pillars between emplacement drifts is a plane of
" symmetry. The symmetry condition implies no lateral heat transfer at these boundaries because of
equal heat generation from waste in adjacent emplacement drifts. For emplacement drifts near the
boundary of a panel and for midpanel drifts and mains, the thermal loads are not symmetric and
depend on the emplacement sequence and other repository-scale factors. Assessment of the thermal
loads is then more complex because the situation is truly three-dimensional. However, simplification
involving the integration of three-dimensional, thermomechanical analysis and local two-
dimensional mechanical analysis is possible. The separation and evaluation of the thermal load
from the drift mechanical response for drifts requiting repository-scale thermal analysis to determine
the local thermal loads is appropriate (see Section 5.1.2).

The thermal material model used for drift design must incorporate the predominant heat
transfer mechanisms. The predominant mechanism of heat transfer in the rock mass is conduction,
whereas radiation and convection heat transfer can be significant in the container or across the
emplacement drift. Ventilation can transfer heat along drifts either during emplacement operations
or during cooling before inspection, maintenance, drift rehabilitation, waste retrieval, or closure
operations. The effect of cooling on drift stability must be evaluated during the design process to
assess the potential for de-stressing the rock mass or inducing cracks in the ground support system.

The thermal properties that are temperature-dependent must be accounted for in the thermal
model. For example, the thermal capacitance of tuff at the repository site exhibits significant
increases around 100°C as associated water molecules are released.

Many thermal analysis codes incorporate the appropriate phenomena for modeling the two-
or three-dimensional temperature response to heating from waste emplacement. To model the
three-dimensional complexity of the repository with different waste-emplacement times for indi-
vidual panels requires some simplification and idealization. Either the geometry modeled or the
characterization of the host material or both must be simplified.

The link between thermal and mechanical models is through the thermal expansion
coefficient and possibly through temperature-dependent mechanical properties. For the welded
tufts of the repository horizon, no data which indicates temperature-dependent mechanical prop-
- erties are available. The thermal expansion coefficient is temperature-dependent for welded tuff
above approximately 200°C. Such dependence could be a factor in and around the emplacement
borehole where temperatures could exceed 200"C.

6.5.1.2 Mechanical Model Several types of constitutive models are available to represent
the rock mass. They include linear elastic, elasto-plastic, jointed rock continuum, the Compliant
Joint Model (CJM) of Chen (1986), the joint empirical model (JEM) of Blanford and Key (1990),
distinct block models (Cundall, 1980), and discrete joint/fault representation models (Crouch, 1976).
The linear elastic, elasto-plastic, jointed rock continuum, CJM, and JEM are ali equivalent-
continuum models. Figure 6-5 shows a simplified met'hod of selection based on rock jointing
characteristics. In some cases, a particular material model can represent a range of rock
characteristics, and the actual loading conditions will determine if a particular mechanism of
deformation is operative. Alternatively, empirical techniques, such as depicted in Figure 6-3, can
be used to predict which mechanisms of deformation or failure are likely to be operative and, hence,
help in the selection of the numerical model used for design.

6-9
 PREUMINARY ELASTIC
ANALYS=S
WITH f'
ASSESSMENT msw,_.x:_ss=_

SELECT/EW
JOINT
YIBS SPACING
CIJ0SE

JOINT
YES

Figure 6-5. Selection of Appropriate Rock Model for Design Analysis

6-10
 Elastic analysis has traditionally been used to assess the potential impacts of waste
emplacement on drift stability (see, for example, St. John (1987a)), to assess potential modes of
rock or joint failure, and for preliminary scoping studies, such as required for drift shape optimi-
zation. The elastic analysis also is very useful for evaluating the sensitivity of rock stresses to rock
mass parameters or changes in waste-emplacement configurations. Because elastic analysis is
helpful in selecting the constitutive models or in identifying deformation mechanisms that need to
be modeled by more detailed analysis, it is required as the first step in the model selection process
as illustrated in Figure 6-5.

Elastic analyses of long drifts can assess three-dimensional loadings and directional
strengths in three dimensions by relieving the out-of-plane shear stresses as well as the in-plane
stresses (the horizontal, vertical, and in-plane shear) around a drift. This is known as generalized
plane-strain. Brady and Bray (1978)discuss the application of this method to boundary-element
linear elastic analysis. The results from the generalized plane-strain analysis can be analyzed to
assess the safety factors or potential for slip along joints of any orientation relative to the dr_ft axis.

This is a powerful tool to assess the three-dimensional loading effects of seismic and thermal loads
which may not be orthogonal with respect to the drift axis or to assess the potential for failure or
slip along structures that are also not orthogonal to the drift axis.

As implied by the selection process shown in Figure 6-5, the characteristics of joint
geometry and frequency at the repository horizon have a major impact on the model selection for
repository drift design. All models may have their uses in various aspects of design, for appropriate
ranges of rock characteristics and for the scale of interest relative to the jointing pattern. The effect
of size on the selection of the appropriate representation of a jointed rock mass is illustrated by
Hock and Brown (1980) (Figure 6-6). For drift design, the scale of concerns ranges from the
immediate perimeter of the drift to the entire repository.

The characteristics of the jointing are also important in selecting the appropriate model.
If the jointing is tight and exhibits some cohesion, its impact on stability may be negligible and,
hence,need not be modeled explicitly. At the other extreme, there may be joints or faults at particular
locations that need to be represented directly in the model. In between are cases in which the joint
spacings may be too numerous for discrete modeling, but may be modeled by an equivalent-
continuum model.

The range of expected conditions evident in core and surface exposures near the proposed
repository location indicates that elasto-plastic, ubiquitous joint, and distinct block-type models
will be required. The joint spacings appear to be sufficiently close that discrete joint modeling may
not be required except for specific cases where a significant structural feature can be distinguished
from the ubiquitous jointing. This condition may arise when a drift intersect.'; a fault.

6.5.2 Application of Numerical Model_

In the design phase, the numerical models will be applied to the assessment of the stability
conditions under the expected range of geologic conditions at the repository horizon. Because
the loads on all drifts vary with location within the repository, the analysis should be applied to a
representative number of drift geometries at critical locations throughout the repository. Critical
locations are those that bracket the range of expected loadings to the drift. For example, the
emplacement drift at the center of a panel will be exposed to the most extreme thermal loads. The
thermal loadings on the tuff main drift range from near zero near the ramps to a moderate value in
the middle of the repository. The critical thermal loading on the midpanel drifts will occur at
midlength of a panel. Critical conditions for stability also depend on in situ and seismic loads and
do not necessarily coincide with the locations of highest thermal load.

6-11
 ,v

Intact Rock

le Discontinuity

UNDERGROUNr Two Discontinuities

EXCAVATION

Several Discontinuties

Rock Mass

Figure 6-6. Idealized Diagram Showing the Transition from Intact Rock to a Heavily Jointed Rock
Mass with Increasing Sample Size (from Hoek and Brown, 1980)

For design simplicity, the range of geologic conditions are grouped into a manageable
number of categories as discussed in Section 5.2. Analysis should be performed on the credible
combination of loads and geologic conditions using the appropriate mechanical models. Care should
be exercised to avoid excessive analysis for ali combinations of loadings, conditions, and drift .,
geometries.

6.5.2.1 Elastic Model The linear elastic model, the simplest of the equivalent-continuum
models, uses the rock mass properties for each rock mass category to represent the response of the
rock mass. The mechanical properties assume the rock mass to be homogeneous and isotropic.
Elastic moduli are estimated from intact rock properties and rock quality indices discussed in
Section 5.2.4.1

When evaluating the results of linear elastic analysis, areas around the drift where the stress
exceeds the strength either of the rock mass or of the joints can be identified. The rock mass strength
should be estimated as discussed in Section 5.2.4.4 and the joint strengths from Section 5.2.4.6.

6-12
 6.5.2.2 Elasto-Plastic Continuum Model The elasto-plastic continuum models use
empirically derived values of the rock mass properties, but incorporate stress redistribution in
accordance with the selected yield model.

The yield criterion for rock is generally based on either the Mohr-Coulomb or Drucker-
- Prager models for frictional materials. One objection to both models is that adoption of an associated
flow rule implies large extensional volumetric plastic strains or dilation with yielding. This can be
overcome by using a flow function that differs from the yield criterion (nonassociative flow rule).
" Soils have been commonly modeled using nonassociated flow rule, whereas rocks generally
experience dilation with yielding, so the associated flow rules are often applied. Recent experimental
results from simulated rock mass models (Michelis and Brown, 1986) suggest that a dilation angle
equal to about half that for an associated flow rule provides a good approximation. Selection of a
flow rule that is appropriate for the Yucca Mountain repository must be deferred until additional
field and laboratory testing has been completed. For the present, it is recommended that a nonas-
sociated flow rule be used for analysis of drift stability with the dilation angle equal to one-half the
friction angle.

Table 6-1 lists the input parameters for the elasto-plastic continuum models for drift design.
The properties used are based on the rock quality data and laboratory values.

In the application of the elasto-plastic models, the zones where yield has occurred are
identified and the magnitude of the compressive strain monitored. When interpreting the results
of the analysis, a limiting value of the compressive strain is used as a criterion to assess the extent
of damage sustained and the need for ground support. The maximum allowable compressive strain
is similar in concept to the maximum allowable strain adopted in ultimate load-design methodology
in concrete. In using this method, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code allows a maximum
compressive strain in concrete of 0.3%. Appendix A discusses the basis of this criterion in concrete
and reviews laboratory data for the welded tuff.

6.5.2.3 Regularly Jointed Continuum Modelin_ Equivalent-continuum modeling

includes application of the CJM (Chen, 1987) and the JEM (Bla_nford and Key, 1990). Both models
were recently applied to the same problem in a preliminary benchmark exercise (Costin and Bauer,
1991). The suggested application discussed here focuses on the CAM; similar suggested parameters
should be developed for the JEM.

The CAM incorporates the joint normal stress/joint closure relationship shown in
Equation 10 and :he shear stress/shear strain relationship. The shear stress/shear strain relationship
models the joint shear stiffness and strength defined by the traditional Coulomb friction model.
Thomas (1982) incorporated this model into the JAC code (Biffle, 1984) for a single joint set, and
Chert (1987) has extended the model to include two orthogonal joint sets and non-orthogonal joint
•" sets (Chen, 1990). The single joint model has been used by Bauer et al. (1985b) to model the
response of a thermally fractured granite and by Costin and Chen (1988) to model the response of
. the heated block experiment of Zimmerman et al. (1984). These investigators report reasonable
success, even though the model does not include joint dilation with joint slip.

Table 6-2 lists the input parameters for application of the CAM. These parameters are
developed in Section 12 for the expected range of conditions at the repository location. The
maximum allowable effective extensile strain is introduced for evaluation of the analysis. The joint
strength away from the opening is based on a weighted average of the joint and intact properties
depending on the continuity (Z) of the joint surface. At the perimeter of the opening, the unweighted
joint properties should be used to assess joint slip.

6-13
6-14
6-!5
 For the CJM, yielding within the rock is limited to slip along joints. A criterion must be
established to limit the stresses in the intact rock between the joints and to limit the total dis-
placements within thc rock caused by slip along joints. The criteria for crushing or splitting of the
intact rock similar to the yield criteria used for the elasto-Dlastic analysis (without the joint weakening
effect) or an effective extensile strain is proposed.

The criterion for the intact rock matrix strength indicated in Table 6-2 is based on the
empirical rock mass strength envelope developed by Hoek and Brown (1980) with the uniaxial
compressive strength reduced to reflect the size effect observed by Price (1986) for tuff.

The extensile strain rf:,) is calculated from the stresses

!
c,= _[_3-v(a,+ _2)], (14)

where al, c_2,eq = the maximum, intermediate and least principal stress (with compression
positive), and
E and v - elastic constants for the rock.

The extensile strain concept has been introduced by Stacey (1981 ), following the concept of effective
tensile stress theory presented by Brown and Trollope (1967). The criterion is simple and appears
to predict zones of slabbing and rock failure around openings in high-stress zones where failure
was not always predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb theory. The limit of 0.0004 is proposed for the
extensile strain in tuff. This value is half the extensile strain at failure for the uniaxial compressive
strength tests, and is estimated to be approximately twice the critical extensile strain proposed by
Stacey (1981) as the level at which fracture of brittle rock will initiate. Borg et al. (1984) found a
value for the limiting extensile strain of 0.0004 to 0.00075 from back calculation of failures in an
underground zinc mine in Sweden. This criterion is not expected to be a controlling parameter
around room-scale excavations, but could indicate spalling around the emplacement boreholes.

The maximum allowable joint slip could be introduced to limit the total displacements
around the room. "Failure" of an excavation with a particular geometry or set of loading conditions
is indicated either by nonconvergence of the numerical model because of excessive movement or
by excessive shear deformation resulting from slip along joints.

6.5.2.4 Distinct Block Model The distinct block model requires a geometric represen-
tation of the joints as well as the joint and intact rock properties. The joint properties can be
represented by a Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion with the joint stiffness either constant or
dependent on stress and displacements. Blocks can deform, rotate, and split. The key to application
of this model is in the geometric representation of the joint system. Guidelines for applicatien of
this methcx] to the Yucca Mountain repository are to be developed if it is considered an appropriate ,,
model for design. The joint properties and block strength criteria would be the same as for the CJM
with the limits on joint slip also applied to ensure conservative stable drift designs. Should well-
defined joint sets that are significantly weaker than the ih'act rock be identified, and block motions °
be demonstrated to be important, then this model may become more widely applicable in drift
stability design.

6.5.3 Results of Analyses

The results needed for the evaluation of the drift must be readily available. From the elastic
mcxlels, safety factor contours of the ratio of stress-to-strength of the rock mass and joints should
be presented. For the nonlinear analysis, the location of zones of inelastic behavior, contours of
it,elastic strains, extensile strains, joint slips, and the safety factor for crushing of intact blocks are
requlred for drift stability evaluation.

6-16
 The analytical results are required for the stress combinations listed in Section 5.1.4 and
for the complete range of expected repository geologic conditions. Appendix B discusses the results
of analysis using the CJM for emplacement drift design and illustrates the results expected for joint
slip and failure of the intact rock for a typical case. The appendix also illustrates the application
of the criteria on extensile strain and intact rock crushing for the emplacement drift example.

The results of numerical modeling may indicate regions of slip or yield of the rock, but
• they do not necessarily predict or model rock tallout or collapse. Hence, to assess the stability or
suitability of the drift, acceptance criteria have to be adopted. The drift design criteria detailed in
Chapter 4 are expressed in terms of safety factors on the ground support/rock reinforcement
components, but to this point, analysis (Part A of the methodology) has not incorporated explicitly
any function of the ground support/rock reinforcement system. To bridge this gap, a method of
relating the analytical results to ground support requirements is required. For the preliminary drift
design, the following is proposed:

• If no rock mass yield or joint slip is projected, no ground support is required.

• When yield or failure of intact blocks is projected in the roof, the _ound sup-
port/rock reinforcement components should be sized to be anchored in elastic or
nonyielded rock and be designed to support the graviw load (dead weight) of the
yielded material. This assumption is considered conservative because the yielded
rock will maintain some post-yield strength.

• When yield or failure of intact blocks is projected in the walls, the rock sup-
port/rock reinforcement components should be sized to be anchored in elastic or
nonyielding material and should be designed to pin the gravity load of the failed
material. The wall pressure supplied by the ground support can be calculated
from the methodology presented below.

Figure 6-7 illustrates the recommended method for estimating the wall pressure. The block
bounded by joint AB is loaded by its self-weight and the pressure of the yielded rock of height h.
The inclined plane AB is assumed to be a preexisting joint with no cohesion. The wall pressure
(P,.) can be calculated from

P_,= 2w(sin0-cos0tano0/H. , (15)

where ct = the friction angle for joints,

w = the weight of the sliding block plus the pressure of the yielded rock of height h,
,, w = I
"ld H - -itan O+ h , 1
H,, = wall height (see Figure 6-7), and
d = width of yield at midheight of drift wall.

This equation can be used to size the diameter and spacings of horizontal bolts to provide a capacity
of P,, wi_h an appropriate safety factor. Equation 15 assumes that the horizontal bolt will pin the
joint with the bolt shear capacity equal to half its tensile strength. The most adverse orientation of
0 is assumed.

6.6 Drift Intersections

1%.%..1,'_J1 l¢,.l.tl_ _,.ldtl%d& .ttl_,l._,Jtt.21tlL.&.._ %.2,L%,,.1| %..2%,._1_t,.11 ,,Jt %,.,l.,tlat All¢%,..IO%.,%,,,t. lt%,.2tldl,_ w*cti&,l,..|| %..._'1t%..11

additional .ground support. Intersections of particular interest in the repository include those of the
=

- 6-17
 LINE OF
SYMMETRY
IDEALIZED BLOCK ,,
FALLOUT
P

ELD ZONE FROM [d 1

w=_a H -_-ta.ne+h
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE

Figure 6-7. Schematic Illustrating Geometry and Loads for Calculation of Wall Support Pressure

6-18
 midpanel drifts and mains, the midpanel and emplacement drifts, and the emplacement borehole
and room. Design of ground support systems at intersections is currently not well developed because
of the complexity of the problem.

- Analytical methods used to evaluate intersections have included three-dimensional,

finite-element, and boundary-element methods (Ushijima and Einstein, 1985). Realistically, such
models can only represent a small part of the repository. The basic methodology for design of
• intersections is the same as for drifts; the thermal and seismic loads can be assessed without the
presence of the drifts, and in a second stage of analysis, the boundary loads relieved by the excavation.
Initially, elastic analyses should be performed and an assessment of the potential for inelastic
behavior and joint slip made. lt is believed that because the intersections are removed from the
immediate waste emplacement areas, the loads at intersections will be less than the loads on
emplacement drifts, so linear elastic analysis may be sufficient. For such elastic analysis, the
boundary-element method is preferred because of simplicity in input definition and efficiency in
analyses. Some three-dimensional, nonlinear analysis may be necessary to conf'm'n the simplifying
assumptions in the elastic three-dimensional analysis.

6.7 Borehole Drift Intersections

The intersection of the borehole and the drift perimeter presents unique design require-
ments. For some rock conditions, it is anticipated that joint slip or yielding of the rock mass will
occur at this interface. Such movement may require rock reinforcement and special care in designing
the borehole-lining and drift-lining interface to assure retrievability. Development of these design
procedures are outside the scope of this report.

6.8 Faul! Zones and Zones of Poor Rock Quality

Fault zones and areas where rock quality is well below the expected range should be
considered differently from routine drift design. Fault zones may be extensive and similar to areas
of poor rock quality, or the faults may be localized planar features. In the latter case, the orientation
of a fault relative to the thermal loads and the drift axis is of primary concern. If the stress changes
across a known fault surface indicate a significant potential for slip, then either the waste
emplacement sequencing can be rearranged around the fault or the area isolated from waste
emplacement. However, it is anticipated that fault zones and areas of extremely poor quality rock
will be excluded from the repository area during site characterization and preliminary repository
layout studies. Issues to be considered for design of drifts that pass through faults include the
following:
f

• Constructibility Through the Zone--If the zone has very poor rock quality, col-
lapse or squeezing could accompany construction, requiting installation of bolts,
•- forepoling, staged construction, or steel sets.

• Ground Support Requirements--Ground support requirements can be expected

to be more severe in lower quality rock or in fault zones.

• Waste Emplacement--Waste emplacement may be excluded from an area near

ground of poor quality or the waste-emplacement density may be restricted. The
drift stability may impact that decision.

• Rock Mass Deformation Mechanisms (RMDM)---Additional RMDM may need

: to he considered for design through such zones. In zones of poor ground such
deformation mechanisms as creep, or shrinkage or swelling with-moisture changes
might require special consideration.

6-10
 Where faults are localized and they interact with joints to form blocks, distinct element
methods (Cundall and Hart, 1984) can be applied. For poor ground conditions requiring special
construction techniques or special ground support systems, empirical techniques and soft rock
tunneling experience can be used to select the initial ground support system. Numerical models
can be used to perform parametric studies intended to define the rock characteristic for which waste
emplacement should be restricted or eliminated. .,

6.9 Preliminary Ground Supporl Sele¢lion

The preliminary ground support design is established from the empirical and numerical
analysis completed during the drift stability assessment. From the analytical methods, the ground
support system is introduced essentially to hold up the yielded rock. The preliminary ground support
design includes selection of specific components; bolt spacings, length, diameter and capacities;
plates, mesh, straps, and/or shotcrete. The selection of bolt lengths and spacings should recognize
the empirical design rules developed by Lang (1961). Lang (1961) gives the minimum bolt length
L as the greatest of these measurements:

• twice the bolt spacing;

• three times the width of critical and potentially unstable rock blocks defined by
the average discontinuity spacing (b) in the rock mass; and

• one-half the span, for spans less than 6 m (20 ft); for spans from 6 to 18 m
interpolate between 3 and 5 m lengths, respectively; for spans from 18 to 30 m
(60 to 100 ft) bolt lengths of one-quarter of the span (approximately L = Bz'3where
B is in feet).

The maximum bolt spacing is given as the least of 0.5L and 1.5b. For cases where the rock is
intensely jointed, these rules break down and welded wire mesh or chain link mesh is recommended
with a bolt spacing of less than 2 m. The empirical method of Barton et al. (1974) provide guidance
on bolt spacing, bolt lengths, and bolt support pressure capacities based on the rock mass quality,
Q, and the opening dimensions.

The more conservative of the two ground support systems developed from empirical and
numerical methods should be selected for further analysis and refinement using both uncoupled
and coupled techniques.

The ground support designs will be developed for five rock mass quality cw:egories rep-
resenting the expected range of site conditions. The ground support system selected for installation
in a particular drift during construction will be suitable for the majority of conditions encountered "
during construction, even though lesser support, such as no support or minimal support, may be
sufficient over much of the length of the drift. The site conditions that would require deviation
from the basic ground support system should be well defined so that such conditions can be rec-
ognized during construction and the ground support enhanced without prolonged construction
delays.

6-20
 7.0 EVALUATION OF DRIFT ANALYSIS

Once the drifts have been analyzed and a preliminary ground support/reinforcement
selected, the results should be assessed relative to the requirements and criteria presented in
Chapter 4. The evaluations of the design (Section 7.1) can result in a need to mc,dify the drift
- geometry or thermal loads (Section 7.2) if the evaluation indicates unsatisfactory performance.

• 7.1 Evaluation of Drift Design

This step in the design is used as a screening step to eliminate designs that are inherently
unstable or in which drift temperatures are too high. Interpretations are made using numerical and
empirical results to ensure that stability criteria and temperature goals are met (see Chapter 4).
Important concepts used during evaluation of designs are safety factors in the rock mass using rock
mass strength, joint or intact rock strength, and extent of rock yielding around the drift.

7.1.1 Evaluation of Thermal Goals

The temperature performance goals will be evaluated by comparing the predicted tem-
peratures with the temperature criteria. The comprehensive evaluation of the thermal goals will be
the subject of other thermal studies unassociated with the stability assessment and are not discussed
in detail here. These other thermal studies will include the effects of ventilation, and moisture and
the three-dimensional interactions between the container and drift and will be more extensive than
those used in the drift stability assessment.

7.1.2 Evaluation of Drift Stability

This section discusses the evaluation of the projected drift response relative to the drift
design criteria of Chapter 4. Stability is a subjective term that must be quantified through the use
of failure criteria associated with the modes of failure. At this stage in the design, although the
rock response is decoupled from the ground support, the drift suitability is based on the projected
capacity of the ground support system. The preliminary ground support is estimated either from
empirical methods or from numerical analysis of the unsupported drifts.

The application of empirical methods is limited to evaluation of the standup time, or

estimates of final support system requirements (Barton et al., 1974) without consideration of the
seismic or thermal loads. For the Q system, the required support can range from "no support" to
massive supports consisting of cast-in-piace concrete up to a meter thick for poor ground. The
method also has been used to identify the limits of unsupported spans (Barton et al., 1980) and to
.. quantify the roof and wall pressures required from the support system.

lt is recommended that a rock mass quality, Q, of less than 0.1 where the standup time
•_ projected to be less than one day should indicate unstable, unfavorable conditions for repository
emplacement. Because Q is a combination of in situ rock conditions and loads (through the SRF
term), some accommodation may be possible by limiting the thermal loads in the poorer rock regions.
Otherwise these areas, if known in advance from core holes or geophysical data, should be excluded
from repository activities. If, however, areas of rock quality are encountered during construction
with a Q rating lower than 0.1, a ground support system and local waste emplacement layouts should
be specifically designed.

Assessment of drift stability during thermal and seismic loading requires definition of
limits and criteria directly related to the output of the analysis and specific to mechanisms of failure.

7-1
Criteria developed and presented in Chapter 4 are based on the extent of excessive nonlinear strains
surrounding the drift and a preliminary assessment of the practicality of a ground support system
for reinforcing or supporting the zones of yielded rock.

7.1.3 Drift Stability Crileria

To evaluate the suitability of drift design, two sets of criteria must be met. The first set
relates to the conditions of the rock mass under the imposed loads and the second to the practicality
of installing a ground support system to support yielded rock. Figure 7-1 summarizes the steps
involved in applying the criteria. The set of criteria relating to the condition of the rock mass are
as follows:

• projected standup time of greater that,, one day (empirical method),

• Q of greater than 0.1 (empirical method), and

• no crushed rock where the compressive strain is greater than 0.8% (based on
equivalent elasto-plastic continuum model).

If the rock mass does not meet the above criteria, drift construction and waste emplacement would
be impractical, and if required, would necessitate careful review of conditions, construction pro-
cedures, and emplacement densities.

A preliminary ground support design must be completed to evaluate the capacity and
practicality of the system to support yielded rock as discussed in Section 6.9. The ground support
system should be conservatively designed to support the mass of rock in the crown under conditions
where such rock has

• yielded based on the equivalent-continuum elasto-plastic model,

• been crushed based on yield of intact rock in the CJM or distinct block model, or

• exceeded the critical extensile strain criteria of 0.0004.

For the drift walls, the ground support system should be designed conservatively to resist
the lateral movement of the yielded rock mass. The higher wall pressures from either the empirical
or analytical method should be used.

The criteria developed in Chapter 4 are then applied to drift stability and suitability.

For roof and crown areas of drift relying, in part, on internal fixtures, such as rockbolts,
dowels or cables, the inelastic zone, or region of excessive extensile strains predicted by numerical
models for in situ and thermal loads should not exceed one-half the length of the fixtures that can "
be installed effectively during the construction cycle. For ribs and walls of drifts, the internal
fixtures should be anchored in nonyielding rock. The required ground support system for the normal
ground conditions should not be excessive and should be both practical and economical.

The above criteria incorporate three rock deformation mechanisms" rock mass yield (in-
elastic zone), yield of intact rock and spalling (excessive extensile strain), and a conservative
assumption on support interaction.

7-2
 I.
RE_ LAYOUTAND [_..SIC,N p

' i

JOINT SUP

' ' [ 1

- @_ N_
I

, I
lr i , II

J mgl_S _
j H06Xa_O_N
GF_IER_
(_ J EX_ENSILE
lSTR_UN • 0.0004
M-.CYIELD
I
I I
[ E STABLj'sHEXTENT OF zoNES REQLIIRINGScJPPO_ I
i

BOLT LENGTH, 2 x YIELD/

FAILED ZONES

-- !
_I DESIGN _ SYSTEM TO CARRY II .....

HIGH TRAFFIC AREA [ ALL OTHER AREAS' '/

. @"
!
I
[ EM_RIC,I_.

"L li DRIFT I_SIGN _-_

]

[ F1NALDRIFT DESIGN I * FOR CCX_ RE/F_FoHO_RETE

_ I ii SEE TABLE,5FOR STEEL

Figure 7-1. Flowchart Illustrating Application of Drift Support Design Criteria to Drift
Analysis

7-3
 The criteria placed on the rock support system are that it not be excessive and be both
economical and practical, recognizing that stability can possibly be maintained under almost any
ground or thermally induced loading conditions at an unreasonable cost. Defining unreasonable
cost is beyond the scope of these technical guidelines, but drifts with a minimal ground support
system are preferred. Minimal ground support systems could incorporate rockbolts, straps, wire ,,
mesh, and shotcrete. For poorer ground conditions, some enhancement of the basic rock support
system would be acceptable and would require more detailed analysis of the interaction of the
support system and rock deformation as outlined in Chapter 8. The practical limit on the length of
bolts under normal geologic conditions would be from one-half to three-quarters of the opening
dimension.

7.2 Evaluation of Field Demonstration Studies

A series of measurements, experiments, and demonstrations will be performed as part of

the geomechanical effort in the ESF. This geomechanical effort will be used to evaluate, validate,
and help determine the limitation of the analysis methods discussed above. The experiments and
demonstrations will be analyzed using the recommended drift design methodology. These exercises
will be used as the basis for validating these models and/or for providing the rationale to modify
them.

7.3 Preliminary Modifications

If the drift stability criteria are not met, three options are available, as shown in Figure 2-2:
modification of the drift design, modification of the loads through changes in APD or waste
emplacement configuration, or modification of the goals.

Modifications to the APD (the only load that is modifiable) or waste emplacement layout
(standoff, spacings, etc.) can result ii', reduction in the stresses, the inelastic deformations, or the
temperatures, so that the drift design criteria and temperature goals can be met. However, the
modifications may affect borehole and panel designs and the potential impacts on the overall system
must be examined before changing either the APD or panel layout• Modification of the drift design
criteria should not be attempted until the drift shape, preliminary ground support system, and layouts
have been modified, and such modifications must be defensible relative to the functional require-
ments, performance goals, and excavation and stability experience in exploratory excavations. For
example, the goals related to standup time could not be relaxed without a significant potential impact
on construction methods, worker safety, practicability, and economy of the support system.

7-4
 8.0 GROUND SUPPORT DESIGN

In general, the rock characterization schemes such as the Q and RMR methods will be used
to define the ranges of ground support systems required to accommodate the expected in situ geologic
, conditions. The preliminary ground support based on the numerical modeling of unsupported drifts
will provide a preliminary estimate of the length, spacing, and area of rock reinforcement com-
ponents and shotcrete/concrete lining requirements to accommodate the combined in situ, thermal,
, and seismic loads. Coupled analysis will be performed to assess the interaction of the ground
support system and the host rock to confirm conservatism in the support components.

The ground conditions expected require little or no ground support over most of the
excavated areas. The range of conditions and the percentage of drifts to be excavated in specific
rock quality categories is unknown at this time, although it is clear from the limited core hole data
that a wide range of rock qualities can be anticipated.

The drift design will be verified by monitoring performance during construction of the
ESF, during performance confirmation testing, and later during construction of the repository. The
results of such monitoring will confirm the modes of behavior or failure and allow verification that
different methods of ground support or ground reinforcement limit any tendency for excess
deformation. Any deterioration of the engineered components of the ground support system will
also be monitored.

Ground support materials will be selected for durability, strength, thermal compatibility,
and recognition of chemical restrictions that might be imposed by long-term (postclosure) repository
performance requirements.

The inputs for ground support design (Section 8.1), the ground support design analysis
(Section 8.2), and the evaluation of the ground support system (Section 8.3) are described below.

8.1 Inputs for Ground Support Design

This section discusses the inputs required for design of the ground support systems. These
include the timing of installation of the ground support system, the rock mass failure mechanisms,
the functional requirements of the ground support system, the material behavior, and potential failure
mechanisms of the support systems.

8.1.1 In Situ Stress Relief and Ground Support Loading

. The load applied to the ground support systems resulting from relaxation of the in situ
stress will depend on the timing of support installation relative to excavation, stiffness of the sup-
ports, and on time-dependent deformations or changes in the rock mass. The interaction of the rock
" deformation and loads applied to the rock support/reinforcement system is often illustrated by the
use of the ground reaction curve shown in Figure 8-1. Figure 8-la shows the ground reaction curve
and the support deformation characteristic of three support systems of differing stiffness. In
Figure 8-1 a, the rock remains elastic, so the rock ground reaction curve, curve A-B, is linear. Point A
represents the conditions at the boundary of the drift before excavation. After excavation, the
support pressure is zero, but now the drift perimeter has deformed as represented by Point B. In
Figure 8-1b, the rock behaves elastically initially, but then deforms inelastically, so the ground
reaction curve A-B is nonlinear. In unstable ground, the ground reaction curve may not intersect
the zero pressure line (as indicated by the dotted ground reaction curve), indicating the need for a
rock support system designed to provide at least a minimum support pressure.

- 8-1
 A Initial Drift Perimeter Stress

Ground Reaction Curve

(elastic rock)

["" Pressure-Deformation Response

O E_quilibrium of Ground Support System
Pressure
Ground Support
r.p3

C B

INWARD RADIAL DEFORMATION

a) With Elastic Rock

AI
Ground Reaction Curve

r._
rf}
L_J

"
[...,
t
Equilibrium = O /Inelastic
T
Pressure :
/--'-
.#
Unstable Drift
/Condition Requiring
s s sa
_1_/
_'.o j
Support
f,F.,w J ,.w ,f
.,
_r ,D' j" ,f ,F .h, ,F _w ,B ,f j ,O

E B
Elastic
Deformation INWARD RADIAL DEFORMATION
of Rock

b) With Inelastic Rock

Figure 8-1. Illustration oflnteraction of the Ground Reaction Curve and Ground Support System

8-2
 The timing of support installation often determines the load assumed by the rock sup-
port/reinforcement system. Rockbolts are typically installed near the face as soon as practical after
each blast round, and are thus loaded by rock deformations accompanying the advance of the face.
Shotcrete might be installed either immediately or after the face has been advanced sufficiently that
, blasting would not impact the young shotcrete. Final support, such as concrete, or in some cases
additional rockbohs and shotcrete, is applied well "after excavation; if the excavation has already
stabilized, the final support may never experience any impact from the in situ stresses. This is
• illustrated in Figure 8-1 b. If the supports are installed after B, no load is developed in the support.
If the supports are installed near the face--for example, after deformation represented by C--then
as the face advances, the drift perimeter will further deform, loading the support system. If inst'died
later--for example, at Point E--the load transferred to the supports will be less.

The stiffness of the support system affects the loading in the supports because stiff systems
will assume high loads with little ground movement. Softer, more flexible systems do not assume
high loads, but may allow excessive deformation in the rock, possibly leading to unstable conditions.
This is illustrated in Figure 8- la by lines C-D, C-E, and C-F where C-F represents the more flexible
support system.

For design of the ground support system using simplified two-dimensional techniques, the
detailed sequence of support installation and excavation cannot be modeled. To overcome this,
one approach suggested in the shaft design methodology document (PBQD, 1990) is to apply a
reduced percentage (n percent) of the in situ stress to the support system. In essence, this method
assumes that the excavation will deform under the action of most of the far-field stress (100-n
percent) before the ground support system is installed. The ground support/rock interaction occurs
during the relaxation of the remainder (n percent) of the far-field in situ stress.

Table 8-1 lists suggested percentages of the excavation-induced deformation resisted by

the ground support system. Also shown is the typical distance between the face and the support
system. The numerical values for the percent of excavation-induced deformation resisted by the
supports shown are established as follows. The final supports are inst'died well beyond the face
after the elastic ground deformations accompanying excavation have occurred. The 15% number
for the final supports is taken from the shaft design methodology document (PBQD, 1990) where
15% of the in situ stress is used in the design of the concrete liner in the shaft. When rockbolts are
the primary means of support, it is assumed they are installed as close to the face as practical.

Following discussions presented by St. John (1987b), it has been assumed that this will
lead to the bolts being loaded by 75% of the excavation-induced deformation around the drift.
Shotcrete is assumed to be installed at least one round (typically 3 to 5 m) from the face; thus, the
shotcrete is installed after a significant percentage of the excavation-induced deformation has
- occurred.

In better quality rock, when excavated using a full-face boring machine, bolts and shotcrete
" would be applied behind the machine or up to 10 to 15 m behind the face. In this case, the assumption
of installation of supports close to the face, as shown in Table 8-1, should be used because these
assumptions will result in conservative overestimates of bolt and shotcrete loads.

The deformation resulting from the excavation and the loads imposed on the ground support
system from the relief of the in situ stress is small relative to the thermal loads and, possibly, the
seismic loads.

I_-3
 Table 8-1

SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE OF EXCAVATION.INDUCED

GROUND DEFORMATION
i

I' II II

Ground Support Percent vf Excavation- Typical Distance Between .

Component Acting on Induced Ground Face and First Support
Supports Deformation Acting on
Supports

Primary Supports
Rockbolts 75 0 to 7 m
Shotcrete 50 5 to 7 m
Steel sets* 75 0 to 7 m

Final Supports
Rockbolts 25 7 to 100 m
Shotcrete 25 7 to 100 m
Concrete or steel sets, etc. 15 7 to 100 m

* for locally very poor ground

i [ I i iii i i llllllii iii i

8.1.2 Rock Mass Failure Mechanisms

The potential failure mechanisms of rock influence the ground support selection, selection
of bolt accessories, and length and orientation of bolts. Structurally controlled mechanisms include
slip-along joints, fractures, bedding planes, or faults, and result in block fallout, raveling and/or
collapse. Stress-controlled mechanisms result in elastic deformation, compressive or shear yielding,
splitting, or rock bursts. For weaker rocks, squeezing and heave can result from plastic yielding of
the host medium.

In Part A of the drift design methodology, the nature of the host rock was assessed and the
rock deformations analyzed on the basis of the expected controlling deformation modes. The ground
support system provides a safety factor to account to some extent for secondary deformation
mechanisms that have not been explicitly addressed in the previous analysis. The analytical results
are used to evaluate the potential for unsafe conditions or rock fallout from the primary failure
mechanisms of joint slip, compressive yield of the host rock, or tensile splitting. The design analysis
methods do not address secondary mechanisms of failure associated with creep, rate of loading,
chemical degradation, or moisture effects of the host rock.

8.1.3 Functional Requirements of Ground Support

The primary role of the ground support is to ensure safety and usability of the drifts during
the operational period. This requires limiting rock deformations and providing superficial protection
from deterioration or weathering of the host rock. To limit deformations, the ground support system
may be required to reinforce the rock mass, to pin joints or blocks together, to suspend rock loads,
or to support potential loose (or yielded) rock by providing structural load transfer to the floor. In
some unfavorable ground conditions, the ground support components might be required to yield to
accommodate large rock deformations.

8-4
 The requirements identified in Chapter 3 are specific to the main access and other drifts
and recognize that maintenance and, for some drifts, rehabilitations of drifts and the ground support
system may be required to ensure drift performance in the preclosure period. For the emplacement
drifts, maintenance and rehabilitation may be required before reentry for retrieval, but when the
drifts are sealed after waste emplacement, some miror rock falls can be tolerated. In the tuff main
° drifts, the ground support system must be conservalively designed because the drifts will be in
continuous use and unscheduled downtime to repair, replace, or enhance the ground support system
, would be disruptive and inconvenient.

8.1.4 Ground Suooort Material Behavior

This section discusses the material properties of the ground support system and their
relationship to meeting the functional requirements, lmportmat characteristics are strength, ductility,
durability, and thermal compatibility with the host rock.

Rockbolts typically are made from high-strength steel with yield strengths in the 400 to
550 MPa (60,000 to 80,000 psi) range. Commercially available bolts are also fabricated from
fiber-reinforced epoxies, wood, and steel strands and wires; however, the high temperatures in the
emplacement drifts and long-term performance goals would eliminate the use of wood and epoxies
in those drifts. The steel yields at 60,000 psi but has an ultimate load of 90,000 psi and can sustain
strains of 25%. lt is desirable for the thermal expansion coefficient of the rockbolts, typically
11 x 106 m/m'K, tobe similar to that of tuff(8.8 × 106 m/m'K). The grade of steel used forrockbolts
will be specified by the design and quality control testing performed to ensure that the steel meets
the strength, ductility, and thermal expansion specifications.

Concrete, grout, and shotcrete form components of the ground support system and have
widely varying properties depending on cement content, aggregate size distributions, water-to-
cement ratio, additive and mixing, placement, and curing conditions. Discussion of the properties
for these materials is included in the ACI codes. The shotcrete/concrete mixes will have to be
optimized to provide desirable strength, deformability, durability, and thermal characteristics.

The elevated temperature environment in the waste emplacement, midpanel emplacement,

and to a lesser extent, tuff main drifts imposes unusual conditions for design of the ground support
components. Compatibility of the components with the rock and potential long-term temperature
activated chemical interactions indicate a high degree of uncertainty in the ground support com-
ponents long-term performance (but still within the preclosure period). The maintenance program
and replacement of components (if needed) alleviates some of the impact of this uncertainty.
Maintenance/replacement can be time-consuming and expensive, and for the emplacement rooms
that will require cooling, could be impractical if frequent. Hence, demonstration of performance
• and development of some components of the ground support system is anticipated in the ESF and
performance confirmation area.

" Yielding of the rock mass can cause bolt failure, particularly if the bolts are fully coupled
to the rock. Special rockbolt design will be required to accommodate the thermal expansion and
yield of the rock mass. Specifically, the stiffness of bolts may have to be reduced to accommodate
the rock deformations.

8.1.5 Ground Support Failure M¢ch_lnism_s

The potential failure mechanisms of typical ground support components (mainly

bolts/shotcrete) consist of yield or rupture of components, corrosion and debonding, dehydration
of cementitious materials, creep of grout anchor or plate failures, deterioration, and strain incom-
patibility. The following lists detailed failure mechanisms for specific ground support components.

8-5
 • corrosion of bolt

• failure of anchorage (for point-anchored bolts)

• debonding of bolt-grout or grout-rock contact

• anchorage failure

- plate bending

- plate pullthrough

- corrosion of bolt or plate

• stress failure of bolt (overload)

• creep/relaxation of bolt tension

• bolt bending failure because of block rotations

Wire Mesh/Stratus
• failure at bolt/mesh interface

• tension failure of steel mesh

• puncturing of mesh by block fallout

• tensile cracking

• debonding between rock and shotcrete

• compressive failure

• shear punching

• dehydration, chemical degradation

• corrosion of reinforcing fiber or mesh

• debonding from reinforcement

..t

Failure often results from improper installation procedures or poor quality control during
application.

8.2 Ground Support Design Analysis

Analysis of the ground support performance in the thermal environment imposed after
waste emplacement is necessary to ensure compatibility between the rock deformations and the
support system. Two types of analyses are recommended: uncoupled and coupled. Uncoupled
analysis as described below is useful when the ground support system is not expected to modify
the deformation response of the rock mass or significantly modify the rock mass strength. Coupled

8-6
7
 analysis is recommended if significant rock yield is projected. The ground support design analysis
should recognize the five rock mass quality categories and the load combinations identified in
Section 5.1.4.

• 8,2,1 Uncoupled Analysis

Uncoupled analysis is a technique to assess the loads in the rock support components based
• on the unsupported deformation projected in the rock. This technique assumes that the temperature
of the ground support component is the same as the rock and will expand or contract depending on
the temperature change in the rock and the thermal expansion coefficient of the component.

For a rockboh component, the stress change O'vin a bolt can be calculated using

At_b = Eb [AE,-IZATb] , (16)

where Eb = the elastic modulus of the bolt,

ct = coefficient of thermal expansion of the bolt,
ATb = average temperature change along the bolt, and
At., = strain change in the rock over the bolt length of interest.

The temperature change and strain in the bolt are determined from the unsupported drift analysis.
The strain change is calculated from when the bolt is installed using the guidelines established in
Section 8. I. 1.

A similar approach can be used to estimate the stress in shotcrete. Here the shotcrete is
assumed compatible with the perimeter of the drift and at the same temperature as the drift perimeter.
Fo, both the shotcrete and bolting uncoupled analysis, thermal induced loads cannot be separated
and imposed as far-field boundary stress changes without a corresponding thermal expansion of
the _hole system.

Rockbolts are not always compatible with deformation of the rock mass. For example,
bolt anchors may slip, plates can yield, and special purpose yielding bolts can be used. The need
to design for yield in the bolt, plate, or anchoring system can be assessed by the uncoupled analysis.

This method assumes that the ground support system does not impact the deformation of
the rock. Clearly the intent of the ground -upprt s;,:stem is to limit rock deformations and inhibit
block fallout. However, the ground support system provides only minor forces relative to those
around the drift and in some cases does not significantly modify the rock stress. In cases where
this is not so, fullv coupled analysis is recommended.

o 8.2.2 Coupled Analysis

Coupled analysis includes the effect of the ground support component in the complete
analysis. For two-dimensional analysis, this requires a simplification of the bolt geometry to that
of an infinite plate, but for shotcrete linings, no geometric simplification is required.

8.3 Ground Support Evaluation

The grt_und 5uppul t t.t,_l_pu,,_.,,{ ..,u,..._.,,,....,

............ l-""-'.'"-'""t;'t'_4I.,
V,.,. da,_...... -.- rtr_.
,,nc'n,,pl_cl........_ coupled analv'c,e_.
are evaluated with regard to the required safety factors. In some cases, the themml expansion
mismztch between the rock and boltjshotcrete is expected to result in overload to the component
'_hereby requiring redesign of that component.

. 8-7/8-8
 9.0 FINAL DESIGN EVALUATIONS

This section extends the discussion presented in Chapter 7; it is necessary to reevaluate

the stability goals to include the effects of the ground support. Additional performance goals such
as material and nonradiation safety must be assessed for compliance. Material constraints may
' limit the options used for ground support systems before repository closure.

" 9.1 Evaluation of Final Design

This step involves evaluation of the drift design, together with any ground support system,
against ali performance goals. The performance goals and drift design criteria of Chapter 4 should
be reevaluated with the results of the coupled analysis of specific ground support components. The
adequacy of the support system to limit local rock fallouts and to meet the maintenance goals should
be evaluated. The compatibility of the support system components with long-term performance
goals should be confirmed.

During this final evaluation, the impact of stress redistribution and drift construction on
the long-term performance objectives should be evaluated. In this long-term evaluation, the function
of backfill should be considered. The postclosure evaluation includes assessment of the potential
for one order of magnitude permeability modification beyond 3 m of the drift perimeter, the potential
for continuum joint slip between the disturbed zone and either the water table or the surface, and
the potential for more than 1 m of relative displacement of the top of the TSw 1 Unit.

The final design should be refined to incorporate initial and final support, reviewed for
compatibility with the construction method, and integrated with field procedures.

9.2 Final Modifications

In the final modifications of the design, the option of modifying either the loads and/or the
layout (as in Section 7.2), or the performance goals is allowed. The option to modify goals is
retained because as stated in the outset, the goals are not rigidly fixed requirements and are likely
to change as the project matures and the repository nears licensing and construction.

9.3 Final Design Specifications

The final design consists of the drift dimensions (geometry) and ground support require-
ments for the range of expected geologic conditions. Not included here but certainly part of a final
. design are the procedures needed to install and maintain the support system. If removal of the
ground support is required, then removal procedures must be developed.

9.4 Field Procedur?s

Standardized field procedures must be developed to characterize the rock during con-
struction, because such data will be used as input for selection of the appropriate support system
compatible with the exposed conditions. Instrumentation must also be installed so that the adequacy
of the design can be verified. Monitoring data generated by such instrumentation may also feed
back into a program of adaptive design (an observational approach).

9-1/9-2
 10.0 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY

This section summarizes the steps of the preliminary drift design methodology. The steps
are as follows:
q

1. Establish the functional requirements and performance goals for the drifts and develop
drift stability criteria.

2. Establish site characteristics and their credible range for design.

3. Establish repository layout.

4. Define design basis loads.

5. Quantify thermal and seismic loads at specific drift locations and drift types based on
thermal mechanical analysis (excluding influence of drifts) and critical incidence of seismic
waves.

6. Develop candidate drift designs and perform parametric/tradeoff studies.

7. Select preliminary drift shapes.

8. Perform analyses (empirical/numerical) for drifts and intersections.

9. Select preliminary ground support system from empirical and numerical results.

10. Evaluate the drift design against stability and temperature criteria before proceeding with
more detailed analyses.

11. If the criteria were not adequately met for normal repository conditions, modify the drift
shape or loads (panel APD or layout standoff distance to waste) and redo the analyses until
criteria are satisfied. If criteria cannot be met, review criteria and performance goals.

12. Perform uncoupled analysis of preliminary grouncl support system using uncoupled
methods.

13. Perform coupled analyses of the drift and ground support system including rock and thermal
interactions.

- 14. Evaluate drift and ground support design versus ali stability and temperature criteria and
performance goals.

15. Establish ground conditions for which construction and/or waste emplacement should be
avoided.

16. If ali criteria and goals are not met, then the option exists to modify the loads and/or layout
as before and redo the analyses or modify the drift stability criteria or performance goals.

17. Meet ali the criteria and goals and produce the final design (drift geometry and ground
support requirements).

in
l,,-,,-_t_c,n_ m_v c_C_c'l_r the.above steps as indicated in the flowchart previously discussed
(Figure 2-2).
-

10-1/10-2
 11.0 DEVELOPMENT OF DRIFT DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The drift design methodology will evolve from its present form before repository license
application. Procedures will be developed during the site characterization period to implement the
, design to incorporate characterization data gathered during repository drift construction. This
evolution will include more reliance on field site-specific data and less reliance on numerical
techniques for near-term stability assessment. Numerical predictions of drift stability will still be
- relied upon to assess the effects of the thermal loads or preclosure and postclosure stability but will
be based on site-specific conditions.

Depending on conditions exposed during the ESF drifting, the numerical modeling basis
for the design may evolve to be more or less complex than proposed at present. After exposure of
ground conditions, it may be possible to demonstrate that two-dimensional elastic analysis of the
drifts is sufficient and conservative for drift design. Alternatively, the rock mass structure could
control drift stability and the selection and performance of the ground support systems; this may
require three-dimensional modeling of the jointed system. Only the results of detailed monitoring
of ground movement and support loads and specific tests to quantify rock mass or jointing material
properties and geometric configurations will enable a discussion regarding the appropriate char-
acterization of the rock mass to be undertaken. If the rock structure dominates, then an effort should
be required to improve the present capabilities of modeling in three dimensions, the rock structure,
opening geometries, and support system interactions.
 12.0 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF DRIFT
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AT YMP

A preliminary application of the drift design methodology applied to the tuffmain, midpanel
• emplacement, and emplacement drifts for the reference vertical emplacement is presented. For the
sake of clarity, the section headings correspond directly with the 16 steps outlined in the Summary
of Methodology (Chapter 10). This application is considered preliminary because

• there is limited site-specific data available at this time;

• there are incomplete iterations and some criteria are not met with the designs
presented here;

• there is incomplete application (the analysis of intersections, application of the

distinct joint/fault models, or final designs of the ground support/rock rein-
forcement system components are not included here).

For this example, the drift shape and size of the SCP-CDR will be adopted with the
assumption that they meet the functional requirements.

The data presented were obtained or derived from the best available field and laboratory
data at the time the report was written, and must be reevaluated prior to design. This reevaluation
may include recommendations of more robust methods of data interpretation as more and better
data become available. For example, the database currently available does not permit a good sta-
tistical treatment of the data.

Care should be exercised in placing undue emphasis on the currently available data because
in many instances the database is incomplete and of unknown quality. Core hole data collected in
the early site-screening phases were not intended for repository design purposes and could be
misleading. The examples presented here are intended to illustrate the recommended procedures
for processing field and laboratory data for use in design. The final repository will be based on the
complete database developed during the site characterization phase.

12.1 Establish Functional Requirements, P.erformance Goals and Develop

Drift Stability Requiremenl$

The functional requirements of the tuff main, midpanel emplacement, and emplacement
drifts are adopted from the SCP-CDR (SNL, 1987). Table 12-1 summarizes the functions of each
, of those three drifts during the preclosure period. To establish the shape and cross-sectional area
requirements of the drifts requires that all pieces of equipment and their relationship with other
facilities and equipment in the drift be assessed. Currently many of the mechanical components
- are not developed beyond conceptual sketches, but can be designed to fit within a drift envelope.
The critical element controlling the emplacement-drift shape and size is the envelope of the waste
transporter and shielding during emplacement. Passing of two transporters is not required in the
emplacement drift. The waste transporter is approximately 25 ft long, 10 ft wide and 8 ft high. The
waste canister is 15 ft 6 in. long requiting an emplacement drift opening dimension of 21 ft 6 in.
(Stinebaugh and Frostenson, 1986). The ventilation layouts in the SCP-CDR indicate maximum
airflow requirements in the emplacement drifts to be 45,000 and 349,000 cfm in the tuff main.

12.2 Establish Site Characteristics and Credible Range for Design

Site-specific geotechnical data for the repository horizon at the Yucca Mountain Site is
limited at this stage of the project. As site characterization continues, the geotechnical database

12-1
12-2
 for the repository horizon will be enhanced to allow the definition of statistical levels of confidence
that would bound the frequency of occurrence of different rock mass qualities and, thereby, allow
better estimates of ground support requirements, construction methods, and repository construction
costs. This section illustrates a methodology that uses the existing database to estimate rock mass
properties for repository drift design for most expected repository conditions.
ii

Mechanical properties consistent with the current range of rock mass quality estimates for
the middle Topopah Spring Member (TSw2) at the Yucca Mountain Site are developed here to
" demonstrate the application of the proposed drift design methodology. Section 12.2.1, the rock
mass quality estimates developed by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986) using both the Norwegian Geo-
technical Institute (NGl) Q (Barton et al., 1974) and RMR (Bieniawski, 1979) indices, provided
the basis for defining different rock mass categories for analysis. Empirical correlations between
the rock mass quality (Q or RMR) were then used to develop values of input parameters required
for the equivalent-continuum models using either the CJM or Mohr-Coulomb yield model.

The factors affecting variability of rock mass properties include joint frequency and
orientation, variation of joint properties, and variability in the properties of the matrix tuff material.
In this methodology, the jointing variability is represented in the RQD, RMR, and Q ratings. There
is also variability in the matrix materials as a result of variability in porosity and the degree of
welding of the tuff. In the methodology, no attempt has been made to quantify the range of porosity
and deFee of welding at the repository horizon. Instead, the range of expected matrix propertie_
is used directly from existing experimental data.

12.2.1 Rock Mass Quality

Rock mass quality (Q or RMR), calculated using numerical indices that describe the range
of various structural geologic and geotechnical parameters, is used to estimate some rock properties
and to assess ground support requirements. The parameters used in the two systems and the ranges
in values determined for the TSw2 Unit by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986) are listed in Table 12-2.
The RMR and Q values are calculated as follows:

RMR = C + RQD + JF + JC + JW + AJO (17)

and

RQD JR Jw
Q- .Iu x "_ax SR-"-F " (18)

. The symbols are explained in Table 12-2. Parameter ranges used in this evaluation are the same
as those recommended by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986) with the exception of the rock quality des-
ignation (RQD) parameter, common to both the RMR and NGI classification and the SRF used in
the NGI system.

12.2.1.1 RQD Range RQD is an important index in both classification systems and allows
site- or strata-specific variations to be introduced into the estimates of rock mass quality. Because
it is usually generate,_ from cores, it allows the definition of lateral change before the development
of extensive excavation. RQD values used to develop the expected range of rock mass quality were
from four core holes, G- 1, GU-3, G-4 and UE-25a#1, drilled at the Yucca Mountain Site. The RQD
data were not directly generated during core logging, but were later calculated by Langkopf and
Gnirk (1986) from core loss and broken core on a cored interval basis. Average values of RQD for
each hole ranged from 35 to 80% for the TSw2 Unit, which varied in thickness between 55.1 and
150.5 m.

12-3
 Table 12-2

CLASSIFICATION PARAMETERS AND ESTIMATED RANGE OF VALUE

classification ........... m

System i ll'i i "

Parameter
i. i if ii ii wl
Descri ption
'" ' .,., , ,ii ii llll. i i ii
Ran ge*
, i fl "

N'GI-Q system RQD Rock quality designation 35.0 to 80.0 ,

JN
,i
Joint set number , ., ,
6.0 to 12.0
....

JR Joint roughness number 4.0 to 2.0

J^ ,
Joint alteration number
, ,i ,,,
1.0 to 4.0
, ,

Jw Joint water reduction factor ,, ,

1.0 ,,,

SRF Stress reduction factor 1.0

, ,,
Q Rock mass quality
,, ,
1.46 to 53.3 ,,,,

RMR system C Intact core strength rating , ,

12.0 j

.
RQD Rock quality designation rating 8.0 to 17.0
JF Spacing of joint, rating
, , . , . ,
10.0 to 20.0
JC Joint condition rating 20.0 to 25.0
JW Groundwater rating 10.0
AJO Adjustment for joint orientation 0.0 to -12.0 ,, ,

RMR Rock mass rating ,,,,

48.0 to 84.0
* Langkopfand Gnirk (1986)

The use of the TSw2 interval averages for RQD range would not be appropriate for final
design purposes because vertical intervals with thickness greater than the height of the proposed
vertical emplacement drift (5.2 m) had RQDs that ranged from zero to 160%. Ideally, lateral
variation of RQD would be developed by projecting the repository horizon through the four holes.
However, the current level of stratigraphic uncertainty is large and only hole G-4 was drilled within
the repository boundary. To illustrate the characterization of lateral variation and overall expected
RQD range of the repository horizon, a 24.4-m (80 ft) interval near the center of the TSw2 Unit
was chosen (Figure 12-1). Weighted average RQDs were generated for intervals above and below
the center. The RQD derived in this manner varied between 9 and !00%.

Figure 12-2 shows the 6.1-m (20 ft) interval RQD data developed in the central 24.4 m
(80 ft) of each of the four core holes plotted as the cumulative probability of occurrence in percentage
versus RQD. Values for design are selected for probability o_ occurrence to give a range of RQD
from extremely poor to good. For example, at the RQD value of 9%, there is only a 5% probability
of a lower value being encountered within the selected 24.4 m interval. The distribution of ali 6.1-m
RQD from the TSw2 Unit intervals for the four holes is also shown for comparison.

12.2.1.2 Range of Parameters for Rock Mass Quali!y Values In establishing the
range of the RMR and Q values, the possible range of each individual parameter was established
and a statistical approach used to select values for five possible rock mass categories. Probability
levels were generated for each parameter used to calculate the rock mass quality.

12-4
12-5
12-6
 The SRF was selected to range from 5.0 for the extremely poor rock to 1.0 for the good
rock. The SRF had been assigned a constant value of 1.0 by Langkopf and Gnirk (1986) based
upon intact core strength data and the projected depth of the repository horizon. That approach is
appropriate for competent rock with high rock mass quality and little geologic structure. Rock with
low RQD and low rock mass quality, as suggested by the range of RQD, would have higher values
' of SRF. An SRF of 5.0 is suggested by Banon et al. (_ _74) for rock masses with loose open joints,
heavily jointed masses, or "sugar cube," etc., at any depth.
d,

Specific values for most other parameters (Ju, JR, Ja, Jw) were selected using a similar
approach, except that the data were assumed to be uniformly distributed over the range reported by
Langkopf and Gnirk (1986). Figure 12-3 illustrates the uniform distribution for the RMR parameter
joint frequency (JF).

The direction of scaling with regard to the rock mass category is based on the impact of
the parameter in the rock mass quality evaluation. In the RMR system, an increasing numerical
value is uniformly consistent with higher rock quality or less adverse stability impact. In the NGl
system, the direction of scaling reverses depending upon whether the parameter appears in the
numerator or denominator in Equation 18.

The parameter values corresponding to each rock mass category are listed in Tables 12-3
and 12-4.

The effect of the thermally induced and seismic stresses can be incorporated into the Q
system by suitably modifying the SRF to reflect the total in situ plus thermal plus seismic stresses.
The modified Q values for the three drift locations and stress concentrations are presented in
Section 12.7.1.

12.2.1.3 _ock Mass Ouali! Used for M hanica! Prooerties Corr " A
review of the Q and RMR values in Tables 12-3 and 12-4 indicates that the relative rock qualities
predicted by the two systems are different. This is due primarily to the use of a range in the SRF
in the NGl system to account for changes in structural effects consistent with the RQD range, while
a constant strergth index was used in the RMR system. The NGI-Q values were translated into
direct RMR values using a correlation Equation 19 proposed by Bieniawski (1976)'

RMR=9LnQ.44 . (19)

The design RMR was selected as the average of the RMR values produced using Equation 19 and
the RMR values derived from Equation 18, as shown in Table 12-5.

12.2.2 Properties for the Compliant JointModel

• Properties required for input in the CJM include joint geometric parameters, joint
mechanical properties, and mechanical properties of intact material between the joints. Rock mass
quality ranges were used to develop the joint spacings. Joint persistence was then estimated from
traces of joints on photographs of an outcrop of the TSw2 horizon, and used to develop ranges of
frictional properties. Joint stiffnesses were estimated based upon the range in experimental data
for tests on tuff samples. Intact mechanical properties were based upon data in the RIB (see Appendix
C). Properties are developed for each of the rock mass quality categories ranging from extremely
poor (1) to good (5).

1.2.2.2.1 Joint Geometric Properties The CJM is currently based upon orthogonal
orientation of two joint sets. Frequency and spacing distribu'ions of joints logged in core holes and

12-7
12-8
 Table 12-3

LEVEL OF PROBABILITY FOR SELECTED NGl PARAMETERS

......... , ...... i .ul [ I li i lll|l i _, = Ji ii i i ,w.i,......... ,,

. Parameter Range i
Value at Level of Probability
ii, |,

(Bad to Good) 5% 20% 40% 70% 90%

• RQD
i i iiii ]] ] i] i i
9.0 to 100.0
illll
9.0 i i i
22.0 49.0
Jill iii
81.0
i lH
86.0 IU

JN
iii i
12.0 to 6.0 ii
11.7 ii i
10.8
]] u ]]
8.4 ] ]iii
7.8 ii li i
6.6

i]
JR
ii ] ]]E
2.0 to 4.0 i i
2.1
] i i i IHll I li
2.4 2.8
lE ]
3.4
] I ]l
3.8
J^
...........................
4.0 to 1.0 3.9 i
3.4 , ,, ,
2.8 i i
1.9 i ,1|,,
1.3
,,.

SRI= 5.0 to 1.0 4.8 4.2 3.4 2.2 1.4

iiii i i i [ ]1 iii ]iii i ]]

Jw . i,
1.0 1.0 1.0' 1.0 1.0
i i , i.
1.0
i i,i i

Q ,t ,,, ,
0.08 to 29.4
,. ,
0.08 |,,
0.34 1.68 ii,
8.4 27.2ii,

Relative Classification Extremely Very

Poor Poor Poor Fair Good
, |,|L i i . , i

Rock Mass Category ,, ,, .

1 ,
2 3 i,j.
4 i
5 |H|

Table 12-4

LEVEL OF PROBAP, ILITY FOR SELECTED RMR PARAMETERS

" RMI_' ' Range .......... Value at Level o'f Probability i

Parameter
, ,,J ii m
(Bad to Good) i ' ._l l l.,.]
5%
_
20%
JJ , |1,
40% 70% 90%
i

Strength (C) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0

lBl II I m II I I II II ] IqL i ] I [ I I I II II

RQD Rating i ii ] ]
1.8 to 18.6 ii ii lE
1.8 i
4.4 ]
9.8 16.2 ]]
17.2
Joint frequency (JF)
. i
10.0 to 20.0 i
11.0 12.0
i
14.0 17.0 19.0 i

Joint condition (JC)

. , .H
20.0 to 25.0 H, i ,
20.3 ,m.
21.0 22.0 23.5 24.5
Joint water (JW) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
" Adjustment for joint often- -12.0 to -0.0 -11.4 -9.6 -7.2 -3.6 -1.2
ration (AJO)
,, . | , - ,,.

• RMR 44 to 78 43.7 49.8 60.6 75.1 77.6

Relative Classification Very

Fair Fair Good Good Good
Rock Mass Category 1 2 3 4 5

12-9
 Table 12-5

FINAL RMR VALUES FOR LEVELS OF PROBABILITY

........
Rock Mass Quality "Range " '"Rock MassQuality'Category
,,i,

,,,',", ',,'
Index
ii'
(Bad to Good)
' ' ' "
1 .....
2 3 4 5
i.i

NGI-Q 0.08 to 27.2 0.08 0.34 1.68 8.4 27.2 -

RMR = 9 Ln Q + 44 21.3 to 73.7

i i
21.3 i
34.3 48.7 63.2 73.7
i,i

RMR i
43.7 to 81.5 43.7 49.8 60.6 75.1 i
81.5
Design Value RMR i i i i ,1|
32.5 to 77.6 32.5 a2.1 54.7 69.2 77.6
1 = extremely poor, 2 = very poor, 3 =poor, 4 = fair, 5 = good

reported in the RIB are listed in Table 12-6. Predominantly vertical joints are indicated; however,
because orthogonal joint sets may be considered in the compliant joint analysis, a horizontal set is
included to account for the limited non-vertical joints.

The spacings of the joint sets for each rock mass quality category were required to account
for the range of expected rock conditions. Equation 5 (from Section 5.2.1.3) was used to estimate
the joint spacing for each rock mass quality category.

The mean joint frequency for the range in RQD reported in Table 17-7 was 40.2 m_
(RQD = 9%) to 3.6 m" (RQD = 95%). These values compared very well to the total joint frequency
calculated by summing the upper bound and lower bound values reported in the RIB, as shown in
Table 12-6.

Joint spacings calculated for each of the five rock mass quality categories are shown in
Table 12-7. The method used to calculate horizontal and vertical joint spacings was as follows.
The mean joint frequency from Equation 5 was assumed equal to the total frequency, and then the
frequency for horizontal (0 to 20") and vertical (70 to 90 °) dip were calculated using recommended
frequency percentages listed in Table 12-6. Spacings were then corrected using the method of
Terzaghi (1965), which considers the effect of angle between the strike of the joint and the line
along which joints are mapped on the spacing observed.

12.2.2.2 Joint Frictional Strength Joint frictional strength in the CJM is described by

"r= So + atan_, (20)

m

where x = joint shear stress,

So = intrinsic shear resistance or cohesion,
= joint friction angle, and
cs = joint normal stress.

The parameters So and _ are established in the design methodology as a function of a weighted
average of the jointed and intact properties which depends upon the continuity, X, of the joint surface.
The weighted average strength for a Mohr-Coulomb representation of joint strength is described
by Equations 11 and 12 in Section 5.2.4.6.

12-10
 Table 12-6

FRACTURE FREQUENCIES DERIVED FROM

YUCCA MOUNTAIN CORE HOLE DATA

• Dip Recommended Recommended upPer Lower "

Interval Frequency Frequency Bound Bound
. (degrees) (m "1) (%)
lell
(m "!) (m "l)
0 to 10 0.20 1.23 0.50 0.05
10 to 20 0.20 1.23 ,,
0.60 0.05
20 to 30 0.20 .
1.23 0.60 i i
0.05
30 to 40 0.10 0.60 0.30 0.05
40 to 50 0.20 1.23 i
0.40 0.05
50 to 60 i
0.20 1.23 0.50 0.05
60 to 70 0.30 1.84 0.70 0.10
70 to 80 1.70 10.43 J
2.60 ,i ,,,
0.70
80 to 90 13.20 80.98 32.50 2.50
TOTAL 16.30 100.00 38.70 3.60

Table 12.7

FRACTURE FREQUENCY AND SPACING BASED ON RQD

III

Rock Mass Quality 1 ' 2 3 4 5

Category
RQD 9 22 49 81 86
Total Joints/Meter 40.2 28.7 17.1 8.0 6.5
Fracture Frequency
dip 0° to 20 ° 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.16
(uncorrected)
dip 70* to 90 ° 36.7 26.2 15.6 7.3 6.0
• (uncorrected)
dip 0 ° to 20° 1.00 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.16
(corrected)
m v

dip 70" to 90 ° 37.0 26.4 15.7 7.4 6.0

(corrected)
Recommended Joint Spacing (m)
Horizontal 1.0 1.41 2.33 5.0 6.25
Vertical 0.027 0.038 0.064 0.14 0.17

12-11
 Developm_;nt of the continuity, Z, for the Yucca Mountain Site is preliminary and was
based upon traces of joints evident in photographs of pit walls excavated in TSw2 near the Yucca
Mountain Site. The continuity, X, was defined as the percentage of length occupied by the joint
along a linear path containing the joint within the boundaries of the photograph. Data developed
on the fracture trace lengths from the pit photographs are listed in Table 12-8 and indicate that the
vertical oriented fractures had a 10% higher continuity.

For the purpose of this pre'.iminary application, it was assumed that the continuity, Xr, of
vertical fracttn'es would range from 0.50 to 1.00, and for horizontal, XH,would range from zero to
0.50. Continuity was assumed to be uniformly distributed between these limits, and values for each
rock mass category were selected using the approach illustrated in Figure 12-3. The values are
listed in Table 12-9.

Calculation of the joint strengths combined the estimates of continuity with ranges in
parameters of measured joint and intact rock strength presented in the RIB (see Appendix C) and
listed in Table 12-10. These strength parameters were assumed to be uniformly distributed over
the ranges listed in Table 12-10 and values selected using the procedure described in Figure 12-3
for the levels of probability. Selected values of strength (_, C) and continuity (X) were then used
to calculate the we;.ghted overall strength according to Equations 11 and 12 in Section 5.2.4.6. The
resulting joint strength and basis for their calculation are listed in Table 12-11.

12.2.2.3 Joint Stiffness Joint deformations are described by a nonlinear closure relationship
and constant shear stiffnesses. The hyperbolic closure relationship incorporated with the CJM
model uses two parameters, As and u_._, that are defined by laboratory experiments on tuffj_ints.
Shear stiffness is described using a bilinear model with an elastic stiffness, Gs, until the joint
failure surface is reached and with nonlinear yield stiffness, Gs', after the critical shear stress.

Values for the five rock mass categories were developed using the experimental ranges in
normal stiffness parameters. Shear stiffness was assumed to range from 1 x 106 MPaYm to
1.0 x 103 MPa/m on the basis of experiments on tuff samples and joint experimental data reported
by Barton et al. (1974). Direction of the ranges of parameters with respect to confidence levels
were similar to the rock mass qualities. Parameters which produced more deformable joints were
associated with lower rock mass quality. The parameters for each rock mass category are listed in
Table 12-12.

12.2.2.4 Intact Material Elastic Properties Elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio for the
intact blocks of material between joints was assumed to be equivalent to properties developed in
laboratory tests. The intact elastic modulus of 30.4 GPa and a Poisson's ratio of 0.22 was used.

12.2.2.5 Compressive Strength of Intact Blocks The strength of individual: intact

blocks of matrix material was established by using size-strength data, reported by Price (1986).
Block size was defined by the frequency of vertical joints, with the strength of the block calculated
by the size-strength relationship in Equation 7 (Section 5.2.4.3). Failure strength was then evaluated •
using a Hoek and Brown (1980) criterion with the uniaxial compressive as given in Equation 9,
m = 3.0 and s = 1.0. Table 12-13 lists the block strength for each rock mass quality category.

12.2.3 Elasto-Plastic Mechanical Properties

Equivalent-continuum mechanical properties for the Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria were

calculated for each of the five rock mass quality categories. Empirical equations correlating RMR
and strength from Hock and Brown (1988) and Yudhbir et al. (1983) were used.

12-i2
 Table 12.8

PRELIMINARY CHARACTERIZATION OF FRACTURE

CONTINUITY IN TSw2

i
Joint Continuity (X) ,. . . ,

• Orientation No. of Fractures Mean Standard Deviation

. : J ,. _,. , ..... • ,, .-_ , .. , .,,. n i

Vertical 9 0.518 .......... 0A91

i I I ii I i II I i iii i

Horizontal 5 0.415 0.209

ii I_1 7 ) I I I II I

Table 12.9

ESTIMATED JOINT CONTINUITY

FOR PROBABILITY LEVEL

Joint Continuity (X)

Rock Mass
Quality Horizontal Vertical
CategorY ......
1 i ,J i
0.475 i i
0.975
2 0.400 0.900
ii li i ii i I I I II

3 II I
0.300 I
0.800

, m
4, . ,
0.150 ,
0.650
, 11

5 0.050 0.550
l ., , _ , i . lr,,.

Table 12-10

RANGE OF JOINT AND INTACT

ROCK-STRENGTH PARAMETERS

Mohr-Couiomb Parameters
, . ,, ,,,
I

,'I
Type , ,
Cohesion (MPa) .
_ (degrees)
, , , , . ..

Joints 0.0 to 0.2 11.3 to 38.7

Intact rock 18.3 to 37.8 19.7 to 36.5
, ,,._ , . .'

12-13
 Table 12-11

JOINT INTACT ROCK AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE JOINT STRENGTH

USED FOR THE CJM MODEL
, i,n

Joint Strength Intact Rock Weighted Average •

Strength Joint Strength
Rock Mass
Quality S _ C _ S
Category (MPa) i
(degrees) (MPa) i
(degrees) ,
g ,
(MPa) (degrees)
1 0.01 12.6 19.3 20.5 0.975 0.49 12.8
2 0.04 16.8 22.2 23.1 0.900 2.26 17.4
L)
"_
ej
3 0.08 22.3 26.1 26.4 0.800 5.28 23.1
> 4 O.14 30.5 31.9 31.5 0.650 11.26 30.9
5 0.18 36.0 35.9 34.8 0.550 16.25 35.5
1 0.01 12.6 19.3 20.5 0.475 10.14 16.7
_:
e--
2 0.04 16.8 22.2 23.1 0.400 13.30 20.6
.,..q 3 0.08 22.3 26.1 26.4 0.300 18.30 25.2
::Z:: 4 O.14 30.5 31.9 31.5 O.150 27.10 34.1
5 0.18 36.0 35.9 34.8 0.050 34.10 34.9

Table 12-12

CJM JOINT STIFFNESS PARAMETERS FOR PROBABILITY LEVELS

Parameter Range Rock Mass Quality category

(Bad to Good) 1 2 3 4 5

AN 0.5 to 2.0 1.93 1.7 1.4 0.95 0.65

u_ 0.036 to 0.003 mm 0.034 0.029 0.023 0.013 0.006

Gs 103 to 106 MPa/m 50,950 200,800 400,600 700,300 900,100

, ,

12-14
 Table 12-13

ESTIMATED STRENGTH OF INTACT BLOCKS

Rock Mass ' Block* Intact Block '

, Quality Size Strength
Category (m) (MPa)
1 0.027 155.0
2 0.038 155.0
3 0.064 127.1
,,

4 0.135 100.2
i

5 0.170 94.7
i ,

*Equivalent to vertical joint spacing .

12.2.3.1 Rock Mass Failure Criteria The rock mass strength for each rock mass quality
category was estimated following the procedure identified in Section 5.2.4. Table 12-14 lists the
power law strength envelope parameters and Table 12-15 the resulting best fit Mohr-Coulomb
parameters.

12.2.3.2 Rock Mass Tensile Strength Table 12-16 lists the values used in this analysis.
The rock mass tensile strength was determined as half the rock mass joint cohesion.

12.2.3.3 Rock Mass Elastic Modulu_ Values of E for the rock mass were calculated
using Equation 6 up to the value of intact laboratory modulus of 30.4 MPa. Table 12-17 lists the
resulting values.

12.2.3.4 R0¢k Mass Poiss0n's Ralio Empirical correlations between Poisson's ratio and
rock mass quality are not available, and there is no well defined rationale for varying its value with
RMR. The value reported in the RIB was therefore used for ali rock mass quality categories.

12.2.4 Thermal Propertie_

The thermal properties used directly in the drift stability assessment include the specific
heat capacitance, thermal conductivity, and thermal expansion coefficient. These properties are
expected to be variable throughout the repository depending on matrix porosity, moisture content,
and other factors. They are not expected to be significantly influenced by the degree of jointing.
• No rational method has been identified to quantify the range of these parameters, so the same thermal
properties were used for ali analyses reported in this appendix; that is, for ali rock mass qualities.
. The specific values used are based on the RIB values and are listed in Appendix C.

12.3 Repository Layout

The repository layout presented in Section 5.3 was used for this preliminary application.

12.4 Design Basis Loads

v

The preliminary application of the dfi,ft design methodology addresses the following four
load cases:

12-15
 Table 12-14

POWER LAW FAILURE CRITERIA

FOR LEVELS OF PROBABILITY
i ,,, ii, l i , u ..

al = A + B o_3
t.

Rock Mass
Quality Category A B C
1 2.71 9.30 0.5951
2 4.46 9.35 0.6037
3 9.49 9.10 0.6234
4 23.30 8.44 0.6523
5 42.88 7.94 0.6690
, i "'

Table 12-15

MOHR-COULOMB FAILURE CRITERIA FOR VARIOUS

ROCK MASS QUALITY
i' ,,, i i i

Rock Mass Quality Cohesion

Category (MPa)
C
, i ,, i i i i i i iii iii i i r, i

I 1 1.146 43.9
2 1.503 44.2
,,,,,,,

3 2.533 44.1
4 5.464 43.5
5 9.014 43.0
.....,, 1 i

12-16
 Table 12-16

ROCK MASS TENSILE STRENGTH FOR

ROCK MASS QUALITY

Rock Mass
• Rock Mass Quality Estimated Tensile
Category Cohesion Strength
I i ,,
(MPa) (MPa)
,, I

1 0'.49 0.25
2 2.26 1.13
, i ,, H

3 5.28 2.62
,,, i| i

4 11.26 5.63
5 'HHI
16.25 8.10

Table 12-17

ROCK MASS ELASTIC MODULUS FOR

THE RANGE OF ROCK MASS QUALITY

Rock Mass .... Rock Mass

Quality Modulus
Category E
(GPa)
I i... • ,,,',

1 3.65
, i i ii i

ill li
2 i ii
6.35

,
3 ,, i iii
13.11
4 i i
30.20
. ,,
5 ,,,, , ,
30.40
, .......

12-17
 • in situ,

• in situ minus seismic,

• in situ plus thermal, and

t

• in situ plus seismic plus thermal.

Of these four cases, the combination of ali three load types is the most adverse. However, the in situ
minus seismic case does produce some tensile loading that could be adverse to drift stability.

12.4.1 In Situ Stresses

The magnitude and orientation of in situ stresses at Yucca Mountain listed in Table 12-18
were taken from the SCP-CDR (SNL, 1987) and correspond to expected conditions at a depth of
1000 ft. These are listed together with RIB values in Appendix C.

Repository layouts in the SCP-CDR define the direction of drift axes with respect to the
orientations of principal in situ stresses. Tuff main access and waste-emplacement drift axes are
parallel to the maximum horizontal stress, while the midpanel access drift is parallel to the minimum
principal stress.

12.4.2 Thermal Stresses

Thermal stresses are introduced in the drift analysis using different approaches for the
midpanel and tuff main access drifts, and the waste-emplacement drifts, respectively. Thermal
effects in the waste-emplacement drifts are directly calculated by performing a transient heat flow
analysis that simulates the waste container in the drift mesh over a 100-year cycle from waste
emplacement. The calculated temperature changes are then imposed in a coupled, thermome-
chanical analysis with thermal stress changes produced by the resulting temperature-induced thermal
expansion of the rock mass. Thermal stresses of midpanel and tuff main access drifts were derived
from three-dimensional, thermomechanical simulations of the repository. The three-dimensional
analyses produce estimates of the stress state at the centerline of drift locations and these were
imposed as boundary conditions on the finite-element meshes for the midpanel and tuffmain access
drifts. The corresponding change in temperature was also used so that displacements were com-
patible with the process simulated.

Thermal stresses used for the midpanel access and tuff main drifts were assessed for
mid-length in Panel 16 (see Figure 5-4). The thermally-induced shear stresses at the drift location
both in- and out-of-plane ranged between 3 and 9% of the vertical and horizontal stresses and were 0
ignored in the drift stability calculations. The resulting thermal stresses are listed in Tables 12-19
and 12-20 for the midpanel and tuff main drifts, respectively.

The stress changes listed in Tables 12-19 and 12-20 were generated from an elastic analysis
based on the assumption of a homogeneous host rock with an elastic modulus of 15.2 GPa. For the
individual drift analyses using different rock mechanical properties, the stress changes were adjusted
to the rock mass modulus assumed by the following equation. The thermal expansion coefficient
and thermal properties were assumed to be constant independent of rock mass quality.

Ez,,
A ooa - 15.2 Aow, (21 )

12-18
 Table 12.18

MAGNITUDE AND ORIENTATION OF

IN SITU PRINCIPAL STRESSES
i ii T ,

" Stress
Principal Stress Magnitude Orientation
. ii , | ,
(MPa)
, i ii i ii

Vertical 7.0 NA
Maximum Horizontal i
4.2 N32°E
Minimum Horizontal 3.5 N57*W
.....
1 I III

Table 12-19

THERMAL STRESS CHANGE USED FOR MIDPANEL ACCESS DRIFT

Thermal Siress Change (MPa)

Time After Horizontal Horizontal Temperature
Waste Vertical Drift Plane Drift Axis Change
Emplacement o, ox oy (*C)
i
(yrs)
i i ii .i i i i ,, i i ,

0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i

10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

35 -3.60 4.84 0.96 8.0
50 -4.16 7.89
,
3.17 23.0
100 -2.53 10.86 7.24 50.0
x is perpendicular to drift axis,'y is parallel to drift axis

12-19
 Table 12-20

THERMAL STRESS CHANGE USED FOR TUFF MAIN ACCESS DRIFT

T i li i i I ''I' ,,,,, ,,,, ii |' i , ' , i

Thermal Stress Change (MPa)

Time After Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Temperature
Waste o_ Drift Plane Drift Axis Change •
Emplacement a_ _y (°C)
,,.
(yr)
i' i ii i i

0 0.0 0.0
,, ,, ,
0.0 , ...,,
0.0
10 -0.12 0.20 -0.13 0.0
35 -1.70 2.05 -0.71 0.6
., , , .

50 -2.43 3.25 -0.61 3.0

100 -2.68 5.20 0.58 13.0
X is perpendicular to drift axis; y is parallel to drift axis

where A_oA = thermal stress change in drift analysis,

Aa3o = thermal stress change from three-dimensional analysis, and
EpA --- elastic modulus in drift analysis from Table 12-17.

Rock mass modulus ranged from 3.65 to 30.4 GPa for various rock mass qualities assumed in the
drift analysis. This scaling of loads, depending on the rock mass elastic modulus, results in
significantly higher thermal loads for the better quality host rock and significantly lower thermal
loads for the poorer quality rocks. The actual effect is likely to be less extreme if the variations in
rock quality are not systematic.

12.4.3 Seismic Stresses

Seismic loads were calculated using a modified version of the procedures recommended
by the Seismic Working Group (SNL, 1990) and defined in Chapter 5. These seismic loads were
calculated using the wave orientation relative to the drift axis that produced the largest hoop stress
for a circular drift geometry. Peak horizontal and vertical velocities were 0.5 m/sec and 0.33 m/sec,
respectively, which includes the 1.67 magnification factor on the recomme,lded control motions as °
suggested by the Working Group Report (SNL, 1990). A dynamic elas',ic modulus of 23.5 GPa
was assumed based on the SNL (1990) report. Shear stresses were ignored in the calculation of
normal loads applied in the drift analysis. Table 12-21 lists both the seismic loads calculated and
the values used in the drift analysis, which were modified for the rock mass modulus in a manner
identical to Equation 21. The static rock mass modulus was used to scale the seismic loads for
each rock type because the quasi-static seismically imposed loading is expressed as a strain. This
process applies the same strain to each rock mass model, but because of the different elastic modulus
for each case, a different quasi-static stress is applied.

12-20
 Table 12-21

SEISMIC LOADS USED FOR ALL DRIFT ANALYSIS

J, i i i, li, i .|..llll i i i .... ' , ....... ll,i i i,.,

Calculated Seismic Stresses

i , i......

Rock Mass E Horizontal Horizontal

Quality Category Rock Mass Vertical Drift Plane Drift Axis
" (GPa) a, ox oy
H i i ii .m _ i" _ iii li

Reference Stress o,..r_._,_ 23.50 3.13 2.87 1.32

lBl iii I I Iii

1 3.65 0.81 0.74 0.34

li i i i ii ruth UP

2 6.35 1.41 1.29 0.59

. i,. , ,, m i i ,

3 13.40 2.91 2.67 1.23

, i i i

4 30.20 6.70 6.15 2.83

i i ii i i iii iii i i i i i

5 30.40 iiliiq_ i iii

6.75 6.18 2.85

* o = 1.667(E/23.5)o,_te,_

12.4.4 Combined In Situ, Thermal, and Seismic Stresses

For illustrative purposes, Table 12-22 lists the in situ, seismic, and thermal stresses for a
midpanel access drift for ali five rock qualities and the combined compressive stress condition. The
thermal stresses are based on the conditions 100 years after start of waste emplacement listed in
Table 12-20 and modified according to Equation 21.

12.4.5 _Finite-Element Boundary Conditions in Drift Analysi_

Boundary loads for the tuff main and midpanel access drifts were calculated as algebraic
sums of in situ, thermal, and seismic stresses, depending on the particular case. For the
waste-emplacement drift, the in situ and seismic loads were applied as initial stress conditions for
the waste-emplacement drift, with fixed boundaries on the sides and bottom. Thermal stresses were
generated by imposing the temperature fields at various times of analysis.

Boundary loads in equilibrium with the imposed internal stresses were applied to the top
. and side of the midpanel access and tuff main access drifts with fixed displacement boundaries
along the drift centerline and bottom of the mesh. Temperature changes were then imposed to
ensure approximate displacements. Out-of-plane stresses (drift axis) were input as ratios of the
vertical stress and were scaled to produce the correct stress levels under plane-strain assumptions.

12.5 Develop Candidate Drift Designs and Perform Parametri¢/Tradeoff

Studies

This activity has been completed during the development of the SCP-CDR and will be
repeated during future design cycles.

12-21
 Table 12.22

COMBINED LOADS (IN MPa) FOR MIDPANEL ACCESS DRIFT AT 100 YEARS

Rock Mass Combined In .,

Quality situ, Thermal,
Category In situ Stress Seismic Stress Thermal Stress and Seismic
I

t, , , , , i ,,, t ,,,,',, ,

1 4.2 3.5 7.0 0.7 0.3 0.8 2.6 1.7 -0.6 7.5 5.5 7.2
,,, , ,,

2 4.2 3.5 7.0 1.3 0.6 1.4 4.6 3.0 -1.0 10.1 7.1 7.4
,,, , ,

3 a.2 3.5 7.0 2.7 1.2 2.9 9.6 6.3 -2.2 16.5 11.0 7.7
4 4.2 3.5 7.0 6.1 2.8 6.7 21.6 14.3 -5.0 31.9 20.6 8.7
5 4.2 3.5 7.0 6.2 2.8 6.7 21.8 i4.4 -5.0 32.2 20.7 8.7

12.6 Select Preliminary Drift Shapes and Size_

For this preliminary application, the current SCP-CDR shape and size drifts are adopted.

12.7 Perform Analysis of Drift and Intersections

Preliminary empirical/numerical analyses of unsupported drifts and preliraina_ selections

of ground support/reinforcement have been performed. These are summarized in the following
subsections.

12.7.1 Empirical Analysis

The empirical analysis results are shown in Figures 12-4, 12-5 and 12-6 and supported by
Tables 12-23 through 12-28.

Results of application of the Hock method are in Figure 12-4 for the midpanel and
emplacement drift, with supporting data in Table 12-23. The maximum boundary stress was cal-
culated for the midpanel emplacement drift based on an assumed circular excavation and the Kirsch
solution. For the tuff main drift, the thermal stresses are significantly lower than those listed in
Table 12-23. The emplacement drift thermal stresses are similar to the midpanel emplacement drift,
and hence, the range of expected conditions for the drift woul0 be superimposed on the midpanel
emplacement drift case. This empirical method indicates light to medium support for four of five
of the rock categories with no indication of stress induced failure. For Category 4 rock, heavy
support is indicated.

The conditions expected at the emplacement drift are shown on the Schmidt diagram in
Figure 12-5. This method indicates that structurally controlled mechanisms will control stability.

The NGl Banon Method results are shown in Figures 12-6 and 12-7. In the NGl system,
rock support system recommendations are tabulated for 38 support categories shown in Figure 12-7.
Requirements for the five rock mass quality categories are listed in Table 12-24. Factor of safety
is implied in the system by using a parameter called "equivalent dimension," which is the span

12-22
 TUNNEUNG QUALITY INDEX Q
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 4 10 40 100 400 1000

0.1 0.1
STRUCTURALLY_
FAILURE I GENERALLY

• 0.2 0.2

"
li0'' 0.4

0.6 P= Po_rrs_ _
0"
0.4

0.6
\
O.7 _
I ,) _ PRACTICAL _ 0.7
I I kp= ToM,,,T_,
0.8 , , ST,_LE
OeE_'_ _ _ESS 0.8
INDUCED
0.9 /
i EM.URE 0.9
1.0 I I I I I I I ! I I I 1.o
P"
< 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ROCK MASS RATINGS RMR

_ PROJECTED_E OFCONOFRONS
FOREMPLACEMENT
DRIFTS

Figure 12-4. Approximate Support Guidelines for Underground Excavations Proposed by Hoek
(1981) With Range of Expected Conditions for Emplacement Drifts at the YMP

1.2
"1o Unstable

1.0 -- Unstable _ "_

/ I \ "E Rockbursts
0 _ Increasing ,_ I _ 8
"_ 0.8 -- _Yield /Inter- A X_

el: _ _..Lo?king/ _o_- Mild Bursts

oi 0.6 -- Interlocking ./v Slabbing

c- , le,M,nor/ in,king,

0.4 --
(/3 Interlock / .Ill/xi//lA ._
--.- "') - " -,..-_._ .. .. , ,. _. .////////////t Massive, Stable
r_

II ® 0.2- Struv._ra,
L_y,_/, I
_.._f?TP(..fJ////.C 0 n tr_o!1e d V.////_

0.0 _ng_k Falls "x

___
---
Tensile
Splitting
-o.2 I I ! I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modified RQD (RQD._
ANTICIPATED FOR
PJkNGE OF CONDITIONS CURRENTLY
EMPLACEMENT DRIFTS

Figure 12-5. Chart for Estimating Modes of Failure Around Drifts Proposed by Schmidt (1987)
With Projected Conditions for Emplacement Drift at YMP

12-23
 Table 12-23

PARAMETERS IN ASSESSING GROUND SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

FOR HOEK METHOD (Hoek, 1981)

Rock Quality ........ Maximum compressive Stress I Stress

Category Q RMR 3ox - oy (MPa) Strength 2 .
j ,,,

1 0.08 32.5 15.3 0.10

2 0.34 42.1 23 0.15
i ,,

3 1.68 54.7 42 0.27

4 8.4 69.2 ,,
87
,,, ,
0.56
5 27 77.6 88 0.56

J Maximum compressive stress for combined in situ, thermal and seismic = 3ali - ev, where _Jl
is the horizontal stress and av if the vertical stress is the lower stress.
2 Strength = 155 MPa.

12-24
r

o
o

_-:_.....
_i:i_:_il_!!':i
__
'_""_
_:i_
..............
_i........
° _
i, _'_:4:-_., :i :"_:'_-_i:i_::_:::'"'iii'.
i_i
ii:::
_
iii!i
i_,_!_
\ ___::I._,_il_i_ii_i_i!ii!_!
"
iiiii!_
_t_/_ ' \ "_",_' :!i_:::_:i¢:'i
0_ ]:_:.%_|ii'/:": :'¢:fi:_:,_?-.iii'i!:_i{!i,:i:4_i_!-'7
:i_il
:i ;t':::;.".51.:?:0:::.:i.:":_7 .-
:'_" ""_i_" g
"_

i:::"!::.!".
I.'"," //" _ .... :i _....: ........ .".... '": "":::::: _r

>. ,,,,-!ii;!_i]_:i:,
? :::.:.:_
i;.-.-.:-::::;.:::.._!!i]:.::..:.:¢;?:q;_:;;_;/s
0

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
" ::":_ "'& '_i:..::::'::.:_::-o:...,:.::i%--::;i
=
_::.:::
::::ii:_i_i:._:_
k\_ __,:--_
,,_'_5.::::
_,!.:_:.:..:;:::-,.!.:i.._i

....
:::::::::::::::::::::::
e " _" •
"' .4 '::: " _":":":":"
_ :"; : :....:.:.::.;.; :..:.:.:;.

::_:i::_:
::: :_:_i_:::_;_:i!:
i 00
.....::_:.i::::!: 1 v_...,, _ -_-
I ll_n
-,/X'; ,:/,
.... ",;:_::_.:4:
:ii ,,_F"'
• -
:'.!;::_i:!
!:!.:i_:;:::!iiiii!:!
::::::::::::"
:::':':::!:i:!::iSi
:
I_
.- '_
,/._,
- ,, /. - ,-
"//',..._'_.,
.:¢,,- ::. _1

(w) ILI6!aH
Jo_alawe_a
• ueos = uo,suew,a
• ' luele^_nb3
" =
C_ c_

c_

=uO
._=._

12-25
 0 ti.

w 5
oO
\ _ o
o
z _&_ _]
o x r,.)
'-- m ._
• _

+ \ " N

e- 6
o
,,.- _

o
0 C_ 0 0 U") Od _
0 i..0 0_1 ",--

(LU) lq_)_aH J0 '_alaLue_c] 'u_as

• ,
= UOISUSLU!t3 lUaleA!nb=! _

12-26
 | l l l l ,,, ....

.0 0

II _ _ II

-_'__- _ II II _ o _
_ II

,_ --
= _ _
Z _ E sl g ,
_ ._ - _ _ o _

i _ _ ,-. ,....

- _ _ _

E-
Z _. _ _.
o _ o

= E r-• _= _= ._,_ v4

_ _ "_: II _ II

o,, ,, "-- _"_ ,.-, 1_

=, _ _ .=,
= Ev--
,.._.., =
tj; =
r._ Er-- =

_J.uGss_3V l_3!UOApu_
u!elAIjjn,l, sso_aV louedp!IAI

12-27
 Table 12-25

MODIFIED Q (QU) ADJUSTED FOR THERMAL AND SEISMIC LOADS

Rock Mass Q SRF oi1 oc/o_ 2 SRI_ Maximum Q_ 4

Quality (from (MPa) (from o¢/ol) SRF
Category Table 12-3 -
1 '0.08 4.8 7.5" 20.7 1 4.8
-. 0.08
2 0.34 4.2 10.1 15.3 1 4.2 0.34
3 1.68 3.4 16.5 9.4 0.5 to 2 3.4 1.68
4 8.4 2.2 31.9 4.8 5 to 10 5.0 3.7
5 27.2 1.4 32.2 4.8 5 to 10 5.0 7.6
o_ for in situ + thermal + seismic.
2 oc = 155 MPa.
3 SRF for oJo_from Barton et al. (1974).
, QM = modified Q to account for increased stress. ,
12-29
 Table 12-27

ROCK SUPPORT PRESSURES (MPa)

BASED ON EQUATION 13 AND Q"

..... Rock Quality

, ,=,, _ ,,,,

Extremely Very
Poor Poor Poor Fair Good
Q=0.08 Q=0.34 Q=1.68 QM=3.7 QM=7.6
, i

Location for Support Pressure (MPa)

--Crown 0.25 0.13 0.06 0.035 0.023
--Rib 0.25 0.09 0.04
. .I.,,, 0.026 0.017

Table 12-28

STANDUP TIME BASED ON BIENIAWSKI'S RMR ROCK MASS RATING

Rock Mass
Quality RMR Tuff Main Midpanel Emplacement
Category (roof span = 7.63 m) (roof span = 4.88 m) (roof span = 4.88 m)
1 32.5 0 hrs 2.7 hrs ,,
2.7 hrs
2 42.1 14 hrs 30 hrs 30 hrs
3 54.7 260 hrs 600 hrs 600 hrs _
4 69.2 9,000 hrs
,
2,100 hrs 2,100 hrs
5 77.6 45,000 hrs 11,000 hrs 11,000 hrs ,,,,,

12-30
 divided by a usage factor called excavation support ratio (ESR). An ESR value of 1.0 is consistent
witl'_ design of major road and railway tunnels, and 1.3 for storage rooms, water treatment plants,
and minor railway tunnels used for the various repository drifts.

The effect of thermal and seismic stresses can be assessed with the Q system by modifying
• the SRF to account for the increased stresses. In applying this method only the SRF for the two
better rock quality categories would change following the guidelines presented by Barton et al.
(1974). Table 12-25 lists the parameters used for the waste-emplacement drift or midpanel access
" drift. The impact on the tuff main drift would be even less because of the thermal stresses in that
area. Table 12-26 shows the rock support requirements from the modified Q values and shows a
modest increase in ground support/rock reinforcement for the poor and good rock categories.

The support pressures indicated by the NGl method and listed in Tables 12-24 and 12-26
for the extremely poor and very poor rock categories are very high relative to the recommended
ground support pressures calculated using Equation 13 (see Section 6.4.2). The rock support
pressures calculated from Equation 13 are listed in Table 12-27 using the modified Q to reflect the
seismic and thermal loads.

The estimated standup times for each rock mass quality category and drift type arc listed
in Table 12-28. For rock mass Category 1, which has a Q of less than 0.1 and a low RMR, the
standup time for the tuff main drift is estimated to be zero, an unacceptable condition.

12.7.2 NIjmcrical Methods

Results of preliminary analysis of the tuff main access, midpanel access, and waste-
emplacement drifts, using the finite-element program, JAC, for bounttary loads discussed in
Section 12.4, are presented. Extent of the yield zones for both elasto-plastic (Mohr-Coulomb) and
compliant joint models described using the various criteria of yield, crushing strain, and extensile
strain were evaluated to provide a basis for preliminary design of the rock support/reinforcement
system. For the elasto-plastic analysis using Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria presented here, the
nonassociated flow rule with the dilation angle equal to one-half the internal f;iction angle was
used.

12.7.2.1 Tuff Main Access Drill The tuff main access drift was analyzed using in situ
plus thermal plus seismic and in situ minus seismic loadings with the elasto-plastic equivalent and
compliant joint models for ali five rock quality categories. All cases were analyzed except for the
CJM for the good and fair rock under the in situ minus seismic loading case. For the latter two
cases, the horizontal stress field was tensile and greater than the half-closure stress of the joints.
With these conditions and the finite-element boundary conditions, a solution could not be achieved.
For the extremely poor rock under the in situ plus thermal plus seismic loading, joint slip could
occur along horizonl, al joints from the drift floor and roof to the finite-element boundary resulting
in horizontal block motion into the drift. An alternate fixed boundary model was used for this case.
• This problem arose for the extremely poor rock under in situ minus seismic loading also, but
converged numerically to a solution.

The results indicate that the worst-case thermal loading occurs at 100 years after waste
emplacement.

The maximum extent of the yield zone requiring support and the governing criteria for the
tuff main access drifts are summarized in Table 12-29. The table indicates that only the good rock
requires relatively light support with a maximum yield zone of 0.3 m in the drift sidewall and no
yield in the crown. Yield zones develop a maximum depth of 1.87 m for the cases of extremely
poor and very poor (Categories 1 and 2) rock qualities in the drift crown, from the Mohr-Coulomb
model. The Mohr-Coulomb model predicts a yield zone of up to 1.11 m in the ribs for fair rock.

12-31
 Table 12-29

MAXIMUM EXTENT OF FAILED ZONE FOR THE TUFF MAIN ACCESS DRIFT
' , ' ' , =. . .. i

...................... Drift Sidewall J_ Drift Crown ....... ,

" ' " '"' '1 '" " ' " ' ' '

Rock Extent Ex,_ent

Mass Load Governing of Yield Load Governing of
Rock Model Quality Type* Criteria Zone Type* Criteria Yield
Category (m) Zone
(m)
Elasto-plastic ...
1 ITS M-C yield 1.87 ITS
,,,. ,
M-C yield
,,
0.30

i .
2 ITS M-C yield ,,.,
1.87 ITS ,.....
M-C yield
,.. ,, , ,
0.61

......
3 ITS M-C yield ,,,
0.96 ITS .,
M-C yield 0.61 ,

.,
4 ITS M-C yield
,
0.25 IS M-C yield ,
1.11
5 |
ITS J
M-C yield ,,
0.00 ,,
ITS M-C yield 0.30
CIM 1 NA NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00
ii i iii

2 NA NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00
,i i,

3 NA NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00

,,
4 ,
NA
,,
NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00
5 NA NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00
i i, ,, , ,,,, ,,

* ITS = In situ plus Thermal plus Seismic; IS = In situ minus Seismic

, , ,, i ,

12.7.2.2 Midpanel Access Drift The midpanel access drift was analyzed for the five rock
quality categories under the same load combinations for the tuff main access drift using the
elasto-plastic and compliant joint models. Ali cases converged numerically except for the fair and
good rock under in situ minus seismic loading for the CIM where the combined horizontal and
tensile stresses were greater than the joint half-closure stress.

The maximum extent of the yield zone requiring support and the governing yield criteria
are listed in Table 12-30. Yield zones predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb model generally varied
from 0.25 to 0.96 m. The CIM model indicates very light support for the fair and good rock quality
because of extensile strain failure to a depth of 0.37 m in the crown.

12.7.2.3 Vertical Waste Emplacement Drift The vertical waste-emplacement drift

was analyzed for ali five rock quality categories with in situ minus seismic, in situ plus thermal, -
and in situ plus thermal plus seismic loadings and using the elasto-plastic and CJM models. Some
difficulty was encountered in achieving numerical convergence for ali conditions. Specifically,
numerical difficulties were encountered for the elasto-plastic model for the extremely poor and very
poor rock under in situ plus thermal plus seismic loading.

The maximum extent of yield zones and the criteria controlling the extent of the yield zones
are listed in Tables 12-31 and 12-32 for in situ plus thermal and in situ plus thermal plus seismic
loadings, respectively. Yield zones in the crown were a maximum of 0.71 m in the drift crown for
Mohr-Coulomb yield, with sidewall failures up to 1.62 m deep for the in situ plus thermal loads.
Comparison of Tables 12-31 and 12-32 indicates only minor changes in the extent of yielding. For

12-32
 Table 12-30

MAXIMUM EXTENT OF FAILED ZONE FOR THE MIDPANEL ACCESS DRIVI"

ii ii i,,i

" .... Drift Sidewall Drift Crown

Rock Extent Extent
• Mass of Yield of
Quality Load Governing Zone Load Governing Yield
Rock Model Category Type* Criteria (m) Type* Criteria Zone
(m)
Elasto-plastic
II III II
1 '
ITS
I
M-C yield
I'
0. 6
9 I
ITS M-C yield III
0.61
II

2 ITS M-C yield 0.96 ITS M-C yield 0.61

3 ITS M-C yield 0.61 ITS M-C yield 0.61

ii
4 ITS iii
M-C yield
liii --
0.25 ITS M-C yield
ill i
0.61

,
5 ITS ,
M-C yield 0.25 ITS M-C yield
, i u ,..
0.30
CJM 1 NE 0.00 NA NE 0.00
2 NE 0.00 NA NE 0.00
,. ,,.., , ,, ,. r

3 NE 0.00 NA NE 0.00
4 NE 0.00 ITS extensile 0.37
strain
iii i ii i L ii i

5 NE 0.00 ITS extensile 0.37

strain
, ,. __ .,_ ,., ,, . ....

* ITS = In situ plus Thermal plus Seismic, IS = In situ minus Seismic

NE = Not exceeded; NA = Not applicable
...... i, "' rIi I I

12-33
 Table 12.31

MAXIMUM EXTENT OF FAILED ZONE FOR WASTE EMPLACEMENT DRIlrr FOR

IN SITU PLUS THERMAL LOADS

! Drift Sidewall Drift Crown

Rock Mass Extent of Extent of •
Quality Governing Yield Zone Governing Yield Zone
Rock Model
,,
Category Criteria i i
(m) '
Criteria i
(m)
Eiasto-plastic 1 j
M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield i
0.35 i

2 ii
M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield 0.71 i

3 M-C yield 0.64 M-C yield 9.71

i|
4 ,
M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield , i
0.71 ,

t
5 M-C yield 0.64 M-C yield i
0.35
CJ M 1 NE extensile 0.17
strain
.,, ,.

2 NE extensile 0.21
strain
i

3 NE extensile 0.30
• ,.
strain , ,., ,,,, ,

4 NE extensile 0.34
strain
5 NE extensile 0.34
strain
NE = not exceeded ,,,,.

12-34
 Table 12-32

MAXIMUM EXTENT OF FAILED ZONE FOR WASTE-EMPLACEMENT DRIFT FOR

IN SITU PLUS THERMAL PLUS SEISMIC LOADS
'' i .li i ,' i . i ,, iii 1li , i ,,, i

• Drift Sidewall Drift Crown

Rock Mass Extent of Extent of
" Quality Governing Yield Zone Governing Yield Zone
Rock Model' d
Category ii i .
Criteria
'' ' i i
(m) i i
Criteria
, .
(m)
i , i. ,i

Elasto-plastic 1 M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield 0.64

2 M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield 0.71 |, i

3 M-C yield 1.62 M-C yield 0.71

4 i
M-C yield 0.64 M-C yield 0.71 ,,,

5 M-C yield 0.00 M-C yield 0.35

CJM 1 NE extensile 0.25
strain
2 NE extensile 0.30
strain
, mm,

3 NE extensile 0.37
strain
i i ,

4 NE extensile 0.42
strain
5 NE extensile 0.42
strain
NE = not exceeded, NA = not applicable
iii _ i , , , i ii ii i mllllL

the drift walls, the extent of yield increased for the poor rock but decreased for the fair and good
rock. In the crown, the extent of yield increased in the fair and good rock, but otherwise was
unchanged when the seismic loads were added. The CJM model indicates relatively limited extensile
strain failure depths up to 0.42 m.

• 12.7.3 Preliminary Ground Support Parameters

. Based on the depth of yield listed in Tables 12-29 to 12-32 and the wall pressure support
requirements identified in Section 6.5.3, the support pressure, bolt spacing, and bolt lengths were
estimated for the three drift types and listed in Table 12-33. The bolt lengths range from 1.22 to
2.44 m (4 to 8 ft) for ali the cases and conditions considered. The bolt spacings are based on No. 5
bolts (1.6 cm diameter), grade 60 steel. The ground support/rock reinforcement recommendations
from the empirical methods shown in Table 12-26 indicate higher support pressures than the
numerical results. As noted earlier, the support pressures shown in Tables 12-24 and ]2-26 are
higher than that calculated by Equation 13 (based on the Q value). Even so the support pressures
based on Equation 13 (Table 12-27) are higher than that estimated by the numerical technique.

12-35
 Table 12-33

ROCKBOLT SUPPORT SYSTEMS BASED ON NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

OF UNSUPPORTED DRIFTS
-i u i i , , . i i i i ,i , ii. ,,,,u,i , ii i , , , , , ,. , , .

,, ,,,
Rock Mass Quality
,i
Category , , , ,,

1 2 3 4 5
i , ...... ..,

Extremely Very
Poor Poor Poor Fair Good
.,!l ...... ,...... II" i ii ,, ....

Crown
--support pressure (MPa) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01
._ _ --bolt spacing (m) 2.44 1.71 1.71 1.27 2.44
_ --bolt length (m) 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.83 1.22

,_ --support pressure (MPa) 0.027 0.031 0.022 0.009 0.01

--bolt spacing (m) 1.38 1.30 1.54 2.41 2.28
--bolt length (m) 2.44 2.44 1.83 1.22 1.22
Crown
_ --support pressure (MPa) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
_ --bolt spacing (m) 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 2.53
< _- --bolt length (m) 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
Rib
.__ !--support pressure (MPa) 0.023
' 0.023 0.018 0.009
' 0.009
N --bolt spacing (m) 1.49 1.49 1.70 2.36 2.46
.....
--bolt length (m) ,
1.83 ,
1.83 ,,
1.22 ,, , -
1.22 ..........
1.22 _ .....

Crown
_ ,., --support pressure (MPa) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
_ _ --bolt spacing (m) 1.73 1.64 1.64 1.64 2.34
_: _ --bolt length (m) , i,,*
1.22 ,
1.22 , ,,,
1.22 ,,,
1.22 ,
1.22 L,

_ --support pressure (MPa) 0.031 0.032 0.032 0.019 0.012

> _ --bolt spacing (m) 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.64 2.12
--bolt length (m) 2.44 2.44 ..................
2.44 1.22 1.22

12.8 Evalua.t Drift Design

¢

Drift design evaluation follows the logic shown in Figure 7-1. The loading condit'_,,n of
in situ minus seismic for rock Categories 4 and 5 produces extensile strains that exceed the allowable
strains in the rock mass.

Table 12-34 summarizes the evaluation of the three drifts for each category under the
maximum compressive stress (in situ plus thermal plus seismic) field. The maximum allowable
compressive strain is exceeded for the full compressive loading when the in situ plus thermal plus
seismic stresses are applied to rock Categories 1 and 2 for the tuff main, Categories 1 through 4,
midpanel access drifts, and for all categories for the emplacement drift.

12-36
 Table 12-34

CASES WHERE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COMPRESSI_'E STRAIN EXCEEDED

WHEN LOADED BY IN SITU PLUS THERMAL PLUS SEISMIC STRESSES
p , ,, ,,, ,

.......... Criteria' Compressive Strain > 0.8% ' '

" Rock Mass Rock Quality Tuff Main Midpanel Access Emplacement
Category ,,f
< 0.1 , ,
Drift
iii | i, ,iii
Drift DriJ't
, f

1 X X X X
, i

2 X X
3 X
4 X
5 i .
_l ,,ii

Further evaluation of the drift design involves preliminary assessment of the practicality
and cost of installing ground support/rock reinforcement. The bolt lengths determined from either
the empirical or analytical techniques are not excessive. Ali ground support/rock reinforcement
categories shown in Tables 12-26, 12-27 and 12-33 appear to be reasonable. Bolt spacings of 0.5
m are not common as shown in Table 12-27 for the extremely poor rock (Category 1). This spacing
is required to develop a support pressure of 0.25 MPa, which is high for rockbolt support. Typically
such support pressures would be provided by a combination of bolts, shotcrete and possibly
poured-in-piace concrete. For the very poor rock (Category 2), the bolt spacing of 0.69 m is also
very tight and would normally require some form ofconcrete/shotcrete lining. Table 12-26 indicates
that for these poorer rock quality categories, up to 20 cm of shotcrete would be required.

The support pressures listed in Tables 12-26 and 12-27 are not consistent and illustrate
one of the problems of adopting empirical schemes. The support pressures estimated from the
analytical techniques (Table 12-33) are lower in general than the empirical estimates and hence
would not control the selection of the ground support system.

12.9 Modify Drift Shape/_oads and Review Goals and Criteria

From the preliminary application of the methodology to the data and drift shapes given
• above, the criteria that cannot be met are the maximum comp_ essive strain for the poorer rock and
the tensile strength for the better rock categories. This compressive strain criteria is not exceeded
. at construction when only the in situ stresses are relieved, hence, a reduction in the thermal load in
areas where the rock quality is low may allow these drift shapes to meet the existing criteria.
Alternatively, the criteria of the maximum compressive strain might need to be reassessed.

The tensile strength criteria is exceeded for the better rock quality grouping (Categories 4
and 5) when loaded by in situ minus seismic loads. This loading results in excessive tensile strain
throughout the region of the drift, particularly for the CJM when the half-closure stress is exceeded
in tension. A numerical solution is not achieved. In practice the tensile stress would be attenuated
by joint opening. This loading condition needs to be further reviewed. Either the loading is
impractically high or the design method needs to be refined to better model the tensile phase of the
seismic load.

12-37
12.10 Grocnd Support Design

The ground support design involves evaluation of the performance of the ground sup-
port/rock reinforcement components selected as part of the preliminary ground support selection
and redesign if necessary. This involves evaluation of the preliminary support design, ground
support analyses (both uncoupled and coupled), and evaluation. The rockbolt properties used for
the uncoupled and coupled analyses were elastic modulus, 200 GPa, and thermal expansion coef-
ficient, 11.5 x 10.6 m/m'C. For the shotcrete, the following properties for a typical 34.5 MPa
(5000 psi) 28-day-strength shotcrete were assumed: elastic modulus is 22 GPa, thermal expansion
coefficient is 12 x 10.4 m/ro'C, and Poisson's ratio is 0.18. Bolt lengths of 2.44 m (8 ft) were
assumed, even though for some cases, shorter bolts would be acceptable (based on the preliminary
design).

12.10.1 Uncoupled Analysis

Rockbolt and shotcrete loads were calculated for each rock quality case based on an
uncoupled approach. The uncoupled approach calculates bolt or shotcrete stresses from rock dis-
placement and temperature changes (from the drift analyses completed earlier) and assumes that
the bolt has no effect on rock defommtion. The bolt stress is based on the strain change in the rock
mass, the temperature change in the bolt, and the bolt modulus and therrr.al expansion coefficient
as described in Section 8.2.1. The in situ loads resisted by the rockbolt or _,laotcreteduring relaxation
with excavation was as listed in Table 8-1. Ali results reported for the bolt loads assume point-
anchored bolts. Fully bonded bolts result in high bolt stresses near the perimeter of the drift and
could result in debonding of the bolt. Point-anchored bolts average the strains over a larger distance
and result in lower overall bolt loads. Partially bonded bolts could be designed to meet the design
requirements but are beyond this preliminary application of the methodology.

12.10.1.1 Tuff Main Drift Tables 12-35 and 12-36 list the maximum bolt and shotcrete
loads respectively calculated for in situ plus seismic plus thermal and in situ minus seismic stresses.
Bolt loads are very high for both the extremely poor rock quality and indicate minimum bolt factors
of safety at bolt yield (yield strength of 410.0 MPa) of 0.48. Minimum factors of safety for bolt
yield are 1.13 for very poor rock, 2.66 for the poor rock, and 3.0 or above for fair and good rock.
']'he shotcrete loads are higher than the shotcrete strength (34.4 MPa) for all rock mass quality
categories when loaded by in situ plus thermal plus seismic. Tensile stresses sufficient to cause
cracking in unreinforced shotcrete are predicted in the wails for the compressive loading.

12.10.1.2 Midpanel Access Drift Rockbolt loads calculated from the uncoupled analysis
for the midpanei access drift are listed in Table 12-37. Bolt factors of safety at bolt yield reach 1.15
for the extremely poor rock quality, are 1.58 for the very poor rock, and over 2.0 for the three better
rock quality categories. The in situ minus seismic loading produces acceptable stresses in the bolts
for ali cases except for the sidewall bolts for the extremely poor rock. Table 12-38 shows the
shotcrete loads. The loads are very high relative to the shotcrete strength when loaded by the in
situ plus thermal plus seismic loads.

12.10.1.3 Emolacement Drif_ The bolt loads calculated from uncoupled analysis of the
elasto-plastic yield rock model for the waste emplacement drift are shown in Table 12-39 for in
situ plus thermal and in situ plus thermal plus seismic loadings, respectively. The rib bolts would
be overstressed for the extremely poor rock.

12-38
 Table 12-35

PREDICTED BOLT LOADS (MPa), TUFF MAIN ACCESS DRIFT,

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS
i i li , ii ii u i i i i II
b

Load Type
In situ + Thermal +
• Seismic In situ - Seismic
Rock Mass Crown Sidewall Crown Sidewall
Quality Category RMR Bolts Bolts Bolts Bolts
1 32.5 ..... 377 .... 852 223 633
2 42.1 230 362 132 256
3 54.7 154 108 60 34
4 69.2 112 -27 26 12
5 ,,,
77.6 51 -29 26 12

Table 12-36

PREDICTED SHOTCRETE LOADS (MPa), TUFF MAIN ACCESS DRIFT,

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS
ii e | iii

Load Type
In situ + Thermal +
Seismic In situ - Seismic i

Rock Mass
Quality Category RMR Crown Sidewall Crown Sidewall
'1 '32.5 .... 77 86 26 ...... 7'4
2 42.1 50 50 12 34
i

3 54.7 44 26 2 6
' 4 69.2 44 - 12 -4 -1
, , ,, ,,

5 77.6 36 -13 -3 -1

_ 12-39
 Table 12-37

PREDICTED BOLT LOADS (MPa), MIDPANEI, ACCESS DRIFT,

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS

'" ' . ,,,.

J Load Type
, , ,J l
"
In situ + Thermal +
Seismic In situ - Seismic
i ii

Rock Mass Crown Sidewall* Crown Sidewall

Quality Category
I
* Bolts
i Bolts
II I I
Bolts Bolts
1 306 357 193 283
i

2 259 204 112 107

3 206 -36 56 24
4 165 -60 27 12
l i i lm m il iii

5 i,, ,li,,, , |
73 -71 27 11
• Bolts are 2.4 m long, point-anchored, tension positive. i i

Table 12-38

PREDICTED SHOTCRETE LOADS (MPa), MIDPANEL ACCESS DRIb_I",

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS

........ Load Type .....

In situ + Thermal +
Seismic In situ. Seismic
Rock Mass
Quality Category RMR Crown Wall Crown Wall
1 32.5 101 59 27 40
2 42.1 102 39 11 13
ii i ,i |

3 54.7 100 -8 2 1
4 69.2 95 -20 -4 -1 '
5 77.6
,, ,
73 -16 -4 -1 •

12-40
 Table 12-39

PREDICTED BOLT LOADS (MPa), VERTICAL WASTE.EMPLACEMENT

DRIFr, UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS
.......... J ...... ,

,, ,, , -,
Load Type , i ,, ,, , ,i ,,

In situ + Thermal In situ + Thermal +

" Seismic
,, , , ,,

Rock Mass Crown Sidewall* Crown Sidewall

Quality Category . * Bolts Bolts Bolts Bolts
1 292 |
428 ...... 378 647
2 234 140 310 303
3 192 -7 271 89
4 156 -23 236 41
,l| ii ii i

5 61 •
-29 J
118 Jl
41
i|l

The shotcrete loads are shown in Table 12-40 for in situ plus thermal and in situ plus
thermal plus seismic. The stresses in the shotcrete at the crown are in excess of the shotcrete strength
for ali rock mass categories.

12.10.2 Coupled Analysis

Fully coupled analysis of rockbolt and shotcrete loads have been completed for a number
of specific drifts, rock mass categories and loadings, but not for all combinations.

12.10.2.1 Rockbolt Loads Preliminary results for the elastic rock mass model indicated no
significant difference between the uncoupled and coupled analysis for rockbolt loads. The compliant
joint model produced similar uncoupled rockbolt loads to the elastic rock mass and hence little
difference is expected from coupled bolt analysis with the CIM. The Mohr-Coulomb yield model
produces larger deformations than the elastic analysis because of the dilation in the rock mass, and
hence, larger loads in the rockbolts in the uncoupled analysis. Some modification of these bolt
loads are expected with coupled analysis.

. 12.10.2.2 ShotcreteLoad_ Coupledanalysisofthewaste-emplacementdriftusingthethree

rock mass models (elastic, CJM and Mohr-Coulon:b) have been completed for rock mass Category 3
(the "poor" rock) for a 3-in. layer of shotcrete. In each case, the shotcrete was applied after 50%
• the in situ stresses had been relieved. The numerical results of the lining stresses in the crown and
rib 100 years af',er waste emplacement are listed in Tables 12-41, 12-42, and 12-43. Listed in each
table is the stress in the inner and outer element of the shotcrete liner and the estimate of liner stress
from the uncoupled analysis. Good agreement between the coupled and uncoupled analysis is
apparent for the elastic and CIM rock models, whereas a significant different exists for the
elasto-plastic (Mohr-Coulomb) model. The shotcrete liner inhibits some yield and deformation,
thereby resulting in lower shotcrete stresses than predicted by the u_coupled analysis. Coupled
analysis is thus necessary for estimating shotcrete lining stresses when the rock response is char-
acterized by a dilating elasto-plastic response of the rock mass.

12-41
 Table 12-40

PREDICTED SHOTCRETE LOADS (MPa), EMPLACEMENT DRIFT,

UNCOUPLED ANALYSIS
j , , i f i i •

Load Type
In situ + Thermal + .
In situ + Thermal Seismic
Rock Mass
Quality Category RMR Crown i
Wall Crown • i ii ii,
Wall
1 32.5 86 62 102 76
2 42.1 89 30 100 47
3 54.7 90 -7 103 18
4 69.2 87 -8 ,,
101 -9, .

5 77.6 73 -8 83 -7
i| ....

Table 12-41

COMPARISON OF COUPLED AND UNCOUPLED SHOTCRETE

STRESSES FOR ELASTIC ROCK MASS

|,l,, ii i

Stress (MPa)

Type Crown Rib

Coupled analysis, outer ring 61.9 -5.8

Coupled analysis, inner ring 60.2 -5.4

Uncoupled analysis 62.0 -6.0 ..... :..,:,,

12-42
 Table 12-42

COMPARISON OF COUPLED AND UNCOUPLED SHOTCRETE STRESSES

FOR COMPLIANT JOINT ROCK MODEL

, , ,, , . , , | . ,,

v Stress (MPa)

Type Crown Rib

Coupled analysis, outer ring 64.4 -2.0

Coupled analysis, inner ring 62.6 - 1.1

Uncoupled analysis 67.0 i,

-2.8

Table 12.43

COMPARISON OF COUPLED AND UNCOUPLED SHOTCRETE

STRESSES FOR MOHR-COULOMB ROCK MODEL

,,. ,,,, ,, ,, .,, ,,, , ,, , . ,,|,,,, ,,

Stress (MPa)

Type Crown Rib

• .,, . ,.., .., ,,.. ,.,, .,,=.,,, , ,.,= ,,.,

Coapled analysis, outer ring 69.6 -2.7

Coupled analysis, inner ring 68.0 -2.3

Uncoupled analysis 90.(} -7.0

12-43
12.11 Fino! Design Ev_lluation

The rockbolt and shotcrete stresses shown in the preceding sections exceed the allowable
stress levels in most cases. For the shotcrete, the allowable stress for the tuff main drift would be
13.7 MPa (2000 psi) for in situ plus thermal loadings and 15.3 MPa (2200 psi) for in situ plus
thermal plus seismic. For the typical schedule 60 rockbolts with a yield strength of 410 MPa
(60,000 psi), the allowable stress is 230 MPa (33,000 psi) for the tuff main drift, 240 MPa (35,000
psi) for the emplacement and midpanel access drifts under in sita plus thermal loads, and 275 MPa
(40,000 psi) or 295 MPa (43,000 psi) when acted on by the in situ plus thermal plus seismic stresses.

The rockbolt stresses can be relieved by designing yielding bolts or soft bolts with spring
components. Analysis of bolt stresses induced in fully bonded bolts show that the strength of the
bolts would be exceeded in the region closest to the drift perimeter, suggesting that fully bonded
bolts would be inappropriate. Averaging the rock strains over the bolt length reduces the effect of
the locally high strains. The use of conventional shotcrete appears unacceptable from the information
presented in Tables 12-36, 12-38, and 12-a0. Preliminary evaluation of alternate shotcrete mix
designs, such as low modulus or low thermal expansion coefficient concretes, indicate that the low
strengths associated with these specialized mixes would not meet the design requirements in the
emplacement and midpanel access drifts. Hence, prelitninary indications are that shotcrete/concrete
would not be suitable for the emplacement or midpanel access drifts. In the tuff main drift where
temperature increase in the shotcrete is not significant, specialized high-strength or reinforced
shotcrete may be acceptable.

Recognizing the above, the ground suppt+_rtcomponents listed in Table 12-44 were selected
as examples that meet the empirical and numerical requirements identified in Part A of the
methodology and the constraints indicated by the analysis of the drift and ground support/rock
reinforcement system in Part B (i.e., no shotcrete/concrete in the emplacement and midpanel access
drifts). Bolt diameters and the bolt sled were selected to have a minimum bolt spacing of 0.9 m.
Clearly, other combinations of bolt diameters, spacings, and steel strengths can be selected to provide
the required support pressure.

Further detailed design and analysis is required before this preliminary design example
would be complete. Detailed design is required of bolt anchors, plates and connections with straps,
mesh, and cable. Design analysis using the CJM with lower joint strengths near the drift perimeter
is required.

12-4-4
 ,,, , , ................ , ,, ,, ,, u _,

_a

P
_._ II I,,.

_. N E_E:E _ E _EN _ E_EN

E E _'_

._._:::_ i._.. -
II II II II II II II II II II II II II II ii II II II _ _

_J.Lk]sso_V _.LE] _uotuo_'Rldtu_l

u.rel/q.IJnl sso:):)Vlouedp.q_ :)]S_,A_
[Eo_U:)A d A ,J-6 j

12-45/12.46
 13.0 REFERENCES

Barton, N.,_Modeling Rock Joint Behavior for In-Situ Block Tesls: Implications for Noclear
• Waste Repository Design (Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Report No. ONWI-308, September,
1982). (HQS.880517.2252)
• Barton, N., Rock Mass Quality and Support Recommendations for Basalt at the Candidate
Repository_ Horizon. Based on the O-System (Richland, WA: Terra Tek Engineering for Rockwell
Hanford Operations, Report No. sD-t3WI-ER-012, Revision 1, 1984). (NNA.910412.0002)
Barton, N., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, "Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the
Design of Tunnel Support," Rock Mechanics, 6:189-236 (Springer Verlag, 1974).
(NNA.870406.0237)

Barton, N., F. Loset, R. Lien, and J. Lunde, "Application of Q System in Design Decisions
Concerning Dimensions and Appropriate Support for Underground Installations," Proceedings.
Intemational C0nferenc¢ on Sl_b_urfa_e Space. Rockstore, 2"553-561 (Stockholm, Sweden:
Pergamon Press, 1980). (NNA.900404.0197)
Bauer, S. J., J. F. Holland, and D. K. Parrish, "Implications About In-Situ Stress at Yucca
Mountain," Proceedings. 26th U. S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Rapid City, SD (A. A.
Balkema, June, 1985a). (HQS.880517.1611)
Bauer, S. J., R. K. Thomas, and L. M. Ford, "Measurements and Calculation of the
Mechanical Response of a Highly Frac,ured Rock," Proceeding,s, 2.6th U. S. Symposium on Rock
Me_hanic_, R_sear_h _nd Engineering Application in Rock Mas_es. South Dakota $¢hool 9f Mines
and Technology, Rapid City. SD (A. A. Balkema, 1985b). (HQS.880517.2255)

Bieniawski, Z. T., "Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses," Transactions,

South African Institution of Civil Engineers, 15(12):335-343 (np, 1973). (NNA.900917.0121)
Bieniawski, Z. T., "Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering," Proceedings. Sym-
posium on Exploration for Rock Engineering. Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 97-10_i (A. A.
Balkema, November, 1976). (NNA.870406.0217)

Bieniawski, Z. T., "The Geomechanics Classification in Rock Engineering Applications,"

Proceedings. 4rh International Conaress on Rock Mechanics. Mo.ntreaux. Switzerland, 2:41-48
(A. A. Balkema, 1979). (NNA.900z_04.0198)

Biffle, J. H., JACmA Two-Dimensional Finite Element Computer Program for the
, Non-Linear Ouasistatic Response of Solids with the Conjugate Gradient Method (Albuquerque,
NM and Livermore, CA: SAND81-0998, Sandia National Laboratories, April, 1984).
(HQS.880517.2257)

Blanford, M. L., and S. W. Key, "The Joint Empirical Model w An Equivalent Continuum
Model for Jointed Rock Model" (Albuquerque, NM: SAND87-7072, Sandia National Laboratories,
1980). (NNA.910416.0046)

Borg, T., B. Leijon, K. Roshoff and O. Stephansson, "Stability Prediction for the
Zinkgruvan Mine, Central Sweden," E. T. Brown and J. A. Hudson, eds., ISRM Symposium, De._ign
_nd Performance of Underground Excavations, pp. 113-121 (British Geotechnical Society, 1984).
(NN A. 900404.0199)

Brady, B. H. G., and J. W. Bray, "The Boundar3'-Element Method for Determining Stresses
and Displacements Around Long Openings in a Triaxial Stress Field," !nte_mational Joornal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science, 15:21-28 (Pergamon Press, 1978). (NNA.900404.0200)

13-1
 Brown, E. T., "Strength of Models of Rock with Intermittent Joints," J;)urnal_of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, 96(SM6):1935-1949, 1971. (NNA.89i222.0017)
Brown, E. T., and D. H. Trollope, "The Failure of Linear Brittle Materials Under Effective
Tensile Stress," Rock Mechanics Engineering Geology, V:229-241, 1967. (NNA.900420.0089)
Chen, E. P., "Two-Dimensional Continuum Model for Jointed Media with Orthogonal Sets
of Joints," Proceedings. 27th U, S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics. University of Alabama,
pp. 862-867 (SME/AI-ME, 1986). (NNA.891109.0126)
Chen, E. P., A Computation Model for Jointed Media with Orthogonal Sets of Joints
(Albuquerque, NM: SAND86-1122, Sandia National Laboratories, 1987). (1_NA.891020.0180)
Chen, E. P., A Constitutive Model for Jointed Rock Mass with Two Intersecting Sets of
Joints (Albuquerque, NM: SAND89-0592, Sandia National Laboratories, March, 1990).
(NNA.900521.0129)
Costin, L. S., and S. J. Bauer, yucca Mountain Proiect Thermal and Mechanical Codes
First Benchmark Exercise Part III: Jointed Rock Mass Ana|vsis (Albuquerque, NM: SAND89-
1639, Sandia National Laboratories, 1991). (NNA.910925.0059)

Costin, L. S., and E. P. Chen, "An Analysis of the G-Tunnel Heated Block Experiment
Using a Complaint Joint Rock-Mass Model," Proceedings. 29th U. S. Symposium. Kev Ouestions
in Rock Mechanics. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis (,/_.-A. Balkema, 1988).
(NNA.891013.0217)
Crouch, S. L., Analysis of Stresses and Displacements Around Under m'oundExcavations:
An Application of the Displacement Discontinuity Method (Minnesota: University of Minnesota,
1976). (NNA.900515.0017)

Cummings, R. A., F. S. Kendorski, and Z. T. Bieniawski, Caving Mine Rock Mass

Classification and Support Estimation, p. 195 (U. S. Bureau of Mines Contract No. J0100103,
Engineers International, 1982). (NNA.900727.0303)
Cundall, P. A., I.IDEC--A Generalized Distinct Element Proto'am for Modelling Jointed
(U.S. Army Contract No. DAJA37-79-C-0548, European Research Office, 1980).
(NNA.900404.0201)

Cundall, P. A., and R. D. Hart, Analysis of Block Test No. 1 Inelastic Rock Mass Behavior
Phase 2, A Characterization of Joint Behavior (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. prepared for Rock
Hanford Operations, Richland Washington, 1984). (NWA.900420.0088)
Deere, D. U., A. Hendron, F. D. Patton, and E. J. Cording, "Design of Surface and Near
Surface Construction in Rock," C. Farnhurst, ed., Proceedings. 8th LI. S. Symposio(n on Rock
Mechanics. Failure and Breakage of Rock. Minneaoolis. Minnesota. September. 1966, pp. 237-302
(Baltimore, MD: Port City Press, Inc., 1967). (NlqA.900404.0202)

DOE (U. S. Department of Energy), Site Characterization Plan. Yuc_:a Mountain Site.
Nevada Research and Development Area. blevada (DOE/RW-0199, Chapter 8, 1988).
(HQO.881201.0002)
DOE (U. S. Department of Energy), Yucca Mountain Project Reference Information Base,
Version 4 (Las Vegas, NV: YMP/CC-0002, Nevada Operations Office, February, 1989).
(NNA.890330.0077)

13-2
 Dowding, C. H. and A. Rozcn, "l)amagc to Rock Tunnels from Earthquake Shaking"
,lournal ttf Geotechnical Enuineerint_. l)ivisiot! of Ameri_;an _cletv of Civil Ent_inccrs 1()4
v : v ,..... ir'_ _ ' 11- v '

(GT2):175-191, 1978. (NNA.9()0405.(XX)6)

Dravo Engineers, Inc., Effect of Variation in the Geologic Data Base 9n Milaing at Yuccil
'_ Mountain for NNWSI (Albuquerf_ue, NM: SAND84-7125, Sandia National Laboratories, 1984).
(HQS.880517.2283)
f
Einstein, H. H., W. Steiner, and G. B. Baecher, "Assessment of Empirical Design Methods
for Tunnels in Rock," A. Maevis and W. Hustrulid, eds., Proceedings, 1979 Rapid Excavation _,_n¢l
Turmeling Conference, 1:683-706 (Baltimore, MD: Port City Press, Inc., 1979).
(NNA.900720.(X)37)

Gaylord, E. H., Jr. and C. N. Gaylord, Desien of Steel Structure_, p. 23 (New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957). (NNA.9(-)I005.0034)
Gerrard, C. M., "Elastic Mcxtels of Rock Masses Having One, Two and Three Sets of
Joints," International Journal of RockMechanics and Minin_ Science & Geomechanics Abstracts,
19:15-23, IMF 3221; V; C-611 (Pergamon Press, 1982). (Nb,IA.900404.0203)
Hendron, A., and G. Fernandez, "Dynamic and Static Design Considerations for Under-
ground Chambers," T. R. Howard, ed., Proceedinlzs. Symposium on Seismic Design of Embank-
ments and Caverns, pp. 157-197 (ASCE, 1983). (-NNfi,.890522.0247)

Hoek, E., "Geotechnical Design of Large Openings at Depth," Proceedint_s. Raoid Exca-
vation & Tunnel Conference, 2'1167-1180 (New York, NY: AIME, 1981). (NNA.9004()3.0380)
Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown, Underground Excavations in Rock, pp. 132 and 527 (London,
England: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 1980). (NNA.891208.0052)

Hoek, E., and E. T. Brown, "The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion- 9 1988 Update," _
Rock Mechanics Symposium (hp, 1988). (NNA.900515.0018)
Hognestad, E., N. W. ttanson, and D. McHenry, "Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate
Strength Design," AC! Journal. Proceedings, 52:455-479 (np, December, 1955).
(NNA.9(g)403.0398)

Hudson, J. A. and S. D. Priest, "Discontinuities and Rock Mass Geometry," International

Journal of Rock Mechanics. Mining Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, 16:339-362 (Pergamon
Press, 1979). (NNA.900403.0399)

Johnstone, J. Keith, R. R. Peters, and P. F. Gnirk, Unit Evaluation of Yucca Mountain.

_' Nevada Test Site: Sun!mary Report and Recommendation (Albuquerque, NM" SAND83-0372,
Sandia National Laboratories, Jtme, 1984). (NNA.870519.0052)

• Kendorski, F. S., R. A. Cummings, Z. T. Bieniawski, and E. H. Skinner, "Rock Mass

Classification for Block Caving Mine Drift Support," Proceedings. 15rh International Congress 9n
Rock Me_:hani_is, pp. Bl01-113 (Melbourne, Australia: ISRM, 1983). (NNAI900403.002.7)
Lang, T. A., "Theory and Practice of Rock Bolting," Transactions. Society. of Minint,
Engineers, American Institute of Mining. Metallurgy. Petroleum Engineering, 220:333-348 (np_
1961 ). (NNA.900403.04(X))

Langkopf, B. S., and P. R. Gnirk, Rock-Mass Classification of Candidate Repository Units

at Yucca Mountain, Nve County. Nevada (Albuquerque, NM' SAND82-2034, Sandia National
Laboratories, 1986). (tIQS.880517.1662)

13-3
 Laubscher, D. tt., "Design Aspects and Effectiveness of Support Systems in l)iffcrcnt
Mining Conditions, Transactions, Seclion A, In,stitution of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 93 (Inst-
itution of Mining and Metallurgy, April, 1984). (NNA3)(X)I29.()553)

Mattock, A. H., L. B. Kriz, and E. t lognestad, "Rectangular Concrete Stress Distribution

in tJltimate Strength l)esign," ACI Journall, Proceedings, 57(8)'875-925 (np, February, 1961). "
(N N A. 900403.0404)
I
ivlichelis, P. and E. T. Brown, "A Yield [:.quation for Rock," C_lna0ian Geotechnic{t! Journal,
23"9-17 (hp, 1986). (NNA.901()05.()()31)

Newmark, N. M., and W. J. Hall, Development of Criteri{l t'qr Seismi¢ Rgvi_w of S_1¢.C_¢_t
NuqlearPow_r Plums (Washington, DC: NUREG/CR-0098, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
September, 1977). (NNA.890327.0045)

Nirnick, F. B., R. G. V. Buskirk, and A. F. Mcfzarland, l,Jni_lxial and Triaxial Compression

Test Series on the Topop_h Spring Member from USW G-2, Yucca Mountain, Nevafta
(Albuquerque, NM: SAND85-0703, Sandia National Laboratories, 1987). (NNA.891019.0289)

Owens, G. N. and R. E. Scholl, Earthquake Engineering of Large Underground Stn,_ctures

(San Francisco: JAB-7821, URS/John A. Blume, 1981). (NNA.870406.0151)

PBQD (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.), "Preliminary Shaft Design Criteria
and Methodology Guide" (Albuquerque, NM: SAND88-7060, Sandia National Laboratories, 1990).
(NNA.900305.0001)

Price, R. H., Analysis of Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units from Yucca
Mountain, Nevada Test Site (Albuquerque, NM: SAND82-1315, Sandia National Laboratories,
1983). (NNA.g70406.01 g 1)

Price, R. H., Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of Topopah Spring Tuff
(Albuqucrque, NM' SAND85-0709, Sandia National Labor;ttories, August, 1986).
(1IQS.88()517.1696)

Price, R. H., J. R. Connolly, and K. Keil, Petrologic and Mechanical Properties of Outcrop
Samples of the Welded, Devitrified Topopah Spring Member of the Paintbrush Tuff (Albuquerqtle,
NM SANI)86-1131, Sandia National Laboratories, 1987). (HQS.880517.1704)

Price, R. H., S. J. Spena, and A. K. Jones, Uniaxial Compression Test Series on T0P0pah
Spring Tuff from USW GU-3, Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada (Albuquerque, NM:
SAND83- 1646, Sandia National Laboratories, 1984). (NNA.870406.0252)

SNI. (Sandia National l.aboratories), Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage lnvestigati¢_ns "
l'n_jcct, Site ('+haractcrizati_n Plan C.onCepttull l)csign Report, compiled by I-I. R. Macl)ougall,
I+. \V. Scull5, , and J. R. Tillerson (Albtlqtlerque, NM: SAND84-2641, Sandia National l,aboratorics,
19H7). (N N I. 88()902.0() 14-.0() 19)

SNI. (Sandia National I.aboratories), Working Grour_ Report, Exploratory Shaft Seismic
l)c_ign l_!sis, Yucca! Mountain Project, C(;rnpiled by C. V. Subramanian, et al. (Albuquerque. NM"
SA N 1),'-.;H-12()3, Sandia National l.aboratories, April, 1990). (N N A.9009()2.0014-.0019)

St. ,lohn, C. M., Re fcrcnce "Fhcrmal and Thermal/Mechanical Analyses of l)rifts for Vertical
:l_ltt l l_)riz_nt:ll l.:mplacement cH" Nuclear Waste in a Retx_sitory in Tuff (Albuquerque, NM
SANI)Hn-7()()5, Sandia Nation_ll I_aboratories, 1987a). (ITQS.88()517.2342)

13-4
 St. John, C. M., Investigative Study of the Underground Excavations for a Nuclear Waste
Repository_ in Tuff (Albuquerque, NM: S-AND83-7451, Sandia National Laboratories, 1087b).
(NNA.891027.0219)
St. John, C. M., and T. F. Zahrah, "Aseismic Design of Underground Structures," Ttann_ling
. and Under m'ound St)ace Technology, 2(2):165-197 (Pergamon Journals, Ltd., 1987).
(NNA.900308.0326)
t Schmidt, B., "Learning From Nuclear Waste Repository Design: The Ground-Control
Plan," VI Austra, ian Tunnelling Conference, 1"11-19 (Victoria, Australia: The Australian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, March, 1987). (NNA.900403.0401)
Serafim, J. L. and J. P. Periera, "Consideration of the Geomechanics Classification of
Bieniawski," Proceedings, International Svmvosium on Eneineerine Geology and Under m'oun_l
Construction, 1133-1144 (np, 1983). (NNJ_.9-10327.0063) ....

Singh, B., "Continuum Characterization of Jointed Rock Masses, Part I-- The Constitutive
Equations," International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Minine Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 10(4):311-335 [MF 3215; V; C-6] (Pergamon Press, 1973). (NNA.900308.0331)
Stacey, T. R., "A Simple Extension Strain Criterion for Fracture of Brittle Rock,"
national Journa! of Rock Mechanics and Minine Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
18(6):469-474 (Pergamon Press, 1981). (NNA.900212.0009)
Stinebaugh, R. E. and J. C. Frostenson, Disposal of Radioactive Waste Packages in Vertical
Boreholes--A Description of the Ooerations and Equipment for Emplacement anal R_trieval
(Albuquerque, NM: SAND84-1010, _;andia National Laboratories, 1986). (HQS.880517.2878)
Terzaghi, K., "Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel Supports," Proctor and White, eds.,
Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports, pp. 15-99 (Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing Co.,
1946). (NNA.900919.0176)

Terzaghi, R. D., "Sources of Error in Joint Surveys," Geotechnique, 15:287-304 (np, 1965).
/:\ NA.9()()403.0402)

Thomas, R. K., A Contim,_um D_ription for Jointed Media (Albuquerque, NM:

SAND81-2615, Sandia National Laboratories, 1982). (HQS.880517.1714)

Ushijima, R. S., and H. H. Einstein, "Application of a Three-Dimensional Coupled Finite

Element-Boundary Element Method," Dowding, C. H., ed., Proceedings. R_N:kMasse_; Modeling
of Underground Openings/Probability of Slope Failure/Fracture of Intacl Rock, Denver. Colorado,
pp. 21-37 (ASCE, April 29-30, 1985). (NNA.900403.0403)

" Wickham, G. E., H. R. Tiedeman and E. H. Skinner, "Support Determinations Based on

Geologic Predictions," Proceedings, Rapid Excavation & Tunneling Conference, 1:43-64 (np,
1972). (NNA.900404.0204)

Yudhbir, W. Lemonza, and F. Prinzl, "An Empirical Failure Criterion for Rock Masses,"
lth International Cong-ress on Rock Mechanics, pp. Bl-B8 (Melbourne, Australia: ISRM, 1983).
(NNA.900123.0087)

Zimmerman, R. M., M. P. Board, E. L. Hardin, and M. D. Voegele, "Ambient Temperature

Testing of the G-Tunnel Heated Block," proceedings. 25rh Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rock
Mechanic_ in Productivity and Protection. Northwestern lflniversity, Evanston, IL (New York, NY'
SME, 1984). (HQS.880517.1721)

i 13-5
 APPENDIX A

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRAIN

. A.1 Introduction

In application of the elasto-plastic continuum model to drift design in tuff, a limit on the
* compressive strain has been proposed. This limit is proposed based on similarities in the design
approach to that found in the American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete ACI 318-37 Design Assumptions, Section 10.2.3. This appendix summarizes
the background for the ACI strain criteria, data from laboratory tests on tuff, and reviews the expected
strain around an emplacement drift based on the elasto-plastic model proposed for drift design in
tuff.

A.2 Concrete Ultimate Compressive Strain

The ACI Code 318-37, Section 10.2.2, specifies that the maximum usable strain at the
extreme concrete compression fiber for design of members for flexure and axial load shall be
assumed equal to 0.003.

The design methodology applied to design of reinforced concrete members for flexure and
axial loads assumes that the strain in the reinforcement steel and concrete is directly proportional
to the distance from the neutral axis and that the relationship between stress and strain may be
assumed rectangular, trapezoidal, parabolic, or any other shape that results in prediction of strength
in substantial agreement with results of compressive tests.

The Building Code Commentary 318-83 states that the maximum concrete compressive
strain at crushing of concrete has been observed in tests of various kinds to vary from 0.003 to
higher than 0.008 under special conditions. That claim is supported by test results for various
concrete designs reported by Hognestad et al. (1955) and Mattock et al. (1961). Figure A-1 shows
the stress-strain results for concrete from both flexure and compression tests from Hognestad,
et al. (1955) and Figure A-2 shows ultimate strain test results as a function of compressive strength
for three types of concrete tested in compression and flexure. The design maximum compressive
strain is apparently independent of other strength variables for concrete.

A-3 Ultimate Strain for Tuff

• It is unknown at this time if the concept of ultimate strain can be applied to drift design in
tuff because the complete stress-strain curve for representative samples of tuff are not available.
Existing laboratory uniaxial compressive-strength test data has been reviewed to evaluate the
, compressive behavior of tuff; additional compressive strain tests and preliminary flexure tests
similar to those discussed by Hognestad et al. (1955) should be performed. These tests are similar
to laterally constrained beam-flexure tests. The applicability of the laboratory results in developing
an ultimate strain criteria for room-scale material behavior must be also assessed. It is expected
that natural jointing would lower the strength and stiffness, but would not affect the ultimate strain
as evident in the test results of strong and weak concretes.

Laboratory compressive tests on welded tufts are reported by Price et al. (1984 and 1987),
whereas results of compressive strain at failure for nonwelded tufts are presented by Price (1983).
Figure A-3 shows a plot of axial strain at failure as a function of grain density for nonwelded tuff.
Nimick et al. (1987) indicates that the axial strain at failure for 14 samples of welded tuff from core
- from USW G-2 was 0.0051 + 0.001. Table A-i lists the ultimate strain for four sampl_ fioizj _l_e

_ A-1
 I I. "'_ \_'"'__"_"_" l

I ./.."..._ ' ' -,,,,,

_.'_,- _ -_'-"_
Or , , ,

¢,11.
f'/

/:.,11

e.-
_ o

o, ,/,:;/
fl, lul I

"" _'_,r_! v*s,l)¢e CrllCh

IA_,-
90doy_) 2"--".:°_'
".:... "k.o,o

°o .oo_ ,OOZ .oo,_ uo4 o ooi ,oo2 ooa .c_ _ "

Strain- Flexural Test_ Strain- Compression Tests
{5 bLj _ l:x.j IG-in l_isms) C6 l:)',j IZ-ir_ CLjlinders )
,f

Figure A-1. Concrete Stress-Strain Relations (Hognestad et al., 1955)

A-2
t
• 005 ' I ! I ' I _ I I , I [ '"
C
•_
* •
o o

O3 .004- o o J_ o * * FlexuralStrain= E u -
o Ao "_o
-6 ,,, A o _o o ,'_

ClJ • 0

IT .003
.002 - -_ Proposed r.___= ,_ _--o--o-o _o_ _e °c
_

E .001

--_a Q t I Design
1 Maximum
I I ' I ' 1 ' 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 I0,000
Concrete Prism Strength, f_, psi

o Portland Cement Association

Sand and Gravel
,', Rusch's Tests
• Portland Cement Association
Lightweight

Figure A-2. Ultimate Strain From Tests of Plain Concrete Specimens (Hognestad et al., 1955)

A-3
 I i 1 I I 1
ASH FLOW TUFF (ALL DATA)
_. SATURATED
_" .78 - UNCONFINED -
III + •
CC E "-_ 10 -5 SEC- 1 _
-J T _- 23 ° C
.< .62 - + -
LI. .,. -,- +
I.- ,"
'_ + + + t -
4- + +
Z +
<: .46 - . . _ _

I-" - _ :I: *+ + ++ -
. t 4.

..j .38- + * + .. -
===1= m
X + I +
.30 -- "-
.+.

.26 -
l 1 1 I 1 1
2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.70

GRAIN DENSITY (gm/cc)

Figure A-3. Axial Strain at Failure as a Function of Grain Density for Nonwelded Tuff
(Price, 1983)

A-4
 Table A-1

ULTIMATE STRAIN FOR WELDED TUFF

....

Ultimate Ultimate Confining

Sample Strength Strain Stre_ Source
(MPa) (%) (MPa)
GU3
..... ,,,
1501 0.85 0 Price et al. (1984) .....
24W 166 0.68 0 Price et al. (1987)
9X 220 0.84 5 Price et al. (1987)
43W 183 1.23 10 Price et al. (1987) ,,

Topopah Spring tuff. The ultimate strain is higher than the strain at failure, which is usually the
strain at the maximum stress in the sample. The ultimate strain is poorly defined because the
explosive failure of brittle rock is often dependent on the loading machine stiffness or control system.
Nonetheless, the available results for welded intact tuff suggest that an ultimate strain higher than
for concrete may be appropriate. For a fractured rock mass, the ultimate strain can be expected to
be higher than the strain at failure for intact brittle rock. The value of 0.8% for the design ultimate
strain is supported by the limited data currently available.

A.4 Strain Around Emplacement Drift

The results of analysis of an emplacement drift using elasto-plastic material behavior are
presented. This analysis was completed as part of preliminary analyses related to development of
this drift design methodology. The drift shape and emplacement configuration were based on the
SCP-CDR design with the 8.55-year old waste emplacement at an APD of 57 kW/acre. The analyses
assumed elasto-plastic characteristics for the "poor" rock type identified in Chapter 12 and used a
nonassociated Mohr-Coulomb yield criteria. Figures A-4 through A-7 show the analytical results
100 years after emplacement for in situ plus thermal loading. Figures A-4 and A-5 show the principal
stress magnitude contours, Figure A-6, the zone of yield.

The strain around the drift is shown in Figures A-7 through and A-9. The second invariant
of total strain is plotted in Figu,re A-7, and in Figures A-8 and A-9, the principal compressive and
tensile strains. The second invariant is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the
• principal strains and is typically larger than either component. The contours show that the maximum
of the second invariant of strain around the drift is 0.077. In this example, the maximum compressive
strain is 0.003, and the tensile strain is 0.006. All three strains are less than the maximum allowed
• 0.008 for welded tuff. In the example application of the methodology, the second invariant of strain
is used as the controlling criteria because it is always larger than either the compressive or tensile
strain. Further study is recommended to assess the appropriate ultimate strain. The 0.008 would
not be exceeded by this configuration, loading, and rock quality.

A-5
 EMPLACEMENT DRIFT, MOHR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK, INSITU+THERMAL
PRINCIPAL STRESS, SIG1 STEP 4 TIME .1010E+O3
x10.o,( 8.7, 4.,1)

Minimum value is -34.91513 POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLOq"YED: 1/16/91

Maximum value is -.54421 FILE=3MC101-A.UPL

Figure A-4. Maximum Principal Stress Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield
Surface, Poor Rock

A-6
 EMPLACEMENT DRIFT, MOHR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK, INSITU+THERMAL
PRINCIPAL STRESS, SIG2 STEP 4 TIME .1010E+03
xlO.O, ( 8.7. 4.4)

Minimum value is -9.57801 POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLOTTED: 1/16/91

Maximum value is .22911 FILE=3MC101-A.UPL

Figure A-5. Minimum Principal Stress Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield
Surface, Poor Rock

A-7
 EMPLACEMENT DRIFT, MOttR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK, tNSITU+TItERMAL
FAILED ELEMENTS STEP 4 TIME .1010E+03
,:lO.O,( 8.7, 4.4)

/ e.

'16. '
t

13.

,o. !
'4. !
--, , [

-.-1-b--4--1-4-_ ___. I

l. _ _----.___.._. --_

'-2. __ _""-__

'-5, _

POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLOTTED: 1/16/91

FILE=3 MC 101 -A. [JPL

Figure A-6. Failed Zones Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface, Poor Rock
 EMPLACEMENT DRIFT, MOHR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK, INSITU+THERMAL
SECOND INVARIANT OFTOTAL STRAIN STEP 4 TIME .1010E+03

ELASTIC MODULUS= 13110.0, POISSON'S RATIO= .22 ,,lo.o._ ,.'!. ,.4_

'16.
II

'13.

10.

7o " °

OO2

'4.

'1. ,,, ._oo2

;-2.

-5.

:_: 1., 4., ,. 7., 10., 13., 16., 1._.

Minimum value is .00042 POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLOTTED: 1/16/91

Maximum value is .00"167 FILE=3mcl01-a.upl

Figure A-7. Second Invariant of Total Strain Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield
Surface, Poor Rock

A-9
 EMPLACEMENT DRIFT, MOHR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK (TENSILE AS POSITIVE)
PRINCIPAL COMPRESSIVE STRAIN STEP 4 TIME .1010E+03

ELASTIC MODULUS= 13110.0, POISSON'S RATIO= .22 ,,lo.o.< s7. 4_

Minimum value is -.00340 POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLOTTED: 1/16/91

Maximum value is .00015 FILE=3MC101-A.UPL

l:igurc A-8. Compressive Strain Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface, Poor
Rock

A-10
 EMPLACEMENT DRII:I', MOHR-COULOMB, POOR ROCK (TENSILE AS POSITIVE)
PRINCIPAL TENSILE STRAIN STEP 4 TIME .1010E+03

ELASTIC MODULUS= 13110.0, POISSON'S RATIO=.22 ,lo o.c s.7. ,4_

• 16.

'13.

.ooo

10.

.ooo
7.

I.

-2.

-5. ooo

i,

-2:ab 1
_" _ 7
I' 10
I " 13
I ° 16
I ° I'L
I

Minimum value is -.00035 POSTJAC, V5.0, DATE PLO'ITED: 1/16/91

Maximum value is .00620 FILE=3MC101-A.UPL

l:igurc A-9. "Fensile Str_:in Around Emplacement Drift, Mohr-Coulomb Yield Surface, Poor Rock

A-I l/A-12
 APPENDIX B

REPOSITORY DRIFT PERFORMANCE USING C()MPLIANT Jt)INT MODEI_

B.I Introduction

The Compliant Joint Model (CJM) of Chen (1987) has been applied in the analysis of the
, stresses and displacements around an emplacement drift as part of the preliminary application of
the drift design methodology, with results summarized in Chapter 12. More detailed results for the
poor rock quality category are provided here as an example of output of the analysis using this
model.

B.2 Problem Definition

The problem analyzed corresponds to an emplacement drift for vertical w_ste emplacement
described in the SCP-CDR (DOE, 1988), with an areal power density (APD) of 57 kW/acre. The
material properties used are described in Chapter 12 for the poor rock; that is, the case for the
RMR = 55. Sixty percent of the rock is projected to have a higher RMR than the 55 value. The
thermomechanical properties were temperature-dependent, the waste 8.55-years-old, the rock
modulus 30.4 GPa, and the joint properties from Chapter 12. The vertical joint strengths were
cohesion 5.3 MPa, friction angle 23.1 degrees, and for the horizontal joints, cohesion 18.3 MPa,
and friction angle 25.2 degrees. The joint maximum closure was 0.023 m, and the shear stiffness,
4(_0,600 MPa/m for both vertical and horizontal joints. Joint spacing was 0.060 m and 2.33 m for
the vertical and horizontal joints, respectively. The joint half-closure stress was 1.4 MPa. The
problem was run without strain hardening.

B.3 Results of Analysis

Figures B-I through B-4 show analytical results for the conditions 100 years after waste
cmplacement. The 100-year case was chosen forexample becau_ it often, but not always, produces
the most adverse stability conditions in the preclosure period. Shown are the contours of the two
principal stresses, contours of rock matrix safety factors, and contours of the tensile strain.
Figure B-3, the rock matrix strength/stress safety factors, indicates stable conditions. Figure B-4
shows contours of the tensile strain (as a percent) in the rock matrix. A very small area in the crown
and floor exceeds the 0.04% limit indicating a limited zone of possible spalling. This zone should
be easily supported by a minimal ground support system.

The slip along the joints is indicated in Figures B-5 through B-7. The first of these figures
" shows zones in which slip along joints is predicted. Figures B-6 and B-7 show contours of the
absolute magnitude of the slip along Joints Set 1 (horizontal) and Joint Set 2 (vertical). For both
, joint sets, the slip is projected to be less than 0.01 m.

B-1
 JAC ANALYSIS, 100 YEARS AFTER WASTE EMPLACEMENT, POOR ROCK
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RESTART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
PRINCIPAL STRESS, SIG1 STEP 11 TIME .1010E+03

15.

6.
20.
I0,

10.

'3.

Minimum value is -80.24998 POSTJAC, VI.0, DATE PLOTTED: 11/13/89

Maximum value is .01079 FILE=3J51-101.UPL

l:igurc B-1. Maximum Principal Stress for Poor Rock

B-2
 JAC ANALYSIS, 100 YEARS AFTER WASTE EMPLACEMENT, POOR ROCK
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RES'2ART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
PRINCIPAL STRESS, SIG2 STEP 11 TIME .1010E+03

15.

12. 8.

Minimum value is -14.97898 POSTJAC, V1.0, DATE PLOTTED: 11/13/89

Maximum value is 1.40619 HLE=3J51-101.UPL

Figure B-2. Minimum Principal Stress for CJM, Poor Rock

B-3
 JAC ANALYSIS, 1130YEARS AFTER WASTE EMPLACEMENT
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RESTART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
SAFETY FACTOR (HOEK-BROWN) STEP 11 TIME . 1010E+03

UCS= 127.1, TENS. STR.= 2.6, M(i)= 3.00, RMR=100.0

q 3

15.

12.

9.

'6.

'3.

'-3.

[_) ). 3.
l
6.
|
9
|
1"
I
15
L
I8.
i
21
L

Miniu'tum value is 1.65687 POSTJAC, VI.0, DATE PLOTTED: 10/26/89

Maximum value is 29.12869 FILE=3J51-101.U'F'L

Figure B-3. Safety Factor Contours for Matrix Failure in Coznpression

B-4
 JAC ANALYSIS
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RESTART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
EXTENSILE STRAIN (%) - TOTAL STEP 11 TIME .10E+03

• Elastic modulus= 30400.0, Poisson's ratio= .24

'15.

]'_,/,,,.o

.0.01.50

6. _.o15o
o. 0o

O. _"
o

-3.

'-6.

i •
!
-3. ). 3. 6. 9. 12. 15. 18. 21.
_,.91 • I lt lt ! I I , I I

Minimum value is -.05869 POSTVI, V5.6, DATE PLOTTED: 10/10/89

Maximum value is .01149 FILE=3J51-101.UPL

Figure B-4. Extensile Strain Contours for Matrix Material

B-5
 JAC ANALYSIS
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RESTART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
FAILED ZONES STEP 11 TIME .10E+03

POSTVI, V5.6, DATE PLOTTED: 10/10/89

F1LE=3J51-101.UPL

t:igure B-5. Zones with Slip Along Either Joint Set for CJM, Poor Rock

2 B-6
 JAC ANALYSIS, SLIP ON JOINT SET 2
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., REST.aRT, 51 Y'RS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
STEP 11 TIME .10E+03
,,)

'15. _

12. /_
9. _
- 1

'6.

?.001300

'3.
1

'0.

!-3.

Minimum value is -.00005 POSTVI, V5.6, DATE PLOTTED: 10/10/89

Maximum value is .00004 F'3..E=3J51-101.UPL

I-igure B-6. Joint Slip (in meters) Along Horizontal Joint Set

B-7
 JAC ANALYSIS, SLIP ON JOINT SET l
3J51-101, NO SHOTCR., RESTART, 51 YRS TO 101 YRS, ORTHOG. JOINTS
STEP 11 TIME .10E+03
o.
,,,

'15. _

12. _

9. _ '
i
1

).00000

'3. _

J.O01"_

0.

'-3.

Minimum value is -.00039 POSTVI, V5.6, DATE PLOqTqED: 10/10/89

Maximum value is .00013 FILE=3J51-101.UPL

r:igure B-7. Joint Slip (in meters) Along Vertical Joint Set

B-8
 APPENDIX C

INFORMATION FROM, AND CANDIDATE INFORMATION FOR, TIlE SITE AND

ENGINEERING PROPERTY DATABASE AND THE
REFERENCE INFORMATION BASE
4'

C.1 Information from the RIB Used in this Report

The report is based on information from the Reference Information Base where available.

Table C-1 lists the values used in this study, the RIB mean value, and standard deviation.

C.2 Candidate Information for the RIB

The report contains no candidate information for the Reference Information Base.

C.3 Candidate Information for the Site and Engineering Properties

Database

This report contains no candidate information for the Site and Engineering Properties
Database.

C-I
 Table C-I

PARAMETER LIST

RIB
RIB Range or
Parameter Study Value Value Standard
Deviation
Thermal Properties
Matrix thennal conductivities T < 100oc * 2.29 2.231 _+t).047
(W/na°K) T > 125°C * 1.88
100*C < T < 125*C* interpolate
Rock mass thermal
conductivities
saturated (W/ro*K) NA 1.91 _+0.083
drs' (W/ro°K) NA 1.839 _+(.).064
Coefficient of linear thermal
expansion (106/*C)
25 to 50 8.8 9.1 +1.3
50 to 100 8.8 8.2 _+0.8
100 to 150 8.8 6.8 _+0.5
150 to 200 8.8 9.7 NA
200 to 250 24.0 No data NA
Ieat ca
3 pacitance of rock mass
(J/cna K) at temperatures
25 2.16 2.0324 NA
50 2.16 2.1280 NA
94 2.16 2.2638 NA
95 2.16 10.7683 NA
1()0 9.26 10.61" NA
105 9.26 10.4690 NA
114 9.26 10.1984 NA
115 9.26 2.0065 NA
125 2.17 2.0327* NA
155 2.17 2.1114 NA
!95 2.17 2.1912 NA
235 2.17 2.2692 NA
275 2.17 2.3410 NA

Mechanical Properties

Unc(refined compressive strength 155 to 85.1 155 +_59

M Pal

"¢oung's modulus (GPa) 30.4 32.7 +4.(>

ittterp, dated
 Table C-I

PARAMETER LIST (Cont'd)

RIB
- RIB Range or
Parameter Study Value Value Standard
Deviation
,,,,

Mechanical Properties (Concluded)

Poisson's ratio 0.22 0.22 0.03
0.30 0.05
,,,,,

Coulomb parameters for intact

rock
cohesion (MPa) 19.3 to 35.9 18.3 +5.2
37.8 +12.4
angle of internal friction (0) 20.5 to 34.8 19.7 +5.2
36.5 _+9.0

Rock Mass Strength ,,.

_=A +BG c
A 2.71 to 43.0 16.0 NA
B 9.3 to 7.9 10.2 NA
C 0.59 to 0.67 0.602 NA
Unconfined compressive strength 2.71 to 43.0 16.0 NA
(MPa) , ,.,,°,.,

Input values for the finite-

clement analysis
elastic modulus (GPa) 3.64 to 30.4 16.4 NA
Poisson's ratio 0.22 0.26 NA
In Situ Stress
At 323.4 m depth
vertical stress (MPa) 7.0 6.46 NA
max. horizontal stress (MPa) 4.2 5.32 NA
min. horizontal stress (MPa) 3.5 2.66 NA

p
Fracture Properties
Fracture frequency (m_)
Dip 0° to 10° 1.0 to 0.16 0.2 0.5 - 0.05
10° to 20° NA 0.2 0.6 - 0.05
20* to 30° NA 0.2 0.6- 0.05
30° to 40° NA 0.1 0.3 - 0.05
40° tc) 50 ° NA 0.2 0.4 - 0.05
50 ° tc)60 ° ......
NA 0.2 0.5 - 0.05

- C-3
 Table C- 1

PARAMETER LIST (Concluded)

RIB
RIB Range or
Parameter Study Value Value Standard
Deviation t
Fracture Properties (Concluded) ,,, ,,,, , ,

Fracture frequency (m _)
60 ° to 70* NA 0.3 0.7 -0.10
70* to 80" 6.0 to 37.0 1.7 2.6 - 0.7
80* to 90" 6.0 to 37.0 13.2 32.5 - 2.5
Seismic Loads
Recommended control motion
values for natural earthquake
ESF design
horizontal velocity (cm/sec) 5() 30 NA
vertical velocity (cm/sec) 33 20 NA

('" '!
 DISTRIBUTION I.IST

I .I.W. I_Itl.vt:t, Director (RW-1) 1 S. J. Brocoum (RW-22)

Off icf _f Civil ian Radioact-ive Analysis al_d Verificatiotl l)i.vi._;ion
Was t.e M;_Imgement Office of Civi l ian Radioactivo.
U.S. l)epartmt_nt oi: Energy Waste Management
1000 lndepelldence Avenue, S.W. II.S. Department of Energy
- Washil,gton, D.C. 20585 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
1 F. G. Peters, Deputy Dire.ctor (RW-2)
Office of Civilian Radioactive 1 D. D. Shelor (RW-30)
Wast_e Management Office of Systems and Compliance
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive
I000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Waste Management
Washington, D.C. 20585 U.S. Department of Energy
i000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
1 T. lt. Isaacs (RW-4) Washington, D.C. 20585
Office of Strategic Planning
and International Programs 1 J. Roberts (RW-33)
Office of Civilian Radioactive Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management Waste Management
U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. I000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585 Washington, D.C, 20585

1 J. I). Saltzman (EW-5) 1 g. J. Parker (RW-332)

Ofi ice of E.,:tezT_,al Relations Office of Civil ian Radioactive
Office of Civiliar_ Radioactive Waste Management
Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy i000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
1000 Independence Avenue, S..W. Washington, D.C. 20585
Washington, D.C. 20585
i Associate Director (RW-40)
1 Samuel Rousso (RW-IO) Office of Storage and Transportation
Office of Program and Resources Office of Civilian Radioactive
Management Waste Management
Office of Civilian Radioactive U.S. Department of Energy ""
Waste Management i000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585
i000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585 1 Associate Director (RW-50)
Office of Contract Business
" 1 J. C. Bresee (RW-10) Management
Oil ice of Civilian Radioactive Office of Civilian Radioactive
,. Waste Management Waste Management
U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy
I000 Independence Avenue, S.W. i000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585 Washington, D.C. 20585

1 C. P. Gertz (RW-20) i C. G. Russomanno (RW-52)

Office of Geologic Disposal Office of Civilian Radioactive
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management .
Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy I000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
IO00 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585
Washington, D.C. 20585

1
1 D. U. Deere, Chairman I E. H, Petrie
Nuclear Waste Technical Yucca Mountain Project Off ice
Review Board U.S. Department of Energy
1100 Wilson Blvd. #91.0 P.O. Box 98608--MS 523
Arlington, VA 22209-2297 I.as Vegas, NV 891.93-8608

1 Dr. Clarence R. Allen 1 J. M. White

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Yucca Mountain Project: Office "
1OO0 E. California Blvd. U.S. Department of Energy
Pasadena, CA 91106 P.O. Box 98608--MS !)23
I.as Vegas, NV 89193-8608
1 Dr. John E. CantIon
Nuclear Waste Technical Review go;_rcl 1 C. I.. Went, Director
1795 Bramble Dr. Office of External Affairs
East Lansing, MI 48823 DOt'; Field Office, Nevada
U.S. De.partment of Energy
1 Dr. Melvin W. Carter P.O. Box 98518
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Ims Vegas, NV 89193-8518{)
4621 E11isbury Dr., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30332 12 Technical Informatiorl Officer
DOE Field Office, Nevada
1 Dr. Donald Langmuir U.S. Department of Energy
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board P.O. Box 98518
109 So. Lookout Mountain Cr. Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518
Colden, CO 80401
1 P. K. Fitzsimmons, Director
1 Dc. D. Warner North llealt:h Physiics & Envirotunelltal
Nuclear Waste Tectmical Review Board l)ivision
Decision Focus, Inc. DOE Field Office, N¢.,vada
4984 E1 Canine Real U.S. l)epartment of l'nergy
l_.r_s Altos, CA 94062 P.O. Box 98518
I.as Vegas, NV 89193-8518
1 Dr. l)ennis I.. Price
Nuclear Wast Technical Review goar_l 1 D. R. Elle, Director
1011 Evergreen Way Ettvirol,nental Protect. ion l) ivi._;io,+
Blacksburg, VA 2/4060 DOE l"ield Office, Nevada
U.S. Department of Energy
1 Dr. Ellis D. Verink P.O. Box 98518
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board I.as Vegas, Nv 89193-8518
4401 N.W. 18th Place
Cainesville, FL 32605 l Repository Licensing & Quality
Assurance Project Directc, rat_.
"_ C. t'. (;ectz, Project: SaIt_'it,,6,1- l)i'/iY;i_)ll ()_" _;t._;[e Millla_,{'lllt'l_l

Yucca Mou_itai_ Project Office U.S. Nuc lear Re_,ulatory Com,li._;_:i,,,_

U.S. Depart,lent of Energy WashiI_gt:on, D.C. 20555
P.O. Box 98608--MS 523
1.as Vegas, NV 89193-8608 1 Senior Project Manager for h'_l_c_
Mountair_ Repo:_i tory Project t__i_t,
1 M. (). Cloninger l)ivisioI_ of Waste Manageme1_t
'f_lc('a Mountain Project Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commir;.,;i¢,l_
II S. Department of Ene r#,y Was|li _gtoi_, 1). C. 20555
t' (). Box 98608--MS 523
l.a:; V_f, as, NV 89193-8608 1 NRC l)oct,nel/t Cont:rol Desk
l)ivi:_ion of Waste Managemetlt
U.S. N,lclear R_.gtll_tory C{m,l_i_,:;i_,_
Was|_i _lgto_, I).C. 205')5
 I P. T. Prestholt I V. R. Schneider
NRC Site Representative Asst. Chief llydrologist--MS 414
301 E. Stewart Ave. Office of I'rogram Coordinatiotl
Las Vegas, NV 891OI &TechnicaI Support
U.S. Geological Stlrvey
1 E. P, Binnall 12201 Sutlrise Valley Drive
Field Systems Group Leader Restotl, VA 22092
Building 5OB/4235
" I_awrerlce Bcrkel.ey I.aboratory l R. B. Raup, Jr.
Berkeley, CA 94720 Geological Division Coordinator
q MS 913
1 CeIlt_{,r for Nuclear Waste Yucca Mountaill Project
Regulatory Analyses U.S. Geological Survey
6220 Culebra Road P.O. Box 25046
Drawer 28510 Denver, CO 80225
San Antonio, TX 78284
1 D. 1t. Appel, Chief
L. J. Jardine Itydrologic Investigations Program
Technical Project Of[icer for YMP MS 421
Ma| 1 Stop I.-204 U.S. (;eological Survey
l,;,wrence I.ivermore Natiozlal P.O. Box 25046
I,aboratory Deliver, {;O 80225
P.(). Box 808
l,i,.,_,xl,(}re, CA 9455(} 1 E. J. Helley
Branch of Western Regional ge.ologV
4 R. J. lt{,rl}st MS 427
Te(:llt_ical Project Officer for YMP U.S. Geological Survey
N-5, Mail Stop .J52l 345 Middlefield Road
l_os Alamos Nat:i{}t_al I.aborat-orv Menlo Park, CA 94025
t'.O. Box 166"_
Los Alamos, NM 87545 1 Chief
Nevada Operations Office
1 11. N. Kalia U.S. Geoiogical Survey
E:.:I,l(,r.t:(,ry Stlaft Test: M_tl_ag(,r 101 Convention Center Drive
1.(,:. Al,,m(,s Ng,t i(,nal l.,ql)(,r;it(}ry Suite 860, MS 509
M,_i I Sto t} 52/ Ims Vegas, NV 89109
1CII (',(,_tvent i ()li Cell{ {-r l)r .
._;,_i_(' 82{) 1 I). Z(,siger
1..::; V_,gas, NV 8{_1{)9 U.S. Geological Survey
101 Convention Center Dr.
1 .I F. Divine Suite 860 - MS509
Assistant: I)ir(,ctor for Ims Vegas, NV 89109
t'21i_',i II(,(_I'i I-1_',(;('.O1 (}gr
[i.S. (;{'()logical Survey 1 R. V.
Watkins, Chief
106 National Cetlter Planning
t)l'().}(:_Ct and Management
," 12P()l Suzll-i.'-;e Vall(,v r}r. U.S. Geological Survey
Rest:ot_, VA 22092 P.O. Box 25046
421 Federal Cellt.er
(, 1.. R. ttayes DeliVer, CO 80225
Technical t'roject Officer
Y, lcca Mountain I'roject: Bra_cll--MS 425 l A. L. Flint
I!.S. Geologic,'_l Survey U.S. Geological Survey
t'.(). Box 25046 MS 721
l}(,,,v(-r, CO 80223 t'.O. Box 327
M{,rcurv, NV 89023
 +' ,,' . __+t_,,'ic,,l _;tttv_-v q_'i_.z_<,. AI}l+II_',+t i{,t+:. Ili+ ,'v i+ ,t, i,,++,+l
]++i}{} I:+. 'l'i,,I+ic+ii_,'+, ."4flit, + ,+Ill (',{,il+
I..+', <',+'..,'; Nk' ++',')II") t()I ('.{,t+\,t'tit i()tt (:{,)itt, r l)i-.
+vltlitt, ,'it)l
'+ t' A (,;l,+t+,'+, l,,i+'+ V_.F,<I.+<, NV +_'}lt} (}
i!.b. t;t{,lt,Pit,tl _Ut'<'t '+'

l"ecle+i,il Buildiilg, R{,o,l 2//, [ E|++liilt , Ezr_+i ,.

Carson (:it',,, NV S'tlO1 ';HP GIS Pro.ic'ct M:IIJI,[I_{'P

Etl&(l Eii_'lp,V l_lt,;i:itlrt'lnot/t.q, [lte'.

] _h{Pl'lliilll S. (], Wti Mail Stop D- 12 P
Bi'ailcti {ii :'_._;tr{}P+i'olo./',v P.O, Box 191.2
tt.S. (;e{}l{ll',iciil ,qtti'vt.)' l+;ls Vegas, NV 89125
2225T} N. (;elliili[ DI+.
FlaB:it:ii||, AZ Bf}ti(}I 1 R. E. Jackson, liiTol_I.'+lln _,ill;il!,{'i
RoV 1". W{;,;l:on, lilt.
1 J. ti. S,'t._;._, 95b I+'Eti[,:itit Pl ciTa, S{-}ttt;llwt,<lt
Bl-;ilich {.li Tt+t.t{+ll{}l+tl\,.<;ic_; Wast/ingtori, D.G. 20024
U.S. {le{} l +}#',i {',i I S tI I"Vr'+"_,
'
225b N. {;{+n, illi l)l +. 1 Teehtlical. Information (;otlt++i .
i"|alD.,+t;iff, AZ 86D{)1 Roy F, Westorl, Iii{'+.
0!}% I,' ['.'lllP¢lilt Pl +lz+t, SotltTiiwt';-it
] l){,Waylie A. C,'liilpt>oll U,'ishington, D,C. 2OO24
Toi:|ltli{:aI tiro.i (,c t: {}t_+fi{.{,r fc,r 'l'Mt'
Btil"o,iU of Rt, clalnatlot_ 1 I). |le{lt, es, Vice President,
Co{h, [)-3]c_0 Qtialit:y Asstlrance
t'.O. Box Ph{JeT Ro',,, F. Weston, lilt.
I}{,ttv{,r, CO 80223 4425 Spring Mountain Road, Sttit {, 3(}{}
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
1 S. M. Dash
Scietice Applications Iiiternat:iotlal 1 l). I.. Fraser, General Manager
Corp. Reynolds Electrical & Engirl{,{,l'itl',,, C,_.
14(}62 l)enver West Parkway, Suite 235 M'til Stop 555
(;ol{tt, rl, (:O 80401 p.o. Box 98521
l,as Vet'as, NV 80193-8521
i l/. W. Ciiu.qseittiX
Ntlt' Itep{}rts Ctiie[ 1 R. F. Prit{'lli, tt
t_.S. Geological Survey 'l't.cliliica[ Pl-{}icct: {}rf iter t;{}r ','Mt'
421 Federal Centc, r R_,ynol{ls Electrical & Engill{,eiitIB {:+}.
l'.t_. Box ?5046 MS 4{lH
l),.t_ver, {:{} 8{}22b t',{}. B{}x {;8691
l.<'i.<; V{'F,_t.<;, NV +:'i3-8621
] V. M. (;l:iliZIli<'tll ii

tJ.S. (;{'ol{}gi{2;il _tli'V(: V ] B. W. {;{}l._,I{+i+

{liT, f,'(,deral {;(_tltet" {;L,li<,i+,_l M,'tll,ig{-,i+ & I>ro.{;id_,lii
1'.{) • Bf}:-; 2+:)
' O':-i6 1.<_.<; Vt'P,I,':; BF/lilt:II

Denver, CO 807725 P,aytli{,oll S{,l-vicc.s Nevada

bl;iii Sto t} 41(,
l .1. tl. Nelson t'.{}. B{,x _',487
Tochriical Project Ciffi{-el" t{,r xi'til' I,;t:-; Vi'l',il.q , NV 8<11{};_-_}48]

.S{:i{:IiCe At}plicat:iorls [rit{.l_l<iti{}ligtl

Corp. ] P,. I+. Bill I{>_k
101 COIIV(_.III i{lil Ct_IItOF l) i'. "l'c{,liili{'iil i'i{,i, {'t {}t f i{'t+l t<,i '_N}'
Stiit:e lt{)/ I_,,-iyttl{'{}I/ [;{'ivit','<; N_'v/l{I;i
l+as V(,_t'/i:;, ['TV 8_i109 Nli i t { I'?',{}, [el,'; ;til ',
l<}1 (:,,tj,.+,{ iii i,,l_ ii,.!li +.l+ l}i
l+,i'; \!{'i',<i_;. NtJ _4'+1(l _t
+i
 1 R. E. I.owder 3 R. R. Loux, Jr.
Tectlnical Project Officer for YMP Executive Director
M_¢" Technical Services Nuclear Waste Project Office
iO1 Conw, ntion Center Drive State of Nevada
Suite 1100 Evergreen Center, Suite 252
l_as Vegas, NV 89109 1802 North Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89710
I C. K. Hastings, Manager
PASS Program I C. H. Johnson
Pacific N,_rthwest Laboratories Technical Program Manager
P.O. Box 999 Nuclear Waste Project Office
Richland, WA 99352 State of Nevada
Evergreen Center, Suite 252
I A. T. Tamura 1802 North Carson Street
Science and Technology Division Carson City, NV 89710
Office of Scientific and Technical
Information I John Fordham
U.S. Department of Energy Water Resources Center
P.O. Box 62 Desert Research Institute
Oak Ridge, TN 37831 P.D. Box 60220
Reno, NV 89506
i Carlos G. Bell, Jr.
Professor of Civil Engineering I Dr. Martin Mifflin
Civil and Mechanical Engineering Water Resources Center
Depa_-tment Desert Research Institute
Ilniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas 2505 Chandler Avenue
4505 Sout:h Maryland Parkway Suite I
Las Vegas, NV 89154 Las Vegas, NV 89120

1 C. F. Costa, Director i Eric Anderson

Nuc lear Radiation Assessment Mountain West Research-Southwest
Di visiotl Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection 2901 N. Central Ave. #i000
Agency Phoenix, AZ 85012-2730
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory i Department of Comprehensive Planning
P.O. Box 93478 Clark County
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 225 Bridger Avenue, 7th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89155
i ONWI Library
Battelle Columbus Laboratory 1 Planning Department
• Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation Nye County
5")5 King Avenue P.O. Box 153
Columbus, OH 43201 Tonopah, NV 89049
?

1 T. llay, Executive Assistant 1 Lincoln County Commission

Office of the Governor Lincoln County
State of Nevada P.O. Box 90
Capitol Complex Pioche, NV 89043
Carson City, NV 89710
5 Judy Foremaster
City of Caliente
P.O. Box 158
Caliente, NV 89008
I Economic Development Department 1 6300 T O Hunter
City of Las Vegas I 6310 T E Blejwas, Actg.
_00 East Stewart Avenue i 6310A L E Shephard
Las Vegas, NV 89101 i 6312 F W Bingham
1 6313 L S Costin
I Community Planning & Development 5 6313 S J Bauer
City of North Las Vegas i 6313 E E Ryder
P.O. Box 4086 i 6313 J Pott
North Las Vegas, NV 89030 I 6315 F B. Nimick, Actg.
I 6316 R P. Sandoval
i Director of Community Planning 2 E318 R J. Macer for
City of Boulder City IO0/124232/SAND89-O837/QA
P.O. Box 367 i 6319 R.R. Richards
Boulder City, NV 89005
5 3141 S.A. Landenberger
i Commission of the European 8 3145 Document Processimg
Communities for DOE/OSTI
200 Rue de la Loi 3 3151 G. C. Claycomb
B-I049 Brussels 20 6341 WMT Library
BELGIUM i 6346 J. R. Tillerson
I 6410 D.J. McCloskey, Actg.
2 M. J. Dorsey, Librarian [ 8523-2 Central Technical Files
YMP Research and Study Center
Reynolds Electrical & Engineerimg
Co., Inc.
MS 407
P.O. Box 98521
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

I Amy Anderson
Argonne National Laboratory
Building 362
9700 So. Cass Ave.
Argonne, IL 60439

l_! M. P. Hardy
Agapito and Associates
715 Horizon Drive
Sui te 300
Grand Junction, CO 81506

I Dr. W. Hustrulid
iTo!orado School of Mines
M i:_.t
ug Departmemt
_;oIden, CO 80401

i Dr. V. T. Bienewski
>!i:_,era[ Res. Inst.
Penn State University
Umiversity Paz-k, PA 16802
_ The number in the lower right-hand corner
is an accession number used for Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
purposes only. lt should not be used
when ordering this publication.

NNA.910808,0105
__ _,__. _,_dis
_.o_,_ .. Nationa_
Laboratories