T - 2008 - Jeon - Dynamic and Cyclic Properties in Shear of Tuff Specimens From Yucca Mountain, Nevada PDF

Copyright
by
Seong Yeol Jeon
2008
i
The Dissertation Committee for Seong Yeol Jeon Certifies that this is the approved
version of the following dissertation:
Dynamic and Cyclic Properties in Shear of Tuff Specimens
from Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Committee:
Kenneth H. Stokoe II, Supervisor
David W. Fowler
Ellen M. Rathje
Clark R. Wilson
Fulvio Tonon
ii
by
Seong Yeol Jeon, B.S.; M.S.
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
The University of Texas at Austin

August, 2008
iii
Dedication
To
My Parents, My Wife, My Daughter and My Son
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to appreciate my supervisor professor Dr. Kenneth H. Stokoe, II for
his nice leading, brilliant guide and kind encouragement during the whole period of this
study. His outstanding idea and excellent knowledge in his academic capacity have
always inspired and impressed me.
I also would like to appreciate my dissertation committee members, Dr. Ellen M
Rathje, Dr. Fulvio Tonon, Dr. Clark R. Wilson and Dr. David W. Fowler for reviewing
this dissertation and for precious advices and suggestions. My thanks are also extended to
the rest of the faculty members in Geotechnical Engineering Department, Dr. Roy E.
Olson, and Dr. Stephen G. Wright, Dr. Robert B. Gilbert, Dr. Jorge G. Zornberg and Dr.
Charles Woodruff for their kind lectures that open my eyes for me to understand deeper
knowledge of geotechnical engineering.
The support from the Bechtel SAIC, Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Sandia National
Laboratory, Alberquerque, New Mexico are gratefully acknowledged.
I would like to thank Won Kyoung Choi, Jung Jae Lee and Min Jae Jung for their
precious help and encouragement. Thanks are also extended to Farn-Yuh Menq,
Celestino Valle, Bohyoung Lee and Ian Johnson who have helped me during my research
period. I would also like to thank Kwang Soo Park, Brady R. Cox, Yin-Cheng Lin, Bu
Hyun Nam and Hee Jung Yoon for helping the field data comparison, analysis of rock
mechanic data and make-up of measuring equipment. Thanks are extended to many other
graduate students that I unfortunately omitted.
I would like to thank Mr. Michael Schuhen, Zane Walton for their help and
guidance for project management and quality assurance. Thanks are also extended to
Teresa Tice-Boggs, Chris Trevino, and Norma J Gonzales for their administrative
support, and Johnie Williams, Max Trevino, Frank Wise and Wayne Fontenot for their
v
technical assistance. The assistance from Wayne Fontenot in constructing the new device
is especially appreciated.
Finally, I really appreciate my parents and my wife Yoon Joo Lee for their love,
support, encouragement and patience.
vi
Publication No._____________
Seong Yeol Jeon, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin, 2008
Supervisor: Kenneth H. Stokoe, II
Yucca Mountain was designated as the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository
by the U.S. Government in 1987. The proposed repository design requires high safety for
a long maintenance period of 10,000 years. To satisfy this requirement, evaluation of the
influence of earthquakes on the repository is necessary. Prediction of earthquake-induced
ground motions around the repository requires knowledge of the dynamic properties of
the geologic materials around the repository. The main geologic materials in the vicinity
of Yucca Mountain are tuffs (ignimbrites) which are formed by the deposition of volcanic
ash mixed with erupted volcanic gas, water vapor and pyroclastic material. Two types of
dynamic tests, (1) the free-free, unconfined, resonant column and direct arrival test (free-
free URC test) and (2) the fixed-free resonant column and torsional shear test (fixed-free
RCTS test), were used to measure the dynamic properties of tuffs. The emphasis in this
dynamic testing was evaluation of shear modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D) of
the tuffs in the small-strain (linear) and mildly nonlinear (to strains of about 0.02 %)
vii
ranges. To evaluate the influence of various parameters on G and D of tuffs, correlations
with other features such as total unit weight, porosity and stratigraphic unit were
performed and general relationships between them are proposed. In addition, an
unconfined, slow-cyclic torsional shear (CTS) device was developed and used to measure
the cyclic shear properties of the tuffs from Yucca Mountain at larger strain amplitudes
than possible in the fixed-free RCTS tests. Additionally, the CTS device was also used to
determine the shear failure strength of the tuffs. By combining the cyclic shear properties
of the tuffs from the CTS tests and the dynamic properties of the tuffs from the fixed-free
RCTS tests, complete dynamic property curves from small-strain to failure strain were
evaluated.
viii
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii

List of Figures................................................................................................................. xvi
Chapter 1
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives of This Study ....................................................................................... 4
1.3 Organization of Dissertation.................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2
Theoretical Background of Static and Dynamic Properties of Rock ......................... 11
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Static Properties of Rock ..................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Stress.......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Strain.......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 Stress-Strain Relationship ......................................................................... 18
2.2.4 Torsional Shear Stress and Torsional Shear Strain ................................... 22
2.3 Dynamic Properties of Rock................................................................................ 26
2.3.1 Longitudinal Compression Wave Propagation in a Solid Rod.................. 28
2.3.2 Torsional Shear Wave Propagation in a Solid Rod ................................... 31
2.3.3 Initial Conditions and Boundary Conditions for the Wave Equation........ 33
2.3.4 Material Damping Ratio ............................................................................ 34
2.3.5 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties of Rock .................................. 36
2.4 Summary.............................................................................................................. 37
Chapter 3
Literature Review of Static and Dynamic Properties of Rock ................................... 41
3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Sample Size Effect............................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 42
3.2.2 Decision of Sample Size for Laboratory Tests.......................................... 44
3.2.3 Literature Review of Sample Size Effect .................................................. 46
3.3 Strain Rate Effect................................................................................................. 55
3.3.1 Introduction of Strain Rate Effect ............................................................. 55
ix
3.3.2 Comparison between Static and Dynamic Loads ...................................... 55
3.3.3 Literature Review of Strain Rate Effect .................................................... 57
3.4 Void Effect of Rock Specimen ............................................................................ 70
3.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 70
3.4.2 Theoretical Discussion of Void Effect ...................................................... 70
3.4.3 Literature Review of Void Effect .............................................................. 76
3.5 Summary.............................................................................................................. 88
Chapter 4
Laboratory Techniques for Static, Dynamic and Cyclic Tests ................................... 89
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 89
4.2 Laboratory Static Tests of Rock .......................................................................... 89
4.2.1 Static Compressive Strength Test.............................................................. 90
4.2.2 Static Tensile Strength Test....................................................................... 92
4.2.3 Static Shear Strength Test ......................................................................... 94
4.3 Laboratory Dynamic Tests of Rock..................................................................... 95
4.3.1 Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column and Direct Arrival Test............ 96
4.3.2 Fixed-Free Resonant Column and Torsional Shear Test......................... 108
4.4 Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Laboratory Test of Rock................ 123
4.4.1 Torsional Driving Machine and Torque Measurement System .............. 125
4.4.2 Displacement Measurement System........................................................ 128
4.4.3 Specimen Setup Tool............................................................................... 136
4.4.4 Data Acquisition and Recording System................................................. 138
4.4.5 Preliminary Tests..................................................................................... 142
4.5 Summary............................................................................................................ 150
Chapter 5
Site Introduction and Tuff Specimen Preparation .................................................... 153
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 153
5.2 Proposed Yucca Mountain Radioactive Waste Repository ............................... 154
5.3 Geological Information Concerning Tuffs ........................................................ 158
5.4 Specimen Preparation Process........................................................................... 164
5.4.1 Tuff Specimen Preparation for Free-Free URC Tests ............................. 168
5.4.2 Tuff Specimen Preparation for the Fixed-Free RCTS Tests ................... 177
5.4.3 Tuff Specimen Preparation for CTS Tests .............................................. 183
5.5 Summary............................................................................................................ 185
x
Chapter 6
Measurements of Linear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs through Free-Free
URC Tests ...................................................................................................................... 187
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 187
6.2 Equipment Calibration....................................................................................... 188
6.3 Summary of Linear Dynamic Properties of the Tuffs from the Free-Free
URC Tests ...................................................................................................... 192
6.4 Seismic Wave Velocities (Vp, Vc and Vs) and Moduli (Mmax, Emax and Gmax).. 198
6.4.1 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Total Unit
Weights ................................................................................................... 198
6.4.2 General Relationships between Moduli and Total Unit Weight ............. 204
6.4.3 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Porosities ............ 204
6.4.4 General Relationships between Moduli and Porosity ............................. 205
6.4.5 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Poisson’s ratios... 205
6.5 Material Damping Ratio (Dc min and Ds min) ....................................................... 210
6.5.1 General Relationships of Dc min and Ds min versus Vc, Vs, γt, and
Porosity ................................................................................................... 210
6.5.2 General Relationships between Ds min and Dc min ..................................... 222
6.6 Profiles of Linear Dynamic Properties .............................................................. 225
6.6.1 Statistical Theory for Representative Value in Each Formation Layer... 225
6.6.2 Seismic Wave Velocities versus Depth................................................... 229
6.6.3 Material Damping Ratios versus Depth .................................................. 244
6.7 Sample Size versus Linear Dynamic Property Variation .................................. 244
6.8 Summary............................................................................................................ 259
Chapter 7
Measurements of Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs by
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests ................................................................................................ 261
7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 261
7.2 Effect of Re-coring on Tuff Specimens............................................................. 262
7.3 Linear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs through Fixed-Free RCTS Tests.............. 271
7.3.1 Dynamic Properties in the Small-Strain Range and Unconfined State ... 271
7.3.2 General Relationships of Vs – γt, Gmax – γt, Ds min – γt, and Vs – Ds min .... 280
7.3.3 Log Vs – Log σo and Log Gmax – Log σo Relationships.......................... 284
7.3.4 Ds min – Log σo Relationships .................................................................. 292
7.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs through Fixed-Free RCTS Tests ........ 297
7.4.1 G– Log γ and G/Gmax-Log γ Relationships.............................................. 297
7.4.2 Ds – Log γ Relationships ......................................................................... 307
7.5 Summary............................................................................................................ 312
xi
Chapter 8
Measurements of Cyclic Shear Properties at High Strains through Slow
Cyclic Torsional Shear Testing.................................................................................... 314
8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 314
8.2 Cyclic Behaviors of Tuffs.................................................................................. 315
8.2.1 Hysteresis Loops of Welded Nonlithophysal Tuffs ................................ 315
8.2.2 Hysteresis Loops of Welded Lithophysal Tuffs ...................................... 319
8.2.3 Hysteresis Loops of Moderately Welded Tuffs....................................... 324
8.2.4 Hysteresis Loops of Nonwelded Tuffs .................................................... 327
8.3 Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuffs from CTS Testing ......................................... 331
8.3.1 Summary of Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuff Specimens........................ 331
8.3.2 General Relationships of Gmax CTS and Gfailure versus γt , porosities,
Gmax URC, and Vs ...................................................................................... 334
8.3.3 General Relationships of τf and γf versus γt, Gmax URC and Vs ................. 340
8.4 Nonlinear Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuffs from CTS Testing ........................ 344
8.4.1 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Welded
Nonlithophysal Tuffs .............................................................................. 344
8.4.2 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Welded
Lithophysal Tuffs.................................................................................... 349
8.4.3 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Moderately
Welded and Nonwelded Tuffs ................................................................ 353
8.4.4 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of All Tuffs................ 360
8.5 Summary............................................................................................................ 364
Chapter 9
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 367
9.1 Summary............................................................................................................ 367
9.2 Conclusions........................................................................................................ 370
9.2.1 Linear Dynamic Properties from Free-Free URC Tests.......................... 370
9.2.2 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties from Fixed-Free RCTS
Tests ........................................................................................................ 374
9.2.3 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties from the
CTS Tests................................................................................................ 381
9.3 Recommendations.............................................................................................. 386
Reference ....................................................................................................................... 388
Vita ................................................................................................................................. 398
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 List of General Young’s Modulus (from Matweb.com, 2007) .................... 30
Table 2.2 List of General Shear Modulus (from Matweb.com, 2007) ......................... 33
Table 3.1 Typical Values of Rock Porosity (from Bell, 1992) .................................... 71
Table 3.2 Typical Elastic and Shear Moduli of Common Minerals (after Goodman,
1989)............................................................................................................. 75
Table 3.3 Comparison between the Static and Dynamic Properties of Quincy
Granite, Sudbury Norite and Southeast Persia Limestone (after Zisman,
1933)............................................................................................................. 76
Table 3.4 Description of Experimental Data (from Avar and Hudyma, 2007)............ 86
Table 4.1 Pressure Level Sequences in Fixed-Free RCTS Tests ............................... 122
Table 4.2 Torque Cell Specifications ......................................................................... 127
Table 4.3 3300 XL 8 mm (or 5 mm) Proximity Transducer System Specifications.. 135
Table 4.4 Free-Free URC Test Results of Mortar Specimen ..................................... 143
Table 5.1 Annual Average Precipitation in Each State of the U.S. (from The
World Almanac, 1988) ............................................................................... 156
Table 5.2 List of Tuff Specimens Tested in the Free-Free URC Device from Each
Formation at Yucca Mountain and a Picture of a Representative
Specimen .................................................................................................... 168
Table 5.3 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Tuff Specimens for
Free-Free URC Tests; Tested in 2002........................................................ 172
Free-Free URC Tests; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006............................................ 173
Table 5.5 List of Tuff Specimens in Each Formation that were Tested in the
Fixed-Free RCTS Device ........................................................................... 180
Table 5.6 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Individual
Specimens that were Tested in the Fixed-Free RCTS Device; Tested in
2002 ............................................................................................................ 181
Table 5.7 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Individual
Specimens that were Tested in the Fixed-Free RCTS Device; Tested in
2003 ~ 2006................................................................................................ 181
Table 5.8 List of Tuff Specimens from Each Formation that were Tested in the
CTS Device ................................................................................................ 184
xiii
Table 5.9 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Tuff Specimens that
were Tested in the CTS Device.................................................................. 184
Table 6.1 Comparison between the Values of Measured Dynamic Properties in
This Study and the Dynamic Properties Measured by Menq (2003) and
Sun (1993) .................................................................................................. 191
Table 6.2 Summary of Dynamic Test Results from the Free-Free URC Tests of
the Tuff Specimens Tested in 2002............................................................ 193
Table 6.3 Summary of Dynamic Test Results from the Free-Free URC Tests of
the Tuff Specimens Tested in 2003 ~ 2006................................................ 194
Table 6.4 Summary of Outlier Specimens in Description of General Trend of
Seismic Wave Velocities............................................................................ 203
Table 6.5 Summary of Outlier Specimens in Description of General Trend of
Material Damping Ratios ........................................................................... 211
Table 6.6 Summary of General Relationships between Dc min and Ds min versus Vs,
Vc, γt and n for the Tuff Specimens............................................................ 222
Table 6.7 Median, 16 Percentile and 84 Percentile of Seismic Wave Velocities of
Tuffs in Each Stratigraphic Unit at Yucca Mountain................................. 227
Table 6.8 Median, 16 Percentile and 84 Percentile of Material Damping Ratios of
Tuffs in Each Stratigraphic Unit at Yucca Mountain................................. 228
Table 6.9 Summary of Dynamic Properties Used to Evaluate Size Effect on the
Dynamic Property Measurements of Tptpul Tuff Specimens.................... 247
Dynamic Property Measurements of Tptpmn Tuff Specimens.................. 247
Table 7.1 Summary of Dynamic Properties Determined with Original Tuff
Specimens and Re-cored Tuff Specimens.................................................. 263
Table 7.2 Summary of Average Values of Dynamic Properties of Original and Re-
cored Tuff Specimens................................................................................. 267
Table 7.3 Summary of Dynamic Properties Measured by Free-Free URC and
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens; Tested in 2002 .............. 273
Table 7.4 Summary of Dynamic Properties Measured by Free-Free URC and
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006 .. 273
Table 7.5 Comparison of Average Values of Dynamic Properties between Free-
Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens................ 277
Table 7.6 Summary List of Statistical Analysis of nv, Av, nG and AG of Yucca
Mountain Tuff Specimens .......................................................................... 292
Table 7.7 Summary of Statistical Analysis of nD and AD of Yucca Mountain Tuff
Specimens................................................................................................... 297
xiv
Table 8.1 Summary of Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuff Specimens from
Unconfined, Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests................................................. 333
Table 8.2 Summary of Parameters for the Best Fitting Line, Upper Limit Line and
Lower Limit Line for the Normalized Shear Modulus (G/Gmax)
Variation with Shear Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS Tests
with Tuff Specimens .................................................................................. 366
Lower Limit Line for the Material Damping Ratio (D) Variation with
Shear Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS Tests with Tuff
Specimens................................................................................................... 366
Table 9.1 Summary of General Relationships between Dc min and Ds min versus Vs,
Vc, γt and n of Tuff Specimens ................................................................... 371
Table 9.2 Summary of Statistical Analysis of nv, Av, nG, AG, nD and AD of Yucca
Mountain Tuff specimens........................................................................... 377
Table 9.3 Summary of Parameters for the Best-Fit Curve, Upper-Limit Curve and
Lower-Limit Curve for the Normalized Shear Modulus (G/Gmax)
Variation with Shear Strain from a Combination of Fixed-Free RCTS
Tests and CTS Tests of Tuff Specimens .................................................... 385
Lower-Limit Curve for the Material Damping Ratio (D) Variation with
Shear Strain from a Combination of Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS
Tests of Tuff Specimens............................................................................. 386
xv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Overview of Yucca Mountain and the Proposed Area of the High-Level
Radioactive Waste Repository (from DOE.gov) ............................................ 2
Figure 1.2 Example Linear and Nonlinear G/Gmax – log γ, Ds – log γ Curves for
Dry, Granular Soil (from Menq, 2003) .......................................................... 5
Figure 1.3 A Tuff Sample from the Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level
Radioactive waste Repository in Nevada; Sample Shown is from the
Topopah Spring Formation and the Lower Lithophysal Sub-Unit. (from
DOE.gov) ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2.1 Stress Tensor (from Gere and Timoshenko, 1990) ...................................... 14
Figure 2.2 Definition of: (a) Normal Strain and (b) Shear Strain .................................. 16
Figure 2.3 Typical Stress-Strain Deformation Curve of Rock (from Harrison and
Hudson, 1997)............................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.4 Definitions of Tangent Modulus and Secant Modulus (from Harrison
and Hudson, 1997) ........................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.5 Variations of: (a) Tangent Young’s Modulus and (b) Secant Young’s
Modulus with Strain (from Harrison and Hudson, 1997) ............................. 22
Figure 2.6 Torsional Load and the Resulting Shear Stress Applied to a Cylindrical
Specimen (from Gere and Timoshenko, 1990)............................................. 23
Figure 2.7 Torsional Shear Strain Due to Applied Torque (from Gere and
Timoshenko, 1990) ....................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.8 Three Different Types of Wave Motions in a Finite Solid Rod (from
Menq, 2003) .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.1 Extremely Large Diameter Rock Core Obtained by the Shot-Core
Drilling Method (from Jumikis, 1983).......................................................... 43
xvi
Figure 3.2 View of the Test Site Showing Flat Jacks at One End and Extensometers
for Relative Displacement Measurement during Loading. (from
Goodman, 1989) ........................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.3 General Trend of Size Effect and the Concept of REV (from Harrison
and Hudson, 1997) ........................................................................................ 45
Figure 3.4 Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Granite versus Volume of the
Test Samples (from Lundborg,1966) ............................................................ 46
Figure 3.5 Specimen Volume versus Strength Relationship for Coal: Experimental
Data and Best-Fit after Weibull’s Equation (from Bieniawski, 1967) ......... 47
Figure 3.6 Maximum Stress versus Specimen Length – Cedar City Quartz Diorite
(from Pratt et al, 1971).................................................................................. 48
Figure 3.7 Elastic Modulus versus Specimen Size – Cedar City Quartz Diorite
(from Pratt et al, 1971).................................................................................. 49
Figure 3.8 Elastic Modulus versus Specimen Size – Raymond Granodiorite (from
Pratt et al, 1971) ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 3.9 Influence of Specimen Size on the Strength of Intact Rock (from Hoek
and Brown, 1980).......................................................................................... 51
Figure 3.10 Variation of Compressive Axial Strength with Specimen Size (from
Price, 1986) ................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3.11 Variation of Elastic Modulus with Specimen Size (from Price, 1986)......... 53
Figure 3.12 Influence on Specimen Strength of Young’s Modulus Ratio of Platen to
Specimen (Ep / Es) (from Tang et al, 1999) ................................................. 54
Figure 3.13 Influence on Specimen Strength of Height to Width (H/W) of Specimen

(from Tang et al, 1999) ................................................................................. 54
Figure 3.14 Influence on Specimen Strength of Specimen Size (from Tang et al,
1999) ............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 3.15 Comparison between Strain Rate and Loading Frequency........................... 56
Figure 3.16 Scope of Strain Rate according to Load time to Failure for Problmens
Engineering Interest (Harris and Hudson, 1997) .......................................... 57
xvii
Figure 3.17 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for SiC and Al2O3 ; T =23°C
(from Lankford, 1981) .................................................................................. 58
Figure 3.18 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Tyndallstone. (from Lajtai,
1991) ............................................................................................................. 59
Figure 3.19 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Lanigan Potash Rock
When Confining Pressure is 0, 2 and 5 MPa. (from Lajtai, 1991) ............... 59
Figure 3.20 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Yucca Mountain Tuff
(from Martin et al., 1993) ............................................................................. 61
Figure 3.21 Fracture Toughness of Gabbro and Marble versus Loading Rate (from
Zhang, 1999) ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 3.22 Relation between Kld of Gabbro or Marble and k' (from Zhang, 1999) ....... 63
Figure 3.23 Experimental Tensile Strength Plotted against the Strain Rate in (a)
Inada Granite (b) Tage Tuff (from Cho et al., 2003) .................................... 64
Figure 3.24 Dynamic Tensile Strength Plotted against the Apparent Strain Rate (a) m
= 5, (b) m = 50 and (c) m = ∞ (from Cho et al., 2003) ................................ 65
Figure 3.25 Change of Strength with Strain Rate at Different Confining Pressures
(Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004) ....................................................... 66
Figure 3.26 Change of Strength with Confining Pressure at Different Strain Rates
(Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004) ....................................................... 67
Figure 3.27 Variation of Absolute Increment of Strength with Strain Rate at

Different Confining Pressures (Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004) ...... 67
Figure 3.28 Variation of Absolute Increment of Strength with Confining Pressure at
Different Strain Rates (Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004) ................... 68
Figure 3.29 Ultimate Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate (from Ma and
Daeman, 2004) .............................................................................................. 69
Figure 3.30 Secant Elastic Modulus versus Strain Rate (from Ma and Daeman, 2004).. 69
Figure 3.31 Simplest Example of Rock Specimen (from Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S.,
1992) ............................................................................................................. 72
Figure 3.32 Variation of the Ratio of Gstatic/Gdynamic with the Variation of the Ratio
G2/G1 (from Tatsuoka and Shibuya, 1992) ................................................... 74
xviii
Figure 3.33 Variation of the Ratio of Gstatic/Gdynamic with the Variation of the Length
Ratio of Soft Material, a (from Tatsuoka and Shibuya, 1992)...................... 74
Figure 3.34 Relationship between Average Values of (√(E/ρ)) and Logarithm of
Compressive Strength, Showing Upper and Lower Limits of 75 % and
90 % Confidence (from Kazi and Eissa, 1988)............................................. 79
Figure 3.35 Dynamic Young’s Modulus versus Static Young’s Modulus for
Specimens of USW-NRG-6 Tested in Uniaxial Compression (from
Price,1994) .................................................................................................... 80
Figure 3.36 Young’s Modulus versus Porosity (from Yale and Jamieson, 1994) ........... 81
Figure 3.37 Young’s Modulus versus Dynamic/Static Modulus Ratio (from Yale and
Jamieson, 1994) ............................................................................................ 82
Figure 3.38 Static Poisson’s Ratio versus Porosity (from Yale and Jamieson, 1994) ..... 82
Figure 3.39 Dynamic and Static Stress-Strain Curves for Cycle 1 (from Plona and
Cook, 1995)................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3.40 Dynamic and Static Elastic Modulus versus Stress for Cycle 1 (from
Plona and Cook, 1995).................................................................................. 83
Figure 3.41 Young’s Modulus versus Porosity for Rotliegendes Sandstone (from
Yale et al., 1995) ........................................................................................... 84
Figure 3.42 Dynamic / Static Young’s Modulus versus Hysteresis Loop Area for
Rotliegendes Sandstone (from Yale et al., 1995).......................................... 85
Figure 3.43 Total Porosity versus Normalized Uniaxial Compressive Strength (from
Nimick et al., 2004) ...................................................................................... 86
Figure 3.44 Total Porosity versus Uniaxial Compressive Strength (from Avar and
Hudyma, 2007) ............................................................................................. 87
Figure 3.45 Total Porosity versus Elastic Modulus (from Avar and Hudyma, 2007) ..... 87
Figure 4.1 Compressive Testing Machine for Rock (a) and Triaxial Cell Used to
Test Rock Specimens (b) (from GCTS.com)................................................ 91
Figure 4.2 Typical Results of Rock Compressive Test for the Uniaxial Compressive
Strength or the Triaxial Compressive Strength (from Harrison and
Hudson, 1997)............................................................................................... 92
xix
Figure 4.3 Direct Tensile Strength Test (a) and Completed Test on a Rock
Specimen (b) (from GCTS.com)................................................................... 93
Figure 4.4 Brazilian Tensile Strength Test (Splitting Tensile Strength Test) (a) and
Brazillian Testing Device (b) (from GCTS.com) ......................................... 93
Figure 4.5 Bending Strength Test (Flexural Strength Test) (a) and a Bending
Strength Test Device (b) (from GCTS.com)................................................. 94
Figure 4.6 Direct Shear Test (a) and Torsional Shear Test (b) ...................................... 95
Figure 4.7 Overview of General Setup for Free-Free Resonant Column and Direct
Arrival test .................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.8 General Test Set-Up for Direct Arrival Test on Unconfined Cylindrical
Specimens: (a) Schematic Diagram and (b) Photograph of Test
Specimen (from Stokoe et al. 1994) ............................................................. 99
Figure 4.9 Time Records Example from the Instrumented Hammer and
Accelerometer Recorded with a Digital Oscilloscope .................................. 99
Figure 4.10 Displacements and Strains in Longitudinal or Torsional Motion of a

Free-Free Specimen at the First Three Modes ............................................ 101
Figure 4.11 General Test Set-Up for: (a) Longitudinal Compressional Resonance
Test, (b) Longitudinal Compressional Resonance Test (Picture), (c)
Torsional Resonance Test (d) Torsional Resonance Tests (Picture) on
Unconfined Cylindrical Specimens (from Stokoe et al. 1994) ................... 103
Figure 4.12 (a) Wide Bandwidth of Frequency Response Curve of Displacement
Generated by Vibration Motion in Compression, (b) Zoomed Bandwidth
of Frequency Response Curve of Displacement, (c) Expanded Zoom of
Frequency Response Curve of Displacement, and (d) Data Analysis
Process (from Stokoe et al. 1994) ............................................................... 104
Figure 4.13 The Variation of Unconstrained Longitudinal Compression Wave

Velocity Ratio (=Vc*/Vc) with Diameter (2a)-to-Wavelength (λ) (from
Lewis 1990) ................................................................................................ 106
xx
Figure 4.14 Combined Resonant Column (RC) and Torsional Shear (TS) Device
(Confining Chamber not Shown): (a) Picture of Fixed-Free RCTS
Device, (b) Schematic Drawing of Fixed-Free RCTS Device (from
Stokoe et al., 1999) ..................................................................................... 109
Figure 4.15 Displacement and Strain of a Fixed-Free Specimen at the First Three
Resonance Modes ....................................................................................... 113
Figure 4.16 Example of Dynamic Response Curve Measurement in the RC Test

(from Stokoe et al., 1999) ........................................................................... 115
Figure 4.17 Material Damping Measurement in the RC Test Using the Free-
Vibration Decay Curve (from Stokoe et al., 1999) ..................................... 117
Figure 4.18 Material Damping Measurement in the RC Test Using the Half-Power
Bandwidth Method (from Stokoe et al., 1999) ........................................... 119
Figure 4.19 An Example of the Hysteresis Loop Evaluated in the TS Test. (from
Stokoe et al., 1999) ..................................................................................... 121
Figure 4.20 Measurement Setup and Signal Flow Chart of the Unconfined, Slow
Cyclic Torsional Shear (CTS) Test............................................................. 124
Figure 4.21 Measurement Setup of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear
Test.............................................................................................................. 126
Figure 4.22 Torque Cell Calibration Drawing (a), Picture of Torque Cell Calibration
(b) and Torque Cell Calibration Results (c)................................................ 128
Figure 4.23 First-Generation Displacement Measurement System; (a) Supporting
System of Proximitor Sensors, (b) Overall Drawing of CTS Test System. 131
Figure 4.24 Initial Noise Generated by the Initial (First-Generation) Displacement

Measurement System .................................................................................. 132
Figure 4.25 Improved (Second-Generation) Displacement Measurement System ........ 132
Figure 4.26 Setup View of the Four Proximitors in the Improved (Second-
Generation) Measurement System .............................................................. 133
Figure 4.27 Proximitor Calibration Process ................................................................... 136
Figure 4.28 Proximitor Calibration: (a) Calibration Factor and (b) Distance
Difference Calculations .............................................................................. 136
xxi
Figure 4.29 End Platens to Hold Tuff Specimens .......................................................... 137
Figure 4.30 Device used to Align the Specimen and End Platens ................................. 138
Figure 4.31 GPIB Card and Cable.................................................................................. 139
Figure 4.32 Initial (First-Generation) Data Acquisition and Recording System used
in the CTS Tests.......................................................................................... 139
Figure 4.33 Improved (Second-Generation) Data Acquisition and Recording System . 140
Figure 4.34 Drawing of Improved (Second-Generation) CTS Testing System ............. 141
Figure 4.35 Stress-Strain Curves for Stress Rates of: (a) 3.08 psi/min, (b) 6.16
psi/min, (c) 12.3 psi/min and (d) 25.5 psi/min and the Maximum
Applied Torque was 400 in.-lb ................................................................... 144
Figure 4.36 Stress-Strain Curves for Stress Rates of: (a) 3.05 psi/min, (b) 6.08
psi/min, (c) 12.2 psi/min and (d) 24.4 psi/min and the Maximum
Applied Torque was 800 in.-lb ................................................................... 145
Figure 4.37 Variation of Static Shear Modulus of Grout Specimen with Strain Rate ... 146
Figure 4.38 Stress-Strain Curves of Grout Specimen during Each Loading Cycle in
the Preliminary Test: (a) First Stage of Cyclic Loading (Max. Torque
250 in.-lb) and (b) Second Stage of Cyclic Loading (Max. Torque 500
in.-lb)........................................................................................................... 148
Figure 4.39 Stress-Strain Curves of Grout Specimen during Each Loading Cycle in
the Preliminary Test: (a) Third Stage of Cyclic Loading (Positive Max.
Torque 1000 in.-lb, Negative Max. Torque 2000 in.-lb) and (b) Fourth
Stage of Monotonic Loading (Failure Torque 3756 in.-lb) ........................ 148
Figure 4.40 Combined Shear Modulus Variation Curves with Shear Strain of Grout
Specimen..................................................................................................... 149
Figure 4.41 Grout Specimen Failed in Torsional Shear ................................................. 149
Figure 5.1 Location of Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive Waste

Repository and Temporary Storage Facilities of Radioactive Waste
around The U.S. (from DOE.gov) .............................................................. 155
Figure 5.2 Geological Profile of the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Area
(from DOE.gov, 2007) ................................................................................ 157
xxii
Figure 5.3 Nonwelded Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain Tested at the
University of Texas..................................................................................... 159
Figure 5.4 Welded Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain at the University of Texas
at Austin and Its Vesicular Structure .......................................................... 160
Figure 5.5 The Profile of Geologic Formation Layers in Yucca Mountain (from
Buesch et al., 2006)..................................................................................... 161
Figure 5.6 Mineralogical and Chemical Composition of Tuffs in the Vicinity of

Yucca Mountain (from LosAlamos National Laboratory Report, LA-
12345-MS, 1993) ........................................................................................ 162
Figure 5.7 Existing Boreholes in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain from Which
Specimens That were Tested in This Study were Recovered ..................... 165
Figure 5.8 Locations of the Boreholes: RF #14, RF #15, RF #16, RF #17, and RF
#22 Which were Drilled at the Original Location of the Waste Handling
Building....................................................................................................... 166
Figure 5.9 Parent Boreholes in the ESF and ECRB Tunnels where Tuff Cores were
Recovered (Original Drawing by D. Buesch, 2004)................................... 167
Figure 5.10 Rock Coring Machine (a) and Rock Cutting Machine (b).......................... 179
Figure 5.11 Re-cored Specimen and Remains after Re-coring and Cutting (a) and a
Standard Specimen Setup with Top Cap and Base Pedestal and Ready
for Fixed-Free RCTS Testing (b)................................................................ 179
Figure 5.12 Standard Tuff Specimen Setup for CTS Tests ............................................ 183
Figure 6.1 Time Records from the Instrument Hammer and the Accelerometer in a
Direct Arrival Measurement of Constrained Compression Wave;
Aluminum Specimen .................................................................................. 189
Figure 6.2 Power Spectrum of Longitudinal Resonance Measured with an

Accelerometer; Aluminum Calibration Specimen...................................... 190
Figure 6.3 Power Spectrum of Shear Resonance Measured with Two

Accelerometers; Aluminum Calibration Specimen .................................... 190
Figure 6.4 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with Total Unit Weight of 149 Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 199
xxiii
Figure 6.5 Variation of Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity with Total Unit
Weight of 149 Tuff Specimens ................................................................... 200
Figure 6.6 Variation of Constrained Compression Wave Velocity with Total Unit
Weight of 139 Tuff Specimens ................................................................... 201
Figure 6.7 Photograph of the Specimens Left off in the Description of General
Trend of Seismic Wave Velocities ............................................................. 203
Figure 6.8 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with Porosity of 149 Tuff Specimens.. 206
Figure 6.9 Variation of Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity

of 149 Tuff Specimens................................................................................ 207
Figure 6.10 Variation of Constrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity of

139 Tuff Specimens .................................................................................... 208
Figure 6.11 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Shear Wave Velocity of 137 Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 212
Figure 6.12 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Unconstrained Compression Wave

Velocity of 137 Tuff Specimens ................................................................. 213
Figure 6.13 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Constrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.14 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Shear Wave
Figure 6.15 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Total Unit Weight of
145 Tuff Specimens .................................................................................... 216
Figure 6.16 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Porosity of 145 Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 217
Figure 6.17 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression

with Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity of 144 Tuff Specimens 218

with Total Unit Weight of 144 Tuff Specimens ......................................... 219

with Porosity of 144 Tuff Specimens ......................................................... 220
xxiv
Figure 6.20 Photograph of the Specimens Left off Additionally in the Description of
General Trend of Material Damping Ratios ............................................... 221
Figure 6.21 Relationship between Material Damping Ratios in Shear and
Unconstrained Compression from Free-Free Resonant Column Tests of
144 Tuff Specimens .................................................................................... 223
Figure 6.22 Relationship between Material Damping Ratios in Shear and

Unconstrained Compression; Free-Free Resonant Column Tests of 109
Tuff Specimens with Material Damping Ratios less than 1.0 % ................ 224
Figure 6.23 Example of Lognormally Distributed Variable X....................................... 225
Figure 6.24 Shear Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain from Free-Free URC
Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft .......................................................................... 231
Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 420 ft ............................................................................ 232
Tests; Depth 420 ft ~ 1360 ft ...................................................................... 233
Tests; Depth 1360 ft ~ 3500 ft .................................................................... 234
Figure 6.28 Comparison of Median Shear Wave Velocity of Sub-Units within the
Tiva Canyon Tuff and Topopah Spring Tuff as Determined from Free-
Free URC Tests........................................................................................... 235
Figure 6.29 Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain
from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft........................................ 236

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 420 ft.......................................... 237

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 420 ft ~ 1360 ft.................................... 238

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 1360 ft ~ 3500 ft.................................. 239
Figure 6.33 Constrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft........................................ 240
xxv
from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 420 ft.......................................... 241
from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 420 ft ~ 1360 ft.................................... 242

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 1360 ft ~ 3500 ft.................................. 243
Figure 6.37 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Shear of Yucca Mountain from
Free-Free URC Tests of 145 Tuff Specimens............................................. 245
Figure 6.38 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression of

Yucca Mountain from Free-Free URC Test of 144 Tuff Specimens.......... 246
Figure 6.39 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of

Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens................................................... 249
Figure 6.40 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of

Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens................................................. 250
Figure 6.41 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave

Velocity with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens................ 251
Figure 6.42 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave

Velocity with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens.............. 252
Figure 6.43 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Constrained Compression Wave

Velocity with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens................ 253
Figure 6.44 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Constrained Compression Wave
Velocity with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens.............. 254
Figure 6.45 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with

Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens ...................................... 255
Figure 6.46 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with

Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens .................................... 256
Figure 6.47 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in

Unconstrained Compression with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul
Specimens ................................................................................................... 257
xxvi
Figure 6.48 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in
Unconstrained Compression with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn
Specimens ................................................................................................... 258
Figure 7.1 Comparison of: (a) Shear Wave Velocities (Vs), (b) Unconstrained
Compression Wave Velocities (Vc), and (c) Constrained Wave
Velocities (Vp) of Original and Re-cored Tuff Specimens ......................... 265
Figure 7.2 Tuff Specimens Excluded in Analysis of Re-coring Effect: (a) UTA-42-
E (5C), Tptpll and (b) UTA-42-AF (32A), Tcblv....................................... 266
Figure 7.3 Comparison of: (a) Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax), (b)
Unconstrained Young’s Modulus in Small Strain (Emax), and (c)
Constrained Elastic Modulus (Mmax) of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 268
Figure 7.4 Comparison of Total Unit Weights (γt) of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 269
Figure 7.5 Comparison of Poisson’s Ratios (ν) of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 269
Figure 7.6 Comparison of: (a) Material Damping Ratios in Shear (Ds min), and (b)
Material Damping Ratios in Unconstrained Compression (Dc min) of
Original and Re-cored Tuff Specimens ...................................................... 270
Figure 7.7 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocities at Small Strains Measured by

Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens ........ 275
Figure 7.8 Tuff Specimens Excluded in Comparison of the Results between Free-
Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS: (a) Original Specimen of UTA-42-A
(1G), Tptrl, (b) Re-cored Specimen of UTA-42-A (1G), Tptrl and (c)
UTA-23-B, Tpcrn ....................................................................................... 276
Figure 7.9 Comparison of Shear Moduli at Small Strains Measured by Free-Free
URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens........................ 278
Figure 7.10 Comparison of Material Damping Ratios in Shear at Small Strains

Measured by Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 279
xxvii
Figure 7.11 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Shear Wave
Velocity at Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS
Tests for the Tuff Specimens ...................................................................... 281
Figure 7.12 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Shear Modulus at
Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS for the Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 282
Figure 7.13 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Material Damping
Ratio in Shear at Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free
RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens ........................................................... 283
Figure 7.14 General Relationship between Material Damping Ratio in Shear at Small
Strains and Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free
RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens ........................................................... 284
Figure 7.15 Variation of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Isotropic

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 286
Figure 7.16 Variation of Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus with Isotropic Confining

Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff Specimens................ 287

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with Seven Welded
Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens ................................................................. 288

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with Nine Welded
Lithophysal Tuff Specimens ....................................................................... 288
Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 16 Moderately
Welded Tuff Specimens.............................................................................. 289

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 12 Nonwelded
Tuff Specimens ........................................................................................... 289
Figure 7.21 Picture of Specimens, (a) UTA-42-K (11C), Tptpul (Welded

Lithophysal Tuff) and (b) UTA42-L (12C), Tptpul (Welded Lithophysal
Tuff), that are not Tested under Confinement ............................................ 290
xxviii
Figure 7.22 Picture of Tuff Specimens, (a) UTA-42-AB (28E), Tpbt2 (Nonwelded
Tuff) and (b) UTA-42-X (24C), Tpbt3 (Nonwelded Tuff), that Show the
Most Pressure-Dependency in Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus . 291
Figure 7.23 Variation of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio with Isotropic
Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 293

Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens ................................................................. 294

Lithophysal Tuff Specimens ....................................................................... 294

Welded Tuff Specimens.............................................................................. 295

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 12 Nonwelded
Tuff Specimens ........................................................................................... 295
Figure 7.28 Picture of Tuff Specimen, UTA-42-AA (27C), Tptpv3 (Moderately

Welded Tuff) that Show the Increasing Material Damping Ratio with
Increase of Confinement Pressure .............................................................. 296
Figure 7.29 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff Specimens at
the Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process ...................... 298
Figure 7.30 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain at the Highest Isotropic
Confining Pressure of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens ..... 301
Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens ................ 301
Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens ................. 302
Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens............................... 302
xxix
Figure 7.34 Variation of Normalized Shear Modulus with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process 303
Figure 7.35 Variation of Normalized Shear Modulus with Shear Strain at the Highest
Isotropic Confining Pressure of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 304
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens . 304
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens .. 305
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens ............... 305
Figure 7.39 Variation of Material Damping Ratio with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process 309
Figure 7.40 Variation of Material Damping Ratio with Shear Strain at the Highest
Specimens ................................................................................................... 310
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens . 310
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens .. 311
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens ............... 311
Figure 8.1 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) First and (b) Second
Loading Stages of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of
Tptpmn Specimen (UTA-CTS-11) ............................................................. 316
Figure 8.2 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) Third and (b) Fourth
Tptpmn Specimen (UTA-CTS-11) ............................................................. 316
Figure 8.3 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) Fifth and (b) Sixth Loading
Stages of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tptpmn
Specimen (UTA-CTS-11) ........................................................................... 317
xxx
Figure 8.4 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop from the (a) Last and (b) All Loading
Specimen (UTA-CTS-11) ........................................................................... 317
Figure 8.5 Broken Specimens of: (a) UTA-CTS-05 (Tptpmn), (b) UTA-CTS-07
(Tptpln), (c) UTA-CTS-11 (Tptpmn), and (d) UTA-CTS-13 (Tptpmn)
that were Torsionally Failed in Shear during the Unconfined, Slow
Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests ...................................................................... 319
Figure 8.6 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) First and (b) the Second
Tptpul Specimen (UTA-CTS-12) ............................................................... 320
Tptpul Specimen (UTA-CTS-12) ............................................................... 320
Figure 8.8 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) Fifth and (b) Last Loading
Stages of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tptpul
Specimen (UTA-CTS-12) ........................................................................... 321
Figure 8.9 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from All Loading Stages of the
Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tptpul Specimen
(UTA-CTS-12)............................................................................................ 321
Figure 8.10 Broken Specimens: (a) UTA-CTS-03 (Tptpll), (b) UTA-CTS-04

(Tptpul), (c) UTA-CTS-06 (Tptpul), (d) UTA-CTS-09 (Tptpll), (e)
UTA-CTS-10 (Tptpul), and (f) UTA-CTS-12 (Tptpul) that were
Torsionally Failed in Shear during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic
Torsional Shear Tests.................................................................................. 323
Tcp Specimen (UTA-CTS-01).................................................................... 325
Tcp Specimen (UTA-CTS-01).................................................................... 325
xxxi
Stages of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tcp
Specimen (UTA-CTS-01) ........................................................................... 326
Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tcp Specimen (UTA-
CTS-01)....................................................................................................... 326
Figure 8.15 Broken Specimen UTA-CTS-01 (Tcp) that was Torsionally Failed in
Shear during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests............. 327
Tac Specimen (UTA-CTS-02) .................................................................... 328
Tac Specimen (UTA-CTS-02) .................................................................... 329
Stages of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tac
Specimen (UTA-CTS-02) ........................................................................... 329
Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tac Specimen (UTA-
CTS-02)....................................................................................................... 330
Figure 8.20 Broken Specimen UTA-CTS-02 (Tac) that was Torsionally Failed in
Shear during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests............. 330
Figure 8.21 Example of Extrapolation to Estimate Gmax of Specimen UTA-CTS-04,
Tptpul .......................................................................................................... 332
Figure 8.22 General Relationship between Low-Amplitude Shear Moduli from CTS
Tests and Free-Free URC Tests .................................................................. 335
Figure 8.23 General Relationship between the Shear Modulus at Failure from the
CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC
Tests ............................................................................................................ 335
Figure 8.24 General Relationship between Gmax CTS & Gfailure from the CTS Tests and
Shear Wave Velocity from the Free-Free URC Tests ................................ 337
xxxii
Total Unit Weight ....................................................................................... 337
Figure 8.26 General Relationship between Gmax URC / Gmax CTS and Total Unit Weight. 339
Figure 8.27 General Relationship between Gmax URC / Gmax CTS and Porosity ................ 339
Figure 8.28 General Relationship between Shear Strength (Failure Stress) of Tuff
Specimens from CTS Tests and Total Unit Weight.................................... 341
Figure 8.29 General Relationship between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens
from CTS Tests and Total Unit Weight ...................................................... 341
Specimens from CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from
Free-Free URC Tests .................................................................................. 342
Figure 8.31 General Relation between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens from
CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC
Tests ............................................................................................................ 342
Specimens from CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity
from Free-Free URC Tests.......................................................................... 343
Figure 8.33 General Relationship between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens
from CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity from Free-
Free URC Tests........................................................................................... 343
Figure 8.34 Comparison of the Variations of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain from
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Specimens and from CTS Tests of Four Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 345
Figure 8.35 Comparison of the Variations of Normalized Shear Modulus with Shear
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal
Tuff Specimens and from CTS Tests of Four Welded Nonlithophysal
Tuff Specimens ........................................................................................... 346
Figure 8.36 Comparison of the Variations of Material Damping Ratio with Shear
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal
xxxiii
Tuff Specimens and from CTS Tests of Four Welded Nonlithophysal
Tuff Specimens ........................................................................................... 347
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 11 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens and
from CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens .................... 350
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 11 Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Specimens and from CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 351
Specimens and from CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Specimens ................................................................................................... 352
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens and
from CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff Specimen ..................... 354
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff
Specimens and from CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff
Specimen..................................................................................................... 355
Specimens and from CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff
Specimen..................................................................................................... 356
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens and CTS
Tests of One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen.................................................... 357
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
and from CTS Tests of One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen ............................ 358
xxxiv
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
and from CTS Tests of One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen ............................ 359
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from CTS Tests of 12
Tuff Specimens ........................................................................................... 361
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from
CTS Tests of 12 Tuff Specimens ................................................................ 362
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from
CTS Tests of 12 Tuff Specimens ................................................................ 363
Figure 9.1 Shear Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain Tuff Specimens from
Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft ................................................ 373
Figure 9.2 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Shear of Yucca Mountain Tuff
Specimens from Free-Free URC Tests of 145 Tuff Specimens ................. 375
Figure 9.3 Comparison of (a) Gmax, (b) Vs, (c) γt, (d) Ds of Original and Re-cored
Tuff Cores Determined from Free-Free URC Tests ................................... 376
Figure 9.4 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff Specimens at
the Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing .............................. 3798
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing .......... 379
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing .......... 380
Figure 9.7 Extension of the Relationship of G/Gmax - log γ with the CTS Test
Results and Best-Fit Curve of G/Gmax - log γ Curve................................... 383
Figure 9.8 Extension of the Relationship of D - log γ with the CTS Test Results and
Best-Fit Curve of D - log γ Relation Curve ................................................ 384
xxxv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. government has designated the area around Yucca Mountain as the
proposed geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste from the U.S. nuclear
industry. At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting a variety of
scientific investigations of the site. The excavation of the main drift and cross drift, ESF
(Exploratory Studies Facility) tunnel and ECRB (Enhanced Characterization of the
Repository Block) tunnel respectively, are now completed. Figure 1.1 shows an overview
of the construction site of the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository in Yucca
Mountain.
The Yucca Mountain project is a special underground construction of rock tunnel
and drift unlike typical cases for the following reasons: First, typical rock cavern facilities
such as automobile parking lots, state emergency storage areas, bulk storage caverns for
crude or refined oil, underground power plants and transportation (road or railroad)
tunnels pose comparatively less dangerous consequences than the proposed high-level
radioactive waste repository if the repository malfunctions under future earthquakes or
other unexpected factors. Any malfunction of the waste repository could cause a very
dangerous situation as a result of any release of high-level radioactive waste from the
repository. Second, the seepage of ground water into the structure is a sensitive problem
in designing the repository facility. Any release of radioactive waste into flowing ground
water could be very dangerous. Hence, the flow of ground water into the waste repository
is minimized to minimize the chance of releasing waste into the ground water. Third, the
design life of normal rock cavern facilities is approximately 100 years or so. However,
the waste repository in Yucca Mountain is designed to keep the high-level radioactive
1
waste for 10,000 years because it is known as 10,000 years is required to create a
stabilized and safe material. This required life of the waste repository is double the time
of the pyramid’s history. To have a safe performance of the repository during that long,
long period, all possible high-level engineering analyses and scientific methods were
applied or are being applied to its better design.
Management Facilities &

Debris Disposal Lot
South Entrance of Radioactive

Waste Repository
Figure 1.1 Overview of Yucca Mountain and the Proposed Area of the High-Level
Radioactive Waste Repository (from DOE.gov)
To prevent the high-level radioactive waste from contacting people over the
10,000-year design life, four steps for waterproofing have been considered. The first step
is to prevent or minimize the approach of ground water to the facility as much as possible.
The second step is the construction of storage tunnels which lessen the likelihood of
ground water seepage into the repository. The third step is development of storage
packing method which can be sustained for 10,000 years even if some ground water drips
from the crown of storage tunnels. The fourth step is minimizing the contamination if
some radioactive material is released. The main interest in this study is related to the
second step on design and construction of stable repository tunnels.
2
The construction of the proposed radioactive waste repository in deep
underground tunnels decreases the uncertainty in the stability of the facility from future
variables such as mechanical weathering by flowing water, repeated loading of wind,
effect of climate change, or weather variation, daily or annually temperature differences
and biological influences by animals or plants. However, one factor, earthquake shocking,
still remains even if the repository is constructed in deep underground. Although the
chance of earthquakes around the Yucca Mountain area moderate during the design life
of the proposed radioactive waste repository, earthquakes will occur and this type of
loading must be considered in the design. The shaking from an earthquake will create a
cyclic dynamic loading in and around the repository tunnels and deformations of the rock
will occur. To design the facility for these events, the appropriate mechanical (static and
dynamic) deformation properties of the geologic materials around the repository are
required. Some of the properties are measured in this study.
The rock around the emplacement tunnels at Yucca Mountain is a tuff. Tuff is
formed by sedimentation of volcanic ash but it is different from other typical sedimentary
rock because it is formed under a hot environment. Hence, it has properties associated
sedimentary and igneous rocks. Therefore, tuff might have dynamic properties unlike
other general sedimentary rocks or igneous rocks. As a result, determining dynamic
properties of the tuff materials at Yucca Mountain is the main interest in this study.
Investigation of the dynamic properties of tuff is done with two dynamic tests and one
newly developed cyclic test. Trend of dynamic properties are studied and possible
correlations with other mechanical properties are investigated. The dynamic properties,
the Cyclic Shear Properties and the physical (bulk) properties of tuff are compared. This
research work will be used in the design of the proposed high-level radioactive waste
repository to earthquake loading.
3
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
There are three objectives in this study. The first objective is the measurement and
collection of the dynamic properties of tuffs to determine the overall trends in the
dynamic properties and their variation with shear strain, confining pressure, total unit
weight and porosity. The second objective is the development of a rational and suitable
“cyclic torsional shear” testing device to extend the curves of the shear modulus and
material damping ratio with shear strain to a higher strain range than possible in dynamic
laboratory testing and then to the failure shear strain. The third objective is to correlate
the cyclic shear properties and the dynamic shear properties to complete the dynamic
property curves, covering the variation of the dynamic properties from small strain to
failure shear strain. This objective is accomplished by combining the results of the
dynamic and cyclic tests.
The first objective involves the measurement and collection of the dynamic
property of tuff specimens. The two dynamic properties that are needed for the design
analysis of the tunnels and waste earthquake shaking are shear modulus (G) and material
damping ratio in shear (Ds). These properties are often affected by mean effective
confining pressure(σ′o), loading frequency (or strain rate) and shear strain amplitude (γ).
Hence, the dynamic properties of soil and rock are represented by the low-amplitude
shear modulus (Gmax), low-amplitude material damping (Ds min), and curves that show
how G and D are affected by γ. An example set of nonlinear curve are shown in Figure
1.2. The curves of G/Gmax – log γ and Ds – log γ represent the linear and nonlinear
dynamic-property variation with shear strain. In addition to these curves, the curves of
log Gmax – log σ′o, log Dmin - log σ′o, and variation of G and D with frequency (or strain
rate) are also needed to understand the variation of the dynamic properties.
4
(a) Typically Normalized Shear Modulus Reduction Curve
(b) Typical Material Damping Ratio Increase Curve
Figure 1.2 Example Linear and Nonlinear G/Gmax – log γ, Ds – log γ Curves for Dry,
Granular Soil (from Menq, 2003)
To determine these dynamic shear property values and curves of the tuffs, two
dynamic testing methods were used: (1) the Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column and
Direct Arrival test (Free-Free URC test), and (2) Fixed-Free Resonant Column and
Torsional Shear test (Fixed-Free RCTS test). These methods are based on elastic wave
propagation theory which means the seismic wave velocities of material in the linear and
equivalent linear range have the relationship with the elastic coefficients of the material
as follows:
M = ρVp2 (1.1)
E = ρVc2 (1.2)
G = ρVS2 (1.3)
5
where: M is constrained modulus,
E is Young’s modulus,
G is shear modulus,
Vp is constrained compression wave velocity,
Vc is unconstrained compression wave velocity,
Vs is shear wave velocity, and
ρ is the mass density of the material defined as the total unit weight divided by
the acceleration of gravity (ρ=γt/g).
The elastic coefficients (M, E, G) can be computed from the seismic wave
velocities (Vp, Vc, Vs). The seismic wave velocities can be calculated from the frequency
response curve or travel times which are measured in the Resonant Column test or Direct
Arrival test. The material damping ratios are determined from the frequency response
curve or the free-vibration decay curve in the resonant column tests.
The linear and nonlinear dynamic properties of sand, silt and clays have been
widely studied over the past four decades. The compressional properties of rock in these
strain ranges have been also extensively studied over the past several decades using
dynamic methods. However, the study of the cyclic and the dynamic shear properties for
rock is limited and the information of the properties is scarce. Presently, the design for
earthquake shaking of several facilities in the U.S requires more information on the cyclic
and dynamic shear properties of rock. Hence, free-free URC tests and fixed-free RCTS
have been performed over the last decade at the University of Texas. This study is
directed at the dynamic properties of tuffs from Yucca Mountain for which very little
information existed. The experimental results generated in this study form a portion of an
initial database of the dynamic properties of tuffs (The other work at the University of
Texas is presented by Choi, 2008). The database of tuff properties enables one to find the
general variational trend of the dynamic properties with changes of other physical
6
properties of the tuffs.
The curves of dynamic properties of soil and rock for earthquake design are often
determined by fixed-free RCTS tests. However, the fixed-free RCTS test device has two
shortcomings in case of testing rock. First, the RCTS has limited torque so that the device
can only be used to determine dynamic property curves up to maximum strains in the
nonlinear elastic shear strain range (generally, γtc = 0.01 %) when testing tuff specimens
with a diameter of 1.6 inch. The curves of G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ, Ds – log γ which are
up to a failure shear strain for more comprehensive analyses of the tunnel structure can
not be determined with the present fixed-free RCTS device. Second, the RCTS device
requires smaller specimens to test and sometimes these specimens are too small to be
representative of the in-situ materials. The typical size of fixed-free RCTS rock
specimens is 1.6 inch (diameter) by 3~6 inch (length). This size may be sufficient for
testing intact rock with flaws or anomalies considering that the typical size of uniaxial
compressive strength test specimens is with about 2 inch diameter. However, a larger size
is needed for some of the tuff from Yucca Mountain which include voids (lithophysae) as
seen in Figure 1.3.
To overcome some of the limitations of the RCTS device, a Cyclic Torsional
Shear (CTS) test was developed. This testing method is classified as a static test because
of the very low loading rate. According to previous studies, voids in rock can contribute
to differences between static and dynamic properties. However, the variation of both
mechanical properties with shear strain will be governed by the solid portion of the rock.
Hence, the dynamic properties at high strains can be deduced from the static curve. Based
on this approach, the Cyclic Torsional Shear test was developed to measure curves of G –
log γ, G/Gmax – log γ, Ds – log γ over the shear strain range is covering from small strain
to failure shear strain even if the size of the rock specimen has large dimension such as 4
inch (diameter) by 8 inch (length).
7
The CTS test is based on the equivalent linear elasticity which relates stress,
strain and elastic coefficients as:
σ
E= (1.4)
ε
τ
G= (1.5)
γ
where: σ is the normal stress whose orientations is

perpendicular to the plane of interest,
ε is the normal strain whose orientations is
perpendicular to the plane of interest,
τ is the shear stress whose orientation is
parallel to the plane of interest, and
γ is the shear strain whose orientation is
parallel to the plane of interest.
The elastic coefficients are directly computed from the stress-strain curve measured in the
CTS test, either secant values for one-way loading or using the slope of the least square
fitting-line of the hysteresis loop for two-way loading. In addition, material damping in
shear is calculated from the area of the hysteresis loop for two-way cyclic loading.
Figure 1.3 A Tuff Sample from the Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive
waste Repository in Nevada; Sample Shown is from the Topopah Spring
Formation and the Lower Lithophysal Sub-Unit. (from DOE.gov)
8
The third objective of this work is comparison and correlation of the dynamic
properties and the cyclic shear properties. The cyclic shear properties are evaluated with
the newly developed Cyclic Torsional Shear (CTS) device and the dynamic properties are
measured with the existing two dynamic methods; namely the free-free URC test and the
fixed-free RCTS test. Through the correlation between cyclic shear properties and
dynamic properties, the complete dynamic curves for Yucca Mountain tuffs, from small
strains to the failure strain, can be estimated and/or evaluated knowledge of the complete
nonlinear curves with contribute to the design and safety of the proposed Yucca
Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DISSERTATION
This dissertation is divided into nine chapters as follows. In Chapter Two, the
general concepts of stress and strain, their relationship, elasticity theory, seismic wave
propagation theory and other theoretical background which is required for this study are
explained. Then, a literature survey is presented in Chapter Three to introduce the effects
of sizes, strain rate, and voids on the static and dynamic properties of rock.
In Chapter Four, classical static rock testing methods are presented and the two
dynamic testing methods, the free-free unconfined resonant column and direct arrival
(URC) test and the fixed-free resonant column and torsional shear (RCTS) test, are
discussed. The free-free URC and fixed-free RCTS tests were used to measure the
dynamic properties of the tuff specimens. In the last section of this chapter, newly
developed testing method, the cyclic torsional shear test (CTS) is explained in detail.
The proposed Yucca Mountain site and its importance as a high-level radioactive
waste repository are discussed in Chapter Five. Information on and a listing of tuff
specimens from Yucca Mountain, which were tested in free-free URC and fixed-free
RCTS devices to obtain the representative dynamic properties of the site, are also
9
presented. The preparation processes for two dynamic tests are also explained. Lastly, the
preparation method and information on the specimens tested in the CTS device are given.
Test results of the linear dynamic properties of 154 tuff specimens measured
through free-free URC tests are presented in Chapter Six. Correlations between the
dynamic properties (Mmax, Emax, Gmax, Vp, Vc, Vs, Ds,min, Dc,min, and Poisson’s ratio)
versus stratigraphic unit, total unit weight and porosity are presented. The variation of
the seismic wave velocities or material damping ratios versus depth is also shown in
Chapter Six.
Test results of the linear and nonlinear dynamic curves of 47 tuff specimens with
the shear strain, which are measured through the fixed-free RCTS tests, are presented in
Chapter Seven. The overall trends of nonlinear dynamic property variation with their
physical properties or stratigraphic classification is also discussed.
In Chapter Eight, the test results of tuff specimens measured in the CTS device
are introduced. The stress-strain hysteresis loops, the variation curves of shear modulus,
normalized shear modulus and material damping ratios with shear strain evaluated from
the CTS tests are presented and compared with the linear dynamic properties from the
free-free URC tests and the linear and nonlinear dynamic properties from the fixed-free
RCTS tests.
The results of two dynamic tests and CTS tests are summarized and conclusions
and recommendations are presented in Chapter Nine.
10
Chapter 2
Theoretical Background of Static and Dynamic

Properties of Rock
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical engineers must be concerned with several factors to design soil

and/or rock structures properly. One of the factors is an understanding of the mechanical
properties of the geotechnical materials in which the structure will be constructed.
Insufficient understanding of the mechanical properties of in-situ soil and/or rock masses
before construction may lead to significant problems. To overcome this lack of
information, borings are typically made to acquire soil and/or rock samples to be tested in
the laboratory to estimate the mechanical properties of the in-situ masses. This testing is
performed with the understanding that information from laboratory testing of soil and
rock samples is limited.
The properties of rock and soil measured from laboratory tests are essential to
predict and describe the mechanical behavior of rock and soil in the field. However, the
mechanical behavior of rock and soil can vary with respect to loading rate. Loading of
rock and soil in nature can typically be divided into two groups with respect to loading
rate. One type of load is termed “static” and does not vary with time or only varies slowly
over the course of days, weeks, months or years. Dead loads due to self-weight are a
typical example of static loading. “Dynamic” loading, the other type, is defined as
loading for which the magnitude varies during a short period of time such as milliseconds,
seconds or minutes. Earthquakes, explosions, and traffic loads are typical examples of
dynamic loading. Thus, mechanical properties under these two types of loadings, “static”
and “dynamic”, are required to fully describe the mechanical behavior of rock and soil.
11
These properties need to be measured through laboratory and field tests. The general
background theory and knowledge of static and dynamic properties of rock are presented
in this chapter in order to adequately describe its mechanical behavior. It should be noted
that soil is not considered in this discussion because on;y rock was tested in this
experimental investigation.
The mechanical properties needed to describe the response due to static loading
are mainly characterized by stress-strain curves. For the proper description of static
properties, the general concepts of stress and strain as well as the stress-strain
relationships are necessary. These concepts are presented in Section 2.2. In Sections 2.2.1
and 2.2.2, the concepts of stress and strain (which are the most important factor to
describe the static mechanical properties) are introduced. The general stress-strain
relationship and typical stress-strain curves of rock (which can be evaluated by uniaxial
or triaxial compression tests) are discussed in Section 2.2.3. The concepts of stress and
strain due to torsional shear are reviewed in Section 2.2.4. The dynamic properties,
related to the mechanical behavior of rock under a dynamic load, are discussed in Section
2.3. The general equation of a longitudinal compression wave is introduced in Section
2.3.1. Relationships between compression wave velocities (Vp, Vc) and elastic moduli in
compression (M, E) are derived in this section. In Section 2.3.2, the general equation for
a torsional wave (sherar wave) and the relationship between shear wave velocity (Vs) and
shear modulus (G) are introduced. Initial conditions and boundary conditions for the
wave equations (which affect the resonant motion of the wave) are discussed in Section
2.3.3. The definition and physical meaning of material damping ratio in compression and
shear (Dc and Ds, respectively) (which describes the attenuation ratio of motion energy
per vibrational cycle) are discussed in Section 2.3.4. The general variations of dynamic
properties with the magnitude of strain (the most important factor affecting the dynamic
property of rock) are discussed in Section 2.3.5.
12
2.2 STATIC PROPERTIES OF ROCK
Static properties of rock are the mechanical characteristics of the responses and
behavior of rock when static loads are applied. The static property used to describe the
static behavior of rock is defined by stress-strain curves, which are measured from static
tests on rock specimens. The stress-strain curves yield information about the static
behavior of rock, such as elastic (or shear) modulus, the range of elastic behavior, yield
point, failure point, ultimate strength, failure strain, residual stress and ductility. Hence,
to design the underground structure properly for static loading, stress-strain curves that
fully explain the static behavior of rock around the structure are required.
2.2.1 Stress
Stress is the internal distribution of force per unit area generated by applying
external load(s) to any material. It is a second-order tensor and fully described with nine
elements in three dimensions as shown in Figure 2.1. Stress is often divided into its shear
and normal components, and each component has a unique physical significance. The
normal stress is the stress for which the load direction is normal to an intersecting plane.
On the other hand, the shear stress is the stress for which the load is parallel to an
intersecting plane. Generally, the normal stress and the shear stress are defined as follows
(Gere and Timoshenko, 1990) :
dFx dFy dFz
σxx = ; σyy = ; σzz = (2.1)
dAx dAy dAz
dSy dSz dSx
τxy = ; τxz = ; τyx = (2.2)
dAx dAx dAy
dSz dSx dSy
τyz = ; τzx = ; τzy = (2.3)
dAy dAz dAz
where: σxx , σyy , σzz are normal stresses in the directions of the x-, y-, and z-axes,
repectively,
dFx , dFy , dFz are forces normal to surfaces dAx , dAy , dAz , respectively,
dAx , dAy , dAz are surface areas for which the normal vector is
13
in direction of the x-, y-, and z-axes, repectively,
τij is shear stress generated on the surface dAi due to the shear force
for which the direction is j, and
dSx , dSy , dSz are shear forces on surfaces dAx , dAy , and dAz ,
respectively.
P1
P2
σzz
τzy ⎡σ τ τ ⎤
τzx ⎢ xx xy ⎥
xz
⎢
τxz
τyz σ
yy
⎢τ yx
σ yy
τ yz ⎥⎥
z ⎢ ⎥
σxx
τxy τyx ⎢⎣ τ zx
τ zy
σ zz ⎥
⎦
y
Stress Matrix
x
Figure 2.1 Stress Tensor (from Gere and Timoshenko, 1990)
Under static loading, a body must have moment equilibrium. Hence, the stress
matrix is diagonally symmetric and τij = τji . Therefore, the stress matrix is shown as
follows (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):

⎡ σx τxy τxz ⎤
[σ]= ⎢⎢ τxy σy τyz ⎥⎥ (2.4)
⎢⎣ τxz τyz σz ⎥⎦
where: [σ ] is the stress tensor,

σxx , σyy , σzz are normal stresses in directions of the x-, y-, and z-axes,
repectively,
τij is shear stress generated on the surface dAi due to the shear force for
which the direction is in the j-axis.
14
The SI unit for stress is pascal (Pa), the same unit as pressure. Since a pascal is
too small of a unit for rock engineering, quantities are typically measured in megapascals
(MPa) or gigapascals (GPa). In U.S. standard units, stress is expressed in pounds-force
per square inch (psi). The “psi” unit is used commonly throughout this study.
The stress components in the stress matrix are composed of three normal stresses
and three shear stresses. The values of each stress are subject to the given loading and the
orientation of the infinitesimal element. According to Mohr’s circle (which represents the
stress state on an infinitesimal element), the shear components disappear and only the
three normal stress components remain given a specific orientation of the infinitesimal
element. This state is defined as the principal stress state. It is convenient to specify the
stress state using principal stresses because they provide direct information about the
magnitude and direction of the maximum and minimum normal stresses. These concepts
of principal stresses are very significant in rock engineering because the ultimate
deformed shape of a rock structure due to an excavation is affected primarily by in-situ
principal stresses.
The magnitudes and directions of the natural in-situ principal stresses are
typically controlled by the weight of the overburden located above a point of interest and
past or current geological, tectonic motion. Principal stresses typically change when a
new rock excavation such as a slope, borehole, tunnel or cavern is constructed. According
to Newton’s third law, “to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, one
normal stress component, for which the direction is perpendicular to a rock excavation
surface, will disappear at the rock excavation surface and only two principal normal
stress components will remain. Thus, the process of excavating a new rock surface causes
the principal stresses in the rock mass to orient themselves locally parallel to the
excavation surface. With this in mind, it becomes possible to predict deformations and
fracture developments in the rock structure more precisely.
15
2.2.2 Strain
Deformation is defined as change in the shape of a structure. It occurs typically as

a response to an applied load or stress, but it may also result from a change in
temperature (thermal expansion or contraction) or water content (swelling or shrinkage).
The concept of strain in this study focuses on strain due to stress from an applied load.
Strain, like stress, has a directional property and is divided into normal strain and shear
strain according to the same notation as the stress. Strain is a dimensionless value due to
its definition as follows (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
ΔLn
Normal strain : ε = (2.5)
Lo
ΔLs
Shear strain : γ = =Θ (2.6)
Ho
where: ∆Ln is the difference between the original length and the current length of a rock
specimen,
Lo is the original length,
∆Ls is the distance between two locations of any point before and after
deformation,
Ho is the original distance from one point to the other point, and
Θ is the angular difference between any two lines in a body before and after
deformation.
(a) ΔL n after loading (b) before loading ΔL s after loading
τxy
σxx σxx Ho θ θ
y
before loading x τxy

Lo
Figure 2.2 Definition of: (a) Normal Strain and (b) Shear Strain
16
Figure 2.2 presents the graphical definitions of normal strain and shear strain.
These definitions of strains illustrate the macroscopic and one-dimensional forms. The
three-dimensional strains of a infinitesimal element with original length (L) approaching
zero are redefined as follows (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
∂ux ∂uy ∂uz
εx = ; εy = ; εz = (2.7)
∂x ∂y ∂z
where: εx is normal strain in the direction of the x-axis,
εy is normal strain in the direction of the y-axis,
εz is normal strain in the direction along the z-axis,

∂ux
is differential displacement at any point in the direction along the x-axis,
∂x
∂uy
is differential displacement at any point in the direction along the y-axis, and
∂y
∂uz
is differential displacement at any point in the direction along the z-axis.
∂z
Similarly, the angular change of an infinitesimal element between two lines
crossing this element in a body is defined as the general shear strain. Shear strain (γ) is
the limit ratio of angular difference between any two lines in a body before and after
deformation, assuming that the length of the lines approaches zero. Given a displacement
field (ux, uy, uz), shear strain can be written as follows (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
∂ux ∂uy ∂uy ∂uz ∂ux ∂uz

γxy = + ; γyz = + ; γxz = + (2.8)
∂y ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂z ∂x
where: γij is engineering shear strain in the directions along the i- and j-axes, and
∂ui
is differential displacement of the direction i at any point
∂j
in the direction along the j-axis.

The concept of strain is required to understand and quantify how rock deforms.
Therefore, strain is generally presented in units at the microscopic scale, 1x10-6, since the
ratio of deformation of rock is often minuscule. To facilitate the indication of strain, "%
17
strain" is used. In this study, “% strain” is used instead of decimal unit for ease of
communication.
2.2.3 Stress-Strain Relationship
The relationship between the components of stress and the components of strain
has generally been established by experimentation. The results of the experiments are
typically explained by the theory of elasticity and plasticity. All parts of rock first
experience elastic deformation within the elastic range. Thereafter, parts of rock yield
within the platic range.
In the theory of elasticity, an ideal, homogeneous, elastic medium satisfies the
following relationship between stress and strain if a load is applied in a normal direction
( x-direction is set as the normal direction ) as (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
σx = E ⋅ εx (2.9)
where: E is the elastic modulus (equal to Young’s modulus in the elastic range),
σx is stress in the x-direction, and
εx is strain in the x-direction.
Equation 2.9 is based on Hooke’s law of linear proportionality between stress (σ) and
strain (ε). Proportionality indicates the deformability of rock, which describes the easy at
which rock deformation occurs. The inverse of proportionality represents the stiffness of
rock. The deformability of rock is mainly affected by the composition of the intact rock,
porosity, and the existence of discontinuities in the rock. Unconstrained elastic modulus
(E) and constrained elastic modulus (M), which describe the normal deformation due to
unit normal stress, are used to define the stiffness of a material. “Unconstrained” means
that normal deformation or normal particle movement take place without lateral stress,
and “constrained” indicates that normal deformation or normal particle movement occurs
without any allowance of lateral deformation. Shear modulus (G) is defined as the ratio
18
of the variation of the shear stress to the variation of the shear strain. Shear modulus can
be represented with Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν) if the medium is elastic,
homogeneous and isotropic. The shear modulus (G) is defined as (Gere and Timoshenko,
1990):
Δτxy E
G= = (2.10)
Δγxy 2(1 + ν )
where: G is shear modulus,

E is Young’s modulus,
ν is Poisson’s ratio,
Δτxy is shear stress of the y-direction in the plane of the x-direction, and
Δγxy is shear strain of the y-direction in the plane of the x-direction.
On the other hand, the extension or compression of a body in the x-direction is

accompanied by a lateral contraction or expansion in both the y- and z-directions. This
ratio between the deformation in x-direction and the deformation in the y- or z-directions
is defined as Poisson’s ratio (ν) and is represented as follows (Gere and Timoshenko,
1990):
εy ( or z )
ν =− (2.11)
εx
where: ν is Poisson’s ratio,
Δ ε x is strain in the x-direction, and
Δεy ( or z ) is strain in the y- (or z-) direction.
Poisson’s ratio generally ranges from 0.0 to 0.5 in the case of a natural material. If
the medium is a CHILE (Continuous Homogeneous Isotropic Linear Elastic, Harrison
and Hudson, 1997) material, the elastic coefficients (E, G and ν) are constant and
independent of the deformation of the material until the material fails. However, rock is
generally not a CHILE material. Hence, although rock can show elastic deformation in
the early stages of loading, some parts of the rock yield, and the area of yielding will
19
spread as the magnitude of the loading increases. After reaching the yield point, rock
deformation is plastic-like, and the proportion between stress and strain is not constant
(unlike with elastic deformation). In other words, the elastic coefficients can be described
by the function of deformational strain. A typical stress-strain deformation curve of a
rock is shown in Figure 2.3.
Elastic range Plastic range Post-peak process

(Gradient = Young's modulus)
Stress (σ or τ)
Failure point
(Peak strength)
Yield point
(Yield strength)
Residual stress
Strain (ε or γ)
Figure 2.3 Typical Stress-Strain Deformation Curve of Rock (from Harrison and
Hudson, 1997)
After the rock yields, the elastic modulus is defined in several ways according to
the objective of the design analysis. The usual ways of describing the modulus are the
tangent and secant moduli. The tangent modulus is defined as the slope of a line tangent
to the stress-strain curve at a point of interest, as shown in Figure 2.4. Thus, the tangent
modulus is equal to Young's Modulus when the point of tangency falls within the linear
range of the stress-strain curve. Outside the linear elastic region, the tangent modulus is
always less than Young's modulus. The tangent Young’s modulus, denoted by Et, is most
often used to describe the stiffness of a material in the plastic range. On the other hand,
the secant modulus is the slope of a line drawn from the origin to the point of interest on
the stress-strain curve, as shown in Figure 2.4. Therefore, the secant modulus can also
20
have different values depending on the location of intersect. It is used to describe the
stiffness of a material in the inelastic region of the stress-strain diagram. The secant
Young’s modulus is commonly denoted by Es. The same definitions of tangent modulus
and secant modulus are applied to shear moduli.
Tangent modulus
Secant modulus
Stress (σ or τ)
Point A
(point of interest)
Strain (ε or γ)
Figure 2.4 Definitions of Tangent Modulus and Secant Modulus (from Harrison and
Hudson, 1997)
Naturally, these are only approximations of real behavior used for design
applications. They can properly describe the complete stress-strain curve if used together
with piecewise linear interpolation functions. The secant modulus is preferred for
following reasons: (1) the tangent modulus has a negative value in the post peak region as
shown in Figure 2.5(a), which is not physically meaningful, while the secant modulus
always has a positive value as shown in Figure 2.5(b), (2) the tangent modulus represents
only the local range around the point of interest, whereas the secant modulus represents
the average feature of a mechanical property over the load-applied range, and (3) the
secant concept is simpler than the tangent concept. Hence, the secant modulus is
preferred and used to define the concept of Young’s (or shear) modulus in this study.
21
(a)
Linear Young's modulus
Tangent Young's Modulus

Constant in elastic range
Zero at peak strength
Negative in post peak process
Strain (ε or γ)
(b) Linear Young's modulus
Secant Young's Modulus
Constant in elastic range

Reducing after yield
Strain (ε or γ)
Figure 2.5 Variations of: (a) Tangent Young’s Modulus and (b) Secant Young’s
Modulus with Strain (from Harrison and Hudson, 1997)
2.2.4 Torsional Shear Stress and Torsional Shear Strain
The torsional shear test is another method to determine deformational

characteristics such as shear modulus and material damping ratio by determining shear
stress and strain directly. Determination of the shear stress in the torsional shear test is
based on the theory of elasticity for circular or tubular rods in pure torsion. Assuming that
pure torque (T) is applied to the top of a specimen as shown in Figure 2.6, the torque (T)
can be calculated from (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
ro ro ro
T = ∫ dT = ∫ τ (r ) ⋅ r ⋅ dA = ∫ τ (r ) ⋅ r ⋅ 2πr ⋅ dr (2.12)
ri ri ri
22
where: τ is shear stress at a distance r from the z-axis,
ro is the outside radius of the specimen, and
ri is the inside radius of the specimen (if the specimen is solid, ri is zero).
dT = τ dr
r
dr
r
ө
Figure 2.6 Torsional Load and the Resulting Shear Stress Applied to a Cylindrical
Specimen (from Gere and Timoshenko, 1990)
Shear stress can be computed in a simple form if all parts of a specimen are in the
linear range. Hence, the shear stress is assumed to vary linearly across the radius. The
shear modulus (G) is constant over the entire specimen, and the shear stress (τ) is
computed by the following equations (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
r
τ = τ max (2.13)
ro
ro
⎛ r⎞ τ max π τ max
T = ∫ ⎜τ ⎟ ⋅ 2πr ⋅ rdr = ⎛ 4⎞
⋅ ⋅ ⎜ ro − ri ⎟ =
4
⋅ Jp (2.14)
ri ⎝
max
ro ⎠ ro 2 ⎝ ⎠ ro
where: T is applied torque,
τmax is maximum shear stress at r = ro,
ro is the outside radius of the specimen,
ri is the inside radius of the specimen, and
Jp is the polar moment of inertia (Jp = π × (r04 - ri4)/2 for cylindrically
shaped specimens).
23
According to the definition of shear strain, the torsional shear strain (γ) is
calculated by Equation 2.15 if the specimen has the specifications as shown in Figure 2.7
(Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
u rθ
γ= = (2.15)
L L
where: u is angular displacement at any radius, r,
θ is angle of twist, and
L is original length of the specimen.
T
ө
r
ө
r
L
z ro
Figure 2.7 Torsional Shear Strain Due to Applied Torque (from Gere and Timoshenko,
1990)
From the relationship between shear stress and shear strain, shear modulus (G)
can be calculated as (Gere and Timoshenko, 1990):
τ max = G ⋅ γ max (2.16)
where: τmax is maximum shear stress when r = ro, and

γmax is maximum shear strain when r = ro.
If some parts of the specimen begin to experience nonlinear deformation, the
simple relationship presented above is no longer valid. The nonlinear behavior of soil and
rock often do not lead to a closed-form expression, and must be evaluated through a
24
complicated numerical process to closely approximate the shear stress and shear modulus
value (Taylor, 1971).
To extend the elastic theory to the nonlinear range, an equivalent radius (req) and
an effective secant shear modulus (Geff) are defined. The definition of the effective secant
modulus (Geff) is as follows (Taylor, 1971):
T ⋅L
G eff = (2.17)
J p ⋅θ
where: T is applied torque,

L is original length of the specimen,
Jp is area polar moment inertia defined as = ∫ r 2 dA
A
(if the shape is cylindrical, Jp = π × (r04 - ri4)/2), and

θ is angle of twist.
The equivalent radius is the radius for which G is equal to Geff. Geff is the same as
G over an entire specimen if the specimen is in the linear range. Chen and Stokoe (1979)
studied the radial distribution of shear strain to find a value of req for soil specimens
tested with the RCTS equipment to evaluate an effective strain. They found that, for a
solid soil specimen, the value of req varied from 0.82×ro at a peak shear strain amplitude
below 0.001 % to 0.79×ro for a peak shear strain of 0.1 %. The concept of req is adopted
in this study to calculate the shear strain and the shear stress in the dynamic tests. This
concept is described as follows:
r r eq ro ⋅ T T
τ = τ max r=r
= = r eq (2.18)
ro eq ro J Jp
p
θ
γ = r eq (2.19)
L
where: τ is shear stress,
γ is shear strain, and
25
req is 0.82 when peak strain is below 0.001 %, and is 0.79 when peak strain
is 0.1 % for a solid soil specimen.
However, if the material is brittle rock, the equivlent radius for the rock specimen
is assumed as the same size of the outside radius of the specimen because most parts of
brittle rock specimen during loading generally stay in elastic range. The brittle rock
specimens show short plastic range just before a failure and then are broken due to the
arrival of the failure point. According to the previous literature survey and the results of
this study, the most of tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain are considered as the
material close to brittle rock. Hence, the outside radius is used as the equivalnt radius to
calculate stress and strain in this study.
2.3 DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF ROCK
The mechanical response of a material can vary with the type of external loading.
Typically, the type of external loading is classified according to the strain rate of the load.
If the strain rate of loading is zero or very low, the load can be classified as static (or slow
cyclic) because the magnitude of the load does not change or changes only slightly over a
long time. If the strain rate is high, the load is regarded as dynamic because the
magnitude of the load varies rapidly over a short time. The threshold strain rate between
static and dynamic loading is discussed in Section 3.3.2. If a static or slow cyclic load is
applied to a material, the mechanical response of the material is determined based on the
static properties. On the other hand, if a dynamic load is applied to the material, the
mechanical response of the material is determined based on the dynamic properties,
which are can be somewhat different from the static properties, depending on the
importance of strain rate on the material properties.
In rock engineering, both static and dynamic mechanical properties of rock are
needed to appropriately design a rock structure to withstand both types of external loads.
26
The self-weight of the overburden above a rock structure is a typical static load. On the
other hand, a load due to an earthquake or vehicular traffic is a typical dynamic load.
Static properties are traditionally measured by tension tests, uniaxial compressive
strength tests, triaxial compressive strength tests and direct (or torsional) shear tests.
Dynamic properties are measured by seismic wave (stress wave) propagation. Seismic
waves are defined as physical energy transferring through longitudinal or torsional
vibrational motions which propagate through solids or fluid masses. Generally, the
properties of seismic wave propagation are related to the dynamic properties of a material
such as elastic modulus, shear modulus and material damping ratio because the seismic
wave is a type of dynamic loading due to its high strain rate.
The theory of the wave propagation through a finite solid rod is discussed in this
section because typical rock specimens for laboratory tests have finite cylindrical shapes.
Three different types of the wave motion in a finite solid rod are possible. These three
different types of the wave motions are longitudinal compression, torsional shear and
flexural bending, as shown in Figure 2.8.
Longitudinal axis
(a) Longitudinal (Compressional) Wave Motion

Longitudinal axis
(b) Torsional (Shear) Wave Motion

Longitudinal axis
(c) Flexural (Bending) Wave Motion
Figure 2.8 Three Different Types of Wave Motions in a Finite Solid Rod (from Menq,
2003)
27
Differentiation between the three types of waves illustrated above is conducted
according to the direction of the particle movement of the rod and the direction of wave
propagation. The longitudinal compression wave causes particles within the rod to move
in a direction parallel to the direction of wave propagation, as shown in Figure 2.8a. The
torsional shear wave causes the particles to move in a direction perpendicular to the
direction of the wave propagation, as shown in Figure 2.8b. The flexural bending wave is
generated due to the bending motion of the rod as shown in Figure 2.8c. Longitudinal
compression waves and torsional shear waves supply good information about the
unconstrained elastic modulus and shear modulus of the rod. In addition, a constrained
compression wave can also be measured as discussed below. These moduli are necessary
dynamic properties for design considerations. To understand the relationship between
wave motion and dynamic properties, the theoretical solutions are reviewed below.
2.3.1 Longitudinal Compression Wave Propagation in a Solid Rod
The wave equation of one-dimensional longitudinal compression waves can be

derived as (Richart et al, 1970):
∂2u E M ∂ u
2
= (or ) (2.20)
∂t 2 ρ ρ ∂x 2
where: u = particle displacement along the propagating direction,

t = time,
E = unconstrained elastic modulus,
M = constrained elastic modulus,
ρ = density of the rod material, and
x = coordinate of a particle along the x-axis.
Whether the rod is “constrained” or “unconstrained” (unconstrained is illustrated
in Figure 2.8a) is determined according to the allowance of a particle’s lateral movement,
28
which is perpendicular motion to the direction of wave propagation. If lateral motion is
allowed, the wave is an unconstrained wave and its velocity is relatively slower. On the
other hand, if no lateral motion is allowed, the wave is constrained and its velocity is
relatively faster. Of course, partial constraint is possible but that type of motion is not
considered herein. The above differential equation (Eq. 2.20) can be solved in several
ways such as d'Alembert's solution, Fourier transformation and the method of separation
of variable. The resultant solution is presented by following forms (Richart et al, 1970):
u = CT ⋅ [ cos(ωt ) + i ⋅ sin(ωt ) ] [cos(kx ) + i ⋅ sin(kx )]
+ CR ⋅ [ cos(ωt ) + i ⋅ sin(ωt ) ] [cos( −kx ) + i ⋅ sin( −kx )]
= CT ⋅ e i ( wt + kx ) + CR ⋅ e i ( wt − kx ) ( complex form ) (2.21)
where: ω is angular frequency (ω = 2π/T = 2πf),

T is period,
f is frequency,
κ is wave number (κ = 2π/ λ),
λ is wavelength, and
i is equal to − 1 .
Ct is the amplitude of the forward propagating wave which describes the transmitted
longitudinal wave. Cr is the amplitude of the backward propagating wave which describes
the reflected wave. For the derivation of the solution, the following relationship can be
E ( or M )
determined between wave number, angular frequency and the constant of as:
ρ
ω E ( or M )
= (2.22)
κ ρ
The left hand side of Equation 2.22 shows that the number of cycles per unit time
is divided by the number of cycles per unit length. Thus, this term can be replaced by the
term λ·f which is composed of wavelength, λ, and frequency, f. The term λ·f corresponds
to the wave velocity, and is presented as follows (Richart et al, 1970):
29
M
Vp = f ⋅ λ = , if the wave is a constrained compressional wave (2.23)
ρ
E
Vc = f ⋅ λ = , if the wave is an unconstrained compressional wave (2.24)
ρ
where: Vp is constrained compression wave velocity, and

Vc is unconstrained compression wave velocity.
As previously stated, the constrained compression wave is faster than the
unconstrained compression wave. Hence, the constrained modulus (M) is greater than the
unconstrained modulus (E), and the relationship between these moduli for a
homogeneous, isotropic material is presented as follows (Richart et al, 1970):
E (1 − υ )
M= (2.25)
(1 + υ ) (1 − 2υ )
where: ν is Poisson’s ratio.

Poisson’s ratio can be computed using Equation 2.25. Table 2.1 shows typical
values of Young’s moduli (E) of various materials in their natural state.
Table 2.1 List of General Young’s Modulus (from Matweb.com, 2007)

Young's modulus (E) Young's modulus (E)
Material
in GPa in lbf/in² (psi)
Rubber (small strain) 0.01-0.1 1,500-15,000

Polypropylene 1.5-2 217,000-290,000
Oak wood (along grain) 11 1,600,000
High-strength concrete (under compression)* 34 5,000,000
Magnesium metal (Mg) 45 6,500,000
Sandstone** 4.9-84.3 710,000-12,000,000
Granite** 25.5-68.6 3,700,000-10,000,000
Aluminium alloy* 69 10,000,000
Glass (all types) 72 10,400,000
Brass and bronze* 103 14,800,000
Wrought iron and steel 190-210 30,000,000
Tungsten (W) 400-410 58,000,000
Diamond (C) 1,050-1,200 150,000,000-175,000,000
Note: * Measured value from free-free URC tests

** After "Rock Mechanics, 2nd ed." by Alfred R Jumikis
30
2.3.2 Torsional Shear Wave Propagation in a Solid Rod
Shear waves are often the most important waves in soil and rock dynamics. The
reason for this is that 93 % of earthquake energy is transferred through shear (S) and
Rayleigh (R) waves, which generally cause the most damage. Hence, earthquake design
focuses the mechanical response of a structure by designing for S and R waves, for which
the main wave component is motion in shear. For this reason, the mechanical properties
of shear waves are often needed to predict the behavior of a structure due to an
earthquake.
In laboratory testing, specimens typically have a cylindrical form. Thus, to
generate and measure shear wave propagation efficiently in a finite specimen, torsional
shear is preferred. The torsional shear wave has a similar governing equation as the
longitudinal compression wave as (Richart et al, 1970):
∂2w G ∂2w
= (2.26)
∂t 2 ρ ∂x 2
where: w = particle displacement normal to the propagating direction,

t = time,
G = shear modulus,
ρ = density of the rod material, and
x = coordinate of particle along the x-axis.
Naturally, the solution of the above equation shows the same form as the solution of a
longitudinal compression wave (Richart et al, 1970):
w = CT ⋅ e i ( wt + kx ) + CR ⋅ e i ( wt − kx ) ( complex form ) (2.27)
where: ω is angular frequency (ω = 2π/T = 2πf),

T is period,
f is frequency,
31
κ is wave number (κ = 2π/ λ),
λ is wavelength, and
With the same form as the longitudinal compression wave equation, the velocity of shear
wave is represented as follows:
ω G
Vs = f ⋅ λ = = (2.28)
κ ρ
It is important to keep in mind that shear wave velocity in an unbounded medium

is exactly the same as the velocity of torsional shear waves in rods. In other words, the
shear wave velocity is independent of lateral boundary constraints because (in the linear
range) it does not create expansion or contraction perpendicular to the direction of the
wave propagation. If the shear modulus, which is computed by the above equation,
represents the shear modulus (G) in the linear range, there are two relationships among
shear modulus (G), unconstrained elastic modulus (E) and constrained elastic modulus
(M), as given by following equations (Richart et al, 1970):
E = G ⋅ 2(1 + υ ) (2.29)
(2 − 2υ )
M =G (2.30)
(1 − 2υ )
where: ν is Poisson’s ratio.

These two relationships also show that Poisson’s ratio can be calculated if E, M,
and G are known. Table 2.2 shows typical shear moduli of various engineering materials.
32
Table 2.2 List of General Shear Modulus (from Matweb.com, 2007)
Shear modulus (G) Shear modulus (G)
Material
in GPa in lbf/in² (psi)
Rubber (small strain) 0.0003 44

Polypropylene 0.117 17000
High-strength concrete (under compression)* 14 2,000,000
Magnesium metal (Mg) 16 2,360,000
Sandstone** 2.0-35.1 290,000-5,000,000
Granite** 10.6-28.6 1,500,000-4,148,000
Aluminium alloy* 26 3,730,000
Glass (all types) 27 3,900,000
Brass and bronze* 38 5,570,000
Wrought iron and steel 80 11,600,000
Tungsten (W) 156 22,600,000
Note: * Measured value from free-free URC tests
2.3.3 Initial Conditions and Boundary Conditions for the Wave Equation
The general solution of the wave equation has two undetermined coefficients. The
undetermined coefficients, Ct and Cr, are determined according to the initial conditions
and the boundary conditions. The initial conditions are generally given in the form of the
initial displacement condition and the initial velocity condition as follows (Richart et al,
1970):
u ( x, t ) = f ( x ) (2.31)
∂u ( x, t )
= g ( x) (2.32)
∂t
where: u is displacement at location x in time t,
x is the space coordinate,
t is the time coordinate,
f(x) is the initial displacement function, and
g(x) is the initial velocity function.
33
On the other hand, the general boundary conditions for the finite rod are generally
classified into two types. One is the fixed boundary condition and the other is the free
boundary condition. The fixed boundary condition means zero displacement at the
boundary, while the free boundary condition means that the first order derivative of
displacement (velocity) is zero. The equations for these boundary conditions are
represented as follows (Richart et al, 1970):
u ( x, t ) x = 0 or L = 0 : Fixed boundary condition (2.33)
∂u ( x, t )
= 0 : Free boundary condition (2.34)
∂x x = 0 or L
where: L is length of the specimen.

Due to a fixed condition, the reflected wave at the fixed boundary shows the
opposite phase to the phase of the incident wave. In contrast to this, the reflected wave at
a free boundary shows the same phase as the incident wave.
Theoretically, three types of boundary combinations are possible: fixed-fixed,
fixed-free, and free-free. However, the fixed-fixed condition is difficult to realize
experimentally because there is no practical way to excite the test specimen in
longitudinal or torsional motion if both boundaries are kept in a fixed condition. Thus,
dynamic property measurements in the laboratory are classified into two types according
to the combination of the boundary conditions: fixed-free and free-free.
2.3.4 Material Damping Ratio
Two dynamic parameters, shear modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D), are
usually of primary interest in earthquake design. Shear modulus represents the stiffness
of a material, which is related to the amplitude determination of vibration due to
earthquakes. On the other hand, material damping ratio represents the ratio of energy
dissipation per vibration cycle. In physics and engineering, material damping is often
34
mathematically modeled as a force with a magnitude proportional to that of the velocity
of an object but the opposite direction to the velocity. This type of damping is called
viscous damping. A one-dimensional force (Fd) due to mechanical viscous damping is
represented as follows (Richart et al, 1970):
F d = − cv (2.35)
where: c is viscous damping coefficient, and

v is velocity of an object.
By considering the damping effect as the damping force, the differential equation
of oscillation with damping is derived as follows (Richart et al, 1970):
d 2u du
+ 2 Dω o + ω o2 u = 0 (2.36)
dt 2 dt
where: u is displacement,
c
D is material damping ratio, which is defined as D = , and
2 km
ωo is natural frequency in simple harmonic oscillation system,

k
which is defined as ω o = .
m
The solution of the above equation is represented as follows:

u (t ) = ce -ωrt (2.37)
where: c is the integral constant,

⎛ ⎞
ωr is resonant frequency, which is defined as ω r = ω o ⎜ D ± D 2 − 1 ⎟ .
⎝ ⎠
If D is equal to 1 (100 %) or more, the system is critically damped or over-

damped and the amplitude of motion will decay exponentially (Richart et al, 1970).
However, natural geotechnical materials such as rock and soil have material damping
ratios (D) less than 2/3 (66.7 %) theoretically. Thus, an underground facility composed of
35
natural rock and soil shows an underdamped oscillation which exhibits decayed vibration
when it is shaken by an external dynamic loading. The percentage unit (%) is preferred
over the decimal unit and will be used in this study for the unit of material damping ratio.
2.3.5 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties of Rock
The representative dynamic mechanical behavior of rock is described with the

forms of the curves of G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ and Ds – log γ, which show the variation
of dynamic properties with shear strain. The results of research up to the present study
show that shear strain is the largest factor which can influence dynamic properties of
rocks. Typical examples of these dynamic curves are shown in Figure 1.2. These curves
are generally divided into three ranges: (1) the linear elastic, (2) nonlinear elastic, and (3)
nonlinear plastic zones. In the linear elastic zone, the correlation coefficient between
stress and strain has a constant value, and the solid material recovers the original shape if
the loading is removed. In other words, the dynamic properties are not affected by the
number of loading cycles in this zone. By its very nature, the shear modulus in this range
has a constant value and shows a maximum value, denoted as Gmax, over the entire strain
range of the dynamic behavior curve. Likewise, the material damping ratio in this range
is constant and the value is minimum, denoted as Ds,min, over the entire strain range. The
elastic threshold strain (γte), which is the boundary between the linear elastic and the
nonlinear elastic zone, is often around 10-3 % in the case of soil but is higher for rock. In
the nonlinear elastic zone, the shear modulus decreases with the increase in shear strain,
but the solid material recovers the original shape if the loading is removed. The material
damping ratio slightly increases as the shear strain increases. The dynamic properties are
unaffected by the number of loading cycles and strain rate for most rock-like materials.
The cyclic threshold strain (γtc) is specified here to indicate the boundary between the
nonlinear elastic and the nonlinear plastic zone. A typical value of the cyclic threshold
36
strain (γtc) is 10-2 % for many soils at moderate pressures. In the nonlinear plastic zone,
the shear modulus decreases while the material damping ratio increases as the shear strain
increases. The solid material does not recover the original shape if the loading is removed
in this zone. Namely, the dynamic properties are affected by the number of loading cycles
and possibly strain rate. As the number of a loading cycle increases, the material may be
disturbed or stiffened according to the initial condition of the material.
The elastic threshold strain (γte) and the cyclic threshold strain (γtc) of rock show a
wider variation than soil because of discontinuities in a rock specimen. As the rock
specimen contains more discontinuities, these two strain thresholds tend to decrease. For
this reason, these two strain thresholds can be considered as indices to represent the status
of the rock condition.
2.4 SUMMARY
To describe the mechanical behavior of soil and rock, stress-strain curves with
both static and dynamic loadings are sometimes necessary due to the different mechanical
response that may be shown under the different loading conditions. The static behavior
curve can be determined directly by measuring load and deflection and then calculating
stress and strain using static tests in the laboratory and field. Stress is defined as the
internal distribution of a force per unit area generated by external loads applied to a
material, and strain is the deformation per unit length due to stress. Stresses and strains
are divided into two types: normal components and shear components, which are
dependent upon the direction of the acting force and the plane on which the force is
acting.
If the material is assumed to be a CHILE (Continuous, Homogeneous, Isotropic,
Linear, Elastic) material, the following relationships between stress and strain can be
described as:
37
σx = E ⋅ εx (uniaxial compression) (2.38)
τxy = G ⋅ γxy (simple shear or torsional shear) (2.39)
where: E is elastic modulus (=Young’s modulus in elastic range), and

G is shear modulus.
However, rock is not a CHILE material. Hence, the E and G are not always
constant. They are affected by many internal and external factors such as strain, confining
pressure, porosity (void ratio), cracks, fractures, joints, loading rate (strain rate),
specimen size, specimen shape, anisotropy, saturation degree, and saturating fluid
(Harrison and Hudson, 1997).
In the case of torsional shear loading, the equations needed to define stress and
strain vary because the direction of the loading is rotational. However, the stress-strain
relationship in torsional motion is the same as the generalized stress-strain relationship in
normal loading. Equivalent radius concepts, introduced in Section 2.2.4, are used to
describe the representative strain in torsional motion. Generally, the equivalent radius is
82 % of the specimen radius when peak strain is smaller than 0.001 % for solid soil
specimens and is 79 % of the specimen radius when peak strain is larger than 0.1 % for
solid soil specimens.
On the other hand, the dynamic behavior and the dynamic properties of rock are
determined through the measurement of seismic waves. The moduli in dynamic
compressional loading, E and M (unconstrained and constrained elastic moduli,
respectively), are determined through the measurement of the longitudinal compression
wave velocities (Vc and Vp, respectively). G (shear modulus) is determined through the
measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs). These moduli are defined as (Richart et al,
1970):
E = ρVc 2 (2.40)
38
M = ρV p 2 (2.41)
G = ρVs 2 (2.42)
where: ρ is the density of material.

The boundary conditions during dynamic measurements must be distinguished
because the computational equation for the seismic wave velocity will be different
according to the boundary conditions. There are two types of boundary conditions:
(
Fixed Boundary Condition : No displacement u ( x, t ) x = 0 or L = 0 )
⎛ ∂u ( x, t ) ⎞
Free Boundary Condition : No velocity ⎜ = 0⎟
⎝ ∂x x = 0 or L
⎠
According to the combination of boundary conditions, the dynamic testing methods are
classified as fixed-free and free-free tests.
Material damping ratio, another important dynamic property of rock, is defined as
the energy attenuation ratio per one cycle of vibration motion. All underground structures
constructed within soil and/or rock have material damping ratios that are generally less
than 0.25 (25 %). Hence, the structure systems will show underdamped oscillatory
motions when cyclic loadings are applied, and the material damping ratio is one of the
factors that determines the vibrational motions of the structures.
Since strain can be computed from the amplitude of seismic waves, the dynamic
mechanical behavior can be determined and is described by the shape of the G – log γ,
G/Gmax – log γ and Ds – log γ curves which show the variation of dynamic properties with
shear strain. Ds is the material damping ratio in shear, which is the energy dissipation
ratio per each vibrating cycle and is typically less than 0.25 (25 %) in case of
underground materials. These curves are generally divided into three ranges: (1) linear
elastic, (2) nonlinear elastic, and (3) nonlinear plastic zones. The linear elastic zone
ranges typically at strains smaller than 10-3 %. However, this threshold strain level is
studied in this experimental research. Below the elastic threshold strain, shear modulus is
39
constant and there is no effect of number of loading cycles. The nonlinear elastic zone
typically ranges from 10-3 % to 10-2 % in many soils at moderate confining stresses. In
this strain range, shear modulus decreases but there is no effect of number of loading
cycles. The nonlinear plastic zone typically ranges from 10-2 % to failure shear strain in
many soils. In this range, shear modulus decreases and is affected by the number of
loading cycles. In each strain range, strain rate may have an effect on the modulio of the
materials.
40
Chapter 3
Literature Review of Static and Dynamic Properties of Rock
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The mechanical properties of rock are affected by a variety of factors. Factors

such as specimen size, strain amplitude, strain rate (loading rate), degree of saturation,
anisotropy, internal flaws and internal voids in the rock specimen can affect the
properties. Tuffs at Yucca Mountain were created by the volcanic environment located
in the Nevada desert, where the annual precipitation is small and the ground water table
is approximately 3000 ft below the ground surface. Thus, the effect of saturation of the
tuff can be ignored. It is difficult to quantify the effects of internal flaws due to cracks,
fractures and joints in the tuff. The effects of internal flaws are not dealt with in this
study. The effects of specimen size, strain rate and internal voids on the mechanical
properties of the tuffs are main issues in this study. The effect of sample size on the
mechanical properties is examined in Section 3.2. In Section 3.2.1, the background of
sample size effects and the general trend of size effects on rock specimen is presented.
In Section 3.2.2, the concept of REV, which is the minimum size of rock samples whose
properties can represent field conditions well is discussed. Section 3.2.3 concerns the
literature review of sample size effects. Strain rate effects in testing are discussed in
Section 3.3. Section 3.3.1 examines past studies of the strain rate effect. The boundary
between static loading and dynamic loading are discussed in Section 3.3.2 and the
literature review of the strain rate effect is examined in Section 3.3.3. The effect of
internal voids in rock specimens is discussed in Section 3.4. Section 3.4.1 examines past
studies of the effects of voids in rock samples. Section 3.4.2 details the differences
41
between static and dynamic properties due to internal voids in rock specimens. Section
3.4.3 is a literature review of void effects on rock specimen. Comparisons are made in
subsequent chapters between the previous studies and results found in this work.
3.2 SAMPLE SIZE EFFECT
3.2.1 Introduction
Generally, many structural materials such as metal and concrete show uniform,
homogeneous and reproducible mechanical properties with a small range of variation.
Therefore, their mechanical service level in the field can be regarded as virtually the
same as (or at least closely correlated with) those specimen measured in the laboratory.
Hence, a rational structural design can be possible on the basis of the mechanical
property values measured in laboratory. However, the same equivalence does not exist
for rock. Even common types of rock have wide variations in their mineral composition
and mechanical properties. Furthermore, field rock is exposed to some geological
tectonic action such as lifting, faulting, folding and jointing. Weathering action that field
rock experiences also alters and decomposes the rock. These factors cause field rock to
have different mechanical properties than those tested in the laboratory. Hence, to
overcome this shortcoming, laboratory testing with large size specimens that contain
most of the variables of the field or field testing of in-situ rock is suggested. This seems
to be an ideal way to represent the mechanical properties of field rock. However, as seen
in Figure 3.1, extremely large specimens are difficult to core, handle, transport and test.
These technical difficulties require much more cost and time for testing. In addition to the
problems of time and cost, testing of extremely large samples is not always possible due
to site restrictions and sampling equipment limitations. On the other hand, field testing of
in-situ rock experiences a similar level of difficulties as the testing of extremely large
samples. As seen in Figure 3.2, coring and cutting is needed to make some shape in an
42
outcrop of the rock mass. This increases cost and time for testing. Also, these
preparations can disturb field conditions in the rock. As well as those problems, field
testing may also have site restriction problems due to poor accessibility of a site or
contamination of the field from field testing equipment.
Figure 3.1 Extremely Large Diameter Rock Core Obtained by the Shot-Core Drilling
Method (from Jumikis, 1983)
Figure 3.2 View of the Test Site Showing Flat Jacks at One End and Extensometers for
Relative Displacement Measurement during Loading. (from Goodman,
1989)
43
3.2.2 Decision of Sample Size for Laboratory Tests
The most recommended method for evaluating the mechanical properties of rock
is laboratory testing with a suitable rock sample size that contains the necessary and
important field defects. Figure 3.3 shows the general trend of size effect and explains the
concept of representative elemental volume (REV). If the specimen is small, it tends to be
sampled in an intact part of the sampled core. Thus, its mechanical properties tend to be
overestimated when compared to the field value. However, some internal flaws exist in
the small size specimens, then its mechanical properties can greatly decrease and
occasionally yield property values less than field values. On the other hand, as the size of
the test specimen becomes larger and larger, the chance to include the flaws of the field
rock tend to be higher and higher. Consequently, the mechanical properties measured
with the large size specimen will be closer to the field value. In brief, the absence and
presence of discontinuities is extremely influential in small specimens. However, as the
volume of the specimen increases, discontinuities are more likely to occur and their
effects are reflected more and more consistently in test results. After reaching some size
of the rock specimen, the rock specimens show consistent and reproducible test results.
This size is called as representative elemental volume (REV), which is the minimum size
of the sample for which the test results are consistent and closest to field values. Hence,
the suitable size of rock samples for laboratory testing needs to be checked and should be
determined cautiously with respect to the test objective and the site condition.
44
Property
of Rock
Possible Area
of Laboratory Results
Field
Value
R.E.V Specimen Size
Figure 3.3 General Trend of Size Effect and the Concept of REV (from Harrison and
Hudson, 1997)
Determining appropriate specimen size is very important to evaluating the

representative mechanical behavior of rock because small specimens do not reflect the
field condition closely enough and large specimens may cause trouble in sampling,
handling and testing. The typical size of rock specimens in rock mechanics testing is NX
size (about 2 in. in diameter by 4 in. in length). However, test results with NX size
specimens do not always guarantee proper representation of field conditions. Thus,
smaller or larger specimen sizes can sometimes be used according to the test objective,
the sample state and size effect of the rock samples. To decide the testing size of
specimens properly, preliminary tests with some samples over a variety of sizes is
recommended.
Although the specimen size of the Yucca Mountain tuffs in this study was often
based on the size of the boring machine, the effects of specimen size of the tuffs still
needs to be studied because the size effect is necessary for better design of the proposed
repository tunnel. The size effect of tuff has been partially studied by Sandia National
Laboratory through triaxial strength tests. More detailed discussions of size effects of the
tuffs from Yucca Mountain are given later in this section.
45
3.2.3 Literature Review of Sample Size Effect
Lundborg (1966) performed 20 uniaxial compressive strength tests and 21

Brazillian tensile strength tests of granite to determine the variation of compressive
strength and tensile strength with specimen size. In these tests, the diameter ranged from
1.9 cm to 5.8 cm and length-to-diameter ratio was approximately 2.0. These test results
are plotted in Figure 3.4. Lundborg found that the results followed the Weibull
relationship very well. This relationship is generally accepted as a good equation for
describing the size effect of rock. The Weibull relationship is presented as follows:
σ1 V1
m log = log (3.1)
σ2 V2
where: σ1, σ2 are the strengths of specimens with volume V1 and V2, respectively, and
m is a constant representing the slope of a straight line.
The slope constant, m, was 12 in the case of compressive strength and 6 in the
case of tensile strength in Lundborg’s study. According to these test results and the fit
from the Weibull relationship, Lundborg concluded that the strength of granite decreases
with an increase in specimen size.
Log PB (Bar)
Log V(cm3)
Figure 3.4 Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Granite versus Volume of the Test
Samples (from Lundborg,1966)
46
Bieniawski (1967) tested cubical coal specimens with a wide range of dimensions
from 0.75 in. to 60 in. (5 ft). This research was performed to supply information on the
strength of coal to determine the design of pillars in coal mines. To reflect the condition
of the in-situ state, all tests were conducted inside the underground mine. This was done
because the environment can be a very important factor that affects the strength of coal.
The test results are plotted in Figure 3.5 and the data fitting line, which was generated by
Weibull’s relationship with m = 2.5, is also displayed in the plot. Bieniawski also agreed
that the size of rock specimens affected their strength and concluded that the strength of
coal could be reduced by up to one-tenth of the strength measured in laboratory test.
Hence, he emphasized that size effect must be considered in the case of coal and
recommended to perform field tests, if possible, before the design decisions were made.
Weibull Curve
Experimental Curve
Log σ (Kp/cm2)
Log V(cm3)
Figure 3.5 Specimen Volume versus Strength Relationship for Coal: Experimental
Data and Best-Fit after Weibull’s Equation (from Bieniawski, 1967)
Pratt et. al (1971) performed in-situ and laboratory tests of 23 quartz diorite
specimens from Cedar City, and 22 granodiorite specimens from Raymond, to determine
the variation of the mechanical properties of the rock specimens with dimensions. The
shapes of the specimens in the in-situ tests were right triangular prisms for which the
47
length ranged from 1 to 9 ft. The shape of specimens in laboratory tests was triangular
prisms with lengths from 4.5 to 12 in. and cylindrical specimens for which the length
ranged from 3.18 to 4.25 in. The test results for the uniaxial compressive strength are
plotted in Figure 3.6 and the elastic modulus are plotted in Figures 3.7 and 3.8. The
maximum ratio between the maximum and the minimum strength is nearly 10. However,
the maximum ratio of elastic modulus between the two extreme cases is about 4. Hence,
Pratt concluded that the elastic modulus is less affected by the size of the rock specimens
than strength, but the moduli are still affected to a significant degree.
Figure 3.6 Maximum Stress versus Specimen Length – Cedar City Quartz Diorite
(from Pratt et al, 1971)
48
Figure 3.7 Elastic Modulus versus Specimen Size – Cedar City Quartz Diorite
(from Pratt et al, 1971)
Figure 3.8 Elastic Modulus versus Specimen Size – Raymond Granodiorite (from Pratt
et al, 1971)
Bieniawski and Van Heerden (1975) reviewed and summarized the important
papers published up to that time and suggested testing procedures for detecting the size
effect on rock through large-scale in-situ tests. The authors decided that displacement-
controlled loading was better for large-scale tests and that the end constraint condition
49
was not so important because other uncontrolled factors, such as geological structure,
introduced so much variability. In addition to that, they recommended ten or more in-situ
tests to arrive at meaningful conclusions because the strength of rock could be different
according to the variation of stratigraphic or geological structure. From past data, they
concluded that the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio were not affected by the ratio of
the specimen’s length to width (diameter) but rather affected by the magnitude of the
specimen’s dimensions.
Hoek and Brown (1980) also showed that sample size affects the strength of rock.
They collected previous experimental results published in the literature and introduced
the dimensionless strength factor which was determined by dividing the strength of each
sample with the strength of 50-mm (2-in.) diameter specimens in each study. Their
collected and dimensionless data are plotted in Figure 3.9. From this data, the following
empirical relationship between the uniaxial compressive strength, σc, and the specimen
diameter, d, was induced:
σ c = σ c 50 (50 / d ) 0.18 (3.2)
where: σc50 is the uniaxial strength of a standard size sample

whose diameter is 50 mm, and
d is the diameter of the specimen (mm).
This equation indicates that the strength of rock is inversely proportional to the
diameter of the rock specimen. The plot shows that the typical testing size, NX core (≈ 2
inch), does not sufficiently reflect the strength of a field rock although the NX size
reflects the strength of intact rock without flaws very well.
50
Figure 3.9 Influence of Specimen Size on the Strength of Intact Rock (from Hoek and
Brown, 1980)
Price (1986) performed compressive strength tests on 34 tuff specimens from

Yucca Mountain. The sample sizes ranged from 25.4 mm (1 in.) to 228.6 mm (9 in.). The
specimens had short, small fractures or joints or alteration in them. Tests were performed
to detect the size effect on the compressive strength of the Yucca Mountain tuff. The
results showed that Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio were less affected by the
specimens’ size but the strength and failure shear strain were inversely related to sample
diameter. Price performed the 34 uniaxial compression tests on the samples from the
Topopah Spring (Tpt) formation of Yucca Mountain. The diameters of the tested tuff
samples were 1.0, 2.0, 3.25, 5.0 and 9.0 inch. The tests were controlled with a constant
strain rate (1.0 × 10-3 %/sec) and the axial displacement was measured with a linear
variable displacement transformer (LVDT) sensor at the base of the loading column. The
51
testing temperature was 22 degrees Celsius, the samples were saturated, and a confining
pressure of 0.1 MPa was applied. Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show the variation of
compressive strength and elastic modulus with specimen size, respectively. The variation
of compressive strength is comparatively wider than the variation of elastic modulus. The
compressive strength shows a significant difference between specimens with 1-in.
diameters and specimens with 9-in. diameters. Price concluded that a consistent strength
value appears from specimens with 5-in. diameters or larger. Thus, it is recommended to
perform compressive strength tests with tuff specimens with 5 in. or larger diameters to
attain the most representative and closest value to the field. On the other hand, the elastic
modulus shows relatively less sensitivity to specimen size. The variation of the average
value of elastic modulus with specimen size is not greater than 10%. Therefore, one can
say that size is less important for testing this tuff with respect to elastic modulus. The
elastic modulus is less affected by specimen size but tends to decrease slightly with an
increase in specimen size.
300
TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF
Confining Pressure = 0.1MPa
Temperature = 22 Celsius degree
Compressive Axial Strength (MPa)
250
-3
Loading Strain Rate = 10 %/sec
Saturated Samples
200 Three Outliers Left Out
150
100
50
Prepared by R.H. Price, Sandia National Laboratories, Alberquerque, New Mexico
for U.S. DOE under Contract DE-XXXX-XXXXXXXXX
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Figure 3.10 Variation of Compressive Axial Strength with Specimen Size (from Price,
1986)
52
80
TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF

Confining Pressure = 0.1MPa
Temperature = 22 Celsius degree
-3
60 Loading Strain Rate = 10 %/sec
Saturated Samples
Elastic Modulus (GPa)

Three Outliers Left Out
40
20
Raw Data of Elastic Modulus
Average of Elastic Modulus at Given Diameter
Prepared by R.H. Price, Sandia National Laboratories, Alberquerque, New Mexico
for U.S. DOE under Contract DE-XXXX-XXXXXXXXX
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Figure 3.11 Variation of Elastic Modulus with Specimen Size (from Price, 1986)
Tang et al. (1999) conducted numerical simulations of uniaxial compression tests

to evaluate the effect of loading systems and specimen geometry on the deformation and
failure behavior of brittle and heterogeneous rock. Their simulation program was named
the Rock Failure Process Analysis (RFPA). The numerical analyses were performed with
several types of rock specimens which had different elastic modulus ratios of platen to
specimen (Ep / Es = 0, 0.1, 1, 2, and 10), different height-to-width ratios (H/W = 0.5, 0.67,
1, 1.5, and 3), and different dimensions (H ×W = 30 × 20, 100 × 67, 120 × 80, 150 × 100,
and 190 × 127 mm). Results of the numerical analyses with respect to the variation of
elastic modulus ratio (Ep / Es) are shown in Figure 3.12. The results indicate that
measured elastic modulus and strength were nearly independent of the elastic modulus
ratio (Ep / Es). However, numerical analyses showed that failure patterns of the rock
specimens were affected by the elastic modulus ratio (Ep / Es). Figure 3.13 shows the
results of numerical analyses with varying height-to-width ratio (W/D). The results show
that consistent strength appeared when the height to width ratio was greater than 1.5.
Lastly, the size effects on measured strength are shown in Figure 3.14. Tang performed
53
numerical analyses of two dimensional specimens. Hence, results are plotted as the area
of the specimens versus strength. The results show that the variation of strength in this
analysis corresponded to the generally accepted trend of size effect; namely that the
strength is inversely proportional to size.
Figure 3.12 Influence on Specimen Strength of Young’s Modulus Ratio of Platen to

Specimen (Ep / Es) (from Tang et al, 1999)
Figure 3.13 Influence on Specimen Strength of Height to Width (H/W) of Specimen

(from Tang et al, 1999)
Figure 3.14 Influence on Specimen Strength of Specimen Size (from Tang et al, 1999)
54
From the above literature review, the following results are consistently shown: (1)
the size effect on strength and elastic properties of rock appears in all rock types, (2) the
relation between the size of rock specimens and the mechanical properties has an
inversely proportional relationship, and (3) elastic moduli are less affected by size effect
than the strength of the rock.
3.3 STRAIN RATE EFFECT
3.3.1 Introduction of Strain Rate Effect
The mechanical behavior of rock may show significantly different strains at

different strain rates because of viscous and inertial effects in the rock specimen that may
vary under different loading rates. Strain rate and loading frequency is most frequently
used to present loading rates. As seen in Figure 3.15, these two concepts are slightly
different. The concept of loading frequency, which is the number of loading cycles per
second, is directly related to the rate of loading. Strain rate, which is the increasing or
decreasing speed of strain, is indirectly related to the loading rate because the loading rate
must be adjusted continuously by the feedback system of testing machine to keep a given
strain rate. Loading frequency is mainly discussed to describe dynamic loading but strain
rate is typically presented to describe a feature of pseudo-static or slow cyclic loading.
3.3.2 Comparison between Static and Dynamic Loads
The strict meaning of “static” is that there is no variation with time. However, the
definition of static loading in this study does not mean constant load but rather a load that
varies too slowly to generate the viscous and inertial effects sometimes found in rock
behavior. In order to discriminate between the constant static state and the slow-varying
“static state”, the term of “quasi static” or “pseudo static” is sometimes used to describe
the very slow-varying static state (also called slow cyclic loading herein).
55
Signal No. 2
Different Loading Frequency, Same Initial Strain Rate
Load or Strain
Original Signal
Signal No. 1
Same Loading Frequency, Different Initial Strain Rate
Time
Figure 3.15 Comparison between Strain Rate and Loading Frequency
However, the term “static” in this study will be used to indicate a slowly varying state.
Based on this definition of static loading, if the strain rate is high enough to induce
viscous and inertial effects in a rock specimen, the loading rate is not regarded any more
as being static but rather as being dynamic. Hence, discrimination between dynamic and
static loading is generally done by means of strain rate.
The boundary strain rate between dynamic and static loading should be performed
according to test results measured in a variety of laboratory and field tests. Reviewing the
previous research results of Lankford (1981), Lajtai et al. (1991), Zhang et al. (1999),
Cho et al. (2003), Ma et al. (2004), Chocron et al. (2006), and Ma and Daemen (2006),
loading for which the strain rate is less than 10-6 /sec (10-4 %/sec) can be considered static
loading. On the other hand, if the loading rate is higher than 10-3/sec (0.1 %/sec), loading
can be treated as dynamic loading. Therefore, an explosion for a tunnel excavation using
explosives and shaking due to an earthquake are treated as typical dynamic problems for
rock because deformations will occur in milliseconds due to the stress (seismic) wave,
and the strain rate will be larger than 0.1 %/sec. The long-term deformation of rock due
56
to self-weight after an excavation is representative of a static problem in rock mechanics
because the deformation of rock due to the excavation may occur over a period of hours,
days, weeks, months or years. The strain rate of such deformations will typically be less
than 10-4 %/sec. Figure 3.16 summarizes the generally accepted scope of strain rate for
each engineering problem of interest.
Required Time for Failure

2 months 3 hours 1 minute 5 millisecond
Assuming Failure Strain is 0.5%
Strain Rate (decimal / sec)

1×10-9 1×10-8 1×10-7 1×10-6 1×10-5 1×10-4 1×10-3 1×10-2 1×10-1 1×100
Static Range Transient Range Dynamic Range
Figure 3.16 Scope of Strain Rate according to Load time to Failure for Problmens
Engineering Interest (Harris and Hudson, 1997)
3.3.3 Literature Review of Strain Rate Effect
Lankford (1981) measured the compressive strength of SiC and Al2O3, which are
the main minerals in ceramic material, over wide range of strain rates. The ceramic
material is not a rock but is the closest material to rock because its main minerals are
nearly the same as those of rock. The static test, for which the strain rate ranged from 7 ×
10-5 /sec to 2 × 10-1/sec, was performed with a hydraulic servo controlled machine. The
dynamic test, for which the strain rate ranged from 102 /sec to 104 /sec, was performed
through the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) test. Five specimens of SiC and nine
specimens of Al2O3 were tested. The results, shown in Figure 3.17, indicate that the
compressive strength of the two materials, SiC and Al2O3, are almost constant in the
static test but increase exponentially in the dynamic test with respect to strain rate.
Lankford determined that the main reason for the different behavior between results from
the static and dynamic tests was that the formation of microcracks was more frequent in
57
dynamic testing. However, the directions of the microcracks could become more random
as the strain rate increased. Thus, the more randomly generated microcracks would have
a higher chance to prevent the progress of a main failure crack. Hence, higher
compressive forces were required to break the specimens.
Figure 3.17 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for SiC and Al2O3 ; T =23°C (from
Lankford, 1981)
Lajtai (1991) selected Tyndallstone and Lanigan Potash rock to represent brittle
rock and ductile rock, respectively. Both rocks were tested to determine the compressive
strength with respect to the variation of strain rate, from 0.035 με/sec to 1000 με/sec,
which can be regarded within the typically static scope. The dimensions of the specimens
were 29 mm in diameter by 60 mm in height in the case of Tyndallstone and 54 mm in
diameter (NX size) by 110 mm in height in the case of Lanigan Potash rock. Lanigan
Potash rock was tested at three confining pressures: 0 , 2 and 5 MPa. This was done to
evaluate how confining pressure affects the variation of strength with strain rate. The
results are shown in Figures 3.18 and 3.19. The conclusion of Lajtai’s study is that the
compressive strength of both rocks (σc) increased proportionately with the logarithmic
value of the strain rate (ν).
58
Figure 3.18 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Tyndallstone. (from Lajtai,
1991)
Figure 3.19 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Lanigan Potash Rock When
Confining Pressure is 0, 2 and 5 MPa. (from Lajtai, 1991)
59
This response can be modeled as a linear model between the two parameters (σc = a + b
ln(ν)). However, as the figures show, the brittle rock is less affected by strain rate than
the ductile rock. Finally, the confining pressure and strain rate are considered to be the
two main factors affecting compressive strength. Thus, Lajtai suggested a general
strength function to predict the compressive strength of a rock (σ1,f) at any confining
pressure (p) and at any loading strain rate (ν). That is represented as:
⎛ ⎞ R0 ⎡ R0 ⎤
⎜ p ⎟ 1 ⎢ ⎛ p ⎞ ⎥ ⎛ν ⎞
σ 1, f = ⎜1 − ⎟ + ⎢(B 0 − D ) + D⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ ⎥ ln ⎜ ⎟ (3.3)
⎜ T 0
⎟ C 0 ⎝ T 0⎠ ⎝ ν o⎠
⎝ ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
where: p is confining pressure (MPa),

To is unconfined tensile strength (MPa),
Co is uniaxial compressive strength (MPa),
Ro is the exponent controlling the shape of the function,
Bo is the value of B in the uniaxial compression test,
B is slope coefficient in the relationship between strain rate
and compressive strength, σ = A + B ln (ν ) ,
1, f
ν is strain rate,
D is the scaling factor which varies from rock type to rock type, and
νo is a standard strain rate.
Martin et al (1993) tested twenty fully saturated tuff specimens from Yucca
Mountain to monitor the variation of compressive strength of the tuff with a variation of
strain rate ranging from 10-9 /sec to 10-3 /sec. The experimental results, shown in Figure
3.20, indicate that an increase in strain rate also increases the compressive strength. In the
static region between 10-9 /sec to 10-5 /sec, the strength of the specimens show a
continuous increase with increasing strain rate. However, the strength measured at the
highest strain rate, 10-3 /sec, is smaller than the strength measured at 10-5 /sec. Martain
60
attempt to explain that the reason for this relationship was the generation of hydraulic
fracturing in the specimen during testing at high loading rates. This explanation is
plausible. The required time for failure would range from 200 sec to 2.5 days if the
loading rate was 10-5 /sec to 10-9 /sec and the failure shear strain is assumed to be 0.2 %.
Considering that the representative permeability of welded tuff is approximately 10-2 ~
10-3 mm/sec (Wohletz et al, 1999) and that permeability will slowly increase with an
increase in loading magnitude, the internal water in tuff specimens can come out partially
or completely before the estimated failure time. The generated pore water pressure due to
loading will therefore be almost zero. However, if the loading rate is 10-3 /sec, the failure
will occur in 2 seconds and pore water will have no time to escape. Thus, pore water
pressure may be generated due to the rapid loading and the generated pore water pressure
may cause a hydraulic fracturing effect. Regardless, the general trend that the
compressive strength of rock will increase with an increase in strain rate is still valid even
in the case of the compressive strength test of tuff from Yucca Mountain.
Figure 3.20 Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate for Yucca Mountain Tuff (from
Martin et al., 1993)
61
Zhang (1999) used loading rate as criteria to differentiate between static and
dynamic loading. A MTS testing machine was used for static testing (loading rate < 104
MPa m1/2/sec) and a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) test was used for dynamic
loading. Wedge loading was used in dynamic testing to measure the fracture roughness of
Fangshan gabbro and Fangshan marble over a wide range of loading rates. The dynamic
Moire method and strain-gauge method were used in determining the critical time of
dynamic fracture. Sixty four Fangshan gabbro specimens and 28 Fangshan marble
specimens were tested. The results show that the static fracture roughness (Klc) of rock is
close to constant, while the dynamic fracture toughness (Kld) is proportionate to the
logarithmic value of the loading rate, i.e. log(Kld) = a×log (strain rate) + b ; a and b are
constant coefficients. The final experimental results are shown in Figures 3.21 and 3.22.
Figure 3.22 is an expanded view of the dynamic section shown in Figure 3.21. Zhang
concluded that the static fracture roughness is slightly affected by strain rate but that
dynamic fracture roughness was strongly affected by strain rate.
Figure 3.21 Fracture Toughness of Gabbro and Marble versus Loading Rate (from
Zhang, 1999)
Gabbro : Klc = 0.13 log(k')+ 2.87; marble : Klc = -0.03 log (k') + 1.24
62
Figure 3.22 Relation between Kld of Gabbro or Marble and k' (from Zhang, 1999)
Gabbro : log (Kld) = 1.56 log(k') – 6.17; marble : log(Kld) = 1.76 log(k') – 7.34
Cho et al. (2003) compared the static tensile strength, which was measured by the
Brazillian test (strain rate ranges from 10-5 /sec to 0.1 /sec), with the dynamic tensile
strength, which was measured by the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar test (strain rate ranges
from 0.5 /sec to 20 /sec). The specimens tested were Tage tuff and Inada granite. The
results showed that tensile strength increased slowly in the static region but increased
steeply in the dynamic region with increasing strain rates. The results are shown in Figure
3.23.
The reason for the difference in tensile strength measured in the static and
dynamic regions was analyzed with a finite element method. According to the incident
pressure-time type of loading and the geometry of the specimens, Model I, II, III and IV
are specified. To represent the inhomogeneity of the specimens, the Weibull’s
distribution was introduced and is represented as follows.
⎡ V ⎛ xt ⎞ m m ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤
G (V , x t ) = 1 − exp ⎢− ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Γ ⎜1 + ⎟⎥ (3.4)
⎣ Vo ⎝ x t (Vo ) ⎠ ⎝ m ⎠⎦
where: G is Weibull’s cumulative probability distribution function,

xt is microscopic strength in a microscopic volume V,
63
x t is mean microscopic strength,
Vo is reference volume,
Г is a gamma function, and
m is the coefficient of uniformity.
Figure 3.23 Experimental Tensile Strength Plotted against the Strain Rate in (a) Inada
Granite (b) Tage Tuff (from Cho et al., 2003)
Weibull’s cumulative probability distribution function describes the relative frequency of

microscopic tensile strength. Its dispersion level is decided by the coefficient of
uniformity, m, which becomes smaller as the rock specimen is more uniform in
mechanical properties. The analysis results, for which the coefficients of uniformity are
64
m =5, 50 and ∞, are plotted in Figure 3.24. From the results shown in Figure 3.24, it was
determined that the inhomogeneity of the specimens was the major reason for the
differences in tensile strength corresponding to different strain rates. Other factors such
as stress redistribution, stress concentration and crack propagation were minor causes of
the differences in tensile strength. Cho considered that the more inhomogeneous a
specimen is, the more random microcracks develop inside the specimen. The more
frequent development of random microcracks would be more likely to prevent the
formation of the main failure crack and would result in higher tensile strength. This
reasoning is in agreement with Lankford’s conclusion (1981).
Figure 3.24 Dynamic Tensile Strength Plotted against the Apparent Strain Rate (a) m =
5, (b) m = 50 and (c) m = ∞ (from Cho et al., 2003)
65
Li et al. (2004) performed three series of experiments with mortar samples, for
which different mixing ratios were used to show that confining pressure and the loading
rate (strain rate) are the two main factors that affect the compressive strength of rocks in
static compressive tests. The selected confining pressures were 0, 2 and 10 MPa and the
strain rate ranged from 10-4 /sec to 10 /sec. The mixing ratios of cement, sand and water
in each mortar sample were 1:2.4:0.55, 1:1.613:0.516 and 1:1.2:0.44, respectively. The
testing system was composed of a hydraulic and air compression test machine. Test
results indicated that compressive strength increased with increased confining pressure
and strain rate, as shown in Figures 3.25 and 3.26. In addition, the increasing change of
compressive strength with a unit increase in strain rate at every confining pressure are
same, as shown in Figure 3.27. Meanwhile, the trend of increasing compressive strength
with a unit increase of confining pressure at every strain rate is similar to the Mohr-
Coulomb envelope shown in Figure 3.28.
Figure 3.25 Change of Strength with Strain Rate at Different Confining Pressures
(Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004)
66
Figure 3.26 Change of Strength with Confining Pressure at Different Strain Rates
(Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004)
Figure 3.27 Variation of Absolute Increment of Strength with Strain Rate at Different
Confining Pressures (Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004)
67
Figure 3.28 Variation of Absolute Increment of Strength with Confining Pressure at
Different Strain Rates (Series 1 Sample) (from Li et al., 2004)
Ma and Daeman (2004) determined the compressive strength of 64 Topopah

Spring tuff samples from Yucca Mountain with diameters of 2.4 in. (60.96 cm) under
varying loading strain rates in order to evaluate the strain rate dependency of mechanical
properties. MTS (Material Testing System) testing machines were used for this testing
and LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential Transformers) and 120-ohm electric resistance
strain gauges were used to measure the displacements and evaluated the strains. The
strain rate ranged from 10-6 %/sec (10-8 /sec) to 1 %/sec (10-2 /sec). Most specimens
contained some internal flaws such as lithophysae, vapor-phase altered zones, cracks,
and/or voids. These flaws resulted in significant scatter in the results. These results are
shown in Figures 3.29 and 3.30, which indicate the overall trend of increasing mechanical
properties such as compressive strength and elastic secant modulus with an increase in
strain rate. Since the data are scattered (R=0.3150), it is hard to clearly detect the overall
trend with respect to strength. The reason why strain rate effects are not shown clearly in
the compressive strength is that internal flaws in the specimens seem to be more
important to the mechanical properties of tuff than strain rate effects. The elastic modulus
68
shows a stronger trend with less scatter (R=0.4825). Since the elastic modulus is
generally less affected by internal flaws than compressive strength, the scattering of
elastic modulus data points is less severe. Consequently, it can be concluded that tuff
from Yucca Mountain exhibits only minor strain rate effects with respect to its
mechanical properties.
Figure 3.29 Ultimate Compressive Strength versus Strain Rate (from Ma and Daeman,
2004)
Figure 3.30 Secant Elastic Modulus versus Strain Rate (from Ma and Daeman, 2004)
According to the previous studies of strain rate effects on the mechanical

properties of rock, strain rate can be regarded as the main factor for distinguishing the
69
difference between dynamic and static loading. The strength and elastic properties of
rock typically increase with an increase in strain rate. The following four microscopic
mechanisms are typically assumed to be possible causes for the variation of rock
properties with a variation in strain rate: (1) different stress concentrations, (2) different
stress redistributions, (3) different crack propagations, and (4) different micro-crack
generation due to inhomogeneity. In the case of tuff from the Yucca Mountain site, strain
rate effects are valid but are overshadowed by other effects due to internal flaws such as
voids, cracks and joints. Thus, the effect of strain rate is negligible in the case of tuffs
from Yucca Mountain.
3.4 VOID EFFECT OF ROCK SPECIMEN
3.4.1 Introduction
Generally, the presence of voids, pores and very soft material in a rock specimen
reduce the strength and stiffness of the specimen. In addition to this, the presence of
voids is regarded as the main reason for differences between static and dynamic
properties of rock because the presence of voids has a greater effect on static properties
than on dynamic properties. This effect is especially note worthy in the case of tuff from
Yucca Mountain, which has a relatively high porosity when compared to other types of
rocks, as seen in Table 3.1. Thus, the study of tuff from Yucca Mountain presents a good
opportunity to examine what influence the presence of voids in rock specimens could
have on the mechanical properties of the rock.
3.4.2 Theoretical Discussion of Void Effect
Previously, the presence of voids was regarded as the main reason for the
differences between static and dynamic properties of rock. To understand this, the
simplest case of a rock specimen was assumed by Tatsuoka and Shibuya (1992)
70
Table 3.1 Typical Values of Rock Porosity (from Bell, 1992)
Rock Total Porosity (%)
Unweathered granite and gneiss 0.02 - 1.8
Quarzite 0.8
Shale, slate, mica schist 0.5 - 7.5
Limestone, primary dolomite 0.5 - 12.5
Secondary dolomite 10 - 30
Chalk 8 - 37
Sandstone 10* 3.5 - 38
Tuff 10* - 40
* modified according to the testing results of tuff from Yucca Mountain
as follows: two materials, Material #1 and #2 (with different shear moduli, G1 and G2,
respectively make up the rock specimen as illustrated in Figure 3.31. The densities (ρ) of
the two materials are the same. The average static modulus of this specimen is normally
calculated directly from the measured stress and strain using the definition of shear
modulus. The shear stress (τ) is determined from the applied torque (T) under the
assumption that the stress is applied to the specimen uniformly. On the other hand, the
strain is calculated according to the length and the summation of the twist deformation of
each material. The twisting deformation of each material is controlled by the stress and
shear modulus of each material. The following equations describe the process of
calculating twisting deformation (δ), shear strain (γ), and static shear modulus of the
specimen (Gstatic) as follows.
If G1 > G2 (Material 1 is relatively stiffer than Material 2), then
δ 1 +δ 2 ⎧ ⎫
δ 1⎪ τ τ ⎪
γ= = = ⎨ L ⋅ (1 − a) × +L⋅a× ⎬ (3.5)
L L L⎪ G G ⎪
⎩ 1 2⎭
71
τ τ G2
G static = = = (3.6)
γ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ G2 ⎫
⎪ τ τ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨(1 − a) × +a× ⎬ ⎨(1 − a ) × + a⎬
⎪ G G 2⎪ ⎪ G1 ⎪
⎩ 1 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
where: δ is total twisting deformation of the specimen,

δ1 and δ2 are twisting deformations of Material #1 and #2, respectively,
L is total length of the specimen, and
a is the ratio of the length of Material #2 and the total length.
T
G1
a*L L
G2
G1
Vs
Figure 3.31 Simplest Example of Rock Specimen (from Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S.,
1992)
The dynamic shear modulus is computed from the shear wave velocity (Vs). The
shear wave velocity is calculated by dividing the length of the specimen with the travel
time of the shear wave. The travel time is measured in a practical test. However, in this
example, it can be computed because the shear wave velocity of each material can be
determined by the equation, Vs = G / ρ . The length of each material is also known. The
following equations describe the process of calculating travel time (Δt), the average shear
wave velocity (Vs,avg), and the dynamic shear modulus of the specimen (Gdynamic) as:
72
(1 − a ) ⋅ L a⋅L (1 − a ) ⋅ L a⋅L
Δt = Δt 1 + Δt 2 = + = + (3.7)
V s1 V s2 G1 G2
ρ ρ
L L 1 1
V s ,avg = = = ⋅ (3.8)
Δt (1 − a ) ⋅ L + a ⋅ L ρ (1 − a) + a
G1 G2 G1 G2
ρ ρ
⎧ ⎫
⎪ ⎪2
⎪⎪ 1 1 ⎪⎪ G2
G dynamic = ρV s ,avg
2
= ρ ⋅⎨ ⋅ = (3.9)
(1 − a ) a ⎬ ⎧
⎪ ρ + ⎪ G2
⎫ 2
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ G1 G 2 ⎪⎪ ⎨(1 − a ) + a⎬
⎭ ⎪ G1 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
where: Δt is total travel time of the shear wave in the specimen,

Δt 1 and Δt 2 are travel times in Materials #1 and #2, respectively,
L is total length of the specimen,
Vs1 is shear wave velocity of Material #1 ( G1 / ρ ),
Vs2 is shear wave velocity of Material #2 ( G 2 / ρ ),
L is total length of the specimen, and

a is the ratio of the length of Material #2 and the total length.
Thus, the equations of the ratio of static shear modulus (Gstatic) and dynamic shear
modulus (Gdynamic) are as follows:
G2
⎧ G2 ⎫ ⎛⎜ G2
⎞2
⎟
⎪ ⎪ ⎜ (1 − a ) + a ⎟
⎨(1 − a ) × + a ⎬
G static ⎪ G ⎪ ⎜
⎜ G ⎟⎟
= ⎩ 1 ⎭ = ⎝ 1
⎠ (3.10)
G dynamic G2 ⎧ G2 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎨(1 − a) × + a⎬
⎛ ⎞2 ⎪ G1 ⎪
⎜ G2 ⎟ ⎩ ⎭
⎜ (1 − a ) + a⎟
⎜⎜ G1 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
73
1.0
0.8
Gstatic / Gdynamic 0.6
0.4 a=0.0001
a=0.001
a=0.01
0.2 a=0.1
a=0.2
a=0.5
0.0 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
G2 / G 1
Figure 3.32 Variation of the Ratio of Gstatic/Gdynamic with the Variation of the Ratio G2/G1
(from Tatsuoka and Shibuya, 1992)
1.0
0.97
0.8
G2 / G1=0.001
G2 / G1=0.01
Gstatic / Gdynamic
0.6 G2 / G1=0.1
G2 / G1=0.2
G2 / G1=0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
a
Figure 3.33 Variation of the Ratio of Gstatic/Gdynamic with the Variation of the Length
Ratio of Soft Material, a (from Tatsuoka and Shibuya, 1992)
These results and are plotted in Figures 3.32 and 3.33. As seen in the above plots,
it may be noted that the static shear modulus is always smaller than the dynamic shear
modulus. Also noteworthy is that when the ratio of G2/G1 is larger than approximately 0.5,
74
the ratio of Gstatic/Gdynamic is almost one. In other words, the static shear modulus is
approximately equal to the dynamic shear modulus in this case. This means that the
heterogeneity of the rock “mineral” composition is not important with respect to
differences between the elastic moduli, Gstatic and Gdynamic. This is because the differences
in the shear moduli of varying rock minerals are not very large, as shown in Table 3.2.
However, the shear modulus of a localized region part voids in the rock specimen can be
small enough to make G2/G1 smaller than 0.5 because the void space can not support any
shear stress. For this reason, Gstatic/Gdynamic can be less than one depending on the void
ratio of the specimen. Consequently, the difference between static and dynamic
properties is attributed to the presence of voids.
These results are restricted to a simple theoretical model. Practical rock specimens
have much more complicated distributions of their components than this model.
Therefore, actual rock may show different behavior from the above results. However, the
same concept may be applied to differentiate between static and dynamic properties due
to the presence of voids in real rock specimens. It is highly probable that similar trends as
those previously discussed for an idealized rock may also exist in real rock.
Table 3.2 Typical Elastic and Shear Moduli of Common Minerals (after Goodman,
1989)
Unit Weight Vp M* G**
Mineral Specific Gravity
(γ, Pcf) (ft/sec) (psf) (psf)
Orthoclase 2.5 -2.6 159.12 19024 1.788E+09 5.110E+08
Quartz 2.65 165.36 19844 2.022E+09 5.778E+08
Plagioclase 2.6 - 2.8 168.48 20500 2.199E+09 6.282E+08
Calcite 2.7 168.48 21648 2.452E+09 7.006E+08
Muscovite 2.7 - 3.0 177.84 19024 1.999E+09 5.711E+08
Dolomite 2.8 - 3.1 177.84 24600 3.342E+09 9.549E+08
Olivine 3.2 - 3.6 212.16 27552 5.002E+09 1.429E+09
γ 2
Note : * M, constrained elastic modulus, is calculated by M = ρV =
2
V ,
p
g p
** G, shear modulus, is calculated from M under the assumption that Poisson’s ratio is 0.3.
75
3.4.3 Literature Review of Void Effect
Zisman (1933) measured the longitudinal wave (constrained compressional wave)

velocity and the transverse wave (shear wave) velocity in Quincy granite, Sudbury norite
and limestone from southeast Persia. The dynamic elastic modulus (Ed) and dynamic
Poisson’s ratio (νd) were calculated and compared with the static elastic modulus (Es) and
the static Poisson’s ratio (νs) which were already published at the time. The comparison
of results is organized in Table 3.3.
As seen in Table 3.3, as the difference between the compressibility of the closed
and disclosed specimen becomes larger, the rock specimen could be considered less
compacted and exhibits a larger difference between the dynamic and static properties.
Hence, Zisman concluded that the compaction of rock had an intimate relation with the
difference between the static and dynamic properties of the rock, i.e. the highly
compacted rock exhibited nearly the same value of static and dynamic properties but the
difference grew as the rock became less compacted.
Table 3.3 Comparison between the Static and Dynamic Properties of Quincy Granite,
Sudbury Norite and Southeast Persia Limestone (after Zisman, 1933)
Dynamic Property Static Property Closed Disclosed Seismological
* ** ***
Rock Compressibility Compressibility Compressibility
Elastic Modulus Poisson's ratio Elastic Modulus Poisson's ratio 2 2 2
2 (cm /dyne) (cm /dyne) (cm /dyne)
(Ed ,dyne/cm ) (νd) (Es,dyne/cm2) (νs)
Quincy Granite 4.3×1011 0.33 3.5×1011 0.1 90×10-13 21.6×10-13 22.7×10-13
Sudbury Norite 8.82×1011 0.27 8.36×1011 0.22 28.6×10-13 16.4×10-13 15.6×10-13
Limestone
from southeast Persia 5.5×1011 0.29 5.7×1011 0.25 29.0×10-13 24.7×10-13 22.8×10-13
Note: * Compressibility measured with specimen’s surface sealed.

** Compressibility measured without specimen’s surface sealed.
*** Compressibility calculated from the seismic wave velocities.
Ide (1936) used the natural period method (resonant column method) and uniaxial
compression test method to measure the dynamic and static properties of rock specimens.
Ide tested 54 rock samples consisting of marble, limestone, dolomite, slate, norite, granite,
76
sandstone, diabase and trap. The properties of rock were compared with each other and
checked in detail. One of the conclusions from the tests was that the cause of observed
differences between dynamically and statically determined values of Young’s modulus in
rocks is the presence of minute cracks and cavities in the rock samples.
Sutherland (1962) compared the published small-strain static elastic modulus
(Estatic,max) and the published small-strain dynamic elastic modulus (Edynamic,max), which
could be measured through the resonance method and the uniaxial compression testing,
respectively. The 44 tested rock samples were divided into several groups according to
their types such as; quartzite, conglomerate, schist and sandstone. Each group was
checked for the mean value and the standard deviation of their mechanical properties. All
groups except two showed smaller static values of modulus than dynamic values, which
agreed with results of the previously examined theoretical simple model. A possible
reason to explain the two exceptional groups is that these groups were compacted highly
enough to cause the specimens to have less voids than the minimum void ratio which can
result in the property difference. On the whole, Sutherland’s comparison between the
properties supports Ide and Zismann’s conclusions.
King (1983) derived two empirical equations that showed the relationship
between the dynamic elastic modulus and the uniaxial compressive strength or the static
elastic modulus by using 152 measurements of dynamic elastic modulus and 174
measurements of the uniaxial compressive strength of rock specimens from the Canadian
Shield. King suggested the correlated equations as follows:
E s = 1.263E D − 29.5 MPa (3.11)
1.705
C = 4.31⎛⎜ E D / 10 ⎞⎟ (3.12)
⎝ ⎠
where: ES is static elastic modulus (MPa),

ED is dynamic elastic modulus (MPa), and
77
C is uniaxial compressive strength (MPa).
Kazi et al. (1983) also used sonic velocity measurements to predict the uniaxial
compressive strengths of rock. By compiling information on 204 specimens already
published in the literature, Kazi suggested the following relationship:
log σ = 0.608 + 0.314 (E / ρ ) (3.13)
where: σ is uniaxial compressive strength (MPa),

ρ is density (g/cm3), and
E is dynamic elastic modulus (MPa).
After deriving this equation, he prepared seven rock samples of different rock
types, and tested them dynamically and statically. As seen Figure 3.34, he proved the
reliability of the above equation by showing that the expected compressive strengths
through his equation existed within the allowable error range from the compressive
strengths measured by static tests.
Kazi and Eissa (1988) derived another equation to describe the relationship
between static elastic modulus and dynamic elastic modulus by using 342 observations
from the available literature. They tried 60 cases to develop a correlation between 12
variables such as the static elastic modulus (Est), the logarithm of the static elastic
modulus (log10(Est)), the dynamic elastic modulus (Edy), the logarithm of the dynamic
elastic modulus (log10(Edy)), unit weight of the specimen (γ), γ Edy , γEdy , γEdy ,
log 10 γEdy , γ log 10 Edy , Edy/γ, and Edy / γ . They recommended one relationship from the
correlations which showed the highest correlation coefficient between the specified
variables. This relationship is described as follows:
log E st = 0.02 + 0.77 log⎛⎜ γE dy ⎞⎟ (3.14)
⎝ ⎠
where: Est is static elastic modulus (GPa),

Edy is dyanmic elastic modulus (GPa), and
78
γ is density (g/cm3).
Figure 3.34 Relationship between Average Values of (√(E/ρ)) and Logarithm of

Compressive Strength, Showing Upper and Lower Limits of 75 % and 90 %
Confidence (from Kazi and Eissa, 1988)
Price (1994) tested four groups of tuffs, TCw, PTn, TSw1 and TSw2, from Yucca
Mountain, which were fully dried by drying them in an oven for ten days. They were all
from Borehole No. USW-NRG-6, which was drilled at the Yucca Mountain facility site
to help detemine the geological profile of the site. After CT scanning all of the specimens
before testing, seismic wave velocities and uniaxial compressive strengths were measured.
The dynamic elastic moduli and the static elastic moduli were computed from the test
data and compared to each other. The comparison showed that the dynamic elastic
moduli of the tuff specimens were always larger than the static moduli, which was in
agreement with Sutherland’s results (1962). The results comparing the elastic and static
moduli are shown in Figure 3.35. Based on the CT image analysis performed before
testing, they could show that not only the density of the voids but also the structure of the
voids in the specimens can be a factor causing a difference between the dynamic and
static properties of the tuffs.
79
Figure 3.35 Dynamic Young’s Modulus versus Static Young’s Modulus for Specimens
of USW-NRG-6 Tested in Uniaxial Compression (from Price,1994)
Yale and Jamieson (1994) performed tests of 85 carbonate and clastic core
samples from an oil well in Hugoton and Panoma fields, Kansas. They emphasized that
field compressive strength testing could not be performed due to the deep location of the
oil reservoir. The only way to determine field strength of the in-situ rock was using a
correlation between the rock compressive strength and its seismic wave velocity. Hence,
they first dynamically tested core samples. After this, they then compressed the core
samples to fail under a confining pressure of 1500 psi, which was the estimated in-situ
pressure of the reservoir. The experimental results are shown in Figures 3.36, 3.37 and
3.38. They showed that the carbonate rock series such as limestone and dolostone showed
the trend of a decreasing static elastic modulus and an increasing static Poisson’s ratio
with an increase in porosity. They analyzed their data and concluded that one of the
reasons for the difference between the static and dynamic properties was the viscoelastic
mechanism of the fluid (oil, gas and water) in the carbonate rock. This conclusion was
drawn because the rate of static loading (10-4 to 10-2 Hz) was large enough to allow for
significant viscoelastic deformation of the rock but the rate of dynamic loading (104 to
105 Hz) did not allow time for viscoelastic deformation.
80
Plona and Cook (1995) succeeded in measuring static and dynamic properties on
the same specimens. The static tests were performed by means of uniaxial compressive
strength tests and dynamic tests were conducted by measuring the velocity of the seismic
waves. The samples used for the tests were Castlegate sandstones for which the
dimensions were 2 in. in diameter by 4 in. in length with a porosity of 26 %. They
measured the dynamic elastic modulus and the static elastic modulus by repeated loading
and unloading, as shown in Figure 3.39. These measurements were performed until the
major loading reached 70 % of the expected ultimate strength of the specimen. Through
these tests, they showed that the static elastic moduli were always smaller than the
dynamic moduli at every uniaxial loading condition as seen in Figure 3.40.
6
10x10
Dolostone w/anhyd
Dolostone
Limestone
Silt w/dol cem
Static Elastic Modulus (psi)
8 Siltstone
Mudstone
2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Porosity (decimal)
Figure 3.36 Young’s Modulus versus Porosity (from Yale and Jamieson, 1994)
81
6
10x10
Dolostone w/anhyd
Dolostone
Limestone
Static Elastic Modulus (psi)

8 Silt w/dol cem
Siltstone
Mudstone
2
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Dynamic / Static Elastic Modulus Ratio
Figure 3.37 Young’s Modulus versus Dynamic/Static Modulus Ratio (from Yale and
Jamieson, 1994)
0.8
0.6
Static Poisson's Ratio
0.4
0.2
Carbonates
Siltstones
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Porosity (decimal)
Figure 3.38 Static Poisson’s Ratio versus Porosity (from Yale and Jamieson, 1994)
82
Figure 3.39 Dynamic and Static Stress-Strain Curves for Cycle 1 (from Plona and Cook,
1995)
Figure 3.40 Dynamic and Static Elastic Modulus versus Stress for Cycle 1 (from Plona
and Cook, 1995)
83
Yale et al. (1995) measured the static and dynamic elastic modulus of
Rotliegendes sandstone using triaxial measurements and direct arrivals of seismic waves.
The Rotliegendes sandstone came from Block 48 of the southern North Sea. Fifty eight
core specimens were sampled in four oil wells. These specimens were tested in the
laboratory for correlations among various properties. The porosity, mechanical properties
and the degree of cementation were measured and the results are shown in Figures 3.41
and 3.42. From these curves, they determined that voids in the specimens were the largest
factor causing a difference between the measured values of static and dynamic
mechanical properties because the elastic modulus ratios of static and dynamic values
decreased as porosity increased. These experimental results coincide with the above
theoretically-derived results. In addition to that, the experimental results were also in
agreement with those of Ide and Zisman. The hysteresis loop area, which represents the
material damping ratio, increases as the ratio of dynamic-to-static modulus increases, as
seen in Figure 3.42. Thus, rock specimens with higher porosity may also exhibit higher
damping ratios.
60
Static
50 Dynamic
Elastic Modulus (GPa)
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Porosity
Figure 3.41 Young’s Modulus versus Porosity for Rotliegendes Sandstone (from Yale et
al., 1995)
84
1.8
1.6
1.4
Hysteresis Loop Area (psi)

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Dynamic / Static Young's Modulus Ratio
Figure 3.42 Dynamic / Static Young’s Modulus versus Hysteresis Loop Area for
Rotliegendes Sandstone (from Yale et al., 1995)
Nimick et al. (2004) derived an equation correlating uniaxial compressive

strength and porosity. Yucca Mountain tuff has a porosity ranging from 10 to 40 %
(Goodman, 1989). To evaluate the trend of the elastic modulus variation in the range of
small porosity, the same analytical model as Avar’s model (2003) was developed and
tested. Test results are shown in Figure 3.43. From the data determined with the tuff
specimens and the artificial analog model, Nimick suggested a relationship between
uniaxial compressive strength and porosity as:
N = 0.954 − 0.15 φ 2 (3.15)
σc
where: N is normalized uniaxial compressive strength, which is determined by

σc
normalizing the strength with respect to zero macroporosity (analog

model) or total porosity (tuff), and
φ is porosity.
It is noteworthy that Nimick et al. were the first to suggest a method of correlating
the effect of porosity to the uniaxial compressive strength.
85
Figure 3.43 Total Porosity versus Normalized Uniaxial Compressive Strength (from
Nimick et al., 2004)
Avar and Hudyma (2007) collected data from 72 tests of Yucca Mountain tuff
published up to that time. These data are presented in Table 3.4, and are analyzed
together, with a focus on the relationship between porosity, uniaxial compressive strength
and static elastic modulus. The shape, size and volume of lithophysae varied throughout
the tuff samples. All testing procedures for uniaxial compressive strength were in
accordance with ASTM D-3148 and ISRM and porosity was computed from the average
grain density, which is in accordance with ASTM D-854. Figures 3.44 and 3.45 show the
analysis between properties. As seen, it was again shown that there exists an inversely
proportional relationship between the static mechanical properties and porosity, which
can represent the effect of the presence of lithophysae cavities in this tuff.
Table 3.4 Description of Experimental Data (from Avar and Hudyma, 2007)
Source Sample Location Number of Tests Specimen Size Specimen Shape
Nimick et al. (1985) NRG-4 Borehole 19 25.3 X 50.4 Cylinder
Martin et al. (1994) NRG-6 Borehole 19 50.8 X 101.6 Cylinder
Martin et al. (1995) NRG-7/7A Borehole 5 50.8 X 101.6 Cylinder
Price et al. (1985) Outcrop 10 266.7 X 533.4 Cylinder
a
Price (2004) Outcrop 9 267 - 290 Cylinder
b
Avar (2002) Outcrop 10 150 X 150 X 150 Cube
Note: a Diameter
b Specimen Sizes are Approximate.
86
Figure 3.44 Total Porosity versus Uniaxial Compressive Strength (from Avar and
Hudyma, 2007)
Figure 3.45 Total Porosity versus Elastic Modulus (from Avar and Hudyma, 2007)
Throughout the theoretical discussion of the above literature, the following

conclusions can be generally accepted: (1) static properties are typically less than
dynamic properties due to voids in the specimens, (2) porosity has an inversely
proportional relationship with the static and dynamic mechanical properties of rock such
as strength and elastic modulus, (3) the presence of voids is one of the most important
factors that can induce a difference between static and dynamic mechanical properties,
(4) tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain also follow the generally accepted relationships
87
between porosity and mechanical properties very well, and (5) not only porosity but also
geometry of the pores in rock specimens is slso a factor that leads to differences between
static and dynamic properties.
3.5 SUMMARY
Three main factors which can influence the mechanical properties of tuff are
discussed as follows. First, specimen size has an effect with the mechanical properties of
rock tending to decrease as the size of the tested rock specimen increases. The elastic
moduli are less affected by the size effect than the strength of rock. Second, strain rate
effect with the mechanical properties of rock tending to increase as the strain rate
increases. Strain rate is also an important criteria for distinguishing between dynamic and
static loading. The assumed fundamental micro-mechanisms for strain rate effects are: (a)
stress-concentration variations, (b) the stress redistribution process, (c) the crack
propagation process, and (d) differences in micro-crack generation due to inhomogeneity.
Third, voids have an effect with the presence of voids in rock specimens generally
decreases the static and dynamic properties of rock. The presence of voids is the main
reason for the differences between static and dynamic properties. However, the presence
of voids may not affect the difference between normalized static shear modulus and
normalized dynamic shear modulus. Tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain are known to
be in agreement with these conclusions based upon previous studies of: (1) The effect of
specimen size effect by Price (1986), (2) The effect of strain rate by Martin et al. (1993)
and Ma and Daeman (2004), and (3) The effects of voids by Avar and Hudyma (2007).
88
Chapter 4
Laboratory Techniques for Static, Dynamic and Cyclic Tests
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Rock tests are typically performed for the objective of obtaining numerical values
of their physical and mechanical properties to be used for design of rock structures. For
the design of these structures under earthquake loads, the static and dynamic properties
are necessary together to predict the appropriate mechanical response of the rock
structures. Each property is generally measured with a particular testing procedure.
Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 introduce the general static tests used to obtain the static
mechanical properties such as uniaxial compressive strength, triaxial compression
strength, tensile strength, shear strength, static elastic modulus, static shear modulus and
static Poisson’s ratio although these tests are not applied in this study. Sections 4.3.1 and
4.3.2 present the dynamic tests to obtain the dynamic mechanical properties such as
dynamic unconstrained elastic modulus, dynamic constrained elastic modulus, dynamic
shear modulus, material damping ratio in compression, material damping ratio in shear
and dynamic Poisson’s ratio. To evaluate these properties at strains beyond the power
limitations of most dynamic tests, torsional cyclic tests are suggested in this study.
Section 4.4 explains the cyclic torsional shear test to obtain the cyclic shear modulus
under torsional loading. The dynamic testing methods discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and
4.3.2 and the cyclic torsional shear testing method discussed in Section 4.4 are used to
obtain the dynamic mechanical properties of Yucca Mountain tuff in this study.
4.2 LABORATORY STATIC TESTS OF ROCK
Using rock specimens obtained in a field sampling program in the form of core or
bulk samples, laboratory static tests are performed to determine the static mechanical
89
properties of the in-situ rock. Because the objective of static laboratory tests is to evaluate
the mechanical behavior to describe the mechanical response of the rock under very slow
varying loads, the loading rate is typically not greater than 10-4 %/sec. Three types of the
static tests are typically conducted in rock mechanics; compression, tensile and shear
tests. These tests produce different static properties, which are needed for the design of
rock structures. In this section, these tests are discussed.
4.2.1 Static Compressive Strength Test
This test method covers the determination of stress-strain curves of intact rock
core specimens under uniaxial compression or triaxial compression. The specifications of
this test are given in ASTM D2938, D2664, D7012-4 (Method A – Method D). The
stresses obtained under these test procedure are undrained total stresses. The typical test
temperature is room temperature and, if necessary, the test is conducted at an elevated
temperature. There are two types of compression tests; the unconfined (uniaxial)
compression test and the confined (triaxial) compression test. The laterally unconfined
(uniaxial) compression test is the most used strength test of rock material because it is an
easy, economical and rapid testing method. On the other hand, the confined (triaxial) test
permits testing under a confining pressure, which can be considered as the in -situ lateral
load. The reason why the confining pressure needs to be applied is to simulate the in-situ
stress condition under which most underground rock exists. To confine the rock specimen
properly, the outside surface of the rock specimen is sealed with a flexible rubber
membrane because the confining fluid in the test chamber needs to be kept from
penetrating the specimen. After confining the rock specimen, the axial load is applied
using either a constant stress rate or a constant strain rate. For any axial stress applied to
the rock core specimen, the axial and lateral strains are measured with displacement
sensors such as linear variable differential transformers (LVDT’s), electrical resistance
90
strain gauges, compressometers, proximitor sensors or other suitable means whose
resolution satisfies the requirements of the experiment. The load and displacement data
are used to plot the stress-strain curve. Using this curve, several compressive properties
such as compressive strength, static elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio and yield point can
be determined.
Fundamentally, the compressive properties are essential information for the
design of rock structures because the main static loads are compressional loads, which
come from the self weight of the overburden above and around the rock structure.
Therefore, this type of compressive test is widely used and considered as the basic test to
determine the static properties of rock. Figure 4.1 shows the compressive testing machine
and triaxial cell for the uniaxial and triaxial compressive strength tests of rock. An
example of typical results from such a compressive test is shown in Figure 4.2.
(a) (b)
Axial Force
Specimen or Triaxial
Cell put in here
LVDT
for axial strain
Specimen
Lateral Force
Control Console
Load Cell
Figure 4.1 Compressive Testing Machine for Rock (a) and Triaxial Cell Used to Test
Rock Specimens (b) (from GCTS.com)
91
Ultimate Stress (σu )
Axial Stress (σa )

Failure Axial Strain (εaf )
Lateral Strain (εh ) 0 Axial Strain (εa )
Figure 4.2 Typical Results of Rock Compressive Test for the Uniaxial Compressive
Strength or the Triaxial Compressive Strength (from Harrison and Hudson,
1997)
4.2.2 Static Tensile Strength Test
It is generally known that, because of the discontinuities a rock may contain, rock
in its natural state is relatively weak in tension. For this reason, although the major
external loadings applied to a rock structure are compressional ones, the tensile static
testing is still considered because of local tensile stresses that may develop. A tensile
zone is frequently developed in case of wide roofs and dome of underground openings.
Tensile stresses may also be induced on the underside of a rock slab or beam subjected to
bending, and on the convex side of a buckling rock pillar.
The tensile strength test methods typically used are; (1) direct tensile strength test,
(2) bending strength test (flexural strength test) and (3) Brazilian tensile strength test
(splitting tensile strength test). The standard procedures for these tensile strength tests are
introduced in ASTM D3936, D3967-05 and D2936-95. The tensile strength of rock and
the stress-strain curve can be determined directly in the direct tensile strength test (see
Figure 4.3). On the other hand, the tensile strength can also be measured indirectly
92
through the bending strength test and the Brazilian tensile strength test (see Figures 4.4
and 4.5). The direct tensile strength test is relatively more expensive and requires more
time for testing than the indirect tests. For this reason, the Brazilian test is most widely
used because it is economical and its results are closer to the results of the direct tensile
strength test than the bending strength test.
(a) Tension
(b)
Force
End Cap
Rock
Specimen
End Cap
Tension
Force
Figure 4.3 Direct Tensile Strength Test (a) and Completed Test on a Rock Specimen
(b) (from GCTS.com)
(a) Compressive (b)

Force (P)
`
Rigid Plate
Length (L)
Diameter
(D)
Rock Specimen
Rigid Plate
Splitting (Brazillian) Tensile Strength:

σT = 2P / (πLD)
Figure 4.4 Brazilian Tensile Strength Test (Splitting Tensile Strength Test) (a) and
Brazillian Testing Device (b) (from GCTS.com)
93
(a) (b)
Rock
Specimen Compression
Force
Steel Rod
Rigid Floor
Figure 4.5 Bending Strength Test (Flexural Strength Test) (a) and a Bending Strength
Test Device (b) (from GCTS.com)
4.2.3 Static Shear Strength Test
A number of procedures have been devised for measuring the shear strength of
rock. Four testing methods to measure the shear strength are the single shear test, double
shear test, punch shear test and torsional shear test. These tests are illustrated in Figure
4.6. The first three tests, single shear test, double shear test and punch shear test, can be
grouped as one and called as the direct shear tests. The standard procedure for direct
shear tests is explained in ASTM D5607. The direct shear tests are easy to perform and
can be applicable to both an intact rock and a rock with discontinuities. However, the
direct shear tests have the inherent problem that the failure plane is presumably decided
by the experiment operator and the failure plane does not necessarily correspond to the
plane of maximum shear stress. On the contrary, the torsional shear test has the failure
plane parallel to the direction of the maximum shear stress. Hence, the torsional shear test
can more reliably measure the shear strength of rock. However, torsional shear test has a
technical problem that the calculation of the strain is more complicated when some parts
of the rock specimen show nonlinear plastic behavior. To compensate for this
94
disadvantage, Chen and Stokoe (1979) introduced the equivalent radius concept that is
explained in Section 2.2.4.
Although a number of investigators have suggested a lot of types of static shear
strength tests, only limited published information exists on the shear properties of rock
and few data are available to show the effect of loading rate, specimen size, shape and
other factors. More studies are required in the future to improve the testing procedure in
shear and to accumulate data on shear strength.
Shear Force
(a)
Shear Force Shear Force
Rock Specimen Rock Specimen

Rock Specimen
Shear Force Shear Force Shear Force

Shear Force Shear Force
Single Shear Test Double Shear Test Punch Shear Test
(b) Shear Force
Fixed Side Rock Specimen
Torsional Shear Test

Figure 4.6 Direct Shear Test (a) and Torsional Shear Test (b)
4.3 LABORATORY DYNAMIC TESTS OF ROCK
The dynamic behavior of rock is needed for the design of rock to earthquake
loading. These dynamic properties are measured in the laboratory dynamic tests. In this
study, two types of laboratory dynamic tests of rock are performed. These tests can be
distinguishable according to the boundary conditions and loading type as: (1) Free-Free
95
Unconfined Resonant Column and Direct Arrival Tests (performed in the Free-Free URC
device), and (2) Fixed-Free Resonant Column and Torsional Shear tests (performed in the
Fixed-Free RCTS device). The SHPB (Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar) test is sometimes
performed to get the nonlinear dynamic behavior curve in rock mechanics. However, this
test is typically conducted for the design of rock openings under an instantaneous
increasing load like an explosion. Hence, the SHPB test is not used in this study because
the design objective is earthquake loading which involves cyclic loading. Although the
Free-Free URC test can not supply the information on dynamic properties under a
specific confining state and can not be used to evaluate the nonlinear dynamic behavior,
Free-Free URC tests can be used to evaluate several kinds of dynamic properties in the
small strain range such as the small-strain unconstrained elastic modulus (Emax), the
small-strain constrained elastic modulus (Mmax), small-strain shear modulus (Gmax), the
small-strain material damping ratio in shear (Dmin,s), the small-strain material damping
ratio in compression (Dmin,c), and Poisson’s ratio (ν). On the other hand, the Fixed-Free
RCTS test can be used to evaluate the nonlinear shear modulus (G) at different shear
strains (γ) under confining pressures. However, the fixed-free RCTS test can only
generate shear motion. In this section, these two tests (free-free URC and fixed-free
RCTS) will be discussed in more detail.
4.3.1 Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column and Direct Arrival Test
Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column Test and Direct Arrival Test (referred to
as the free-free URC test herein) can be used to measure the velocities of three types of
stress waves in the small-strain range; constrained longitudinal compression wave (Vp),
unconstrained longitudinal compression wave (Vc), and torsional shear wave (Vs). With
these measurements, the unconstrained elastic modulus (Emax), constrained elastic
modulus (Mmax), shear modulus (Gmax) and Poisson’s ratio (ν) in the small-strain range
96
can be computed. In addition to these, two types of material damping ratio can be
measured; material damping ratio in shear (Dmin,s) and material damping ratio in
unconstrained compression (Dmin,c)
The general setup for the Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column and Direct
Arrival test is shown in Figure 4.7. The dynamic tests in the URC set-up consist of two
general types of small-strain seismic tests: (1) direct-travel-time tests and (2) free-free
resonant column tests. Vp and Mmax are measured through direct arrival tests, which
measure the direct arrival time of the compression seismic wave from one end of the
specimen to the other. On the other hand, Vc, Emax, Dc,min, Vs, Gmax and Ds,min are
determined from free-free resonant column tests. The resonant frequency in the frequency
response spectrum or the power spectrum is used to evaluate moduli and the half-power
width of the peak at the resonant frequency is used to evaluate material damping ratio.
Oscilloscope Accelerometer
Data Acquisition
Computer
Specimen
Instrumented
Power Supplies Hammer
for accelerometer and
Dynamic Signal
Instrumented Hammer
Analyzer
Figure 4.7 Overview of General Setup for Free-Free Resonant Column and Direct
Arrival test
97
Direct Arrival Test
The specimens, sensor (accelerometer) and instrumented hammer used in the
Direct Arrival test are shown in Figure 4.8. The compression wave is excited
longitudinally by striking the instrumented hammer in the middle of one end of the
cylindrical specimen. This impulse creates a constrained wave that travels through the
center of specimen and arrives at the other end of the specimen. The arrival of the
compression wave is detected by a sensor (longitudinal accelerometer) which is attached
in the middle of the other end of the specimen. The source and arrival signal of the
constrained compression wave are transferred to the oscilloscope, Tektronix TDS 2014,
or the dynamic signal analyzer, Hewlett-Packard (HP) 3562A, and they are plotted on
one graph. The start time can be picked from the source signal and the arrival time can be
determined from the arrival signal. By subtracting the start time from the arrival time, the
travel time (Δt) can be calculated. Using the equation:
Vp = L / Δt (4.1)
where: L is length of specimen
The velocity of the constrained compression wave velocity (Vp) is determined. The
longitudinal compression wave, which is travel through the center line of the specimen, is
assumed to be a constrained wave. This assumption is regarded as reasonable because the
particle motion along the center line is confined sufficiently in a short specimen to
prevent the generation of lateral motion. Therefore, the compression wave measured
through this test is considered to be a constrained wave and its velocity can be the
constrained compression wave velocity (Vp). The constrained elastic modulus, M, can be
evaluated from the constrained longitudinal compression wave velocity through the
equation:
M = ρVp 2 (4.2)
where: ρ is density of rock.

98
Figure 4.9 shows the example of data record of the Direct Arrival test. The calibration
process of the free-free URC test for tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain is discussed in
Section 6.2.
(a) Longitudinal
Cylindrical Excitation
Specimen
Longitudinal
Accelerometer Wave Propagation
(b) Longitudinal
Accelerometer
Cylindrical Longitudinal
Specimen Excitation
Figure 4.8 General Test Set-Up for Direct Arrival Test on Unconfined Cylindrical
Specimens: (a) Schematic Diagram and (b) Photograph of Test Specimen
(from Stokoe et al. 1994)
sec
sec
Δt (Travelling Time)
Figure 4.9 Time Records Example from the Instrumented Hammer and Accelerometer
Recorded with a Digital Oscilloscope
99
Resonant Column Test
The Free-Free Unconfined Resonant Column test is based on elastic wave theory
as stated previously in Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2. and 2.3.3. The general equation for
⎛ ∂u ( x, t ) ⎞
compressional wave motion and the free-free boundary conditions ⎜ = 0⎟
⎝ ∂x x = 0 and L
⎠
lead to the following equations;

CT − CR = 0 (4.3)
CT e i κL − CR e −iκL = 0 (4.4)
where: CT is the coefficient of the transverse wave,

CR is the coefficient of the reflected wave,
κ is the wave number (κ = 2π/ λ),
L is the specimen length,
λ is the wavelength, and
To avoid the nontrivial solution in these equations, the value of sin(κL) should be zero,
which means κL = nπ (n= 1, 2, 3,… ). The same form of the solution occurs in the
torsional wave equation for the same free-free boundary conditions. This solution means
the wave in a finite cylindrical rod will reach resonant condition if the wave number of
the wave satisfies κL = nπ, where “n” means the order of resonant mode. If κ is replaced
with λ, the equation is rewritten as:
λ = 2L / n (4.5)
where: L is the specimen length, and
n is the resonant wave number.
The displacement and strain in longitudinal or torsional motion of a free-free specimen
with length-diameter ratio of two is shown in Figure 4.10. The strain shows the opposite
∂u
phase to the displacement because the strain is the derivative of displacement, ε = .
∂x
100
As can be seen in Figure 4.10, the wavelength at the first resonance mode is 2L and it
decreases at higher modes.
Figure 4.10 Displacements and Strains in Longitudinal or Torsional Motion of a Free-

Free Specimen at the First Three Modes
By creating these resonance phenomena in a finite cylindrical specimen, the stress

wave velocity (V) can be computed from:
V=f×λ (4.6)
where: f is frequency, and
λ is wavelength (= 2L at the resonant frequency of first-mode).
The frequency in Equation 4.6 is the first-mode resonant frequency which shows the
largest peak amplitude in the power spectrum of the displacement of the specimen. For
this reason, the name of this test includes “Resonant Column”. The general configuration
of the Free-Free Resonant Column test is shown in Figure 4.11. Longitudinal
compressional resonance is generated by hitting one end of the rock specimen with the
instrumented hammer. The vibration motions are detected by an accelerometer attached
101
in the middle of the end of the specimen. The detected signals are transferred to the
dynamic signal analyzer, Hewlett-Packard (HP) 3562A. The signals in the time domain
are converted into the frequency domain through the Discrete Fourier transform and are
plotted in the form of a power spectrum curve shown in Figure 4.12. First sweep in
frequency domain is conducted in wide bandwidth of frequency, 0 to 10 kHz or more, as
shown in Figure 4.12a. Then, the bandwidth is zoomed and zoomed around the resonant
peak until the bandwidth is below 300 Hz as shown in Figure 4.12b and 4.12c to
determine the resonant frequency and half-power point more exactly.
On the other hand, torsional shear resonance is created by the torsional excitation
with a scissors source on one end of the specimen. The scissors source is shown in Figure
4.11c and 4.11d. The torsional motions of the specimen are detected by two
accelerometers attached in the side of the end of the specimen. Typically, bending motion
of the specimen is produced together with torsional motion due to torsional excitation. To
cancel out the bending motion of the specimen, two accelerometers are used and the final
torsional motion is obtained by subtracting the signal from one accelerometer from the
signal from the other accelerometer. The measured signal of the torsional motion is
processed with the same way as the signal of the longitudinal motion.
The typical frequency response curves (one for Vc and one for Vs) or the power
spectrums (one for Vc and one for Vs) are determined by averaging using at least five
impacts. Once the power spectrum or frequency response is determined, the frequencies
of the resonance modes (resonance frequencies) and geometrical shape of the power
spectrum or frequency response function around the resonance frequencies can be
evaluated.
102
Longitudinal
Accelerometer
Longitudinal
Cylindrical Excitation
Specimen
a. Longitudinal Compressional Resonance Tests (Drawing)

Longitudinal
Accelerometer
Longitudinal
Excitation
Rock Specimen
b. Longitudinal Compression Resonance Tests (Picture)

Torsional
Tangential “Scissors”
Accelerometer Source End View Showing Source:
Pivoting bar which

impacts fixed bar
c. Torsional Resonance Tests with a “Scissors” Source (Drawing)

Tangential Torsional
Accelerometers “Scissors”
Source
Rock Specimen
Endview Endview
Showing Sensor Showing Source
d. Torsional Resonance Tests with a “Scissors” Source (Picture)
Figure 4.11 General Test Set-Up for: (a) Longitudinal Compressional Resonance Test,
(b) Longitudinal Compressional Resonance Test (Picture), (c) Torsional
Resonance Test (d) Torsional Resonance Tests (Picture) on Unconfined
Cylindrical Specimens (from Stokoe et al. 1994)
103
1. Material Siffness:
(with negligible added mass)
V c = 2f n L ≈ 2f r L
E max = ρV C2
2. Material Damping:
(for low damping values)
D ≈ Δf / (2f r )
s
Figure 4.12 (a) Wide Bandwidth of Frequency Response Curve of Displacement

Generated by Vibration Motion in Compression, (b) Zoomed Bandwidth of
Frequency Response Curve of Displacement, (c) Expanded Zoom of
Frequency Response Curve of Displacement, and (d) Data Analysis Process
(from Stokoe et al. 1994)
By combining the following equation with the information of the dimension of the
specimen and the resonant frequency:
Vc* = 2f r,c L (4.7)
Vs = 2f r, s L (4.8)
where: V*c is the unconstrained compression wave velocity,

Vs is the shear wave velocity,
L is the length of the specimen,
fr,c is the resonant frequency at the first-mode
in longitudinal compression motion, and
104
fr,s is the resonant frequency at the first-mode in torsional shear motion.
The unconstrained compression wave velocity (Vc) and shear wave velocity (Vs) can be
computed. The geometrical shape of function around the resonance frequencies is used to
calculate material damping ratio (Dc,min, Ds,min) through the half-power method as
follows;
f 1−f 2
D c,min ( or D s,min ) = (4.9)
2*f r
where: fr is the resonant frequency at the first-mode,

1
f1, f2 are the frequencies at which the amplitude is A max , and
2
Amax is the amplitude at resonance frequency (fr).

According to the three-dimensional solution of the wave equation, the
longitudinal compression wave velocity can be affected by the dimensions of the
specimens (Lewis 1990). If the length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) of the specimen is large
enough, the longitudinal compression wave keeps its original form. However, if the L/D
of the specimen decreases towards one, the phase velocity of the longitudinal
compression wave tends towards the Rayleigh wave velocities. Hence, the measured
velocity need to be corrected by using the Figure 4.13 which shows the ratio between the
real compression wave velocity (Vc) and the measured compression wave velocity (Vc*)
as the dimension of the specimen varies.
105
c
V
*
c
V
Figure 4.13 The Variation of Unconstrained Longitudinal Compression Wave Velocity

Ratio (=Vc*/Vc) with Diameter (2a)-to-Wavelength (λ) (from Lewis 1990)
Note that in the parameter of 2a/λ on the horizontal axis in Figure 4.13, the factor
“a” is the specimen radius. Hence, 2a represents the specimen diameter. Since first-mode
resonance is being measured, the wavelength, λ, is equal to twice the specimen length, L.
Therefore, in these tests, the factor of 2a/λ was 0.25 when the height-to-diameter ratio of
the specimen was two (a typical value in many of these tests). The correction factor,
which increases the value of Vc, is on the order of 0.98 and thus increases the measured
value by about 2 %. As noted above, this factor is even smaller when the height-to-
diameter ratio exceeds two and the difference is typically negligible in that case. These
correction factors are for ν = 0.3 which was used in this study and is shown in the first-
mode curve in Figure 4.13.
Through combining the measured velocities with the following equations:
E = ρVc2 (4.10)
G = ρVS2 (4.11)
106
where: E is the Young’s modulus,
G is the shear modulus,
Vc is the unconstrained compression wave velocity,
Vs is the shear wave velocity, and
ρ is the mass density of the soil defined as the total unit weight divided by the
gravity acceleration (ρ=γt/g).
Emax and Gmax can be obtained.
In these free-free tests, the added mass of the small accelerometers attached to the
core specimen were neglected because they change the mass in longitudinal resonance by
less than 0.7 % and they change the mass polar moment of inertia in torsional resonance
by less than 2.8 %.
Using the Free-Free Resonant Column and Direct Arrival method, Vp, Vc, Vs,
Ds min, Dc min, Mmax, Emax, Gmax were evaluated. By combining the elastic modulus in three
ways, three values of Poisson’s ratio can be calculated as follows:
M max − 2G max V p2 − 2V 2s
ν MG = = , (4.12)
2(M max − G max ) 2(V p2 − V 2s )
E max − 2G max V 2c − 2V 2s
ν EG = = , and (4.13)
2
2G max 2V s
M max − E max + 9M max

2
+ E max
2
− 10 M max E max
ν ME =
5M max − E max + 9M max
2
+ E max
2
− 10 M max E max
V p2 − V 2c + 9V p4 + V 4c − 10 V p2 V 2c
=
5V p2 − V 2c + 9V p4 + V 4c − 10 V p2 V 2c
107
- M max + E max + 9M max
2
+ E max
2
− 10 M max E max
or ν ME =
4M max
- V p2 + V 2c + 9V p4 + V 4c − 10 V p2 V 2c
= (4.14)
4V p2
Out of these three values of Poisson’s ratio, values from Mmax and Gmax were
preferred because they seem to consistently show the most realistic values. This point is
discussed further in Section 6.3.
The overall calibration process of free-free URC test for tuff specimens from
Yucca Mountain is discussed in Section 6.2.
4.3.2 Fixed-Free Resonant Column and Torsional Shear Test
The resonant column and torsional shear (RCTS) device was employed in this
study to measure the dynamic properties of Yucca Mountain tuff. This device has been
improved over the past three decades. The biggest advantage of this device is that both
resonant column (RC) and torsional shear (TS) tests can be performed in a sequential
series on the same specimen. A picture of RCTS device is shown in Figure 4.14. The
boundary conditions of this device are the fixed-free conditions, with the bottom of the
specimen fixed and torsional excitation applied to the top which is free. The free-free
URC test allows evaluation of Vp, Vc, Vs, Mmax, Emax, Gmax, Ds min, Dc min, νMG, νEG, and
νME in the rage of small-strain and in the unconfined state only. Contrary to these
limitations, the RCTS test permits evaluation of dynamic shear properties (Vs, G, and D)
over a wide range of strains, including small strains, under a confined state.
108
(a)
LVDT
Proximitor
Probe
Drive Plate
Drive Coil
and Magnet
Accelerometer
Resonant or Slow Cyclic

Torsional Excitation
(b) Proximitor Target
Proximitor Probes
Counter Weight Accelerometer
Drive
Magnet
Coil Top Cap
Support
Plate
Epoxy Tuff Securing
Membrane Spec. Plate
Drainage
Hole
Base Plate
Figure 4.14 Combined Resonant Column (RC) and Torsional Shear (TS) Device
(Confining Chamber not Shown): (a) Picture of Fixed-Free RCTS Device,
(b) Schematic Drawing of Fixed-Free RCTS Device (from Stokoe et al.,
1999)
109
The fundamental operation principle of the fixed-free resonant column (RC) test is
to create torsional excitation of the cylindrical tuff specimen in first-mode resonance. An
input sinusoidal voltage is applied to the magnet-coil system which is located at the top
of the RCTS device. The sinusoidal voltage is varied over a large frequency range, and
the output voltage from the accelerometer on top of the specimen is obtained for each
driving frequency. The obtained output voltage signal is converted the displacement of
the torsional vibration motion of the specimen. By plotting the driving frequency versus
displacement, the first-mode resonance curve is established. With the resonance curve,
the shear modulus (G), shear wave velocity (Vs) and material damping ratio (D) can be
evaluated by combining it with the characteristics of the RCTS device and the specimen
dimensions. More details on the equipment and test procedure are given in Stokoe et al.
(1999)
The torsional shear (TS) test is another test method used to evaluating the shear
modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D) using the same RCTS device but exciting
the specimen in a different way. A cyclic torque with a specified frequency, generally
below 10 Hz, is applied at the top of the specimen and the twist of the specimen top is
measured. Instead of checking the resonant frequency, the stress-strain hysteresis loop is
determined from the given torque and the measured twist. Shear modulus (G) is
calculated from the slope of a least square fitting-line of the hysteresis loop, and material
damping (D) is computed from the area of the hysteresis loop.
Three types of sensors are used in the RCTS device to measure the vibration
motion and height change of the specimen. The first sensor is an accelerometer
(Columbia Research Laboratories model no. 302-6) which is used in resonant column
(RC) test to monitor the resonance motion of the specimen when the specimen is vibrated
in the higher frequency range, typically at frequencies higher than 20 Hz. The second
sensor is the proximitor (Bentley Nevada model no. 330100-50-05) which is installed to
110
measure the twisting of the specimen in torsional shear (TS) test when the specimen is
excited with a low frequency, typically 0.1 Hz ~ 10 Hz. The third sensor is LVDT (linear
variable displacement transformer, Columbia Research Laboratories Inc. model no. SH-
200-S3R) which is used to monitor the height change of the specimen under the confining
pressure. All signals generated by sensors are converted into digital signals by a digital
oscilloscope, multimeter and universal counter. The digital signals are then transferred to
a data acquisition computer and recorded. The recorded signals are all electrical voltages.
So they need to be converted into the physical values such as displacement or
acceleration by multiplying the appropriate calibration factors. The next analysis stage is
then performed.
Excitation of the specimen is created by an electromagnetic force applied to the
top of the specimen. This arrangement permits the compatibility of testing condition to be
met because the specimen can be excited without being physically connected to
mechanical device. Naturally, the excitation force can be controlled by adjusting the input
voltage which is supplied to the coil-magnet system. The excitation force is one of the
differences with the free-free URC test. The free-free URC test measured the frequency
response curve from an impact to the specimen by converting the time series of a
vibration motion of specimen using the FFT algorithm. However, the fixed-free RCTS
method takes the frequency response curve through continuous measurements of
displacement in the time domain over the specified excitation frequency range with a
constant excitation force. Hence, the magnitude of excitation force can be controlled.
With the test, the variation of the dynamic properties with shear strain can be determined.
Fixed-Free Resonant Column Test

The difference between the RC and TS tests is the loading frequency. The RC test
typically uses 20 Hz or higher frequency to excite the specimen. The TS test is performed
at frequencies generally around 1 Hz for most of the test. Like the free-free URC test, the
111
fixed-free RC test is based on elastic wave theory. The solution of the wave equation has
a different form because of the different boundary conditions: (1) zero displacement at
( )
the bottom of the specimen due to the fixed condition w( x, t ) x =0 = 0 , and (2) zero
⎛ ∂w( x, t ) ⎞
derivative of displacement at the top due to the free condition ⎜ = 0 ⎟ . The
⎝ ∂x x= L
⎠
application of the fixed-free boundary conditions to the general solution of the wave
equation leads to the following:
CT + CR = 0 (4.15)
CT e i κL − CR e −iκL = 0 (4.16)
where: CT is the coefficient for the transverse wave,

CR is the coefficient for the reflected wave,
κ is the wave number (κ = 2π/ λ ),
L is the specimen length,
λ is the wavelength, and
Solving the two equations the same way as the free-free case, the value of cos(κL)
should be zero, which means κL = nπ + π/2, (n= 0, 1, 2, 3, …). This solution represents
the resonance condition in a finite cylindrical rod with fixed-free boundary conditions. If
κ is replaced with λ, the equation is rewritten as follows; λ = 4L / (2n+1), (n = 0, 1, 2, …).
The displacement and strain variations along the longitudinal direction of a fixed-free
specimen with a length-diameter ratio of two are shown in Figure 4.15 for the first three
modes of resonant vibration. As can be seen in the figure, the wavelength at first-mode
resonance is 4L and it decreases as the specimen resonates at higher modes.
112
4L (4/3)L (4/5)L
Figure 4.15 Displacement and Strain of a Fixed-Free Specimen at the First Three
Resonance Modes
There is one problem in applying this version of the wave equation theory to the
fixed-free resonant column because the driving plate and top cap, which are on top of the
test specimen, have a mass polar moment of inertia. Due to the driving plate and the top
cap, the top of the specimen does not exactly satisfy the free condition. Hence, the
equation governing the behavior of a fixed-free rod is modified as follows:
∂w ∂ w2
JG = − Io (4.17)
∂x ∂t 2
where: J is the polar moment inertia of the specimen

(= mr4/2 in the case of a solid cylinder),
G is shear modulus of the specimen,
Io is the mass polar moment inertia of the equipment
attached to the top of the specimen,
113
w is angular displacement of the top end of the specimen, and
x is coordinate in the longitudinal direction of the specimen.
This equation comes from the force equilibrium at the top end of a rod, which
means that the applied torque at top end of the rod is equal to the inertial force of the
equipment attached on the top of the rod specimen. The solution for the above equation is
described by the following equations, and the shear wave velocity can be computed by:
I
= β tan β , (4.18)
Io
2πf n ⋅ L
β = (4.19)
V s
where: I is the mass polar moment of inertia of the specimen,

Io is the mass polar moment of inertia of the equipment attached to
the top of the specimen,
L is the length of the specimen,
Vs is shear wave velocity of the specimen material, and
fn is resonant frequency of the first-mode.
Sinusoidal torsional excitation is applied to the top of the specimen over a range
in frequencies, and the variation of the acceleration amplitude of the specimen with
frequency is obtained through the accelerometer attached to the drive plate. The
accelerometer output is measured by a voltmeter (Hewlett Packard (HP) model no.
5334A) and frequency counter (Hewlett Packard (HP) model no. 3458A). Once first-
mode resonance is established, the frequency response curve around the resonant
frequency is determined. By combining the frequency response curve with other
information such as specimen dimensions and equipment characteristics, the shear wave
velocity, shear modulus and material damping ratio in shear are evaluated. Figure 4.16
114
presents an example of the frequency response curve and evaluation of resonant
frequency.
120
Accelerometer Output, mV Resonance
I/Io=(ωrL/Vs) tan(ωrL/Vs)
Ar G = ρVs2
80 Ar →γ
40
fr = ωr / 2 π
0
35 40 45 50 55 60
Frequency, f, Hz
Figure 4.16 Example of Dynamic Response Curve Measurement in the RC Test (from
Stokoe et al., 1999)
In resonant column test, material damping ratio can be evaluated by either the
free-vibration decay method or the half-power bandwidth method. The equation to obtain
the material damping ratio is based on the vibration theory of a single-degree-of-freedom
system with viscous damping. The decay of free vibrations of a single-degree-of-freedom
system with viscous damping is described by the logarithmic decrement, δ, which is the
ratio of the natural logarithm of two or more sequential amplitude of vibration motion as;
⎛ Z1 ⎞ 2πD
δ = ln⎜ ⎟= , (4.20)
⎝ Z2 ⎠ 1− D 2
δ2
D= (4.21)
4π 2 + δ 2
where: Z1 and Z2 are two sequential amplitudes of motion, and
115
D is material damping ratio.
By shutting off the excitation force while the specimen is vibrating at the resonant
frequency, the free-vibration decay curve is generated and this response is then recorded
by an digital oscilloscope (Nicolet model no. 201). Through the decay curve and the
above equation, δ can be calculated and the material damping ratio can be determined. A
typical damping measurement from a free-vibration decay curve is shown in Figure 4.17.
On the other hand, another method of measuring material damping ratio in the resonant
column test is the half-power bandwidth method. This method is based on measurement
of the width of the frequency response curve near resonance. From the frequency
response curve, the logarithmic decrement can be calculated from:
1 − 2D 2
π f 2− f
2 2
1
A2
δ= (4.22)
2 f 2 2
A max − A2 1− D 2
r
where: f1 is frequency below resonance where the strain amplitude is A,

f2 is frequency above resonance where the strain amplitude is A,
fr is the resonant frequency,
D is material damping ratio, and
Amax is the amplitude at the resonant frequency.
116
3
,%
(a)
1 Cycle
-3
2 Number
Shearing Strain Amplitude, γ x 10

5
10
1 15
0
-1
-2
Steady State Free Vibration Decay
-3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Time, seconds
Normalized Peak-to-Peak Amplitudes
1.0 Remolded Sand

eo = 0.71
δ = 0.0734
0.7 D = 1.17 %
0.5
(b)
0.3
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.17 Material Damping Measurement in the RC Test Using the Free-Vibration
Decay Curve (from Stokoe et al., 1999)
If the damping ratio is small enough and A is chosen as 0.707 Amax, which is
called as the half-power point, the equation is simplified as
117
f 2− f 1
δ ≅π (4.23)
f r
Therefore, the material damping ratio can be expressed as :

f 2− f 1
D≅ (4.24)
2f r
A typical measurement of material damping ratio by the half-power bandwidth

method is shown in Figure 4.18. Generally, if the strain is less than 0.001 %, ambient
noise can be problem in evaluating the material damping ratio because the noise will
distort the frequency response curve and the free-decay curve. However, the frequency
response curve is less affected by the noise. Therefore, the half-power bandwidth method
is preferred in the small-strain range (typically at γ < 0.001 %). On the other hand, at
larger strains when nonlinearity of specimen begins to arise, the symmetry of the
frequency response curve is no longer maintained, and an error can be introduced in the
half-power bandwidth method. So, the free-vibration decay method is recommended to
determine the material damping ratio at γ generally above 0.003 % or so.
It is also important to note that the measured damping includes the material
damping of the specimen plus any damping in the equipment. So, the equipment damping
is calibrated and subtracted from the measured material damping to obtain the intrinsic
material damping ratio. Generally, the equipment damping (Deq) in the resonant column
(RC) test is inversely proportionate to the resonant frequency (fr)as:
Cf
D eq ≅ (4.25)
f r
where: Cf is the calibration factor.
118
2.0
,%
Remolded Sand
-3 Resonance
Shearing Strain Amplitude, γ x 10 e0 = 0.71
1.5 fr = 77.62 H z
f1 = 76.77 H z
Half-Power
f2 = 78.72 H z
1.0 Points
D = (f2 - f 1) / (2f r)
D = 1.26 %
0.5
0.0
65 70 f1 fr f2 85 90
Excitation Frequency, f, H z
Figure 4.18 Material Damping Measurement in the RC Test Using the Half-Power
Bandwidth Method (from Stokoe et al., 1999)
Torsional Shear Test

The torsional shear (TS) test is another method of evaluating shear modulus (G)
and material damping ratio (D) using the same RCTS device but conducting the test in a
different way. A cyclic torque with a specified frequency, generally around 1 Hz, is
applied to the top of the specimen. Instead of finding the resonant frequency, the stress-
strain hysteresis loop is determined through measuring the torque and resulting twisting
displacement of the specimen. Proximitors are used to measure the twisting displacement
while the excitation voltage is applied to the coils. Shear stress and shear strain can be
computed according to the Equations 2.18 and 2.19, which are presented in Section 2.2.4.
Shear modulus (G) is calculated from the slope of least square fitting-line of the
hysteresis loop, and material damping ratio (D) is obtained from the area of the hysteresis
loop. The equations for shear modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D) from the TS
test are:
119
τ
G= , (4.26)
γ
AL
D= (4.27)
4πAT
where: τ is the stress of the hysteresis loop,

γ is the strain of the hysteresis loop,
AL is the area enclosed by the hysteresis loop, and
AT is the triangular area formed by the origin, endpoint of the hysteresis loop and
the projection point of end point to the strain axis.
An example of the approach used in the torsional shear test is shown in Figure
4.19.
In the TS test, the equipment damping generated by the testing device should be
subtracted from the measured material damping ratio to get the intrinsic material damping
ratio. According to the calibration results, the equipment damping ratio (Deq) in the TS
test is proportionate to the loading frequency as;
D eq ≅ Cf ⋅ f (4.28)
where: Cf is the calibration factor, and

f is the loading frequency.
In this study, data from the TS test will not be used because the data covers too
small a strain range due to the small power of RCTS device whose maximum torque is 8
in.-lb. Data from the cyclic torsional shear test shown in Figure 4.6b, which is discussed
in the next section, will replace the TS data and will be compared with the data from the
fixed-free resonant column (RC) test.
120
τ
G
1
AT
AL γ
G = τ/γ
π AT )
D = AL / (4π
Figure 4.19 An Example of the Hysteresis Loop Evaluated in the TS Test. (from Stokoe
et al., 1999)
Testing Pressure Level

Fixed-free RCTS Dynamic tests are used to evaluate G and D over a range of
isotropic confining pressures. Generally, six stages of isotropic confining pressure are
used in a loading sequence. The isotropic confining pressure, σo, is generally doubled
after the completion of one stage of the required tests at the lower pressure. Low-
amplitude resonant column (LARC) testing was performed at each σo to evaluate the
effects of magnitude and time of confining pressure on the small-strain shear modulus,
Gmax, and the small-strain material damping ratio, Ds min. Low-amplitude dynamic tests
are defined as those tests in which the resonant amplitude does not exceed 10-3 %; hence γ
≤ 0.001 %.
All specimens were first tested at small strains with zero confining pressure and
then the pressure was increased in steps in the sequence shown in Table 4.1. The pressure
sequence is decided according to the magnitude of the estimated mean effective in-situ
pressure, σ’m. If 4σ’m is smaller than 400 psi, then the pressure sequence given in the first
121
row of Table 4.1 was followed to the highest pressure. If 4σ’m was larger than 400 psi,
then the pressure sequence given in the third row of Table 4.1 was followed. The reason
why these different pressure sequences were used is that the maximum capacity of the
confining pressure of the current testing equipment is 400 psi. The in-situ pressure is
estimated as:
(1 + 2 Ko) ' (1 + 2 Ko)
σ m' =
3
σv=
3
∑ γ i' h i (4.29)
where: Ko is the earth pressure coefficient at rest (= 1.0 in this study),

σ'v is the effective vertical earth pressure,
γ’i is the effective total unit weight of formation i located above
the given specimen, and
hi is the thickness of formation i.
Table 4.1 Pressure Level Sequences in Fixed-Free RCTS Tests
1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage 4th stage 5th stage 6th stage
4σ’m ≤ 400 psi Zero σ’m /4 σ’m /2 σ’m 2σ’m 4σ’m
400 psi < 4σ’m ≤ 1600 psi Zero σ’m /4 σ’m /2 σ’m 2σ’m* -
σ’m > 400 psi Zero 25 psi 50 psi 100 psi 200 psi 400 psi
* Note: Only if 2σ’m < 400 psi.

High-amplitude resonant column (HARC) tests in which the maximum shear
strain is higher than the threshold limit strain of 10-3 %, were performed during this
loading path at σ’m(or 100 psi) and 4 σ’m (or 400 psi). Before the HARC tests are
conducted, LARC (Low-amplitude RC) tests were performed to check the condition of
the coupling of the rock specimen with the top cap and base base pedestal. No significant
changes were detected in all tests of all specimens in this study. Significant changes are
defined as a change of 5 % in Gmax and 10 % in Ds min. High-amplitude resonant column
122
(HARC) testing was conducted to evaluate the influence of shear strain amplitude on G
and D. A complete set of resonant column tests took about ten hours to perform and
these tests were performed with the drainage line open. After completion of the HARC
tests, LARC tests were performed from time to time to check the coupling state of the
tuff specimen with the top cap and base base pedestal, which can occur during the HARC
tests. If no significant changes were detected in Gmax and DS min after a resting period, the
next stage of testing (LARC tests at a higher confining pressure) began. In two cases
(Specimens 7C-2 and 1G-1), RC tests were stopped after the first set of HARC tests at
the lower confining pressure due to failure at the top-cap-specimen interface. No
significant changes were detected in any other tests due to the HARC tests.
4.4 UNCONFINED, SLOW CYCLIC TORSIONAL SHEAR LABORATORY TEST OF ROCK
As previously stated, the torsional shear test has the following advantages: (1) the
appearance of the failure plane along the maximum shear stress, (2) a constant shear
plane area, (3) no volume change during shear, and (4) the possibility of nearly infinite
shear. In this study, an unconfined slow cyclic torsional shear (CTS) test was developed
to evaluate the shear stiffness and material damping ratio of cemented soil and rock
specimens from small strains to failure strains. To avoid the generation of equipment
damping, the torsional loading is applied at very slow speeds for which the corresponding
strain rate ranges from 10-3 % /sec to 10-5 %/sec. Two way loading, both in the positive
and negative rotations, is applied and the torque and twisting displacement are measured.
Through the measured torque and displacement, shear stress and shear strain are
computed and the hysteresis loop of the specimen in the stress-strain domain can be
developed. With the hysteresis loop, the main Cyclic Shear Properties under earthquake
loading, such as the shear stiffness and material damping ratios can be determined. The
CTS test set-up can measure Cyclic Shear Properties to supply valuable comparisons with
123
dynamic measurements made in the laboratory with the fixed-free RCTS tests and can
extend the measuring range of these cyclic and dynamic properties to the failure strain.
The measurement system is made with the simplest possible composition for ease in data
acquisition and test efficiency. The overall sketch illustrating the measurement setup is
shown in Figure 4.20. In this section, each component of the CTS device is discussed.
Proximitor Sensors Torque Cell
Torsional Loading Applied to Specimen

(Specimen Rotation)
Displacment Output
Current Torque
Torque Output
Loading Rate
Multimeters * Controlling Computer
Monitored Output
Adjust Loading
Voltage
Data Logger Driving Motor
Note : * Multimeters are replaced with Sigma Calc Dynamic Signal Analyser in the second generation system.
Figure 4.20 Measurement Setup and Signal Flow Chart of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic
Torsional Shear (CTS) Test
124
4.4.1 Torsional Driving Machine and Torque Measurement System
The torsional driving machine is produced by the Tinius Olsen Corporation,

Horsham, PA. This company specializes in manufacturing torsional material-testing
machines. The torsional driving system is a mechanical system which is powered by an
electrical motor, Model 30A Advanced Motion Four Quadrant Drive. It is possible to
adapt this machine to study the tuff from Yucca Mountain to measure: (1) torque-twist
hysteresis loops under two-way cyclic slow loading and (2) the torque-twist relationship
underway one-way static loading to failure. Hence, the driving system can drive in two-
way loading and can also apply the torsional loading with very low speeds. The
maximum torque of the driving machine is 10,000 in.-lb (≈ 1,100 N-m). The dimensions
of the driving machine are 1.57 m in length by 0.63 m in height by 0.73 m in width and
its weight is 0.5 ton. Maximum loading speed is 360 degree per minute and the accuracy
of the loading speed is +/- 0.1 % of the given speed. The recommended temperature for
testing is room temperature (70 °F ≈ 20 °C) but testing can be performed when the
temperature is between 32 °F (0 °C ) and 100 °F (38 °C). The maximum testable
dimension of a cylindrical tuff specimen is 6.0 in. in diameter by 1.5 ft in length and the
mounting orientation of the test specimen is horizontal in a bench-type arrangement. The
Figure 4.21 shows the measurement set-up of unconfined slow cyclic torsional shear
testing system.
The driving machine is actually designed for torsional testing of metal specimens.
However, this machine can be enhanced for the torsional testing of large tuff specimens
by installing end platens as discussed below. This machine can be controlled in an
automatic mode, which is composed of 398 servo-segments in a closed-loop control
device. The automatic mode allows control of the machine in either of the following
ways: constant stress control or constant strain control.
125
Test Power Driving
Specimen Machine
Machine
Multimeters
Controlling Safety Case
Computer
Data Acquisition Proximitor

Torque Cell Sensors
Computer
Figure 4.21 Measurement Setup of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Test
A torque cell initially housed in the driving machine is used to measure the
applied torque. The torque cell is produced by the Lebow company, a manufacturer that
specializes in torque cells, and its model number is Model 2111-10K. The torque cell has
a measurable torque capacity of 10,000 in.-lb. Its accuracy for measuring torque is +/-
0.5 %. Its torsional stiffness is 2,680,000 in.-lb/rad so that the torsional deformation of
the torque cell is negligible. The input voltage is DC volts and the power is supplied by
the power supply built in the machine. Detail specifications of the torque cell are listed in
Table 4.2.
The torque cell is calibrated through another torque cell which is exactly the same
type and was calibrated by the Bechtel SAIC and Lebow manufacturer. Figure 4.22
shows the calibration process and the calibration results. Actual torque is measured by the
calibrated torque, which is calculated by multiplying the output voltage of the calibrated
torque by the calibration factor, 205.29 in.-lb/mV, supplied by manufacturer, Lebow, and
approved by Bechtel SAIC. By fitting the calculated torque and the output voltage from
the torque cell of the driving machine, the calibration factor of 355.3 in.-lb/mV for the
torque cell built in the machine was determined.
126
Table 4.2 Torque Cell Specifications
Actual Performance Average : Nonlinearity 0.026%
Hyteresis 0.029%
Nonlinearity of rated output ± 0.1%
Hystresis of rated output ± 0.1%
Nominal output of rated capacity, mV/Volt 2
Repeatability of rated output ± 0.05%
Zero balance of rated output ± 0.1%
Nominal bridge resistance, ohms 350
Temperature effect on output per °F ± 0.002%
Temperature effect on zero per °F ± 0.002%
Excitation Voltage, Maximum DC volts 20
Number of bridge 1
Insultation resistance, bridge/case >5,000
Capacity in.-lb (N-m) 10,000 (1,130)
Overload in.-lb (N-m) 15,000 (1,690)
Torsional Stiffness lb-in./rad. (N-m/rad.) 2,680,000 (302,784)
The voltage from the torque cell is converted the magnitude of torque (T) by
multiplying it with the calibration factor of torque cell. Torsional shear stress can be
computed from the magnitude of the applied torque with the following equation:
T ⋅ ro 1000 V torque ⋅ C torque ⋅ ro

τmax = = (4.30)
Jp Jp
where: T is the applied torque (inch-lb),

τmax is the maximum shear stress at r = ro (psi),
ro is the outside radius of the specimen (inch),
Jp is the polar moment of inertia.
Jp = π ×ro4 /2 for the cylindrical specimen (inch4),
Vtorque is the voltage output from the torque cell (volt), and
Ctorque is the calibration factor of the torque cell (inch-lb / mv).
127
(a)
Stainless Steel Rod (Dia. : 1.5 inch)
Connected to
Power Motor
Calibrated Torque Cell
Target Torque Cell (Lebow Model 2111-10K) : Built in the Testing Machine
(b) Clibrated Driving

Target Torque Cell Power
Torque Cell Motor
Military Connector &

Cable
(c) 15000
10000
5000
Torque(in.-lb)
0
-4.0E-02 -3.0E-02 -2.0E-02 -1.0E-02 0.0E+00 1.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-02 4.0E-02
-5000
-10000
-15000
Output Voltage (mV)
Figure 4.22 Torque Cell Calibration Drawing (a), Picture of Torque Cell Calibration (b)
and Torque Cell Calibration Results (c)
4.4.2 Displacement Measurement System
The torsional deformation of the specimen was detected by proximitor sensors.

The targets of the proximitor sensors were directly attached to the side surface of the test
128
specimens. The proximitors were used to detect the displacement changes at given
locations. By installing one pair or two pairs of proximitors on the side surface of the
specimen, the torsional rotation (deformation) of the specimen was determined by
subtracting the displacement measured from one proximitor from the displacement
measured from the second. The target plates of the proximitors were attached directly to
the sides of the specimen because it reduces the potential error due to the deformation of
other parts of the testing system.
The first-generation displacement measurement system is shown in Figure 4.23.
The proximitor sensors were supported by an aluminum arm and iron stand which was
used to adjust freely the position and direction of the proximitor sensors. The typical
horizontal spacing between the proximitor sensors was 5 in. but it would be adjusted
along the test specimen. The proximitor target was attached to the surface of the
specimen with epoxy glue, mixed with RF 4010 and RF61 agents with a mixing weight
ratio of 5:4. The epoxy glue required 24 hours to cure. Seven tuff specimens were tested
with this measurement system.
Two output voltages from proximitor sensors were converted into the magnitudes
of twisting displacements by multiplying them with the calibration factors of the
proximitor sensors. Thus, the twisting angles (θ1, θ2) were computed from the
displacements by taking into account the heights of the proximitor sensors above the
surface of the test specimen by:
⎛ ⎞ ⎛V C ⎞
⎜
−1 d ⎟ −1
⎜ prx prx ⎟
θ1(or2) = tan ⎜ ⎟ = tan ⎜ ⎟ (4.31)
⎜ ro + h 1(or 2) ⎟ ⎜ ro + h 1(or 2) ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
where: d is twisting displacement (inch),
ro is the outside radius of the specimen (inch),
129
h1 (or 2) is the height of each proximitor sensor
from the surface of the specimen (inch),
Vprx is the voltage output from the proximitor sensor (volt), and
Cprx is the calibration factor of the proximitor sensor (inch/volt).
By subtracting the one twisting angle from the other, the twisting angle of
torsional deformation (Δθ), which was developed between the locations of the two
sensors, could be determined. Through Δθ, the torsional shear strain (γ) could be
computed by:
ro ⋅ Δθ ro ⋅ (θ1 − θ2 )
γ= = (4.32)
L L
where: ro is the outside radius of the specimen (inch),

Δθ is the difference between θ1 and θ2 (radian), and
L is the longitudinal distance between the proximitor sensors (inch).
However, this measurement system showed limitations. Most important was that
the system exhibited initial noise when the cyclic torsional test was started as shown in
Figure 4.24. This noise seemed to be generated by the initial driving of the electric motor
in the driving power system. Practically, the noise source is too small to be sensed by the
human hand but the measurement system resonated due to noise source. Hence, to avoid
this initial noise, the measurement system was improved by increasing the stiffness and
the damping of the holding apparatus. Figure 4.25 shows the improved (second
generation) measurement system. To increase the stiffness of the measurement system,
the system was constructed in the form of a frame which was made of steel and
aluminum angle-pieces. To increase the damping property, rubber plates were attached to
all steel or aluminum angle-pieces. In addition to these changes, four proximitors were
used in the improved measurement system. The four proximitors were installed in two
130
pairs as shown in Figure 4.26 because two pairs of proximitors, which were installed on
opposite side of the specimen, can cancel out any displacements due to bending motion in
the specimen.
(a) Proximitor Target

Proximitor
Proxmitor
Supporter
L = 5inch
Specimen
(b)
Torque Cell Proximitor Sensor
Multimeter
θ2 θ1
Test Specimen Driving Motor
Loading Rate Controlling

Computer
Data Logger
Note: θ1, θ2 are the twisting angles of two proximitor sensors due to an applied torque.
Figure 4.23 First-Generation Displacement Measurement System; (a) Supporting

System of Proximitor Sensors, (b) Overall Drawing of CTS Test System
131
10
9.5
Initial Noise
Proxmitor (Voltage)
8.5
7.5
7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (Sec)
Figure 4.24 Initial Noise Generated by the Initial (First-Generation) Displacement

Measurement System
Power Driving System
Torque Cell
Frame for Proximitor

Sensor Supporting
Figure 4.25 Improved (Second-Generation) Displacement Measurement System
132
Proximitors set-up on top
Proximitors set-up on bottom location
Figure 4.26 Setup View of the Four Proximitors in the Improved (Second-Generation)
Measurement System
Since four proximitor sensors were used in improved system, the four output
voltages from the proximitor sensors were converted into the magnitudes of twisting
displacements by multiplying them with the calibration factors of the proximitor sensors.
Then, the twisting angles (θ1, θ2 from top-side proximitors and θ3, θ4 from bottom-side
proximitors) were computed from the displacements by taking into account the heights of
proximitor sensors above the surface of the test specimen through the Equation 4.31.
By subtracting the one twisting angle (θ1, θ3) from the other twisting angle (θ2,
θ4), the top-side and bottom-side of twisting angles of torsional deformation (Δθ1, Δθ2),
which were developed between the locations of the two pairs of the proximitors, could be
determined. Through Δθ1 and Δθ2, the torsional shear strain (γ1,γ2) of each side could be
computed by:
ro ⋅ Δθ 1 ro ⋅ (θ1 − θ2 )
γ1= = (4.33)
L L
133
ro ⋅ Δθ 2 ro ⋅ (θ3 − θ4 )
γ2= = (4.34)
L L
where: ro is the outside radius of the specimen (inch),
Δθ1 is the difference between θ1 and θ2 (radian),
Δθ2 is the difference between θ3 and θ4 (radian), and
L is the longitudinal distance between the proximitor sensors (inch).
By averaging the shear strain of top-side (γ1) and the shear strain of bottom-side
(γ2), the influence of bending motion of the specimen could be canceled out and the
representative shear strain (γ) could be determined.
The official name of the proximitor is 3300 XL 8 mm (or 5 mm) proximity
Transducer System, which is manufactured by Bentley Nevada and composed of a 3300
XL probe, 3300 XL extension cable and 3300 XL proximitor sensor. The sensor system
provided an output voltage directly proportional to the distance between the probe tip and
the observed conductive surface. It is possible for this sensor to measure the both static
(displacement) and dynamic (vibration) motions. The sensors are commonly used for
measuring the vibration or the position of rotating objects in mechanical engineering. The
input voltage is 20 or 24 volt-DC which can be supplied by the regulated power supply.
An Agilent E3643A or Lamda LL-902-0V power supply was used. Other specifications
of the proximitor are listed in Table 4.3.
134
Table 4.3 3300 XL 8 mm (or 5 mm) Proximity Transducer System Specifications
Required Input Voltage -17.5 Vdc ~ 24 Vdc
Linear Range 0.25 mm (10 mils) ~ 2.3 mm (90mils)
Recommended Gap 1.27 mm (50 mils)
Incremental Scale Factor (ISF) 277 mV / mils
Deviationfrom best fit straight line 0.025 mm (1 mils)
Probe Temperature Stability -35 °C ~ 177 °C ( -31 °F ~ +350 °F)
Minimum Target Size 15.2 mm (0.6 in.)
Proximitor calibration was performed through the proximitor calibration tool and
a micrometer, made by Brown and Sharpe, which was already calibrated with a reference
micrometer. As seen in Figure 4.27, the proximitor probe is set up on the proximitor
calibration tool and is in contact with the proximitor target which is identical to the one
used in CTS testing. By turning the micrometer, the proximitor probe moves backwards
by 0.005 in.. The air gap between the probe and the target is the output voltage which is
converted into digital data by a multimeter, Agilent 34401A. This calibration process
continues until the output voltage reaches 19 volts (the power for proximitor is 20 volts)
or 23 volts (the power for proximitor is 24 volts). By plotting the magnitude of the air gap
versus the output electronic voltage, the calibration factor, the slope of the best fitting
straight line of the data, is determined. By multiplying the calibration factor by the output
voltage of the proximitor, the distance can be computed and the computed distance can
be compared with the distance measured with micrometer as shown in Figure 4.28. If the
difference between the two distances is not greater than the criterion, 0.002 in. (0.05 mm),
the proximitor can be considered as passing the calibration process.
135
Proximitor Cable Proximitor Sensor
Proximitor Probe
Micrometer
Calibration Tool Multimete DC power supply
Figure 4.27 Proximitor Calibration Process
Micrometer
20.000 Proximitor Reading Error Tolerance Pass/Fail
Reading
(a) 18.000 y = 277.88x + 0.8095 (b) (in.) (V) (in.) (in.) (in.)
16.000
R2 = 0.9999 0.005 2.128 0.005 0.0003 0.002 Pass
0.010 3.557 0.010 0.0001 0.002 Pass
Calibration
14.000
Factor
Output Voltage (Vdc)
0.015 4.985 0.015 0.0000 0.002 Pass

12.000
0.020 6.422 0.020 0.0002 0.002 Pass
10.000
0.025 7.834 0.025 0.0003 0.002 Pass
8.000 0.030 9.181 0.030 0.0001 0.002 Pass
6.000
0.035 10.524 0.035 0.0000 0.002 Pass
0.040 11.875 0.040 0.0002 0.002 Pass
4.000
0.045 13.293 0.045 0.0001 0.002 Pass
2.000
0.050 14.732 0.050 0.0001 0.002 Pass
0.000 0.055 16.138 0.055 0.0002 0.002 Pass
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070
Distance between probe and target (in.)

0.060 17.478 0.060 0.0000 0.002 Pass
0.065 18.814 0.065 0.0002 0.002 Pass
Figure 4.28 Proximitor Calibration: (a) Calibration Factor and (b) Distance Difference
Calculations
4.4.3 Specimen Setup Tool
As previously stated, the driving machine is manufactured for torsional testing of

metal specimens. Basically, the maximum testable diameter of the metal specimen is 1.5
in. because metal specimens do not require a large size to obtain reliable property values
due to their homogeneity and uniformity. However, a target size of testable tuff
136
specimens should be larger than 1.5 in. to obtain more representative rock properties. To
overcome this limitation, a end platens were designed and made out of stainless-steel.
These end platens are shown in Figure 4.29.
Epoxy End Platen
Specimen
1.5 inch
Securing Bolt
Figure 4.29 End Platens to Hold Tuff Specimens
Two big stainless-steel disks, attached on the ends of the tuff specimen, were used
as a end platens. After locating the specimen in the center of the disk, the four securing
bolts were used to fix the location of the specimen. Then, epoxy was mixed and poured
into the void space of each end cap. The epoxy used in this study was made by combining
RF 4010 epoxy resin and RF 61 epoxy curing agent, manufactured by E.V. Roberts,
Carson, CA, with mixing weight ratio of 5:4. This epoxy had a high enough strength to
sustain the rock specimen until the rock specimen failed and it had enough low viscosity
to flow and fill all the void space during construction. The epoxy required three-day
curing time at room temperature.
To improve the accuracy of the torsion test, the specimen had to be perpendicular
to the attached disk and hence the longitudinal axis of the test machine. The centerline of
the two disks and the centerline of the specimen need to be in same line to avoid an
eccentric loading and bending. To solve these two problems, the following plastic form
was used for the more ideal setup of the tuff specimen as seen in Figure 4.30. The top and
137
bottom big plastic disk were kept in the concentric state due to the aluminum column and
the acrylic wall. Hence, the specimen and the end platens will automatically be
concentric and longitudinal axis of the specimen will be perpendicular to the end platens.
Top disk
Specimen
Bottom disk
Figure 4.30 Device used to Align the Specimen and End Platens
4.4.4 Data Acquisition and Recording System
The initial system for the data acquisition and recording were composed of three
multimeters, a computer, a GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) communication system
and subroutine software programmed in the Labview programming language. The three
multimeters were used to monitor the output voltage from two proximitor sensors and the
output voltage from torque cell. The output voltages were transferred to the recording
computer through the GPIB communication system. GPIB stands for General Purpose
Interface Bus. It is commonly referred as IEEE 488 or HPIB. The GPIB card and cables
for the GPIB communication are shown in Figure 4.31. The GPIB card can be plugged
into the computer and is connected to the multimeters with the cable. This data
communication system is widely used all over the world because it is a simple, easy, and
inexpensive way for data communication and it can connect up to 14 additional
instruments.
138
GPIB Cable GPIB Card
Figure 4.31 GPIB Card and Cable
The initial data acquisition and recording subroutine was programmed with
Labview version 8.0, National Instrument. The default data recording period was set as 2
or 3 seconds but it could be adjusted according to the test objectives and the test
conditions. The subroutine used to record the data in real time and the recorded data
could be checked by the operator at any time. Several plots were shown in the program to
allow a rough monitoring of the testing state. Figure 4.32 shows an overall view of the
initial data acquisition and recording system.
Multimeters
Computer for Data Recording
GPIB Card and Cable
Figure 4.32 Initial (First-Generation) Data Acquisition and Recording System used in
the CTS Tests
139
Seven specimens were tested and the test data were recorded with the initial (first
generation) data acquisition and recording system. Although the system exhibited stable
acquisitions and records of data, this system had the limitation that the sampling period
could not be smaller than 1.5 seconds because of the slow transferring rate of the GPIB
and the slow reply of the multimeters. To overcome this limitation, the Sigma Calc
Dynamic Signal Analyzer system was employed instead of the initial data acquisition
system. This system can sample the signal with the maximum 49 kHz sampling
frequency and can acquire sixteen signals at the same time. It was connected with a LAN
communication cable to increase the transferring speed of the data. Its dynamic range is
120 dB and it is manufactured by the Data Physic Corporation. Through this machine,
high-frequency signals could be detected and the voltages from proximitors and torque
cell can be measured without any time gap. Figure 4.33 shows the improved (second
generation) data acquisition and record system and The Figure 4.34 illustrates the overall
drawing of the second generation CTS testing system.
Sigma Calc Dynamic

Recording Computer
Signal Analyzer
Figure 4.33 Improved (Second-Generation) Data Acquisition and Recording System
140
Torque Cell Proximitor Sensor
Sigma Calc Dynamic
Signal Analyzer
θ2 θ1
Test Specimen Driving Motor
θ4 θ3
Loading Rate Controlling

Computer
Data Logger
Note: θ1, θ2 ,θ3 ,θ4 are twisting angles of four proximitor sensors due to an applied torque.
Figure 4.34 Drawing of Improved (Second-Generation) CTS Testing System
After finishing test, all the recorded data (electric voltages) should be reduced and
converted into the physical measurements such as displacements and torques by
multiplying the data with calibration factors. From the computed torques and
displacements, stress and strain were computed by combining the displacements and
torques with information of the specimen dimensions. The calculated stress and strain
were plotted in a stress-strain diagram to show the stress-strain hysteresis loops which
represent the cyclic mechanical behavior of the tuff. Through the hysteresis loops, secant
shear moduli and the material damping ratios in shear were computed by:
τ
G= , (4.35)
γ
AL
D= (4.36)
4π ⋅ AT
where: τ is the stress of the hysteresis loop,

γ is the strain of the hysteresis loop,
141
AL is the area enclosed by the hysteresis loop, and
AT is the triangular area formed by the origin, end point of the hysteresis
loop and the projection point of the end point to the strain-axis.
In dynamic testing, equipment damping generated by the testing device should be
subtracted from the measured damping ratio to obtain the intrinsic material damping ratio.
According to the calibration results, the equipment damping ratio (Deq) in torsional shear
of the RCTS device is proportionate to the loading frequency as;
D eq ≅ Cf ⋅ f (4.37)
where: Cf is the calibration factor (≈ 0.18 in the fixed-free RCTS device ), and
f is loading frequency.
In the slow cyclic torsional shear test, the loading frequency is so low (below 0.01 Hz)
that the equipment generated material damping is neglected, even though the loading
mechanism is somewhat different.
4.4.5 Preliminary Tests
For the overall calibration of the CTS device, a grout specimen was prepared.
Commercial mortar was used to make the grout specimens. The mortar was an S-type
mortar which was produced for masonry purposes. The total amount of mortar was 24.5
Kg. The weight-to-water ratio was 6 : 1. A mixing time of 15 minutes was used. After
being mixed, the grout was poured into a cylindrical form, a PVC pipe. A coating agent
was already applied to the inside wall of the form to make it easy to separate the form
from the grout specimen after the specimen cured. After finishing the casting of the grout
specimen, it was moved into the humid room and allowed to be cured. The temperature
of the humid room was kept at 75 ℉. The grout specimen was cured in the humid room
for 28 days. After 28 days, the form was cut with a small rotary cutting tool and separated
142
from the grout specimen. The weight and dimension of the grout specimen was measured.
The grout specimen began to be dry at room temperature.
After the grout specimen was dried sufficiently, Free-free URC testing of the
grout specimen was performed for several days to check the variation of the shear and
compression wave velocities of it. The shear wave velocity gradually increased with time
but it became consistent value at about 6,450 fps in 10 days. The testing procedure of the
free-free URC test is the same as stated in Section 4.3.1. The testing results at the final
day (10 days after removed from the humid room) are listed in Table 4.4. From these
results, the grout specimen was reasonably represented as an isotropic and homogeneous
material due to the similar values for all three calculations of Poisson’s ratio.
Table 4.4 Free-Free URC Test Results of Mortar Specimen

Total
Unit Poisson's Ratio
Sample ID Length Dia. Weight Weight Vc Emax Dc Vs Gmax Ds Vp Mmax ν
(in.) (in.) (g) (pcf) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (MG) (ME) (EG)
Grout 7.97 3.96 3035 117.8 10,057 3.70E+08 0.3 6,463 1.53E+08 0.3 10,593 4.10E+08 0.20 0.20 0.21
The grout specimen was set up in the CTS device and tested in the elastic range
first to check for a stress-rate effect. Eight cyclic torsional shear tests were conducted
with different loading rates and different maximum torque loads. The loading rates were
controlled with constant stress rates of approximately 3, 6, 12 and 24 psi/min, with
corresponding strain rates of 5 × 10-6 %, 1 × 10-5 %, 2 × 10-5 % and 4 × 10-5 %,
respectively. The maximum applied torques were two: 400 in.-lb and 800 in.-lb which
were considered for the specimen to be limited to the elastic range. The stress-strain
curves are shown in Figures 4.35 and 4.36 and the results of the strain-rate effect are
summarized in Figure 4.37. From Figure 4.37, the static shear modulus can be regarded
as constant one regardless of strain rate. The difference between the CTS determined
143
shear moduli and free-free URC-determined shear moduli is about 8 % on average, with
the CTS-values being lower. At this time, this difference is attributed to strain rate which
is different by an estimated ten thousand times (range of strain rate of CTS is 5.0×10-6 ~
5.0×10-5 %/sec and guessed range of strain rate of free-free URC is 0.05 ~ 5 %/sec.)
(a)
40
Grout Specimen
Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch
(b) 40 Grout Specimen
Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch
Stress Rate Controlled (3.08 psi/min = 5.5e-6 %/sec) Stress Rate Controlled (6.16 psi/min = 1.12e-5 %/sec)
20 20
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

0 0
-20 -20
8 8
Shear Modulus from Static Test : 1.38 X10 psf Shear Modulus* from Static Test : 1.40 X10 psf
8 8
-40 Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf -40 Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf
Ratio Static Modulus to Dyanmic Modulus : 0.90 Ratio Static Modulus to Dyanmic Modulus : 0.92
-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004
Shear Strain (%) Shear Strain (%)

(c) Grout Specimen
(d)
Grout Specimen
40 Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch 40 Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch
20 20
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
0 0
-20 -20
8 8
8 8
-40 Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf -40 Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf
-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004
Figure 4.35 Stress-Strain Curves for Stress Rates of: (a) 3.08 psi/min, (b) 6.16 psi/min,
(c) 12.3 psi/min and (d) 25.5 psi/min and the Maximum Applied Torque was
400 in.-lb
144
100 100
(a) Grout Specimen
(b) Grout Specimen
Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch Distance between Proximitor : 5 inch
50 50
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

0 0
-50 -50
8 8
8 8
Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf
-100 -100
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010

100 100
(c) Grout Specimen
(d) Grout Specimen
50 50
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
0 0
-50 -50
8 8
Shear Modulus* from Static Test : 1.41 X10 psf Shear Modulus* from Static Test : 1.43 X10 psf
8 8
-100 -100
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010
Figure 4.36 Stress-Strain Curves for Stress Rates of: (a) 3.05 psi/min, (b) 6.08 psi/min,
(c) 12.2 psi/min and (d) 24.4 psi/min and the Maximum Applied Torque was
800 in.-lb
145
6
200x10
Recommended Strain Rate
Static Dynamic
150
*
Shear Modulus, Gmax, psf
100
max load = 400 lb-in, γ = 0.001%

50 max load = 800 lb-in, γ = 0.001%
max load = 800 lb-in, γ = 0.0068%
* Free-Free URC Test Value ; Expected Strain Rate is 20 %/sec
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-6 -5 -4 -3
10 10 10 10
Shear Strain Rate (%/sec)
Figure 4.37 Variation of Static Shear Modulus of Grout Specimen with Strain Rate
From the results of the strain-rate analysis, the strain rate of 10-5 ~ 10-4 %/sec was
recommended for the cylindrical torsional shear testsbecasue the range of strain rate is
slow enough to be considered static loading but it is fast enough to save testing time
without changing the shear modulus..
Then, preliminary cyclic torsional shear test was performed with the same grout
specimen until the specimen broke. The loading cycles of preliminary test were
composed of four stages. In the first and the second stages, the specimen was limited to
the elastic range to confirm that all equipment settings and test specimen set-up were
acceptable by crosschecking with the results of strain-rate analysis. Hence, the maximum
positive and negative loads in the first and second stages were 250 in.-lb and 500 in.-lb.
The shear modulus at small strains, about 1.41 × 108 psf, was found to be about 0.92 of
146
the shear modulus from free-free URC test as shown in Figure 4.38. Then, a maximum
load of 1000 in-lb was loaded and unloaded in the positive direction at the start of the
third stage. Next, the maximum load of 2000 in.-lb was loaded and unloaded in the
negative direction in the third stage. In last stage, a monotonic loading was applied until
the specimen broke. The failure stress of the specimen was at 293 psi at a strain
amplitude of 3.4 × 10-2 %. At the failure point, the shear modulus was 1.26 × 108 psf
which corresponded to 0.88 of the shear modulus from the free-free URC test. The
mechanical behavior during four cycles are shown in Figures 4.38 and 4.39. The
variations of shear modulus with shear strain of each cycle are collected and combined in
Figure 4.40. The overall mechanical behavior of the specimen is reasonable because the
stress-strain curves in the elastic range show a linear-elastic behavior and the value of
shear modulus show the decreasing trend after the estimated yield point of 0.01 %. In
addition, considering the specimen of S type mortar has typically about 1800 psi of
compressive strength and a typical internal friction angle of mortar is 40° ~ 45°, the 293-
psi shear failure strength in unconfined state seems to be reasonable if we assume the
mortar fails according to Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. The Figure 4.41 shows a picture
of the failed grout specimen.
Therefore, the following preliminary conclusions were drawn: First, the
preliminary tests demonstrated reasonable performance of the CTS device. Second, the
test results with grout specimen exhibit reasonable trend according to the stress-strain
hysteresis loop per cyclic loading. Third, the variation of shear modulus with shear strain,
is reasonable and the torsional shear strength and the shape of failure plane are as
expected. Hence, the proposed CTS testing method and procedure are assumed viable and
produce reasonable test results.
147
40 80
Grout Specimen - 1st cycle Grout Specimen - 2nd cycle
60
Positive Maximum Load : 250 in.-lb Positive Maximum Load : 500 in.-lb
8 8
20 40
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

20
0 0
-20
-20 -40
Negative Maximum Load : -250 in.-lb Negative Maximum Load : -500 in.-lb
-60
-40 -80
-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 -0.008 -0.004 0.000 0.004 0.008
Figure 4.38 Stress-Strain Curves of Grout Specimen during Each Loading Cycle in the
Preliminary Test: (a) First Stage of Cyclic Loading (Max. Torque 250 in.-lb)
and (b) Second Stage of Cyclic Loading (Max. Torque 500 in.-lb)
200 400
Grout Specimen - 3rd cycle Grout Specimen - 4th cycle
Positive Maximum Load : 1000 in.-lb

100 300
Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
8
Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf
200 Failed at 3756 in.-lb

0 Failure stress : 293 psi
Failure strain : 0.0034%
8
Shear Modulus at failure is 1.26 *10
Normalized Shear Modulus is 0.89
-100 100
8
Shear Modulus from Free-Free Test : 1.53 X10 psf
Negative Maximum Load : -2000 in.-lb

-200 0
-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(a) (b)
Figure 4.39 Stress-Strain Curves of Grout Specimen during Each Loading Cycle in the
Preliminary Test: (a) Third Stage of Cyclic Loading (Positive Max. Torque
1000 in.-lb, Negative Max. Torque 2000 in.-lb) and (b) Fourth Stage of
Monotonic Loading (Failure Torque 3756 in.-lb)
148
6
200x10
Grout Specimen
Specimen Dimension : L = 8 inch, Dia = 4 inch, Unit weight = 118 pcf Failed at 3756 in.-lb ( 293 psi, 0.034% )
8
Spacing between Sensors : 5 inch Shear Modulus at failure is 1.26 *10
Stress Rate Controlled (12.33 psi/min = 2.15e-5 %/sec) Normalized Shear Modulus is 0.89
150
Shear Modulus, G, psf
100
1st cycle 2nd cycle 3rd cycle 4th cycle
50
8
Shear Modulus in Elastic Range from Cyclic Test : 1.41 X10 psf
8
Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC Test : 1.53 X10 psf
Ratio between Cyclic Modulus in Elastic Range to Dyanmic Modulus : 0.92
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Shear Strain (%)
Figure 4.40 Combined Shear Modulus Variation Curves with Shear Strain of Grout
Specimen
Figure 4.41 Grout Specimen Failed in Torsional Shear
149
4.5 SUMMARY
The classical laboratory static tests, the laboratory dynamic tests and the cyclic
torsional shear test are described in this chapter. The classical laboratory static tests,
typically used in the design of rock structure, are three types: (1) compressive strength
tests, (2) tensile strength tests, and (3) shear strength tests. The typical compressive
strength tests are two types: (1) a uniaxial compressive strength test and (2) a triaxial
compressive strength test. The uniaxial compressive strength test is most widely used due
to its efficiency. The triaxial compressive test supplies the most approximate information
on the rock strength under the in-situ conditions. Common tensile tests are three types:
(1) direct tensile test, (2) bending strength test and (3) Brazillian tensile test. Brazillian
tensile test is the most widely used tensile test because it is inexpensive and produces the
closer results to the results of the direct tensile test. Two common types of shear strength
test are direct shear test and torsional shear test. The direct shear test has the advantage of
easy testing and easy data reduction but has the disadvantage of a predetermined failure
plane. On the other hand, the torsional shear test has the advantages of the failure plane
being formed along the weakest plane, a constant shear plane area, no volume change
during shear, and the possibility of nearly infinite shear. The classical laboratory tests are
not used in this study but their testing concepts are closely related to the CTS test.
Laboratory dynamic tests are frequently used to measure the dynamic properties
of rock. Two types of dynamic tests are used in this study to evaluate the dynamic
properties of Yucca mountain tuff: (1) the free-free unconfined resonant column and
direct arrival (free-free URC) test, and (2) the fixed-free resonant column and torsional
shear (fixed-free RCTS) test. The free-free URC test has the advantages of no limitation
on specimen size, easy testing, and measurement of a variety of dynamic properties such
as Vp, Vc, Vs, Mmax, Emax, Gmax, Ds,hp, Dc,hp, νMG, νEG, and νME. On the other hand, the
150
fixed-free RCTS test evaluate dynamic properties only in shear but evaluate how the
properties vary with shear strain, G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ and Ds – log γ, under given
confining pressures. These two tests are described in detail in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2.
The cyclic torsional shear (CTS) test is proposed to evaluate the stiffness and
material damping ratio of tuff specimens from small strains to failure strains and the
testing system is described in Section 4.4. To avoid the generation of equipment damping,
the torsional shear loading is applied with very slow rates ranging from 10-3 % /sec to 10-
5
%/sec. Two way loading, both in the positive and negative rotations, is applied and the
torque and twisting displacement are measured. The driving power system consists of a
mechanical electrical motor with a loading speed that can be controlled to give a constant
strain rate or a constant stress rate. The maximum torque capacity is 10,000 in.-lb. The
applied torque is measured through torque cell built in the machine, which is calibrated
with another reference torque cell. The torsional deformations of specimens are measured
by two or four proximitor sensors calibrated with a reference micrometer and multimeter.
The two- or four-target proximitors are attached to the surface of the tuff specimens with
epoxy glue. The tuff specimen is setup in end platens using epoxy-glue. The
orthogonality and center-line alignment between the specimen, end platen and torsional
shear device obtained through the device used mold to the specimen in the end platens.
The prepared specimen is setup in the loading zone of the machine and tested. The
signals, which are acquitted by multimeters or a Sigma Calc Dynamic Signal Analyzer,
are electric voltages. They are transferred to a computer through a GPIB or LAN
communication cable and recorded in the computer. The recorded data are then converted
into physical parameters such as torque and displacements by multiplying output voltages
by calibration factors. Through the measured torque and displacement (rotation), shear
stress and shear strain are computed and the stress-strain hysteresis loops are drawn. With
151
the hysteresis loops, the cyclic shear properties such as shear modulus (G) and material
damping ratio (D) can be determined.
Preliminary CTS tests were performed with a grout specimen which was made of
S-type mortar. The grout specimen was 4 in. (diameter) by 8 in. (length). First, any strain-
rate effect was checked to determine the suitable loading rate for the CTS test. The results
indicated that a suitable strain rate is 10-5 ~ 10-4 %/sec. Then, preliminary tests were
conducted by applying different torsional loads in four stages until the specimen failed.
Results from the stress-strain hysteresis loop per each cyclic loading, the variation of
shear modulus with shear strain, the torsional shear failure strength and the shape of
failed specimen all exhibited that suggested the CTS testing method and procedure have
no significant problem or fatal flaws and produce reasonable testing results. Therefore,
testing of tuff specimens with this CTS device were undertaken to measure the cyclic
shear properties of tuff.
152
Chapter 5
Site Introduction and Tuff Specimen Preparation
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The tuff specimens tested in this study were sampled in the vicinity of Yucca
Mountain and in the proposed radioactive waste repository tunnels, ESF (Exploratory
Studies Facility) tunnel and ECRB (Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block)
tunnel. A total of 154 tuff specimens that were classified as “Q” specimens were
delivered to the soil and rock dynamics laboratory in University of Texas. Of these
specimens, 149 specimens were normal size, with diameters about 1.6 ~ 3.8 inch. These
specimens were delivered from 2001 to 2006. In addition, five tuff specimens of a larger
size, with a diameter bigger than 4.0 inch, were delivered. All tuff specimens were
sampled from nine formations that were located from the ground surface to about 3,000 ft
deep in Yucca Mountain. All 154 tuff specimens were tested with the free-free URC
method. Then, 47 tuff specimens were selected for fixed-free RCTS tests and 12 tuff
specimens were selected for CTS tests. The free-free URC tests and CTS tests were
performed with the specimens as they were delivered because these tests have no
restrictions of specimen size. However, the fixed-free RCTS tests required re-coring and
re-shaping of the specimens to allow them to fit into the fixed-free RCTS device.
In Section 5.2, the site of this study, the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level
radioactive waste repository, is described to explain the importance and advantages of the
site as a high-level radioactive waste repository. The general geological knowledge and
information of tuffs are discussed in Section 5.3. Then, nine major formations, which are
composed of welded and nonwelded tuffs, are introduced. In Section 5.4, the specimens
153
list and the preparation method for the free-free URC tests (Section 5.4.1), for the fixed-
free RCTS tests (Section 5.4.2) and for the CTS tests (Section 5.4.3) are discussed.
5.2 PROPOSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY
Yucca Mountain is a proposed isolated geological repository for storage of the

nation’s radioactive waste. This radioactive waste has been created over the past several
decades by military activities and commercial nuclear power plants. The wastes are
presently stored in temporary high-level radioactive waste facilities as shown in Figure
5.1. The federal government has spent billions of dollars to decide potential sites for
permanent repository of the high-level radioactive wastes. Through the investigations of
candidate sites, the Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that Yucca Mountain
ranked at the top of all sites and the U.S. Congress has voted/directed the DOE to
concentrate on Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is located near Las Vegas, Nevada, in a
remote desert environment far from any population center, and on land protected by
federal law. If the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain was built, the high-level
radioactive waste, currently stored in temporary storages, would be stored around 1,000
feet beneath the desert surface for at least 10,000 years. The Yucca Mountain locations
has three important characteristics for the site to be nominated as a high-level radioactive
waste repository. These characteristics are: 1) arid climate, 2) remoteness and security of
the site, 3) desirable hydrological and geological conditions.
154
Figure 5.1 Location of Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive Waste
Repository and Temporary Storage Facilities of Radioactive Waste around
The U.S. (from DOE.gov)
Arid climate -- The climate at Yucca Mountain is arid, with an annual average
precipitation of about 7.8 inches per year. This precipitation level ranks second in annual
precipitation in the states of the U.S. as seen Table 5.1. According to the study of climate
change, the predicted future climates of the Yucca Mountain area during the storage
period (10,000 years) are to be slightly cooler and produce a higher mean annual
precipitation of about 12.5 inches. Nearly all rainfall (about 95 percent) either runs off, is
picked up by the root systems of vegetation, or evaporates into the air. So, little of the
precipitation will seep into ground. It is highly unlikely that this small amount of water
which succeeds in infiltrating the ground, will move down through a thousand of feet of
unsaturated rock, and seep into emplacement tunnels to reach the storage facility.
Therefore, the radioactive material in the tunnels is unlikely to be adversely affected by
the water inflow under the arid climate environment of the Yucca Mountain area.
155
Table 5.1 Annual Average Precipitation in Each State of the U.S. (from The World
Almanac, 1988)
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
State (in./yr.) State (in./yr.) State (in./yr.) State (in./yr.) State (in./yr.)
Alabama 56.9 Hawaii 23.47 Massachusetts 43.84 New Mexico 8.91 South Dakota 17.47
Alaska 53.15 Idaho 11.71 Michigan 32.23 New York 39.28 Tennessee 48.49
Arizona 7.11 Illinois 33.34 Minnesota 26.36 North Carolina 42.46 Texas 34.7
Arkansas 49.2 Indiana 39.12 Mississippi 52.82 North Dakota 15.36 Utah 15.31
California 17.28 Iowa 34.71 Missouri 33.91 Ohio 37.77 Vermont 33.69
Colorado 15.31 Kansas 28.61 Montana 11.37 Oklahoma 30.89 Virginia 45.22
Connecticut 44.39 Kentucky 43.56 Nebraska 30.34 Oregon 37.39 Washington 27.66
Delaware 41.38 Louisiana 59.74 Nevada 7.87 Pennsylvania 40.26 West Virginia 40.74
Florida 49.91 Maine 43.52 New Hampshire 36.53 Rhode Island 41.91 Wisconsin 30.89
Georgia 48.61 Maryland 41.84 New Jersey 41.93 South Carolina 51.59 Wyoming 13.31
Remoteness and Security --Yucca Mountain is located in a desert, which is

isolated by 90 miles from the nearest significant population center, in a region where the
land is controlled by the federal government. Its rough location is shown in the map in
the Figure 5.1. Most of the land in this region is under federally restricted access.
Radioactive waste placed in Yucca Mountain would be located in tunnels about 1,000
feet underground. Hence, the proposed Yucca Mountain repository will be well protected
from unwanted aggressive activities and the radioactive materials will be isolated from
the public.
Geological and Hydrological Conditions – The formations of Yucca Mountain
area consist of alternating layers of welded tuffs and nonwelded tuffs. The mountain has
welded tuff formation layers at the surface (Tiva Canyon) and at the level of the
repository (Topopah Spring). There is an intervening layer of nonwelded tuffs
(Paintbrush). This geological structure delays the downward flow of water into the
welded tuff layer (Topopah Spring), where the repository would be located. At the
repository level, a significant portion of any water that might seep by would occur in
small fractures and would have a tendency to remain in the fractures rather than flow into
156
larger openings due to capillary action. In addition, the water table at Yucca Mountain to
be located below 3,000 ft from the surface as shown in Figure 5.2. Hence, the repository
will be as dry as possible during as a long period as possible. Tuffs in Yucca Mountain
also contain much zeolitic minerals which will slow the movement of radioactive
materials (from DOE.gov, 2007). Therefore, any small amount of radioactive material
that inadvertently might be released from the repository, would still be isolated due to
zeolitic minerals.
3000 ft deep
Figure 5.2 Geological Profile of the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Area (from
DOE.gov, 2007)
157
Consequently, Yucca Mountain has the advantages of hydrological and geological
structures due to the alternating layers of the welded tuff and nonwelded tuff, the far
deeply located water table and the presence of tuffs containing zeolitic minerals.
5.3 GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING TUFFS
Tuff is a porous rock formed from the widespread deposition and consolidation of
volcanic ash ejected from vents during a volcanic eruption. The material is quite variable
and can show a wide range of characteristic. The products of a volcanic eruption are
volcanic gases, lava, steam, and tephra. Solid material, produced and thrown into the air
by such volcanic eruptions, is called tephra, regardless of its composition or fragment
sizes. If the ejected pieces are small enough, the material is called volcanic ash, defined
as particles less than 2 mm in diameter, sand-size or smaller (from Wikipedia.org, 2007).
These particles are small pieces of magma and rock that have been tossed into the air by
outbursts of steam or other gases. They may have been torn apart and become vesicular
by the expansion of the gases within them. Many large geologic formations, such as cliffs,
hills, and mountains, are often composed of tuffs. Within these natural structures, the
rock differs significantly in constitution and hardness. In some place, for instance, the tuff
may be relatively soft and crumbly, while in others it may be more compact and block
like. These differences primarily depend upon how much tuff has been welded together.
The degree of welding is determined by how hot the volcanic ash that forms a tuff was
when it accumulated at the surface of the Earth. The warmer the material, the easier it is
for the glass particles to weld together under the weight of overlying deposits. Welded
tuff is significantly harder than nonwelded tuff and can be found in various locations
around the world. Hence, they are economical and strong enough to be extensively used
for building objectives.
158
Tuffs are composed of bomb to lapilli-sized pumice fragments and subordinate
lithic fragments, embedded in a matrix of vitric crystal, and lithic ash. The vitric
fragments are glass shards derived from the pulverization of pumice during the eruption.
On a microscopic scale, rock fabrics vary significantly due to variations in flow distortion,
compaction, welding, and post-depositional processes such as devitrification and vapor-
phase crystallization.
Nonwelded textures of tuffs are formed when volcanic ash, pumice fragments and
lithic fragments are laid down together in a cool state and they are then compressed by an
overlying load to be a cohesive mass. Nonwelded parts of tuffs are distinct from the
welded parts in both outcrop (macroscopic) appearance and microscopic texture. As seen
in Figure 5.3, the nonwelded texture shows the well-preserved pumice or lithic fragments
which can be definitely distinct from the compressed volcanic ash.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.3 Nonwelded Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain Tested at the University of
Texas
On the other hand, welded textures of tuffs are generated when volcanic ash was
laid down in a hot state and they then weld themselves into a solid mass of rock. Hence,
the pumice or lithic fragments are hard to see as shown in Figure 5.4 and it is hard to
detect the boundaries between the lithic fragments and volcanic ashes because they were
melted together and now form relatively uniform rock. The welded tuffs were mainly
159
formed by the thermal processes rather than mechanical loading of the overburden. So,
air bubbles are captured inside the tuff structure and form the vesicular structure
(lithophysae) as shown in Figure 5.4c.
(Vesicular
Structure:
Lithophysae)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.4 Welded Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain at the University of Texas at
Austin and Its Vesicular Structure
Generally, welded tuffs have higher strength and stiffness due to their high dense
texture and good welding. However, the welded tuff formations tend to contain vesicular
structures such as lithophysae. These vesicular structures supply passageways for ground
water and change (in a negative way) the hydrological properties. On the contrary,
nonwelded tuffs have relatively weaker strength and stiffness than the welded tuffs due to
their loose texture. But, the nonwelded tuffs have less vesicular structure. So, nonwelded
tuffs satisfy the required hydrological property of low permeability of the formation layer.
The proposed Yucca Mountain repository, a U.S. Department of Energy terminal
storage facility for high-level radioactive waste, is supposed to be built in the layers of
welded tuff (Topopah Spring) of Yucca Mountain. Other nonwelded and welded tuff
layers are located above and below the layer of the welded tuff as shown in Figure 5.5.
Tuffs in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain also show a wide variation of chemical and
mineralogical composition as seen in Figure 5.6.
160
Figure 5.5 The Profile of Geologic Formation Layers in Yucca Mountain (from Buesch
et al., 2006)
161
Figure 5.6 Mineralogical and Chemical Composition of Tuffs in the Vicinity of Yucca
Mountain (from LosAlamos National Laboratory Report, LA-12345-MS,
1993)
The surface of Yucca Mountain is covered with shallow and varying thickness of
alluvium. Rainer Mesa tuff (Tmr) and Comb Peak Ignimbrite (Tpki) are located just
below the alluvium. They are nonwelded tuffs; thus they are easy to crush but have low
impermeability and act as the first water-retarding formation. Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc)
appears in the next depth (see Figure 5.5). They are welded tuffs whose mechanical
strength and stiffness are relatively high. The lithophysae structure appears in this
162
formation due to the welding process. The next formations are Yucca Mountain tuff
(Tpy) and Pah Canyon tuff (Tpp) which are classified as nonwelded tuffs. They show
lower unit weights than the Rainier Mesa tuffs and they are easily crushable. But they
have so few lithophysal structures that they can be second water-retarding layer. The
formation underlying the Pah Canyon tuff is the Topopah Spring tuff (Tpt) where the
proposed repository tunnels will be located. The general range in total unit weights of
lithophysal tuffs (Topopah Spring crystal rich lithophysal tuff (Tptrl), Topopah Spring
crystal poor upper lithophysal tuff (Tptpul), Topopah Spring crystal poor lower
lithophysal tuff (Tptpll)) is 120 ~ 140 pcf and the general range of total unit weights of
nonlithophysal tuffs (Topopah Spring crystal rich nonlithophysal tuff (Tptrn), Topopah
Spring crystal poor middle nonlithophysal tuff (Tptpmn), Topopah Spring crystal poor
lower nonlithophysal tuff (Tptpln)) is 130 ~ 150 pcf. The total unit weights of the Tpt
rank at the top out of the formations in Yucca Mountain. In addition to the total unit
weights, their stiffnesses and strengths are also high enough in this formation to be
specified as the repository formation. Below the Topopah Spring tuff, the Calico Hills
formation (Tac) exists. This formation is a nonwelded tuff. Their range of total unit
weights is 90 ~ 100 pcf. They are classified as soft rock due to their relatively weak
strength. However, this formation generally does not contain a lithophysae structure,
which can be a good open channel for groundwater to flow. For this reason, this
formation with its low hydrological property acts to contain any seeping ground water, so
that it slows escape of radioactive material from repository. The next formations are the
Prow Pass tuff (Tcp), Bullfrog tuff (Tcb) and Tram tuff (Tct) units, which are classified
as moderately welded tuffs meaning that they are partially affected by the welding
process. Below these formations, non-differentiated Tertiary rock and Paleozoic rock
exist. (from DOE.gov, 2007 and after Buesch et al., 2006)
163
The geological formation profiles described above and outlined in Figure 5.5 were
developed through extensive boring, sampling and analysis work over several decades.
All the mechanical experiments and engineering analysis works for the repository design
are now being performed based on the geological information.
5.4 SPECIMEN PREPARATION PROCESS
Specimens, which were tested in this study, were cored at various locations
around Yucca Mountain as shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. The boreholes with names that
start with UZ, NRG, and SD were generally drilled over a wide outside area around
Yucca Mountain except at the tunnel construction site. The parent boreholes were logged
and the tuff specimens were inspected to identify the geological structure in the vicinity
of Yucca Mountain and the identified geological structure were used to establish the
geological profile as shown in Figure 5.5. The boreholes with names that start with RF
were typically drilled in the original location of waste handling building. The information
from the parent boreholes and the tuff specimens are to be used in the design of waste
handling facility that will be on the surface and located near the repository entrance. The
boreholes with names that start with ECRB and ESF are located inside the tunnels as seen
in Figure 5.9. These boreholes and tuff specimens, sampled from tunnel, supplied direct
information on the geological structure and mechanical properties of the tuff around the
tunnel. The diameters and lengths of tuff specimens typically depend on the testing
objective, rock mass quality, site conditions, limitations of testing machine and budget.
The minimum diameter of the tuffs delivered to U.T was 1.6 inch. The diameter of 2.4
inch is typical normal size. Sometimes, tuff specimens with diameters of 3.0, 3.2 and 3.8
inches were sampled. Tuff specimens with larger diameters than 4.0 inches were also
sampled to check the size effect on the mechanical properties.
164
(27)
(3)
(8) (1) (1)

(1) (1)
RF#14
RF#15
RF#16
RF#17
RF#22
(13)
(23)
(2) (9)
(26)
( ): Number of Specimens
Five Samples are not indicated in this map
because they are sampled on the surface
19 Samples tested 2002 was not plotted.
Figure 5.7 Existing Boreholes in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain from Which
Specimens That were Tested in This Study were Recovered
165
(5)
(1) (2)
(3)
(2)
Figure 5.8 Locations of the Boreholes: RF #14, RF #15, RF #16, RF #17, and RF #22
Which were Drilled at the Original Location of the Waste Handling
Building
After the tuff specimens were cored, they were first sent to the SMF (Sample
Management Facility). All records of the sampled tuff specimens start to be recorded in a
chain-of-custody from the time of boring so that it is easy to trace their origin and history.
After inspecting and packaging processes in the SMF, they were then wrapped with
Styrofoam to make the samples easy to handle and store. Some of the samples sent to the
soil and rock dynamics laboratory in the University of Texas for testing through a
commercial transportation system and others were stored in the SMF. The delivered
specimens were prepared for free-free URC testing, fixed-free RCTS testing and CTS
testing described in the following section.
166
ESF-HD-TEMP-13 (1)
ESF-HD-TEMP-2 (3)
ESF-HD-TEMP-5 (2)
ESF-HD-WH-49 (1)
ESF-BRFA-HPF#2 (1)
ECRB-SYBT-LA#2(1)
ESF-NAD-F/M#3 (1)
ECRB-SYBT-LA#9(1)
ECRB-GTEC-CS2150-01 (2)
Figure 5.9 Parent Boreholes in the ESF and ECRB Tunnels where Tuff Cores were
Recovered (Original Drawing by D. Buesch, 2004)
167
5.4.1 Tuff Specimen Preparation for Free-Free URC Tests
For free-free URC tests, tuff specimens were tested in the state that they were
delivered to the laboratory because the free-free URC test has an advantage of few size
limitations on the test specimen. In this study, 135 specimens were tested from 2003 to
2006 and an additional 19 specimens tested during 2002 were added for the analysis. The
tuff specimens were sampled in all major formations in Yucca Mountain. The specimens
prepared for the free-free URC tests are listed in Table 5.2 with pictures of representative
specimens.
Formation at Yucca Mountain and a Picture of a Representative Specimen
Formation No. of Specimens
Formation Name Picture of Representative Sample
Symbol Tested
Tmr 2
Rainier Mesa Tuff
Tmbt1 1 < No picture >
Tpki
Comb Peak Ignimbrite
(TuffX)
8
Tpcrv 1 < No picture >
Tpcrn 7
Tiva Canyon Tuff
Tpcrl 2
168
(Continued)

Symbol Tested
Tpcpul 8
Tpcpmn 3
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpcpll 2
Tpcpln 3
Tpcpv 2
Tpy 3
Yucca Mountain Tuff
Tpbt3 4
Tpp 3
Pah Canyon Tuff
Tpbt2 2
169
(Continued)
Symbol Tested
Tptrn 7
Tptrl 2
Tptpul 12
Topopah Spring Tuff Tptpmn 9
Tptpll 9
Tptpln 8
Tptpv 5
Calico Hills Formation Tac 10
170
(Continued)
Symbol Tested
Tcp 21
Prow Pass Tuff
Tcpbt 1
Tcb 12
Bullfrog Tuff
Tcbbt 2
Tram Tuff Tct 5
Total 154
The dimensions of each specimen were measured with a digital caliper, which
was manufactured by Mitutoyo and could measure as small as 0.0005 inch. The digital
calipers were calibrated using a micrometer, L.S. Starette 465M, which was calibrated by
Bechtel SAIC. The weights of the specimens were measured with two scales, Sauter
RC4021hp with a maximum measurable weight of 4.2 kg and a resolution of 0.01 g and
OHAUS Champ Square CQ25R with a maximum measurable weight of 25 kg and a
resolution of 0.1 g. The scales were calibrated with several balance weights ranging from
1 g to 10 kg. These reference weights were also calibrated by Bechtel SAIC. Tables 5.3
171
and 5.4 present a listing of the sampling information, dimensions and weights of the
specimens tested in 2002 and 2003~2006, respectively. The porosity was computed using
the assumption of zero water content and Gs = 2.55 (Buesch, 1996). Zero water content
is based on the desert climate of Yucca Mountain and the 3,000 ft of deep ground water
table
Free-Free URC Tests; Tested in 2002
Total Unit Void
Stratigrphic Stratigrphic Length Dia. Weight Porosity,
No. Weight, γt Ratio,
Unit Symbol (in.) (in.) (g) n
(pcf) e
1 Rainer Mesa Tmbt1 4.50 1.55 249 110.8 0.437 0.304
2 Tpki 16.19 3.26 3384 95.5 0.665 0.400
3 Tpki 14.88 2.38 1726 98.9 0.608 0.378
4 Tpki 11.50 3.25 2720 108.5 0.466 0.318

TuffX
5 Tpki 7.45 2.39 672 76.5 1.079 0.519
6 Tpki 5.55 2.40 515 78.4 1.029 0.507
7 Tpki 6.12 2.38 2187 76.7 1.075 0.518
8 Tpcrv 4.56 1.56 291 127.0 0.253 0.202
9 Tpcrn 5.97 2.40 913 128.3 0.240 0.194
10 Tpcrn 7.60 3.27 1982 118.5 0.343 0.255
11 Tpcrn 4.20 1.56 181 86.2 0.845 0.458
12 Tpcrn 9.63 2.38 1386 122.7 0.297 0.229
13 Tpcpul 8.50 2.42 1282 125.1 0.272 0.214

Tiva
Canyon
14 Tpcpul 11.43 2.40 1680 123.6 0.287 0.223
15 Tpcpul 10.82 2.41 1861 144.1 0.104 0.094
16 Tpcpul 9.67 2.38 1575 139.3 0.142 0.124
17 Tpcpul 6.43 2.38 964 127.8 0.245 0.197
18 Tpcpmn 5.76 2.42 1015 146.3 0.088 0.081
19 Tpcpln 9.20 2.40 1595 145.5 0.093 0.085
172
Free-Free URC Tests; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006.
Total Unit Void
Stratigrphic Stratigrphic Depth Length Dia. Weight Porosity,
No. SMF ID. No. Parent Borehole Weight, γt Ratio,
Unit Symbol (ft) (in.) (in.) (g) n
(pcf) e
1 Tmr 01026008 UE-25 NRG#2 2.0 2.7 8.85 2.39 993 95.2 0.672 0.402
Rainier
Mesa
2 Tmr 01026043 UE-25 NRG#2b 44.0 44.4 4.89 2.39 462 80.5 0.976 0.494
3 Tpki 01025973 UE-25 RF#14 131.0 131.7 8.43 2.39 869 87.4 0.820 0.451
TuffX
4 Tpki 01025974 UE-25 RF#14 164.7 165.4 8.08 2.38 785 82.9 0.920 0.479
5 Tpcrn 01025975 UE-25- RF#14 231.2 231.9 8.58 2.40 1151 112.7 0.411 0.292
6 Tpcrn 01025976 UE-25- RF#15 33.2 34.1 10.87 3.27 2833 118.3 0.346 0.257
7 Tpcrn 01025984 UE-25- RF#22 514.3 514.9 7.09 2.47 969 108.7 0.464 0.317
8 Tpcrl 01025982 UE-25- RF#17 470.7 471.2 5.82 2.39 870 126.9 0.254 0.203
9 Tpcrl 01025985 UE-25- RF#22 527.1 527.6 6.19 2.39 879 120.9 0.316 0.240
10 Tpcpul 01025977 UE-25- RF#15 130.2 130.9 8.96 2.40 1378 130.0 0.224 0.183
11 Tpcpul 01025978 UE-25- RF#15 149.3 150.0 8.28 2.40 1301 132.5 0.200 0.167
12 Tpcpul 01025983 UE-25- RF#17 540.7 541.4 8.79 2.39 1355 131.1 0.214 0.176
Tiva
Canyon
13 Tpcpmn 01025986 ESF-BRFA-HPF#2 10.2 10.9 8.22 2.41 1417 144.2 0.104 0.094
14 Tpcpmn 01025979 UE-25- RF#15 226.0 226.7 8.37 2.41 1458 146.0 0.090 0.083
15 Tpcpll 01025980 UE-25- RF#15 247.8 248.6 9.49 2.40 1370 121.6 0.308 0.236
16 Tpcpll 01025981 UE-25- RF#16 412.8 413.5 8.47 2.39 1319 132.0 0.205 0.170
17 Tpcpln 01025996 USW SD-12 145.2 145.9 8.33 2.40 1435 145.5 0.094 0.086
18 Tpcpln 01025987 USW SD-7 136.3 137.2 11.06 3.26 3466 143.4 0.110 0.099
19 Tpcpv 01025998 USW SD-12 256.2 256.8 7.61 2.42 814 88.9 0.790 0.441
20 Tpcpv 01025997 USW SD-12 249.0 249.5 6.65 2.38 919 118.2 0.346 0.257
21 Tpy 01026001 USW NRG-7/7A 132.2 132.9 8.42 2.40 1034 103.1 0.543 0.352
22 Tpy 01026002 USW SD-9 135.9 136.8 10.41 3.21 1984 89.6 0.775 0.437
23 Tpy 01026732 USW UZ-14 69.8 70.1 2.77 2.39 309 94.8 0.679 0.404
Yucca
24 Tpbt3 01025999 USW SD-12 272.4 273.1 8.30 2.40 841 85.5 0.861 0.463
Mountain
25 Tpbt3 01026004 USW UZ-7a 214.0 214.7 8.48 2.40 813 80.5 0.978 0.494
26 Tpbt3(c) 01026734 USW UZ-14 88.2 88.6 5.09 2.36 465 79.1 1.011 0.503
27 Tpbt3(d) 01026733 USW UZ-14 80.7 81.1 4.84 2.39 554 97.0 0.640 0.390
28 Tpp 01026006 USW UZ-14 134.1 134.8 8.56 2.37 684 69.2 1.299 0.565
29 Tpp 01026005 USW UZ-7a 216.2 216.9 8.73 2.40 758 72.9 1.183 0.542
Pah
30 Tpp 01026735 USW UZ-14 178.6 179.0 4.75 2.39 431 76.7 1.075 0.518
Canyon
31 Tpbt2 01026000 USW SD-12 303.1 303.7 7.60 2.37 586 66.3 1.400 0.583
32 Tpbt2 01026003 USW SD-9 248.0 249.0 11.66 3.20 1607 65.3 1.437 0.590
173
Free-Free URC Tests; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006 (continued).
Total Unit Void
(pcf) e
33 Tptrn 01025864 USW UZ-14 367.6 368.3 8.27 2.40 1245 126.7 0.256 0.204
34 Tptrn 01025886 USW SD-12 375.7 376.3 7.31 2.40 1216 139.5 0.141 0.123
35 Tptrn 01025887 USW SD-12 405.3 406.1 9.47 2.41 1547 136.1 0.169 0.145
36 Tptrn 01025862 USW UZ-14 341 341.7 8.44 2.41 1333 131.6 0.209 0.173
37 Tptrn 01025863 USW UZ-14 363.7 364.4 8.34 2.40 1275 128.6 0.237 0.192
38 Tptrn 01025895 USW NRG-6 414.5 415.4 10.57 3.28 3228 137.5 0.157 0.136
39 Tptrn 01025897 USW SD-7 402.1 402.9 9.97 3.26 2873 131.5 0.210 0.173
40 Tptrl 01025902 USW NRG-7/7A 482.5 483.1 7.15 3.22 2015 131.6 0.209 0.173
41 Tptrl 01025901 UE-25 NRG#4 666.1 666.8 8.55 3.25 2271 122.1 0.303 0.233
42 Tptpul 01025865 USW UZ-14 495.2 495.9 8.16 2.40 1148 118.4 0.344 0.256
43 Tptpul 01025866 USW UZ-14 496.2 496.8 7.23 2.40 1010 117.7 0.352 0.261
44 Tptpul 01025867 USW UZ-14 564.1 564.9 9.12 2.38 1425 133.2 0.195 0.163
45 Tptpul 01025868 USW UZ-14 577 577.7 8.48 2.39 1333 133.9 0.188 0.158
46 Tptpul 01025904 ESF-HD-TEMP-13 38.3 39.2 10.38 1.77 902 135.1 0.178 0.151
47 Tptpul 01025905 ESF-HD-TEMP-5 38.5 39.2 8.35 1.76 725 136.6 0.165 0.142
48 Topopah Tptpul 01025888 USW SD-12 499.7 500.3 7.15 2.41 964 112.7 0.412 0.292
Spring
49 Tptpul 01025889 USW SD-12 504.9 505.6 8.14 2.39 1044 108.6 0.466 0.318
50 Tptpul 01037510 Surface N/A 10.33 4.25 3995 103.7 0.534 0.348
54 Tptpmn 01025908 ESF-HD-TEMP-2 8.8 9.5 8.20 2.41 1391 141.8 0.122 0.109
57 Tptpmn 01025906 ESF-HD-TEMP-5 12.2 13 9.39 1.76 840 140.6 0.132 0.116
58 Tptpmn 01025907 ESF-HD-WH-49 21.9 22.6 8.31 2.41 1392 139.8 0.138 0.121
59 Tptpmn 01025938 ESF-NAD-F/M#3 16.2 16.9 8.67 2.41 1482 142.8 0.114 0.102
60 Tptpmn 01025869 USW UZ-14 812.5 813.2 7.93 2.41 1351 142.4 0.118 0.105
61 Tptpmn 01025871 USW UZ-14 823.0 823.8 9.99 2.41 1708 143.0 0.112 0.101
62 Tptpmn 01031166 Surface N/A 12.28 5.65 11612 143.6 0.108 0.097
63 Tptpll 01025913 ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 19.2 19.7 6.17 1.78 536 133.4 0.192 0.161
64 Tptpll 01025912 ECRB-SYBT-LA#9 4.2 4.7 6.32 1.78 573 138.8 0.147 0.128
174
Total Unit Void
(pcf) e
65 Tptpll 01025914 UE-25-UZ#16 866.7 867.3 7.19 2.40 1124 131.5 0.210 0.173
66 Tptpll 01025873 USW UZ-14 1059 1059.7 8.27 2.41 1386 139.5 0.140 0.123
67 Tptpll 01025872 USW UZ-14 1016.2 1016.9 8.33 2.39 1404 142.8 0.114 0.103
68 Tptpll 01025923 ECRB-GTEC-CS1922-02 10.8 11.3 5.86 2.48 1003 135.1 0.178 0.151
72 Tptpln 01025915 UE-25-UZ#16 950.6 951.3 8.18 2.39 1399 145.0 0.097 0.089
73 Tptpln 01025916 UE-25-UZ#16 991.6 992.3 8.32 2.39 1406 144.0 0.105 0.095
74 Tptpln 01025917 UE-25-UZ#16 993.2 993.7 8.34 2.38 1399 143.5 0.109 0.098
Topopah
Spring
75 Tptpln 01025918 UE-25-UZ#16 1045.1 1045.8 7.96 2.40 1371 144.8 0.099 0.090
76 Tptpln 01025919 UE-25-UZ#16 1073.3 1073.9 7.24 2.40 1253 145.9 0.091 0.083
77 Tptpln 01025876 USW UZ-14 1242.7 1243.4 7.95 2.41 1391 145.9 0.091 0.083
78 Tptpln 01025874 USW UZ-14 1246 1246.7 7.82 2.40 1341 143.9 0.106 0.096
79 Tptpln 01025875 USW UZ-14 1248.9 1249.7 9.19 2.40 1584 145.4 0.095 0.086
80 Tptpv1 01025903 USW NRG-7/7A 1476.0 1476.7 8.40 2.41 1193 118.7 0.341 0.254
81 Tptpv3 01025877 USW UZ-14 1288.7 1289.3 7.19 2.40 1210 141.5 0.125 0.111
82 Tptpv3 01025879 USW UZ-14 1351.0 1351.7 8.51 2.41 1366 134.2 0.185 0.156
83 Tptpv3 01026724 USW SD-12 1284.6 1284.9 3.31 2.39 547 140.7 0.131 0.116
84 Tptpv/v 01026725 USW SD-12 1352.9 1353.4 5.97 2.39 667 95.0 0.675 0.403
85 Tac (Dev.) 01025929 USW SD-9 1569.9 1570.8 11.02 3.26 2433 100.7 0.580 0.367
86 Tac (Dev.) 01025883 USW UZ-14 1443 1443.9 10.78 3.28 2336 97.7 0.629 0.386
87 Tac (Dev.) 01025884 USW UZ-14 1517.6 1518.5 10.86 3.28 2643 109.5 0.453 0.312
88 Tac (Dev.) 01025881 USW UZ-14 1427.2 1428 9.12 2.41 1083 99.5 0.600 0.375
89 Tac (Dev.) 01025882 USW UZ-14 1432.4 1433.2 9.17 2.38 1113 103.4 0.539 0.350
Calico
Hills
90 Tac (Vit.) 01025891 USW SD-12 1592.2 1592.9 8.65 2.36 879 88.4 0.800 0.444
91 Tac (Vit.) 01025892 USW SD-12 1595 1595.7 8.73 2.31 844 87.5 0.818 0.450
92 Tac (Vit.) 01025898 USW SD-7 1468.2 1468.9 8.22 3.22 1521 86.4 0.843 0.457
93 Tac (Vit.) 01025935 USW SD-12 1497.8 1498.6 9.35 2.39 999 90.5 0.759 0.431
94 Tac (Vit.) 01025890 USW SD-12 1526.6 1527.4 9.18 2.39 985 90.8 0.753 0.429
95 Tcp 01025894 USW SD-12 2071.2 2071.9 8.43 2.40 1115 111.4 0.428 0.300
Prow
Pass
96 Tcp 01025933 USW SD-9 2152.9 2153.6 8.63 2.40 1114 108.7 0.464 0.317
175
Total Unit Void
(pcf) e
97 Tcp 01025900 USW SD-7 1919.8 1920.5 8.49 2.39 1024 102.2 0.556 0.357
98 Tcp 01025920 UE-25 UZ#16 1531.6 1532.3 8.09 2.40 1142 118.3 0.345 0.257
99 Tcp 01025921 UE-25 UZ#16 1656.8 1657.5 8.13 2.40 1177 122.2 0.302 0.232
100 Tcp 01025893 USW SD-12 1712.9 1713.5 6.99 2.37 851 105.4 0.509 0.337
101 Tcp 01025899 USW SD-7 1707.7 1708.4 8.46 2.37 1092 111.5 0.427 0.299
102 Tcp 01025931 USW SD-9 1903.9 1904.8 11.00 3.26 2688 111.1 0.432 0.302
103 Tcp 01025932 USW SD-9 2012.4 2013.1 8.98 2.40 1141 106.8 0.490 0.329
104 Tcp 01025885 USW UZ-14 1879.7 1880.6 10.67 3.27 2663 113.3 0.405 0.288
105 Tcpuc 01026705 USW SD-7 1668.3 1668.8 5.93 2.36 704 103.0 0.545 0.353
106 Prow Tcpuc 01026726 USW SD-12 1776.3 1776.7 4.75 2.37 619 112.6 0.413 0.292
Pass
107 Tcpm 01026738 UE-25 UZ#16 1630.5 1630.9 4.66 2.39 760 138.7 0.147 0.128
108 Tcpm 01026706 USW SD-7 1791.8 1792.3 6.01 2.40 931 130.3 0.221 0.181
109 Tcpm 01026721 USW SD-9 1975.8 1976.2 4.71 2.41 696 123.7 0.286 0.222
110 Tcpm 01026707 USW SD-7 1825.8 1826.3 5.96 2.39 999 142.3 0.118 0.106
111 Tcpm 01026727 USW SD-12 1789.1 1789.5 4.77 2.38 671 120.1 0.325 0.245
112 Tcpm 01026728 USW SD-12 1832.9 1833.3 4.79 2.38 745 133.4 0.193 0.162
113 Tcplv(z) 01026729 USW SD-12 1910.4 1910.8 4.78 2.38 583 104.1 0.529 0.346
114 Tcplv(z) 01026708 USW SD-7 2031.4 2031.9 5.84 2.40 845 122.3 0.301 0.231
115 Tcplv(z) 01026722 USW SD-9 2039.8 2040.2 4.79 2.39 609 107.6 0.478 0.324
116 Tcpbt 01026730 USW SD-12 2136.8 2137.2 4.38 2.36 574 113.7 0.400 0.286
117 Tcb 01025988 USW SD-7 2206.8 2207.5 8.52 2.38 1225 122.6 0.298 0.229
118 Tcb 01025993 USW SD-7 2248.9 2249.7 9.48 2.40 1568 139.1 0.144 0.126
119 Tcb 01025994 USW SD-7 2352.8 2353.5 8.51 2.41 1499 147.6 0.078 0.073
120 Tcb 01025995 USW SD-7 2458.3 2459.1 9.29 2.42 1525 136.3 0.167 0.143
121 Tcb 01026007 USW UZ-14 2127.5 2128.4 10.57 3.27 2374 101.8 0.563 0.360
122 Bull Tcbm 01026709 USW SD-7 2300 2300.4 4.86 2.40 824 142.7 0.115 0.103
Frog
123 Tcbm 01026710 USW SD-7 2399.1 2399.6 5.37 2.41 941 146.4 0.087 0.080
124 Tcbuv 01026731 USW SD-12 2143.7 2144.1 4.85 2.40 666 115.8 0.374 0.272
125 Tcblv(z) 01026711 USW SD-7 2485.8 2486.2 4.61 2.41 668 121.1 0.314 0.239
126 Tcblv(z) 01026713 USW SD-7 2560.4 2560.8 4.74 2.37 573 103.8 0.533 0.348
127 Tcblv(z) 01026712 USW SD-7 2522.1 2522.5 4.61 2.38 635 117.3 0.356 0.263
128 Tcblc 01026760 USW SD-7 2462 2462.4 4.72 2.41 773 136.2 0.168 0.144
176
Total Unit Void
(pcf) e
129 Tcbbt(z) 01026715 USW SD-7 2593.5 2593.9 4.63 2.38 702 129.8 0.226 0.184
Bull
Frog
130 Tcbbt(z) 01026714 USW SD-7 2581.1 2581.5 4.69 2.38 644 117.6 0.354 0.261
131 Tct 01025989 USW SD-7 2623.7 2624.4 8.35 2.38 1071 109.7 0.450 0.311
132 Tct 01025990 USW SD-7 2646.9 2647.6 8.64 2.38 1070 105.7 0.505 0.336
133 Tram Tct 01025991 USW SD-7 2654.0 2654.7 8.75 2.39 1027 99.9 0.594 0.372
134 Tct 01025992 USW SD-7 2672.2 2672.9 9.03 2.38 1079 102.3 0.555 0.357
135 Tctuv(z) 01026716 USW SD-7 2600 2600.4 4.71 2.38 600 109.0 0.460 0.315
5.4.2 Tuff Specimen Preparation for the Fixed-Free RCTS Tests
As previously stated, the fixed-free RCTS device has a limitation of the size of
the test specimen. The maximum specimen size is 3 inch (diameter) by 6 inch (length).
However, considering that the maximum torque of the device is only 8 in.-lb, the
maximum size of a tuff specimen, 3 inch by 6 inch, is not recommended for nonlinear
testing because little of any nonlinearity will be generated with the full power of the
device and most tests will be performed below the typical linear elastic limit of 10-3 % or
less. This happens because the average stiffness of tuffs is at least 10 to 25 times greater
than the stiffness of many soils. So, the specimen size needs to be reduced to measure
mildly nonlinear dynamic properties in the necessary strain range. On the other hand, the
diameter of test specimens should be as large as possible to obtain representative
mechanical properties. Hence, in this study, a diameter size of 1.6 inch was selected as
the optimized size which can attempt to satisfy every requirement as best as possible
because this size is the maximum size in which testing can be performed in the slight
nonlinear range, 10-2 %. To give a little extra space to setup specimen inside testing
device, 5.7 inches was selected as the maximum allowable length of test specimen with
diameter of 1.6 inches.
177
To make the 1.6-inch-diameter specimen size for the fixed-free RCTS test, the
original cored specimens needed to be cored again. The re-cored specimens was also cut
to make the allowable length. Re-coring and cutting was done with the rock coring
machine and the rotary cutting saw, shown in Figure 5.10. A typical rock specimen for
fixed-free RCTS testing after re-coring and cutting is shown in Figure 5.11(a). The top
and bottom planes of the re-cored specimen were trimmed with a sand paper or a small
rotary grinding tool to make them flat. A hole for the air vent was drilled at the center of
the bottom plane in an attempt to keep the internal air pressure of the specimen equal
atmospheric pressure when the specimen was confined. Then, the specimen was attached
to top cap and base pedestal as shown in Figure 5.11(b) using epoxy glue, which was
made by mixing the RF 912 part A and RF 912 part B with the mixing weight ratio of 4
to 5. The curing time used for the epoxy glue was at least 24 hours and many times 48
hours of curing time was used to achieve a high enough bonding strength. After fixing the
specimen between the top cap and base pedestal, the fixed-free RCTS tests were typically
performed one time with the specimen in the unconfined state to determine the dynamic
properties of the specimen without any membrane. Then, the membrane such as coating
membrane or rubber membrane or both of them, were applied to the surface of the
specimen to keep the air confining pressure from getting into the specimen. The coating
membrane was generally applied with the epoxy coating agent to the side surface of the
specimen. The coating agent was made by mixing the RF 61 epoxy curing agent and RF
4010 epoxy resin with the mixing weight ratio of 4 to 5. When the coating membrane was
applied, a minimum curing time for the coating was 24 hour. The rubber membrane,
manufactured by Humboldt, was the same rubber membrane as used in the triaxial
compression test of soil. After applying the membrane, the fixed-free RCTS tests were
begun and it progressed following predetermined testing procedure.
178
(a) (b)
Figure 5.10 Rock Coring Machine (a) and Rock Cutting Machine (b)
All the formations of Yucca Mountain area, whose dynamic properties were
needed for the design, were selected for the fixed-free RCTS test. According to the
importance level of each formation, the number of dynamic tests of each formation was
decided.
(a) (b)
Top Cap
Remains
After
Cutting
Re-cored
Remains & Coated
After Specimen
Re-coring
Re-cored
Specimen
Base
pedestal
Figure 5.11 Re-cored Specimen and Remains after Re-coring and Cutting (a) and a
Standard Specimen Setup with Top Cap and Base Pedestal and Ready for
Fixed-Free RCTS Testing (b)
179
Table 5.5 List of Tuff Specimens in Each Formation that were Tested in the Fixed-
Free RCTS Device
Formation Name Formation Symbol No. of Specimens
Tuff X Tpki 5
Tpcrn 6
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpcpul 3
Tpcpmn 2
Tpy 1
Yucca Mountain Tuff
Tpbt3 1
Tpp 1
Pah Canyon Tuff
Tpbt2 1
Tptrn 1
Tptrl 1
Tptpul 3
Topopah Spring Tuff Tptpmn 3
Tptpll 5
Tptpln 1
Tptpv3 1
Calico Hills Formation Tac 3
Prow Pass Tuff Tcp 3
Bullfrog Tuff Tcb 3
Tram Tuff Tct 3
Total 47
Table 5.5, a list of tuff specimens which were tested in the fixed-free RCTS
device is presented. The sampling information, dimensions and weights of the individual
specimens which were tested in 2002 and in 2003 ~ 2006 are presented in Table 5.6 and
5.7, respectively. Two specimens, UTA-42-B(2C-2) and UTA-42-C(3K-2), were cored
one more time from the re-cored specimens, 2B-3 and 3C-2, respectively.
180
Table 5.6 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Individual Specimens
that were Tested in the Fixed-Free RCTS Device; Tested in 2002
Total
Specimen No. Test No. Stratigraphic Depth Length Diameter Weight
No. Parent Borehole Unit Weight
(SMF ID) (UT ID) Unit (ft) (cm) (cm) (g)
(pcf)
1 01012518 UTA-23-C UE-25 RF#14 Tpcpul 361.0 11.38 3.98 305.1 134
2 01012519 UTA-23-D UE-25 RF#14 Tpcpmn 397.0 11.26 3.97 329.1 147
3 01012525 UTA-23-G UE-25 RF#15 Tpcpul 192.5 11.12 3.95 317.9 146
4 01012527 UTA-23-H UE-25 RF#15 Tpcpmn 322.0 11.53 3.96 332.9 146
5 01012538 UTA-23-J UE-25 RF#17 Tpcpul 575.6 10.98 3.96 304.8 141
6 01012372 UTA-20-B UE-25 RF#16 Tpcrn 189.5 11.46 3.97 275.1 121
7 01012373 UTA-20-C UE-25 RF#16 Tpcrn 235.5 10.22 3.96 258.4 128
8 01012516 UTA-23-B UE-25 RF#14 Tpcrn 241.5 11.18 3.96 278.6 126
9 01012520 UTA-23-E UE-25 RF#15 Tpcrn 27.3 11.70 3.96 273.6 118
10 01012522 UTA-23-F UE-25 RF#15 Tpcrn 88.7 11.45 3.98 302.7 132
11 01012371 UTA-20-A UE-25 RF#16 Tpki 126.8 11.56 3.96 201.2 88
12 01012370 UTA-20-D UE-25 RF#16 Tpki 80.5 11.47 3.97 225.4 99
13 01012512 UTA-23-A UE-25 RF#14 Tpki 104.5 10.95 3.94 209.4 98
14 01012535 UTA-23-I UE-25 RF#17 Tpcrn 400.2 10.67 3.96 181.4 86
15 01011666 UTA-20-F ESF-Geotek#3 Tpki 4.5 11.55 3.95 170.3 75
16 01011668 UTA-20-G ESF-Geotek#3 Tpki 6.5 11.50 3.96 182.1 80

that were Tested in the Fixed-Free RCTS Device; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006
Specimen No. Test No. Stratigraphic Height Diameter Weight Total Unit
No. Parent Borehole Depth
(SMF ID) (UT ID) Unit (cm) (cm) (g) Weight (pcf)
1 01025902 UTA-42-A(1G-1) USW NRG-7/7A Tptrl 482.6 - 482.8 4.61 2.14 36.0 136
UTA-42-B (2A-3) ESF-HD-TEMP-5 Tptpul 38.5 - 38.85 10.30 4.46 352.9 137
2 01025905 UTA-42-B (2B-3) ESF-HD-TEMP-5 Tptpul 38.85 - 39.2 10.54 4.45 355.7 135
UTA-42-B (2C-2) ESF-HD-TEMP-5 Tptpul 38.85 - 93.0 4.62 2.14 37.8 141
UTA-42-C (3C-2) ESF-HD-TEMP-2 Tptpmn 144.9 - 145.3 10.16 3.96 288.9 144
3 01025910
UTA-42-C (3K-2) ESF-HD-TEMP-2 Tptpmn 144.7 - 144.9 5.00 2.13 42.1 147
181
that were Tested in the Fixed-Free RCTS Device; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006
(Continued)
Specimen No. Test No. Stratigraphic Height Diameter Weight Total Unit
No. Parent Borehole Depth
(SMF ID) (UT ID) Unit (cm) (cm) (g) Weight (pcf)
4 01025886 UTA-42-D (4C-2) USW-SD-12 Tptrn 375.8 - 376.2 11.64 3.96 333.2 145
5 01025914 UTA-42-E (5C-2) UE-25-UZ#16 Tptpll 867 - 867.3 8.46 3.96 230.4 138
6 01025915 UTA-42-F (6C-2) UE-25-UZ#16 Tptpln 950.6 - 951.0 12.32 3.96 356.4 147
7 01025881 UTA-42-G (7C-2) USW UZ-14 Tac 1427.3 - 1427.8 11.09 3.96 224.5 103
8 01025890 UTA-42-H (8C-2) USW SD-12 Tac 1526.8 - 1527.3 14.41 3.96 266.3 94
9 01025913 UTA-42-I (9A-2) ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 Tptpll 19.2 - 19.6 13.34 4.49 459.6 136
10 01025912 UTA-42-J (10A-2) ECRB-SYBT-LA#9 Tptpll 4.2 - 4.6 9.60 4.52 340.6 138
11 010125867 UTA-42-K (11C-1) USW UZ-14 Tptpul 564.1 - 564.5 7.42 3.97 204.4 139
12 01025868 UTA-42-L (12C-1) USW UZ-14 Tptpul 577.2 - 577.6 9.92 3.96 268.6 137
13 01025908 UTA-42-M (13C-2) ESF-HD-TEMP-2 Tptpmn 9.0 - 9.5 15.25 3.97 434.5 144
14 01025871 UTA-42-N (14C-2) USW UZ-14 Tptpmn 823.4 - 823.8 10.63 3.97 303.3 144
15 01025873 UTA-42-O (15C-3) USW UZ-14 Tptpll 1059.1 - 1059.6 14.13 3.97 401.8 143
16 01025925 UTA-42-P (16C-2) ECRB-GTEC-CS2150-01 Tptpll 0.3 - 0.7 10.46 3.97 286.3 138
17 01025933 UTA-42-Q (17C-2) USW SD-9 Tcp 2152.9 - 2153.4 14.16 3.97 307.3 110
18 01025920 UTA-42-R (18C-2) UE-25 UZ#16 Tcp(unit 3) 1531.8 - 1532.3 13.37 3.97 313.3 119
19 01025994 UTA-42-S (19C-2) USW SD-7 Tcb 2353.0 - 2353.5 14.31 3.97 421.5 149
20 01025989 UTA-42-T (20C-2) USW SD-7 Tct 2623.7 - 2624.2 13.23 3.96 288.5 111
21 01025992 UTA-42-U (21C-2) USW SD-7 Tct 2672.3 - 2672.8 13.85 3.97 284.2 103
22 01026002 UTA-42-W (23C) USW SD-9 Tpy 135.9 - 136.4 13.49 3.91 235.7 91
23 01026004 UTA-42-X (24C) USW UZ-7a Tpbt3 214.2 - 214.7 14.05 3.93 220.5 81
24 01026005 UTA-42-Y (25C) USW UZ-7a Tpp 216.2 - 216.6 13.58 3.94 200.3 76
25 01025877 UTA-42-AA (27C) USW UZ-14 Tptpv3 1288.8 - 1289.2 12.28 3.96 349.6 145
26 01026003 UTA-42-AB (28E) USW SD-9 Tpbt2 248.5 - 249.0 13.68 3.92 166.9 63
27 01025884 UTA-42-AC (29C) USW UZ-14 Tac(Dev) 1518.0 - 1518.5 14.02 3.95 300.8 109
28 01026707 UTA-42-AD (30A) USW SD-7 Tcpm 1825.8 - 1826.3 13.81 3.96 389.6 143
29 01026731 UTA-42-AE (31A) USW SD-12 Tcbuv 2143.7 - 2144.1 11.37 3.96 268.0 120
30 01026713 UTA-42-AF (32A) USW SD-7 Tcblv(z) 2560.4 - 2560.8 11.37 3.96 235.9 105
31 01026716 UTA-42-AG (33A) USW SD-7 Tctuv(z) 2600.0 - 2600.4 11.33 3.95 245.0 110
182
5.4.3 Tuff Specimen Preparation for CTS Tests
As well as free-free URC tests, the tuff specimens in the delivered state could also
be used in the CTS test due to few size limitations in this test. As previously stated in
Section 4.4.3, the specimen in the delivered state was setup in the end platens of the CTS
device with epoxy glue. After setting up the specimen in the end platens, two or four
proximitor targets, each with size of ¾ by ¾ inch and made of stainless steel, were
installed on the surface of the test specimens as shown in Figure 5.12. The typical
spacing between each pair of proximitor targets was 5 inches but this spacing could be
adjustable according to the testing objective and testing conditions.
Tuff specimens sampled from the Topopah Spring tuff, Calico Hills and Prow
Pass tuffs, which were considered important formations for the dynamic response
analysis of the proposed repository tunnel, were selected for the CTS testing.
Proximitor Targets
Specimen
End platens
Figure 5.12 Standard Tuff Specimen Setup for CTS Tests
According to the design of the proposed radioactive waste repository, the repository
tunnels were located in the sub-units of the Topopah Spring tuff. The mechanical
properties of the Topopah Spring tuff and the formations below are needed to predict the
earthquake response of the proposed repository tunnels. The tuff specimens in each
183
formation that were tested in the CTS device are listed in Table 5.8. As far as possible,
the specimens with diameters bigger than 2.4 inches were selected to obtain data that are
likely more representative of the file conditions. Table 5.9 presents detail information on
tuff specimens tested in the CTS device.
Table 5.8 List of Tuff Specimens from Each Formation that were Tested in the CTS
Device
Formation Name Formation Symbol No. of Specimens Specimen Diameter
Tptpul 4 4.2 in., 4.2 in., 2.4 in., 4.2 in.
Tptpmn 3 2.4 in., 2.4 in., 2.4 in.
Topopah Spring Tuff
Tptpll 2 3.8 in., 2.4 in.
Tptpln 1 2.4 in., 2.4 in.
Calico Hills Formation Tac 1 3.2 in.
Prow Pass Tuff Tcp 1 2.4 in.
Total 12
Table 5.9 Sampling Information, Dimensions and Weights of Tuff Specimens that
were Tested in the CTS Device
Total Unit
Test No. Stratigraphic Specimen No. Depth Length Diameter Weight Void Ratio, Porosity,
Parent Borehole Weight
(UT. ID.) Unit (SMF ID.) (ft) (in.) (in.) (g) e n
(pcf)
CTS-01 Tcp 01025921 UE-25 UZ#16 1656.8 1657.5 8.1 2.40 1177 122 0.302 0.232
Tac
CTS-02 01025883 USW UZ-14 1443 1443.9 10.8 3.28 2336 98 0.629 0.386
(Devitrified)
CTS-03 Tptpll 01025872 USW UZ-14 1016.2 1016.9 8.3 2.39 1404 143 0.114 0.103
CTS-04 Tptpul 01037512 Surface N/A 9.4 4.24 3800 109 0.461 0.315
CTS-05 Tptpmn 01025938 ESF-NAD-F/M#3 16.2 16.9 8.7 2.41 1482 143 0.114 0.102
CTS-07 Tptpln 01025917 UE-25-UZ#16 993.2 993.7 8.3 2.38 1399 143 0.109 0.098
ECRB-GTEC
CTS-09 Tptpll 1025924 7.2 7.9 8.9 3.76 3700 142 0.121 0.108
-CS1922-03
CTS-10 Tptpul 01025889 USW SD-12 504.9 505.6 8.1 2.39 1044 109 0.466 0.318
CTS-11 Tptpmn 01025909 ESF-HD-TEMP-2 85.2 85.9 8.4 2.41 1437 143 0.116 0.104
CTS-13 Tptpmn 01025907 ESF-HD-WH-49 21.9 22.6 8.3 2.41 1392 140 0.138 0.121
184
5.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, concerns about and conditions at the proposed Yucca Mountain
high-level radioactive waste repository are discussed. The specimen preparation for the
two dynamic tests, the free-free URC test and the fixed-free RCTS test, and one cyclic
torsional shear test, the CTS test are presented.
As a result of investigations and studies performed by the Department of Energy,
Yucca Mountain was selected as the proposed location in the U.S. for stroing the high-
level radioactive waste. The reasons of this selection are: (1) the arid climate of Yucca
Mountain area which decreases the possibility of water seepage into the ground, (2) the
isolation and security of Yucca Mountain because the area is reasonably far (about 90
miles) from a highly populated area and is enclosed by land which is protected by the
federal government, and (3) excellent geological and hydrological conditions such as
presence of tuff in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, interlayers of welded tuff and
nonwelded tuff, a very deep ground water table and presence of zeolitic mineral.
Tuffs, which are main geologic material in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, are
formed by the sedimentation of volcanic ash. When the environment of the sedimentation
was hot, welded tuffs were formed which poessess good mechanical properties for the
underground facility. When the environment for sedimentation was cold, nonwelded tuffs
were formed. Nonwelded tuffs do not have the same mechanical properties as welded
tuffs but they poessess good hydrological properties because they do not have a vesicular
structure like lithophysae.
A total of 154 specimens were prepared for free-free URC tests. These specimens
were sampled from nearly all formations in the Yucca Mountain area. The sizes of the
specimens were not restricted because the wider range in sizes that can be tested in the
free-free URC device. The number of the specimens prepared for the fixed-free RCTS
185
test was 47. Again, the specimens were selected according to their importance in the
design of the proposed repository tunnels. The specimens were prepared by re-coring and
cutting to reduce their size because of the limitations of the fixed-free RCTS device. The
number of specimens that were tested in the CTS device was 12. These specimens were
also selected according to their relative importance in the proposed repository design.
The specimen size was less restricted in the CTS tests due to the advantage of testing
larger specimens in this device. Larger specimens are more likely to be closer to
representative field conditions and, thus, allow evaluation of mechanical properties that
are closer to the field setting and require less engineering judgment in representing the
field conditions.
186
Chapter 6
Measurements of Linear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs through Free-

Free URC Tests
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Measurements of the dynamic properties of Yucca Mountain tuffs were

performed using the free-free URC (unconfined resonant column and direct arrival)
device. The results of these tests are presented and discussed in this chapter. The dynamic
data from the free-free URC tests can be used directly in the design for dynamic loading
in the linear strain range. However, the data from free-free URC tests do not show the
change in the dynamic properties with shear strain in the nonlinear range. So, the free-
free URC test is sometimes used as preliminary test to evaluate the range (variability) in
dynamic properties of a group of specimens in the linear range easily and quickly without
damaging the specimens and without any concerns about size limitations of the test
specimens.
The free-free URC tests were conducted on Yucca Mountain tuffs to determine
the linear dynamic properties of many sub-units within the formations. In Section 6.2,
calibration of the equipment which was used in the free-free URC tests is presented. The
results of the free-free URC tests are presented and then summarized in Section 6.3 and
summary tables are presented. The general trends between the seismic wave velocities
(Vc, Vp, Vs) versus total unit weights, porosities and Poisson’s ratios are discussed in
Section 6.4. The general trends between material damping ratios versus total unit weights,
porosities and seismic wave velocities are presented in Section 6.5. The comparison
between material damping ratios in shear and material damping ratios in unconstrained
compression is also presented in this section. The profiles of seismic wave velocities and
187
material damping ratios with depth as determined by the test specimens is presented in
Section 6.6. The variation of seismic wave velocities with the specimen size to monitor is
used to investigate size effect on the dynamic properties of the tuff specimens and these
results are presented in Section 6.7.
6.2 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION
To perform the free-free URC test, four accelerometers and two digital processing
recording devices need to be used. Each sensor and recording device were calibrated by
Bechtel SAIC ever year. However, sometimes, the overall testing system needs to be
calibrated to check the operation state of the testing system. The overall calibrations for
the testing system were performed with reference specimens, solid aluminum cylindrical
rod, whose dynamic properties were already known by the nature of the aluminum metal.
In this study, by comparing the calibration testing results of the aluminum specimens
with the results from the previous studies, Menq (2003), the overall calibration of the
testing system was completed.
In Figure 6.1, the results of a direct arrival test used to measure the velocity of the
constrained compression wave are presented. The upper signal is the source signal
generated by the instrumented hammer and its beginning time is about -4 μs. On the other
hand, the lower signal means that the constrained compression wave arrived at the
opposite end of specimen, which was detected by the accelerometer sensor that was
attached to the other end of the aluminum rod. The lower signal shows that the seismic
wave arrived approximately at 46 μs. Therefore, the travel time of the constrained
compression wave is 50 μs (= 46 μs – (-4 μs)) and Vp of the aluminum rod is 20,400 fps.
These values compare well with results from Menq (2003) and from results presented in
the literature as shown in Table 6.1 and discussed below. With the total unit weight of the
188
aluminum rod of 165.5 pcf, the computed constrained elastic modulus (M) is 1.49 × 107
psi (= 2.14 × 109 psf).
100
Aluminum Specimen
L = 12.00 in, Dia = 6.00 in, Weight = 32.5 lb
80 Constrained Compression Wave Measurement
60
-0.000004
Hammer
Magnitude, V
40 offset by +40 Volt
20 0.000046
Accelerometer
0
-20
-40
-0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002

Time, sec
Figure 6.1 Time Records from the Instrument Hammer and the Accelerometer in a
Direct Arrival Measurement of Constrained Compression Wave; Aluminum
Specimen
In Figures 6.2 and 6.3, the power spectra of resonance signals for unconstrained
compression wave and shear wave resonance are shown. The first-mode resonances
occurred at 8248 Hz and 5127 Hz, respectively. According to the equation derived in
Section 4.3.1, the velocity of the unconstrained compression wave is 2 × 12 in. (specimen
length) × 8248 Hz (resonance frequency) / 0.985 (dimension modification factor) =
200,966 in./sec (= 16,747 fps) and the velocity of the shear wave is 2 × 12 in. (specimen
length) × 5120 Hz (resonance frequency) = 122,880 in./sec (= 10,240 fps). The material
damping ratios in shear and in compression were calculated through the half-power
bandwidth method, as described in Section 4.3.1. According to the combination of
velocity of the seismic wave, three values of Poisson’s ratio can also be calculated as
189
discussed in Section 4.3.1. The results of the calibration test are shown and compared
with the results of Menq (2003) and Sun (1993) in Table 6.1.
0.08
Aluminum Specimen
L = 12 in., Dia = 6 in., Weight = 32.5 lb
Unconstrained Compression Wave Measurement
Magnitude, Vpeak (acceleration)
Vc, 3rd mode
0.06 +
20000 Hz
Vc, 1st mode Vc, 2nd mode
+ +
8248 Hz 15200 Hz
0.04
0.02
+ Resonances need
to be adjusted
for specimen shape
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.2 Power Spectrum of Longitudinal Resonance Measured with an

Accelerometer; Aluminum Calibration Specimen
0.16
Aluminum Specimen
L = 12 in., Dia = 6 in., Weight = 32.5 lb
0.14 Shear Wave Measurement
Magnitude, Vpeak (acceleration)
0.12 Vs, 1st mode

5120Hz
0.10
0.08
0.06
Vs, 2nd mode

0.04 10200 Hz Vs, 3rd mode
15275 Hz
0.02
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Frequency, Hz
Figure 6.3 Power Spectrum of Shear Resonance Measured with Two Accelerometers;
Aluminum Calibration Specimen
190
Table 6.1 Comparison between the Values of Measured Dynamic Properties in This
Study and the Dynamic Properties Measured by Menq (2003) and Sun
(1993)
Measured
Parameter Menq (2003) Sun (1993)
Value
Constrained Compression
20400 20408 19698
Wave Velocity, Vp (fps)
Unconstrained Compression
16747 16748 16500
Wave Velocity, Vc (fps)
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (fps) 10240 10243 10124
Unconstrained Elasti Modulus,

Emax (psf) 1.44 * 109 1.44 * 109 1.40 * 109
Shear Modulus,
Gmax (psf) 5.39 * 108 5.39 * 108 5.27 * 108
Constrained Elasti Modulus,
Mmax (psf) 2.14 * 109 2.14 * 109 1.99 * 109
Material Damping Ratio

0.010 0.011 0.013
in Compression, Dc min, (%)
Material Damping Ratio
0.028 0.031 0.035
in Shear, Ds min, (%)
Poisson's Ratio (ν) νMG 0.33 0.33 0.32
νEG 0.33 0.34 0.33
νME 0.33 0.33 0.32
According to the comparisons of the calibration results with other results in Table
6.1, the calibration results of the testing system show that the relative error of the wave
velocities and Poisson’s ratio with the results of Menq (2003) is less than 1.0 % and the
absolute error of the material damping ratio is smaller than 0.01 %. The error between
this calibration results and the results of Sun (1993) became a little larger because of
different measurement equipment. Hence, the conclusion that the calibration “PASS” is
found, which means that the testing system operated normally and within the allowable
measurement error range required in this study. It should also be noted that these
calibration tests were performed yearly and the system always passed.
191
6.3 SUMMARY OF LINEAR DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF THE TUFFS FROM THE FREE-FREE
URC TESTS
A total of 154 tuff cores were selected for free-free URC tests. These cores were
selected to represent a wide range in the tuff materials at the Yucca Mountain site. The
number of specimens that were tested in each stratigraphic unit is presented in Table 5.2.
As seen in the table, cores from a majority of the stratigraphic units at the site were tested.
The list of the properties of the 154 cores is presented in Table 5.3 and 5.4. The
length of the specimens ranged from 2.8 in. to 16.2 in. and the diameter of the specimens
ranged from 1.6 in. to 5.7 in.. Total unit weights covered a wide range, from 65 pcf to
148 pcf. The porosity of each specimen was calculated with the assumption that the
specific gravity of the solid material was 2.55 (David Buesch, 1996) and the water
content of the tuff specimens was essentially zero. The range in porosity of the specimens
was also large, ranging from 0.073 to 0.59.
Porosities of the tuff specimens were estimated using the assumption that the
average specific gravities of the tuff material was 2.55 (David Buesch, 1996) and the
water content of the specimens was zero because the parent boreholes were located in the
desert where the annual precipitation is less than 8 mm/year and the ground water table in
the Yucca Mountain area is located more than 3,000 ft below the ground surface. Then,
the porosities (n) of the tuffs are computed (estimated) by:
e
n= (6.1)
1+e
G s ⋅ γw
e= −1 (6.2)
γt
where: e is void ratio,

Gs is the average specific gravity of solid components of the tuff (≈ 2.55),
γt is total unit weight of the tuff specimen (pcf), and
192
γw is unit weight of water (= 62.4 pcf).
A summary of the tests results for the 154 tuff specimens is given in Tables 6.2
and 6.3. The maximum Vp is nearly 15,000 fps (4,500 m/sec) and the maximum γt is
nearly 150 pcf, which were found in the Topopah Spring nonlithophysal tuff (Tptpln). On
the other hand, the minimum Vp is approximately 3,000 fps (1,000 m/sec), which was
measured in the Topopah Spring bedded tuff formation (Tptpv), and the minimum γt is
about 65 pcf, which was measured for the tuff in the Pah Canyon formation (Tpp).
Table 6.2 Summary of Dynamic Test Results from the Free-Free URC Tests of the
Tuff Specimens Tested in 2002
Total Unit
Stratigrphic Stratigrphic Porosity, Vc Emax Dc min Vs Gmax Ds min Vp Mmax Poisson's Poisson's Poisson's
No Weight, γt
Unit Symbol n (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) ratio, νMG ratio, νEG ratio, νME
(pcf)
(2) (3) (3) (4) (3)
1 Rainer Mesa Tmbt1 110.8 0.304 5833 1.17E+08 2.11 3479 4.16E+07 1.93 - - - - -
2 Tpki 95.5 0.400 5247 8.17E+07 1.46 3561 3.76E+07 1.01 6830 1.38E+08 0.31 0.09 0.36
(2) (3) (3) (3)
3 Tpki 98.9 0.378 5226 8.39E+07 1.96 3395 3.54E+07 1.48 - - - 0.18 -
(2) (3) (3) (3)
4 Tpki 108.5 0.318 5883 1.17E+08 2.28 3867 5.04E+07 1.53 - - - 0.16 -
TuffX
(2) (3) (3) (3)
5 Tpki 76.5 0.519 3063 2.23E+07 6.02 2240 1.19E+07 5.88 - - - -0.07 -
(2) (3) (3) (3)
6 Tpki 78.4 0.507 5928 8.56E+07 1.55 3813 3.54E+07 1.28 - - - 0.21 -
(1) (2) (3) (3) (3)
7 Tpki 76.7 0.518 3570 3.03E+07 - 2144 1.09E+07 5.48 - - - 0.39 -
(1) (2) (3) (3) (3)
8 Tpcrv 127.0 0.202 1660 1.09E+07 12.64 892 3.14E+06 - - - - 0.73 -
(2) (3) (3) (3)
9 Tpcrn 128.3 0.194 9014 3.24E+08 1.06 6035 1.45E+08 0.38 - - - 0.12 -
10 Tpcrn 118.5 0.255 7689 2.18E+08 0.68 5064 9.43E+07 0.71 8706 2.79E+08 0.24 0.15 0.28
11 Tpcrn 86.2 0.458 6696 1.20E+08 0.50 3804 3.88E+07 2.01 8046 1.73E+08 0.36 0.55 0.32
(2) (3) (3) (3)
12 Tpcrn 122.7 0.229 8785 2.94E+08 0.56 5953 1.35E+08 0.72 - - - 0.09 -
(2) (3) (3) (3)
13 Tpcpul 125.1 0.214 10565 4.34E+08 0.48 6913 1.86E+08 0.19 - - - 0.17 -
Tiva
Canyon (3) (3)
14 Tpcpul 123.6 0.223 9662 3.58E+08 0.33 6427 1.59E+08 0.26 8539 2.80E+08 - 0.13 -
15 Tpcpul 144.1 0.094 13796 8.52E+08 0.18 8954 3.59E+08 0.19 14427 9.32E+08 0.19 0.19 0.19
16 Tpcpul 139.3 0.124 11865 6.09E+08 0.16 7893 2.70E+08 0.12 12027 6.26E+08 0.12 0.13 0.11
(2) (3) (3) (3)
17 Tpcpul 127.8 0.197 9664 3.71E+08 0.40 6534 1.69E+08 0.47 - - - 0.09 -
(2) (3) (3) (3)
18 Tpcpmn 146.3 0.081 13907 8.79E+08 0.61 8962 3.65E+08 0.20 - - - 0.20 -
19 Tpcpln 145.5 0.085 13501 8.24E+08 0.10 8878 3.56E+08 0.13 13752 8.55E+08 0.14 0.16 0.13
Note: (1) Evaluation of the material damping ratio is skipped.

(2) Evaluation of Vp is skipped.
(3) The result is missed because of Vp missing.
(4) Evaulation of Poisson' ratio is skipped.
193
Tuff Specimens Tested in 2003 ~ 2006
Total Unit
Stratigrphic Stratigrphic SMF ID. Porosity, Vc Emax Dc min Vs Gmax Ds min Vp Mmax Poisson's Poisson's Poisson's
No. Weight, γt
Unit Symbol No. n (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) ratio, νMG ratio, νEG ratio, νME
(pcf)
1 Tmr 01026008 95.2 0.402 8245 2.01E+08 0.14 5388 8.58E+07 0.42 8575 2.17E+08 0.17 0.17 0.18
Rainier
Mesa
2 Tmr 01026043 80.5 0.494 2497 1.08E+05 7.59 1259 3.96E+06 6.35 3398 2.89E+07 0.42 0.97 0.38
3 TuffX 01025973 87.4 0.451 5636 5.99E+05 0.85 3618 3.55E+07 1.05 6683 1.21E+08 0.29 0.21 0.31
TuffX
4 TuffX 01025974 82.9 0.479 6033 9.37E+07 0.75 3719 3.56E+07 1.48 6629 1.13E+08 0.27 0.32 0.25
5 Tpcrn 01025975 112.7 0.292 7080 1.75E+08 0.54 4413 6.82E+07 2.09 8512 2.54E+08 0.32 0.29 0.32
6 Tpcrn 01025976 118.3 0.257 8672 2.76E+08 0.39 5844 1.25E+08 0.39 8901 2.91E+08 0.12 0.10 0.15
7 Tpcrn 01025984 108.7 0.317 5371 9.73E+07 0.96 3430 3.97E+07 1.03 6079 1.25E+08 0.27 0.23 0.28
8 Tpcrl 01025982 126.9 0.203 10035 3.97E+08 1.05 5911 1.38E+08 0.80 11972 5.65E+08 0.34 0.44 0.32
9 Tpcrl 01025985 120.9 0.240 4057 6.18E+07 1.68 2415 2.19E+07 3.52 5582 1.17E+08 0.38 0.41 0.38
10 Tpcpul 01025977 130.0 0.183 11410 5.25E+08 0.42 7019 1.99E+08 0.34 12376 6.18E+08 0.26 0.32 0.24
11 Tpcpul 01025978 132.5 0.167 12131 6.06E+08 0.29 7451 2.29E+08 0.30 12757 6.70E+08 0.24 0.33 0.20
12 Tpcpul 01025983 131.1 0.176 10962 4.89E+08 0.21 7037 2.02E+08 0.41 11475 5.36E+08 0.20 0.21 0.19
Tiva
Canyon
13 Tpcpmn 01025986 144.2 0.094 12569 7.07E+08 0.40 8739 3.42E+08 0.34 12597 7.10E+08 0.04 0.03 0.05
14 Tpcpmn 01025979 146.0 0.083 13870 8.72E+08 0.19 8974 3.65E+08 0.20 14356 9.34E+08 0.18 0.19 0.17
15 Tpcpll 01025980 121.6 0.236 7103 1.91E+08 0.21 4260 6.85E+07 0.36 9844 3.66E+08 0.38 0.39 0.38
16 Tpcpll 01025981 132.0 0.170 8367 2.87E+08 0.90 5026 1.04E+08 2.78 11307 5.24E+08 0.38 0.39 0.38
17 Tpcpln 01025996 145.5 0.086 13126 7.78E+08 0.16 8438 3.22E+08 0.21 13920 8.76E+08 0.21 0.21 0.21
18 Tpcpln 01025987 143.4 0.099 14193 8.97E+08 0.12 9416 3.95E+08 0.16 14457 9.31E+08 0.13 0.14 0.13
19 Tpcpv 01025998 88.9 0.441 8039 1.78E+08 0.43 5273 7.67E+07 0.73 8460 1.98E+08 0.18 0.16 0.20
20 Tpcpv 01025997 118.2 0.257 -* -+ - * -* -+ - * 9393 3.24E+08 -+ -+ -+
21 Tpy 01026001 103.1 0.352 4839 7.50E+07 0.47 3249 3.38E+07 0.72 5256 8.85E+07 0.19 0.11 0.24
22 Tpy 01026002 89.6 0.437 6860 1.31E+08 0.50 4595 5.88E+07 0.73 7024 1.37E+08 0.13 0.11 0.14
23 Tpy 01026732 94.8 0.404 7523 2.40E+10 1.24 4457 8.42E+09 2.37 7911 2.65E+10 0.27 0.42 0.20
Yucca
24 Tpbt3 01025999 85.5 0.463 4882 6.33E+07 1.10 3087 2.53E+07 1.35 5582 8.27E+07 0.28 0.25 0.29
Mountain
25 Tpbt3 01026004 80.5 0.494 5608 7.86E+07 0.65 3519 3.09E+07 0.77 6600 1.09E+08 0.30 0.27 0.31
26 Tpbt3(c) 01026734 79.1 0.503 3985 5.62E+09 1.88 2753 2.68E+09 2.29 4896 8.48E+09 0.27 0.05 0.33
27 Tpbt3(d) 01026733 97.0 0.390 6514 1.84E+10 0.85 4050 7.12E+09 0.99 7168 2.23E+10 0.27 0.29 0.25
28 Tpp 01026006 69.2 0.565 4825 5.00E+07 0.56 3004 1.94E+07 0.82 5277 5.98E+07 0.26 0.29 0.25
29 Tpp 01026005 72.9 0.542 6453 9.43E+07 0.37 4163 3.92E+07 0.49 7244 1.19E+08 0.25 0.20 0.27
Pah
30 Tpp 01026735 76.7 0.518 5519 1.04E+10 0.68 3821 5.01E+09 0.82 5559 1.06E+10 0.05 0.04 0.08
Canyon
31 Tpbt2 01026000 66.3 0.583 4011 3.31E+07 0.69 2579 1.37E+07 0.75 4289 3.79E+07 0.22 0.21 0.22
32 Tpbt2 01026003 65.3 0.590 3281 2.18E+07 2.55 2069 8.68E+06 5.33 3911 3.10E+07 0.31 0.26 0.32
33 Tptrn 01025864 126.7 0.204 5551 1.21E+08 0.66 3367 4.46E+07 1.90 7629 2.29E+08 0.38 0.36 0.38
34 Tptrn 01025886 139.5 0.123 10986 5.23E+08 0.25 6663 1.92E+08 0.24 11351 5.58E+08 0.24 0.36 0.16
Topopah
Spring
35 Tptrn 01025887 136.1 0.145 10010 4.23E+08 0.33 6440 1.75E+08 0.33 10909 5.03E+08 0.23 0.21 0.24
36 Tptrn 01025862 131.6 0.173 10951 4.90E+08 0.16 7248 2.15E+08 0.30 11117 5.05E+08 0.13 0.14 0.11
Note: * Data of Vc, Vs, Dc min,and Ds min are missed because the specimen is broken before Vc, Vs measurements.
+ Data is missed because of Vc, Vs missing
194
Tuff Specimens Tested in 2003 ~ 2006 (Continued)
Total Unit
No Weight, γt
(pcf)
37 Tptrn 01025863 128.6 0.192 8852 3.13E+08 0.44 5807 1.35E+08 0.37 9648 3.72E+08 0.22 0.16 0.24
38 Tptrn 01025895 137.5 0.136 10020 4.29E+08 0.43 6637 1.88E+08 0.43 10638 4.83E+08 0.18 0.14 0.21
39 Tptrn 01025897 131.5 0.173 9515 3.70E+08 0.29 6257 1.60E+08 0.31 9995 4.08E+08 0.18 0.16 0.19
40 Tptrl 01025902 131.6 0.173 7131 2.08E+08 0.95 3686 5.55E+07 1.33 7317 2.19E+08 0.33 0.87 0.15
41 Tptrl 01025901 122.1 0.233 7197 1.96E+08 0.35 3973 5.99E+07 0.59 9027 3.09E+08 0.38 0.64 0.35
42 Tptpul 01025865 118.4 0.256 8996 2.98E+08 0.40 5507 1.12E+08 0.85 10499 4.05E+08 0.31 0.33 0.30
43 Tptpul 01025866 117.7 0.261 8715 2.78E+08 0.49 5299 1.03E+08 0.72 10269 3.85E+08 0.32 0.35 0.31
44 Tptpul 01025867 133.2 0.163 12307 6.26E+08 0.39 7620 2.40E+08 0.48 12759 6.73E+08 0.22 0.30 0.17
45 Tptpul 01025868 133.9 0.158 11459 5.46E+08 0.30 7319 2.23E+08 0.52 12577 6.58E+08 0.24 0.23 0.25
46 Tptpul 01025904 135.1 0.151 11872 5.91E+08 0.47 7321 2.25E+08 2.11 12626 6.69E+08 0.25 0.31 0.21
47 Tptpul 01025905 136.6 0.142 10880 5.02E+08 0.45 6998 2.08E+08 0.49 12870 7.03E+08 0.29 0.21 0.31
48 Tptpul 01025888 112.7 0.292 8220 2.37E+08 0.64 5038 8.88E+07 1.10 10397 3.78E+08 0.35 0.33 0.35
49 Tptpul 01025889 108.6 0.318 6917 1.61E+08 0.79 4067 5.58E+07 1.49 9167 2.83E+08 0.38 0.45 0.37
50 Tptpul 01037510 103.7 0.348 7767 1.94E+08 1.05 5141 8.51E+07 1.24 11595 4.33E+08 0.38 0.14 0.40
51 Tptpul 01037508 113.0 0.290 7974 2.23E+08 1.25 5210 9.53E+07 1.53 10025 3.53E+08 0.32 0.17 0.35
52 Tptpul 01037512 108.9 0.315 7376 1.84E+08 0.68 5080 8.73E+07 1.03 10505 3.73E+08 0.35 0.05 0.39
53 Tptpul 01031164 111.6 0.299 9572 3.18E+08 0.34 5960 1.23E+08 0.30 11583 4.65E+08 0.32 0.29 0.33
54 Tptpmn 01025908 141.8 0.109 12948 7.38E+08 0.19 8766 3.38E+08 0.22 13178 7.65E+08 0.10 0.09 0.12
55 Tptpmn 01025909 142.6 0.104 13507 8.08E+08 0.18 8928 3.53E+08 0.19 13756 8.38E+08 0.14 0.14 0.13
Topopah
Spring
56 Tptpmn 01025910 144.0 0.095 13551 8.21E+08 0.15 8756 3.43E+08 0.37 13914 8.66E+08 0.17 0.20 0.15
57 Tptpmn 01025906 140.6 0.116 12918 7.29E+08 0.41 8682 3.29E+08 0.28 13171 7.57E+08 0.12 0.11 0.13
58 Tptpmn 01025907 139.8 0.121 12990 7.33E+08 0.20 8724 3.31E+08 0.22 13104 7.46E+08 0.10 0.11 0.09
59 Tptpmn 01025938 142.8 0.102 13497 8.08E+08 0.27 8958 3.56E+08 0.17 13689 8.31E+08 0.13 0.13 0.11
60 Tptpmn 01025869 142.4 0.105 13256 7.77E+08 0.24 8830 3.45E+08 0.24 13399 7.94E+08 0.12 0.13 0.10
61 Tptpmn 01025871 143.0 0.101 13097 7.62E+08 0.22 8595 3.28E+08 0.30 13798 8.46E+08 0.18 0.16 0.20
62 Tptpmn 01031166 143.6 0.097 14043 8.80E+08 0.09 9127 3.71E+08 0.08 14548 9.44E+08 0.18 0.18 0.17
63 Tptpll 01025913 133.4 0.161 9706 3.90E+08 0.42 6539 1.77E+08 0.38 9824 4.00E+08 0.10 0.10 0.10
64 Tptpll 01025912 138.8 0.128 9190 3.64E+08 0.75 6103 1.61E+08 0.78 11734 5.93E+08 0.31 0.13 0.35
65 Tptpll 01025914 131.5 0.173 8985 3.30E+08 0.26 6526 1.74E+08 0.39 11348 5.26E+08 0.25 -0.05 0.35
66 Tptpll 01025873 139.5 0.123 11699 5.93E+08 0.37 7482 2.43E+08 0.41 12239 6.49E+08 0.20 0.22 0.19
67 Tptpll 01025872 142.8 0.103 10537 4.92E+08 0.49 6112 1.66E+08 0.73 12065 6.45E+08 0.33 0.49 0.29
68 Tptpll 01025923 135.1 0.151 6322 1.68E+08 1.57 4164 7.27E+07 0.85 8783 3.24E+08 0.36 0.15 0.38
69 Tptpll 01025925 127.4 0.200 12151 5.84E+08 0.56 7110 2.00E+08 0.58 12329 6.01E+08 0.25 0.46 0.11
70 Tptpll 01025926 125.3 0.213 10462 4.26E+08 0.86 6862 1.83E+08 1.29 10463 4.26E+08 0.12 0.16 0.01
71 Tptpll 01025924 142.0 0.108 3623 5.79E+07 2.96 2231 2.20E+07 3.66 6019 1.60E+08 0.42 0.32 0.43
72 Tptpln 01025915 145.0 0.089 13984 8.81E+08 0.14 9163 3.78E+08 0.18 14449 9.40E+08 0.16 0.16 0.16
73 Tptpln 01025916 144.0 0.095 14164 8.97E+08 0.22 9222 3.80E+08 0.17 14605 9.54E+08 0.17 0.18 0.16
74 Tptpln 01025917 143.5 0.098 13915 8.63E+08 0.18 9110 3.70E+08 0.21 14300 9.11E+08 0.16 0.17 0.15
195
Total Unit
No Weight, γt
(pcf)
75 Tptpln 01025918 144.8 0.090 13817 8.59E+08 0.28 9003 3.65E+08 0.19 14105 8.95E+08 0.16 0.18 0.13
76 Tptpln 01025919 145.9 0.083 13572 8.35E+08 0.27 8652 3.39E+08 0.22 14112 9.02E+08 0.20 0.23 0.18
77 Tptpln 01025876 145.9 0.083 12773 7.39E+08 0.46 7373 2.46E+08 0.93 13879 8.73E+08 0.30 0.50 0.24
78 Tptpln 01025874 143.9 0.096 12395 6.87E+08 0.29 7983 2.85E+08 0.29 13290 7.89E+08 0.22 0.21 0.22
79 Tptpln 01025875 145.4 0.086 12876 7.48E+08 0.38 8760 3.46E+08 0.31 12968 7.59E+08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Topopah
Spring
80 Tptpv1 01025903 118.7 0.254 8999 2.99E+08 0.84 5852 1.26E+08 0.80 9624 3.41E+08 0.21 0.18 0.22
81 Tptpv3 01025877 141.5 0.111 9922 4.33E+08 0.76 6303 1.75E+08 0.74 11812 6.13E+08 0.30 0.24 0.32
82 Tptpv3 01025879 134.2 0.156 9246 3.56E+08 0.57 5817 1.41E+08 0.41 11970 5.97E+08 0.35 0.26 0.36
83 Tptpv3 01026724 140.7 0.116 9045 5.15E+10 3.07 6324 2.52E+10 1.91 11292 8.02E+10 0.27 0.02 0.34
84 Tptpv/v 01026725 95.0 0.403 2553 2.77E+09 3.70 1770 1.33E+09 3.66 2998 3.82E+09 0.23 0.04 0.31
85 Tac (Dev.) 01025929 100.7 0.367 4739 7.02E+07 2.19 2932 2.69E+07 2.05 6061 1.15E+08 0.35 0.31 0.35
86 Tac (Dev.) 01025883 97.7 0.386 6417 1.25E+08 0.69 4218 5.40E+07 0.51 6753 1.38E+08 0.18 0.16 0.20
87 Tac (Dev.) 01025884 109.5 0.312 9254 2.91E+08 0.48 5983 1.22E+08 0.45 9727 3.22E+08 0.20 0.20 0.20
88 Tac (Dev.) 01025881 99.5 0.375 7291 1.64E+08 0.48 4787 7.08E+07 0.52 8324 2.14E+08 0.25 0.16 0.29
89 Tac (Dev.) 01025882 103.4 0.350 6137 1.21E+08 0.46 4143 5.51E+07 0.55 6428 1.33E+08 0.14 0.10 0.19
Calico
Hills
90 Tac (Vit.) 01025891 88.4 0.444 8426 1.95E+08 0.44 5589 8.58E+07 0.54 8699 2.08E+08 0.15 0.14 0.16
91 Tac (Vit.) 01025892 87.5 0.450 7675 1.60E+08 0.49 5016 6.84E+07 0.88 8107 1.79E+08 0.19 0.17 0.20
92 Tac (Vit.) 01025898 86.4 0.457 3737 3.75E+07 1.88 1885 9.53E+06 6.36 4157 4.63E+07 0.37 0.97 0.27
93 Tac (Vit.) 01025935 90.5 0.431 8009 1.80E+08 0.61 5317 7.94E+07 0.49 8506 2.03E+08 0.18 0.13 0.21
94 Tac (Vit.) 01025890 90.8 0.429 9044 2.31E+08 0.39 5901 9.82E+07 0.42 9708 2.66E+08 0.21 0.17 0.23
95 Tcp 01025894 111.4 0.300 8969 2.78E+08 0.55 5660 1.11E+08 0.66 9494 3.12E+08 0.22 0.26 0.21
96 Tcp 01025933 108.7 0.317 9103 2.80E+08 0.51 6014 1.22E+08 0.71 9368 2.96E+08 0.15 0.15 0.15
97 Tcp 01025900 102.2 0.357 6444 1.32E+08 0.67 4117 5.38E+07 0.68 7192 1.64E+08 0.26 0.22 0.27
98 Tcp 01025920 118.3 0.257 8936 2.93E+08 0.41 5732 1.21E+08 0.73 9172 3.09E+08 0.18 0.21 0.15
99 Tcp 01025921 122.2 0.232 9942 3.75E+08 0.29 6717 1.71E+08 0.60 10073 3.85E+08 0.10 0.10 0.11
100 Tcp 01025893 105.4 0.337 7022 1.61E+08 0.44 4413 6.37E+07 0.60 7455 1.82E+08 0.23 0.27 0.21
101 Tcp 01025899 111.5 0.299 6554 1.49E+08 0.56 4174 6.03E+07 0.72 6951 1.67E+08 0.22 0.23 0.21
102 Tcp 01025931 111.1 0.302 6988 1.68E+08 0.37 4513 7.03E+07 0.42 7222 1.80E+08 0.18 0.20 0.16
103 Prow Tcp 01025932 106.8 0.329 6986 1.62E+08 0.55 4433 6.52E+07 0.55 7602 1.92E+08 0.24 0.24 0.24
Pass
104 Tcp 01025885 113.3 0.288 8399 2.48E+08 0.27 5600 1.10E+08 0.25 8616 2.61E+08 0.13 0.12 0.15
105 Tcpuc 01026705 103.0 0.353 7592 2.65E+10 0.33 4714 1.02E+10 0.48 8154 3.06E+10 0.25 0.30 0.23
106 Tcpuc 01026726 112.6 0.292 7358 2.73E+10 0.47 4740 1.13E+10 0.49 7808 3.07E+10 0.21 0.20 0.21
107 Tcpm 01026738 138.7 0.128 12718 1.00E+11 0.33 8147 4.12E+10 1.14 13290 1.10E+11 0.20 0.22 0.19
108 Tcpm 01026706 130.3 0.181 10666 6.63E+10 0.25 6920 2.79E+10 0.33 11244 7.37E+10 0.20 0.19 0.20
109 Tcpm 01026721 123.7 0.222 10344 5.92E+10 0.34 6644 2.44E+10 0.44 10653 6.28E+10 0.18 0.21 0.16
110 Tcpm 01026707 142.3 0.106 11695 8.70E+10 0.38 7756 3.83E+10 0.38 11943 9.08E+10 0.14 0.14 0.13
111 Tcpm 01026727 120.1 0.245 8635 4.01E+10 0.55 5198 1.45E+10 0.69 8837 4.19E+10 0.24 0.38 0.14
112 Tcpm 01026728 133.4 0.162 9717 5.63E+10 0.71 5997 2.14E+10 0.69 10621 6.73E+10 0.27 0.31 0.25
196
Total Unit
No Weight, γt
(pcf)
113 Tcplv(z) 01026729 104.1 0.346 7244 2.44E+10 0.63 4764 1.06E+10 0.58 7426 2.57E+10 0.15 0.16 0.14
114 Tcplv(z) 01026708 122.3 0.231 8533 3.98E+10 0.70 4944 1.34E+10 0.72 10402 5.92E+10 0.35 0.49 0.33
Prow
Pass
115 Tcplv(z) 01026722 107.6 0.324 7926 3.02E+10 0.54 5434 1.42E+10 0.53 8627 3.58E+10 0.17 0.06 0.24
116 Tcpbt 01026730 113.7 0.286 8004 3.26E+10 0.75 5475 1.52E+10 0.86 8052 3.30E+10 0.07 0.07 0.07
117 Tcb 01025988 122.6 0.229 8713 2.89E+08 0.47 5762 1.26E+08 0.65 9083 3.14E+08 0.16 0.14 0.18
118 Tcb 01025993 139.1 0.126 12222 6.45E+08 0.30 7674 2.54E+08 0.54 12753 7.03E+08 0.22 0.27 0.18
119 Tcb 01025994 147.6 0.073 12922 7.65E+08 0.39 8557 3.36E+08 0.30 13384 8.21E+08 0.15 0.14 0.17
120 Tcb 01025995 136.3 0.143 10631 4.78E+08 0.57 6858 1.99E+08 0.81 11807 5.90E+08 0.25 0.20 0.26
121 Tcb 01026007 101.8 0.360 7597 1.82E+08 0.33 5087 8.18E+07 0.36 7986 2.02E+08 0.16 0.12 0.20
122 Tcbm 01026709 142.7 0.103 12361 9.75E+10 0.32 8130 4.22E+10 0.31 12682 1.03E+11 0.15 0.16 0.15
123 Bull Tcbm 01026710 146.4 0.080 13213 1.14E+11 0.24 8636 4.88E+10 1.18 13678 1.22E+11 0.17 0.17 0.17
Frog
124 Tcbuv 01026731 115.8 0.272 9049 4.24E+10 0.63 6080 1.91E+10 0.65 9204 4.39E+10 0.11 0.11 0.12
125 Tcblv(z) 01026711 121.1 0.239 5149 1.44E+10 2.39 3560 6.86E+09 3.00 8058 3.52E+10 0.38 0.05 0.42
126 Tcblv(z) 01026713 103.8 0.348 5142 1.23E+10 0.93 3239 4.87E+09 1.82 7829 2.85E+10 0.40 0.26 0.41
127 Tcblv(z) 01026712 117.3 0.263 3849 7.77E+09 2.79 2605 3.56E+09 6.52 7685 3.10E+10 0.44 0.09 0.45
128 Tcblc 01026760 136.2 0.144 11813 8.50E+10 0.26 7645 3.56E+10 0.34 12351 9.29E+10 0.19 0.19 0.19
129 Tcbbt(z) 01026715 129.8 0.184 10895 6.89E+10 0.58 7047 2.88E+10 0.69 11289 7.40E+10 0.18 0.20 0.17
130 Tcbbt(z) 01026714 117.6 0.261 10609 5.92E+10 0.54 6805 2.43E+10 0.51 11031 6.40E+10 0.19 0.22 0.18
131 Tct 01025989 109.7 0.311 8661 2.56E+08 0.76 5670 1.10E+08 0.76 9136 2.84E+08 0.19 0.17 0.20
132 Tct 01025990 105.7 0.336 8089 2.15E+08 0.63 5065 8.42E+07 2.68 8727 2.50E+08 0.25 0.28 0.23
133 Tram Tct 01025991 99.9 0.372 8221 2.10E+08 0.38 5190 8.35E+07 0.67 9073 2.55E+08 0.26 0.25 0.26
134 Tct 01025992 102.3 0.357 8123 2.10E+08 0.36 5191 8.56E+07 0.60 8541 2.32E+08 0.21 0.22 0.20
135 Tctuv(z) 01026716 109.0 0.315 7118 2.47E+10 1.98 4457 9.68E+09 2.08 8235 3.31E+10 0.29 0.28 0.30
Poisson’s ratios can be computed by using the measured shear modulus (Gmax),
unconstrained Young’s modulus (Emax) and constrained modulus (Mmax). Two values out
of the three moduli are necessary to calculate Poisson’s ratio based on an isotropic-
material assumption. Hence, three values of Poisson’s ratio can be calculated according
to the combination of the three moduli as follows:
M max − 2G max
ν MG = , (6.3)
2(M max − G max )
197
E max − 2G max
ν EG = , and (6.4)
2G max
M max − E max + 9M max

2
+ E max
2
− 10 M max E max
ν ME = . (6.5)
5M max − E max + 9M 2
max
+E 2
max
− 10 M max E max
Out of the three values of Poisson’s ratio, the values of νMG exhibited the most
consistent values, with values ranging between 0.1 and 0.4. In addition, Poisson’s ratios,
derived from Vp and Vs, are preferred in earthquake design because seismic waves due
to earthquake are P- and S-wave. For this reason, νMG was selected to represent the values
of Poisson’s ratio of the tuff specimens. νMG are presented as the representative values of
Poisson’s ratio of the test specimens in Table 6.2 and 6.3.
6.4 SEISMIC WAVE VELOCITIES (VP, VC AND VS) AND MODULI (MMAX, EMAX AND GMAX)
6.4.1 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Total Unit Weights
The general relationship between shear wave velocity (Vs) and total unit weight is
shown in Figure 6.4. Clearly, there is a strong trend, with Vs decreasing as γt decreases.
The least squares best fitting line through the data is shown by the solid line in Figure 6.4.
Much of variability in the trend is thought to arise from “flaws” (cracks, lithophysae, etc)
that affect the small strain-strain shear stiffness, hence shear wave velocity, of the core.
Similar relationships between unconstrained compression wave velocity (Vc) and
constrained compression wave velocity (Vp) versus γt are shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6,
respectively. Just as with Vs, Vc and Vp show the same strong trend of Vc and Vp
decreasing as γt decreases. The best fitting lines in these relationships are slightly better
(higher R value) than the best fitting line in Figure 6.4. It is interesting to note that the
best correlation (R2=0.725) occurred in the Vp-γt relationship.
198
3
Total Unit Weight, γt , kN/m
10 15 20 25
16000
Geologic Unit
Tmr 149 Specimens
Tpcrn Five outlier specimens not plotted
Tpki
Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test, Vs, m/sec

Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test, Vs, ft/sec
14000 Tpcrl
Tpcpul (One Tpcpv, One Tptrn, Two Tptpll,
Tpcpll One Tpcrv)
Tpcpmn 4000
Tpcpv
Tpcpln Best Fit Line:
Tpbt3
12000 Tpy Vs = 736 * exp(0.0169*γt)
Tpbt2
Tpp 2
(R = 0.654)
Tptrl
Tptrn
Tptpmn
Tptpul
Tptpln
10000 Tptpll 3000
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
8000 Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb 2000
6000 Tcbbt
Tct
4000
1000
2000 Note :
Unconfined Tests
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Total Unit Weight, γt , pcf
Figure 6.4 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with Total Unit Weight of 149 Tuff
Specimens
199
3
10 15 20 25
16000
Geologic Unit Best Fit Line:
Tmr Vc = 1323 * exp(0.0158*γt)
Tpcrn
Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity, Vc, m/sec

Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity, Vc, ft/sec
Tpki 2
(R = 0.684)
14000 Tpcpul
Tpcrl
Tpcpll
Tpcpmn
Tpcpv 4000
Tpcpln
Tpbt3
12000 Tpy
Tpbt2
Tpp
Tptrl
Tptrn
Tptpmn
Tptpul
Tptpln
10000 Tptpll 3000
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
8000
Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb 2000
6000 Tcbbt
Tct
4000
1000
149 Specimens
2000 Five outlier specimens not plotted
Note : (One Tptrn, Two Tptpll, One Tpcrv
Unconfined Tests One Tpcpv)
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 6.5 Variation of Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity with Total Unit
Weight of 149 Tuff Specimens
200
3
10 15 20 25
16000
Geologic Unit Best Fit Line:
Tmr Vp = 1933 * exp(0.0134*γt)
Tpcrn
Tpki
Constrained Compression Wave Velocity, Vp, m/sec

2
Constrained Compression Wave Velocity, Vp, ft/sec
14000 Tpcpul (R = 0.725)

Tpcrl
Tpcpll
Tpcpmn 4000
Tpcpv
Tpcpln
Tpbt3
12000 Tpy
Tpbt2
Tpp
Tptrl
Tptrn
Tptpmn
Tptpul
Tptpln
10000 Tptpll 3000
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
8000 Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb 2000
6000 Tcbbt
Tct
4000 Note :
Unconfined Tests
1000
139 Specimens
2000 15 outlier specimens not plotted
(One Tmr, Five TuffX, One Tpcrv, Two Tpcrn,
Two Tpcpul, One Tpcpmn, One Tptrn, Two Tptpll)
0 0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 6.6 Variation of Constrained Compression Wave Velocity with Total Unit
Weight of 139 Tuff Specimens
201
The general relationships of the tuff specimens between total unit weight and Vs,
Vc or Vp can be described by the following equations, which are expressed by the
exponential least squares fitting:
γt – Vs : V s = 736 ⋅ exp(0.0169 γ ) (R2=0.654) (6.7)
t
γt – Vc : V c = 1323 ⋅ exp(0.0158 γ ) (R2=0.684) (6.8)

t
γt – Vp : V p = 1933 ⋅ exp(0.0134 γ ) (R2=0.725) (6.9)

t
where: Vs is the shear wave velocity (fps),

Vc is the unconstrained compression wave velocity (fps),
Vp is the constrained compression wave velocity (fps), and
γt is total unit weight (pcf).
The welded nonlithophysal tuffs are presented with red-colored dots in the figures.
The welded lithophysal tuffs are colored with black. The moderately welded tuffs are
described with cyan colored dots, and the nonwelded tuffs are discriminated by coloring
them with green color. These colors for each sub-group are applied consistently in all
figures through the chapter 6.
Three specimens, one Tptrn and two Tptpll which were tested in 2003 ~ 2006,
were excluded from the data set as outliers in evaluating the general trends in Vs, Vc and
Vp with γt. These three specimens were not used when determining the fitting lines
because they had significant flaws as shown in Figure 6.7. The flaws such as cracks,
joints and fractures could be clearly detected in the specimen and these flaws caused the
specimens to have abnormal seismic wave velocities. Additionally, a Tpcrv specimen,
which was tested in 2002, was excluded in evaluating the general trend of Vs and Vc
because the test results are too isolated from the general trend. One data set of Vs and Vc
tests of Tpcpv in 2003 ~ 2006, was not in the data set because the data were missing due
202
to skipped Vs and Vc tests. Similarly, 12 data from Vp of 2002 were also missing due to
skipped Vp tests. The number of outliers and their reasons are presented in Table 6.4
Table 6.4 Summary of Outlier Specimens in Description of General Trend of Seismic

Wave Velocities
Number of Outliers
Reason
Vs Vc Vp
Flaws of specimen 3 3 3
Too isolated result 1 1 -

Data missing due to
1 1 12
skipped test
Total 5 5 15
Big
(a) (b) (c)
Crack
Detecte
SMF ID.: 01025864 SMF ID.: 01025923 SMF ID.: 01025924

Stratigraphic Unit: Tptrn Stratigraphic Unit: Tptpll Stratigraphic Unit: Tptpll
Borehole: USW UZ-14 Borehole: ECRB-GTEC- Borehole: ECRB-GTEC-
Depth: 367.6 – 368.3 ft CS1922-02 CS1922-03
Depth: 10.8 – 11.3 ft Depth: 7.2 – 7.9 ft
Figure 6.7 Photograph of the Specimens Left off in the Description of General Trend of
Seismic Wave Velocities
203
6.4.2 General Relationships between Moduli and Total Unit Weight
Since the small-strain moduli are equal to the total unit weight times the squares
of the associated wave velocity, the small-strain moduli (shear, Young’s modulus and
constrained modulus) show the same trend of increasing moduli with increasing total unit
weight as exhibited by the seismic wave velocities.
6.4.3 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Porosities
The seismic wave velocities are re-organized and shown again in Figures 6.8
through 6.10 in terms of the variation of wave velocity with porosity (n) because porosity
is a more common property used to represent the physical state of rock specimens in rock
mechanics. Porosity, n, is defined as the ratio of the void volume, Vv, to the total volume,
VT, of the specimen as: n = Vv/VT. In geotechnical engineering, void ratio, e, is
commonly used to represent the amount of void space in a specimen. The void ratio (e) is
defined as the ratio of the void volume to the solid volume, Vs, of the specimen as: e =
Vv/Vs. The porosity and void ratio are related as shown in Equation 6.1 and the void ratio
is related with the total unit weight (γt) of the specimen by Equation 6.2. Therefore,
porosity can be calculated from the total unit weight under the two assumptions used in
this investigation. The first assumption is that the specific gravity (Gs) of the solids
portion of the tuff specimen is 2.55. The second assumption is that the water contents (w)
of all tuff specimens are nearly zero for all tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain as
previously stated in section 6.3.
The general relationship between Vs and porosity is shown in Figure 6.8. The
general relationships between Vc and Vp versus n are shown in Figures 6.9 and 6.10,
respectively. There is a strong trend with seismic wave velocity decreasing as porosity
increases. The least squares best fitting curves through the data represent the general
204
relationship in each figure. The trends are opposite to those shown in Figures 6.4 through
6.6 because γt and n are inversely proportional. The general relationships of tuff
specimens between porosity versus Vs, Vc or Vp are described by the following equations,
which were determined by the exponential least squares fitting:
n – Vs : V s = 10831 ⋅ exp(-2.679 ⋅ n) (R2 = 0.654) (6.10)
n – Vc : V c = 16330 ⋅ exp(-2.499⋅ n) (R2 = 0.684) (6.11)
n – Vp : V p = 16298 ⋅ exp(-2.132⋅ n) (R2 = 0.725) (6.12)

n is porosity (dimensionless).
6.4.4 General Relationships between Moduli and Porosity
Since the small-strain moduli are equal to the total unit weight times the squares
of the associated wave velocity, the small-strain moduli (shear, Young’s modulus and
constrained modulus) show the same trend of increasing moduli with decreasing porosity
as exhibited by the seismic wave velocities.
6.4.5 General Relationships between Wave Velocities and Poisson’s ratios
As previously stated, three values of Poisson’s ratios can be calculated by using

two moduli out of three moduli (Mmax, Emax, Gmax). Out of three values of Poisson’s ratio,
νMG was selected to represent Poisson’s ratio of the tuff specimens.
205
Porosity (Decimal)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

16000
Geologic Unit
149 Specimens
Five outlier specimens not plotted Tpcrn Tmr
Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test, Vs, m/sec

Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test, Vs, ft/sec
14000 (One Tpcpv, One Tptrn, Two Tptpll, Tpcpul Tpki

One Tpcrv) Tpcpll Tpcrl
Tpcpv 4000
Note : Tpcpmn
Tpbt3 Tpcpln
12000 Unconfined Tests
Tpbt2 Tpy
Tptrl Tpp
Tptpmn Tptrn
Tptpln Tptpul
10000 3000
Tptpll
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
8000 Tac(Vitric)
Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb
2000
6000 Tcbbt
Tct
4000
1000
2000
Best Fit Line: Vs = 10831 * exp(-2.679*n)
2
(R = 0.654)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Porosity (Decimal)
Figure 6.8 Variation of Shear Wave Velocity with Porosity of 149 Tuff Specimens
206
Porosity (Decimal)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

16000
Geologic Unit
Note : Tpcrn Tmr

Unconfined Tests Tpcpul Tpki

14000
Tpcpll Tpcrl
Tpcpv Tpcpmn 4000
Tpbt3 Tpcpln
12000 Tpbt2 Tpy
Tptrl Tpp
Tptpmn Tptrn
Tptpln Tptpul
10000 Tptpll 3000
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
8000
Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb 2000
6000 Tcbbt
Tct
4000
149 Specimens
Five outlier specimens not plotted 1000
(One Tpcpv, One Tptrn, Two Tptpll,
One Tpcrv)
2000
Best Fit Line: Vc = 16330 * exp(-2.499*n)
2
(R = 0.684)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Porosity (Decimal)
Figure 6.9 Variation of Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity of

149 Tuff Specimens
207
Porosity (Decimal)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

16000
Geologic Unit
Tpcrn
Tmr

14000 Tpcpul
Tpki
Tpcpll
Tpcrl 4000
Tpcpv
Tpcpmn
Tpbt3
12000 Tpcpln
Tpbt2
Tpy
Tptrl
Tpp
Tptpmn
Tptrn
Tptpln
10000 Tptpul 3000
Tptpll
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
8000 Tac(Vitric)
Tcp
Tcpbt 2000
6000 Tcb
Tcbbt
Note : Tct
Unconfined Tests
4000
139 Specimens
15 outlier specimens not plotted 1000
(One Tmr, Five TuffX, One Tpcrv, Two Tpcrn,
2000 Two Tpcpul, One Tpcpmn, One Tptrn, Two Tptpll)
Best Fit Line: Vc = 16298 * exp(-2.132*n)
2
(R = 0.725)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Porosity (Decimal)
Figure 6.10 Variation of Constrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity of 139
Tuff Specimens
208
Figures 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13 show the general trend between the Poisson’s ratio
and the seismic wave velocities. Seventeen specimens were left out of the correlation for
the same reasons as discussed in Section 6.4.1 concerning the general relationship
between seismic wave velocities and total unit weights. As seen, there is significant
scatter in this relationship, especially shown by the correlation coefficients (R-squared
values) are 0.0935 (constrained compression wave velocity versus Poisson’s ratio), 0.261
(unconstrained compression wave velocity versus Poisson’s ratio) and 0.338 (shear wave
velocity versus Poisson’s ratio). Vs shows best correlation with Poisson’s ratio. Vc shows
next good correlation. Vp shows worst correlation with Poisson’s ratio. The possible
reason of this trend is that Poisson’s ratio, Vs, and Vc are similarly affected by internal
flaws such as cracks and joints while Vp is less affected by internal flaws. Although
Poisson’s ratios are significantly scattered, nearly all of them are between 0.1 and 0.4.
The results in the figures show a weak correlation between ν and Vp, Vc or Vs with the
values of Poisson’s ratio decreasing as the seismic wave velocities increase. As a matter
of interest, the average value of Poisson’s ratio is 0.23 and the standard deviation is 0.09
based on a normal distribution. The median value of Poisson’s ratios is 0.22 which is
close to average value. Hence, the value of 0.23 is determined as representative Poisson’s
ratio of tuff specimens from Yucca Mountain. The general relationships of tuff specimens
between Poisson’s ratios and Vs, Vc or Vp can be described by the following equations,
which were determined through the linear least-squares fitting:
Vs - ν: ν = −2.507 * 10 -5 * V s + 0.374 (R2 = 0.338) (6.13)
Vc - ν: ν = −1.465 * 10 -5 * V c + 0.361 (R2 = 0.261) (6.14)
Vp - ν: ν = −9.147 *10 - 6 * V p + 0.374 (R2 = 0.0935) (6.15)

209
ν is Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless).
6.5 MATERIAL DAMPING RATIO (DC MIN AND DS MIN)
6.5.1 General Relationships of Dc min and Ds min versus Vc, Vs, γt, and Porosity
The general relationships between material damping ratio in shear (Ds min) and
shear wave velocity (Vs), total unit weight (γt) and porosity (n) are shown in Figures 6.14,
6.15 and 6.16, respectively. The general relationships between material damping ratio in
unconstrained compression (Dc min) and unconstrained compression wave velocity (Vc),
total unit weight and porosity are shown in Figures 6.17, 6.18 and 6.19, respectively.
Both shear and unconstrained compression wave velocities and total unit weight show
similar trends, with material damping ratio decreasing as seismic wave velocity and total
unit weight increases.
The general trends of material damping ratio decreasing as seismic wave velocity
increases shows a much stronger correlation than the general trends with total unit weight.
The reason for this seems to be that material damping ratio and seismic wave velocity are
both more similarly affected by voids and cracks. However, total unit weight is relatively
less affected by voids (which are relatively small in the specimens) and much less
affected by cracks.
The porosity is estimated in the same way as presented in Section 6.3. The trends
shown in Figure 6.16 and Figure 6.19 are opposite to those shown in Figure 6.15 and
Figure 6.18 because γt and n are inversely proportional.
In previous Section 6.4.1, five specimens were removed for consideration in
developing the general relationship of Vs-γt and Vc-γt. With the same reason, the five
210
specimens were also removed in developing the general relationship of material damping
ratio with other parameters. In addition, four more specimens (one Tmr, one Tpbt2, one
Tptpul, and one Tac) were eliminated due to their internal flaws as shown in Figure 6.20
in developing the general relationship of material damping ratio. The number of outlier
specimens increased because material damping ratio seems to be more sensitive to flaws
in the specimens than seismic wave velocities. As a result, total of nine specimens were
deleted from the database used to develop general trend of material damping ratio in
shear. One more specimen (Tuff X) was left out due to missing damping ratio
measurement for material damping in unconstrained compression. The summary of
outlier specimens in description of general trend of material damping ratios are listed in
Table 6.5. Hence, 145 data were used for material damping ratio in shear and 144 data
were used for material damping ratio in unconstrained compression.
Table 6.5 Summary of Outlier Specimens in Description of General Trend of Material

Damping Ratios
Number of Outliers
Reason
Ds Dc
Classified as Outler in
5 5
Description of Vs or Vc
Flaws of specimen 4 4
Data missing due to
- 1
skipped test
Total 9 10
211
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/sec
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0.5
Poisson's ratio,ν, derived from Vs and Vp
-5 2
Best Fit Line: ν = -2.507*10 *Vs+0.374 (R =0.338)
137 Specimens
17 outlier specimens not plotted
(One Tmr, Five TuffX,
0.4 One Tpcrv, Two Tpcrn, One Tpcpv
Three Tpcpul, One Tpcpmn,
One Tptrn, Two Tptpll)
Poisson's Ratio, ν
0.3
Geologic Unit
0.2 Tpki
Tpcrn
Tpcrl
Tpcpul Tptpmn
Tpcpmn Tptpll
Tpcpll Tptpln
0.1 Tpcpln Tptpv
Tpcpv Tac(Devitirified)
Tpp
Tac(Vitric)
Tpbt2
Tcp
Tptrn Note :
Tcb Unconfined Tests
Tptrl
Tptpul
Tct
0.0 Tmr
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Tpbt3
Tpy
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, ft/sec
Figure 6.11 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Shear Wave Velocity of 137 Tuff
Specimens
212
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

0.5
-5 2
Best Fit Line: ν = -1.465*10 *Vc+0.361 (R =0.261)
137 Specimens
0.4 One Tpcrv, Two Tpcrn, One Tpcpv
Three Tpcpul, One Tpcpmn,
One Tptrn, Two Tptpll)
Poisson's Ratio, ν
0.3
Geologic Unit
Tpki
0.2
Tpcrn
Tpcrl
Tpcpul Tptpln
Tpcpmn Tptpv
Tpcpll Tmr
Tpcpln Tpbt3
0.1 Tpcpv Tpy
Tpp Tac(Devitirified)
Tpbt2 Tac(Vitric)
Tptrn Tcp
Tptrl Tcb Note :
Tptpul Tct Unconfined Tests
0.0 Tptpmn
0 Tptpll 4000 8000 12000 16000
Figure 6.12 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Unconstrained Compression Wave

Velocity of 137 Tuff Specimens
213
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

0.5
-6 2
Best Fit Line: ν = -9.147*10 *Vp+0.318 (R =0.0935)
137 Specimens
0.4 One Tpcrv, Two Tpcrn,
One Tpcpv, Three Tpcpul,
One Tpcpmn, One Tptrn,
Two Tptpll)
Poisson's Ratio, ν
0.3
0.2 Geologic Unit

Tpki Tptpln
Tpcrn Tptpv
Tpcrl Tmr
Tpcpul Tpbt3
Tpcpmn Tpy
0.1 Tpcpll Tptrn
Tpcpln Tac(Devitirified)
Tpcpv Tac(Vitric)
Tpp Tcp Note :
Tpbt2 Tcb Unconfined Tests
Tptrl Tct
Tptpul
0.0
Tptpmn
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Tptpll
Figure 6.13 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Constrained Compression Wave Velocity
of 137 Tuff Specimens
214
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

10 5
Geologic Unit
145 Specimens Tmr
9 outlier specimens not plotted Tpcrn
(One Tmr, One Tpcrv, One Tpcpv, Tpki Tpcpul
One Tpbt2, One Tptrn, Tpcrl Tpcpll
One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric)) Tpcpmn Tpcpv
Lower Limit: Ds min = -0.000033*Vs + 0.45
8 Tpcpln
Material Damping Ratio in Shear, Ds, %
Tpbt3
Upper Limit: Ds min = -0.0008*Vs + 8
Tpy Tpbt2
Best Fitting : Ds min = -0.000173*Vs + 1.748
2
Tpp Tptrl
(R = 0.265) Tptrn Tptpmn
Tptpul Tptpln
Tptpll
Quality Factor, Q
6 Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
Tcp 10
Tcpbt
Tcb
4 Tcbbt
Tct
Note :
Unconfined Tests
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Figure 6.14 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Shear Wave Velocity of
145 Tuff Specimens
215
3
10 15 20 25
10 5
Geologic Unit
Tmr 9 outlier specimens not plotted
(One Tmr, One Tpcrv, One Tpcpv,
Tpki Tpcrn One Tpbt2, One Tptrn,
Tpcrl Tpcpul One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric))
Tpcpmn Tpcpll Lower Limit: Ds min = -0.005*γt + 0.8
Material Damping Ratio in Shear, Ds min, %
8 Tpcpln Tpcpv Upper Limit: Ds min = -0.155*γt + 23.5

Tpy Tpbt3 Best Fitting: Ds min = -0.0109*γt + 1.921
2
Tpp Tpbt2 (R = 0.0630)
Tptrn Tptrl
Tptpul Tptpmn
Tptpll Tptpln
Quality Factor, Q
6 Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric) 145 Specimens
Tcp Note : 10
Tcpbt Unconfined Tests
Tcb
4 Tcbbt
Tct
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 6.15 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Total Unit Weight of
145 Tuff Specimens
216
Porosity (decimal)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

10 5
Geologic Unit 145 Specimens
Tmr 9 outlier specimens not plotted
Tpcrn
Tpki (One Tmr, One Tpcrv, One Tpcpv,
Tpcpul One Tpbt2, One Tptrn,
Tpcrl
Tpcpll One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric))
Tpcpmn Lower Limit: Ds min = 0.796*n + 0.0044

8 Tpcpln
Tpcpv
Tpbt3 Upper Limit: Ds min = 24.664*n - 1.164
Tpy Best Fitting : Ds min = 1.727*n + 0.194
Tpbt2
Tpp 2
Tptrl (R = 0.0630)
Tptrn
Tptpmn
Tptpul
Tptpln
Quality Factor, Q
Tptpll
6
Tptpv
Note :
Tac(Devitirified) Unconfined Tests
Tac(Vitric)
10
Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb
4
Tcbbt
Tct
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Porosity (decimal)
Figure 6.16 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Porosity of 145 Tuff
Specimens
217
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

10 5
Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression, Dc min, %
Geologic Unit
144 Specimens Tmr Tpcrn
10 outlier specimens not plotted Tpki Tpcpul
(One Tmr, One TuffX, One Tpcrv, Tpcrl
One Tpcpv, One Tpbt2, One Tptrn, Tpcpll
One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric)) Tpcpmn Tpcpv
8 Lower Limit: Dc min = -0.00003*Vc + 0.5 Tpcpln Tpbt3
Upper Limit: Dc min = -0.0003*Vc + 4.5 Tpy Tpbt2
Best Fitting : Dc min = -0.0000842*Vc + 1.317 Tpp Tptrl
2
(R = 0.242) Tptrn Tptpmn
Tptpul Tptpln
Tptpll
Quality Factor, Q
6 Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
Tcp 10
Tcpbt
Tcb
4 Tcbbt
Tct
Note :
Unconfined Tests
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Figure 6.17 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression with

Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity of 144 Tuff Specimens
218
3
10 15 20 25
10 5
Geologic Unit
Tmr
144 Specimens
Tpki Tpcrn
(One Tmr, One TuffX, One Tpcrv, Tpcrl Tpcpul
One Tpcpv, One Tpbt2, One Tptrn, Tpcpmn Tpcpll
One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric)) Tpcpv
Tpcpln
8 Lower Limit: Dc min = -0.005*γt + 0.8
Tpbt3
Tpy
Upper Limit: Dc min = -0.08*γt + 12 Tpbt2
Tpp
Best Fitting : Dc min = -0.00725*γt + 1.388 Tptrl
2 Tptrn
(R = 0.0672) Tptpmn
Tptpul
Tptpll Tptpln
Quality Factor, Q
6 Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric)
Tcp 10
Tcpbt
Tcb
4 Tcbbt
Note : Tct
Unconfined Tests
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Unit Weight of 144 Tuff Specimens
219
Porosity (decimal)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

10 5
Geologic Unit
Tmr
144 Specimens Tpki Tpcrn
10 outlier specimens not plotted Tpcrl Tpcpul
(One Tmr, One TuffX, One Tpcrv, Tpcpll
One Tpcpv, One Tpbt2, One Tptrn,
Tpcpmn
One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric)) Tpcpln Tpcpv
8 Tpbt3
Lower Limit: Dc min = 0.796*n + 0.0044 Tpy
Upper Limit: Dc min = 12.730*n - 0.730 Tpp Tpbt2
Best Fitting : Dc min = 1.153*n + 0.236 Tptrn Tptrl
2
(R = 0.0672) Tptpul Tptpmn
Tptpll Tptpln
Quality Factor, Q
6 Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Note : Tac(Vitric)
Unconfined Tests Tcp 10
Tcpbt
Tcb
4 Tcbbt
Tct
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Porosity (decimal)

Porosity of 144 Tuff Specimens
220
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
SMF ID.: 01025904 SMF ID.: 01025898 SMF ID.: 01026043 SMF ID.: 01026003
Stratigraphic Unit: Stratigraphic Unit: Stratigraphic Unit: Tmr Stratigraphic Unit:
Tptpul Tac(Vitric) Borehole: UE-25 Tpbt2
Borehole: ESF-HD- Borehole: USW SD-7 NRG#2b Borehole: USW SD-9
TEMP-13 Depth: 1468.2– 1468.9 ft Depth: 44.0 – 44.4 ft Depth: 248.0– 249.0 ft
Depth: 38.3 – 39.2 ft
Figure 6.20 Photograph of the Specimens Left off Additionally in the Description of
General Trend of Material Damping Ratios
The general relationships of the tuff specimens between Dc min and Ds min versus Vs,
Vc, γt and porosity (n) can be described by the equations presented in Table 6.6. The best
fitting relationships were determined by linear least squares fitting. The upper limit and
the lower limit relationships were estimated to include as many measured points as
seemed reasonable in the lower limit and upper limit relationship. Upper limit lines are
added in the figures to emphasize the variation trends of material damping ratio with the
change of total unit weight and seismic wave velocity. Lower limit line shows the trend
of possible minimum material damping ratio at a given total unit weight and seismic
wave velocity.
221
Table 6.6 Summary of General Relationships between Dc min and Ds min versus Vs, Vc,
γt and n for the Tuff Specimens
Relation
Best Fitting Upper Limit Lower Limit
Type
Ds min - γt D s min = −0.0109 * γ t + 1.92 (R2=0.0630) D s min = −0.155 * γ t + 23.5 D s min = −0.005 * γ t + 0.8
Ds min - Vs D s min = −0.000173 * V s + 1.748 (R2=0.265) D s min = −0.0008 * V s + 8 D s min = −0.000033 * V s + 0.45
Ds min - n D s min = 1.727 * n − 0.194 (R2=0.0630) D s min = 24.664 * n − 1.164 D s min = 0.796 * n − 0.0044
Dc min - γt D c min = −0.00725 * γ t + 1.388 (R2=0.0672) D c min = −0.08 * γ t + 12 D c min = −0.005 * γ t + 0.8
Dc min - Vc D c min = −0.0000842 * V c + 1.317 (R2=0.242) D c min = −0.0003 * V c + 4.5 D c min = −0.00003 * V c + 0.5
Dc min - n D c min = 1.153 * n + 0.236 (R2=0.0672) D c min = 12.730 * n − 0.730 D c min = 0.796 * n − 0.0044
Note: Units of material damping ratios (Dsmin and Dcmin) are %.

Units of seismic wave velocities (Vs and Vc) are fps.
Unit of total unit weight (γt) is pcf.
6.5.2 General Relationships between Ds min and Dc min
The general relationship between material damping ratios in shear (Ds min) and
material damping ratios in unconstrained compression (Dc min) is shown in Figure 6.21.
As seen in the figure, Ds min increases as Dc min increases, with the values of Ds min slightly
greater than Dc min. The larger values of Ds min and Dc min, defined as values greater than
1.0 %, are felt to be mostly caused by “flaws” in the cores. Therefore, it is instructive to
investigate the relationship between Ds min and Dc min for those cores with material
damping values less than 1.0 %. This comparison is shown in Figure 6.22. The unity line
is shown by the solid line in the figure and the least squares best fitting relationship is
shown by the dashed line. The best fitting relationship between Dc min versus Ds min is
given by:
Dc min = 0.89 Ds min (R2=0.60) (6.16)
222
Quality Factor, Q
20 10
5
144 Specimens Note :
10 outlier specimens not plotted Unconfined Tests
(One Tmr, One TuffX, One Tpcrv,
One Tpcpv, One Tpbt2, One Tptrn,
One Tptpul, Two Tptpll, One Tac (Vitric))
Geologic Unit
Quality Factor, Q
3 Tmr Tpcrn
Tpki Tpcpul
Tpcrl Tpcpll
Tpcpmn Tpcpv 20
Tpcpln Tpbt3
Tpy Tpbt2
2 Tpp Tptrl
Tptrn Tptpmn
Tptpul Tptpln
Tptpll
Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
1 Tac(Vitric)
Tcp
Tcpbt
Tcb
Tcbbt
Tct
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 6.21 Relationship between Material Damping Ratios in Shear and Unconstrained
Compression from Free-Free Resonant Column Tests of 144 Tuff
Specimens
223
Quality Factor, Q
100 50
1.0
Best Fitting Line of Low-Damping 109 Tuff Specimen
2
Dc min = 0.89Ds min , R = 0.60
0.8
Quality Factor, Q
0.6 Note :
Unconfined Tests
Geologic Unit 100

Tmr Tpcrn
Tpki Tpcpul
Tpcrl Tpcpll
0.4
Tpcpmn Tpcpv
Tpcpln Tpbt3
Tpy Tpbt2
Tpp Tptrl
Tptrn Tptpmn
Tptpul Tptpln
0.2
Tptpll Tptpv
Tac(Devitirified)
Tac(Vitric) Tcp
Tcpbt Tcb
Tct Tcbbt
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 6.22 Relationship between Material Damping Ratios in Shear and Unconstrained
Compression; Free-Free Resonant Column Tests of 109 Tuff Specimens
with Material Damping Ratios less than 1.0 %
224
6.6 PROFILES OF LINEAR DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
6.6.1 Statistical Theory for Representative Value in Each Formation Layer
The statistical distribution of dynamic property profiles in this study is assumed to

be a log-normal distribution. In addition, the median and corresponding 16th and 84th
percentile boundaries are three important “indices” used as references to evaluate the
representative dynamic property profiles obtained from the Yucca Mountain area.
The statistical analysis performed in this study is based on the assumption that the
distribution of dynamic property values at a given formation has a lognormal distribution
as shown in Figure 6.23a. This distribution means that the natural logarithms of the
dynamic property values are normally distributed as shown in Figure 6.23b.
(a)
Lognormal
Distribution
f (X)
0 20 40 60 80 100
X
(b)
Normal
Distribution
f (X)
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Ln X
Figure 6.23 Example of Lognormally Distributed Variable X

225
In each formation layer, the representative values for the layer, median and 16th
and 84th percentile values, were computed. To obtain the median and 16th and 84th
percentile of the dynamic property values in each layer, the sample mean (μ) and sample
standard deviation (σ) of the measured dynamic property values were calculated using
the following equations:
1 n
μ= ∑xi (6.17)
n i
1 n ⎛
σ= ∑ ⎜ x i − μ ⎞⎟ 2 (6.18)
n −1 i ⎝ ⎠
where: xi is dynamic property value in the given formation, and

n is number of dynamic property values in the given formation.
Now, let Y = Ln X which is normally distributed with a mean (λ) and a standard
deviation (ζ). The equations used to calculate λ and ζ are:
2
ζ
λ = ln(μ ) − (6.19)
2
2
ζ
σ
ζ = ln(1 + )− (6.20)
μ 2
The median (xm) of the lognormal distribution can be calculated based on λ and ζ by:
λ
xm =e (6.21)
The values of 16th and 84th percentiles are equal to one standard deviation (ζ) away from
the both sides of λ and they can be calculated by:
x 16th = e λ −ζ (6.22)
x 84th = e λ +ζ (6.23)
226
By using Equations 6.19 through 6.23, the λ, ζ, xm, x16th and x84th values of
seismic wave velocities and material damping ratios were obtained based on the
calculated μ and σ. These values are presented in Tables 6.7 and 6.8 for the various
stratigraphic units.
Table 6.7 Median, 16 Percentile and 84 Percentile of Seismic Wave Velocities of

Tuffs in Each Stratigraphic Unit at Yucca Mountain
Depth of Unit (ft) Vs (fps) Vc (fps) Vp (fps)
No. of
Strat. Unit 16th 84th 16th 84th 16th 84th
Specimens Top Bottom Median Median Median
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Tmr 3 (2)* 0 60 2,497 1,177 5,297 4,283 2,193 8,363 5,108 2,916 8,946
Tpki 8 (3)* 60 100 3,223 2,618 3,969 4,951 3,976 6,166 6,713 6,611 6,818
Tpcrn 7 (5)* 100 120 4,822 3,894 5,971 7,502 6,314 8,913 7,968 6,921 9,174
Tpcrl 2 120 140 3,579 2,072 6,183 6,042 3,481 10,487 7,803 4,818 12,638
Tpcpul 8 (6)* 140 160 7,232 6,465 8,091 11,174 9,899 12,612 11,779 10,030 13,832
*
Tpcpmn 3 (2) 160 180 8,891 8,760 9,023 13,427 12,692 14,205 13,419 12,245 14,707
Tpcpll 2 180 200 4,612 4,108 5,178 7,683 6,852 8,616 10,525 9,552 11,598
Tpcpln 3 200 220 8,897 8,425 9,397 13,596 13,069 14,145 14,038 13,677 14,409
Tpcpv 1+ (2)* 220 260 5,273 5,273 5,273 8,039 8,039 8,039 8,460 8,460 8,460
Tpy 3 260 280 4,035 3,377 4,822 6,260 5,052 7,757 6,599 5,415 8,041
Tpbt3 4 280 300 3,306 2,803 3,900 5,141 4,203 6,288 5,978 5,065 7,055
Tpp 3 300 360 3,615 3,078 4,246 5,540 4,795 6,400 5,935 4,986 7,064
Tpbt2 2 360 420 2,297 1,970 2,677 3,610 3,138 4,153 4,091 3,834 4,365
Tptrn 6+ (6)* 420 540 6,491 6,033 6,983 10,022 9,237 10,873 10,589 9,951 11,267
Tptrl 2 540 560 3,824 3,628 4,031 7,164 7,118 7,210 8,084 6,984 9,358
Tptpul 12 560 700 5,771 4,760 6,997 9,158 7,529 11,141 11,169 9,996 12,481
Tptpmn 9 700 840 8,817 8,657 8,980 13,307 12,942 13,681 13,610 13,157 14,077
Tptpll 7++ (7) * 840 1100 6,657 6,171 7,181 10,321 9,199 11,579 11,389 10,482 12,375
Tptpln 8 1100 1240 8,633 8,007 9,308 13,421 12,780 14,093 13,952 13,400 14,527
Tptpv 5 1240 1360 4,886 3,415 6,990 7,428 5,144 10,726 8,871 6,072 12,960
Tac 10 1360 1660 4,397 3,316 5,830 6,851 5,330 8,807 7,451 5,939 9,347
Tcp 21 1660 2020 5,438 4,434 6,670 8,491 6,986 10,319 8,989 7,454 10,840
Tcpbt 1 2020 2060 5,475 5,475 5,475 8,004 8,004 8,004 8,052 8,052 8,052
Tcb 12 2060 2440 5,814 4,159 8,126 8,849 6,284 12,459 10,275 8,202 12,871
Tcbbt 2 2440 2480 6,924 6,756 7,096 10,750 10,551 10,953 11,159 10,979 11,342
Tct 5 2480 3300 5,096 4,684 5,545 8,023 7,482 8,603 8,734 8,370 9,115
(3)
Total 149 (139)
Note: + One Outlier Specimen Discarded in Vc, Vs
++ Two Outlier Specimens Discarded in Vc, Vs
* Number in ( ) represents the number of specimens for Vp
One Tpcrv (Outlier) specimen is not displayed in this table
227
Table 6.8 Median, 16 Percentile and 84 Percentile of Material Damping Ratios of
Tuffs in Each Stratigraphic Unit at Yucca Mountain
Depth of Unit (ft) Ds min (%) Dc min (%)
No. of
Strat. Unit 16th 84th 16th 84th
Specimens Top Bottom Median Median
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Tmr 2+ (2)* 0 60 0.87 0.40 1.88 0.71 0.27 1.85
+ *
Tpki 7 (8) 60 100 1.83 0.88 3.81 1.62 0.78 3.37
Tpcrn 7 100 120 0.87 0.47 1.60 0.63 0.44 0.90
Tpcrl 2 120 140 1.61 0.76 3.45 1.29 0.94 1.78
Tpcpul 8 140 160 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.29 0.20 0.42
Tpcpmn 3 160 180 0.24 0.17 0.33 0.36 0.22 0.58
Tpcpll 2 180 200 1.06 0.44 2.55 0.42 0.20 0.89
Tpcpln 3 200 220 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.15
Tpcpv 1+ (1)* 220 260 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.43 0.43 0.43
Tpy 3 260 280 1.02 0.53 1.98 0.63 0.37 1.09
Tpbt3 4 280 300 1.21 0.76 1.93 1.01 0.64 1.59
Tpp 3 300 360 0.69 0.53 0.89 0.52 0.39 0.68
Tpbt2 1+ (1)* 360 420 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.69 0.69 0.69
Tptrn 6+ (6)* 420 540 0.33 0.27 0.40 0.30 0.22 0.42
Tptrl 2 540 560 0.84 0.51 1.40 0.55 0.30 0.98
Tptpul 11+ (11)* 560 700 0.80 0.51 1.26 0.55 0.34 0.88
Tptpmn 9 700 840 0.22 0.15 0.30 0.20 0.13 0.29
++ *
Tptpll 7 (7) 840 1100 0.58 0.36 0.93 0.49 0.34 0.72
Tptpln 8 1100 1240 0.24 0.12 0.49 0.26 0.18 0.37
Tptpv 5 1240 1360 1.13 0.53 2.40 1.38 0.67 2.82
Tac 9+ (9)* 1360 1660 0.57 0.30 1.10 0.53 0.26 1.09
Tcp 21 1660 2020 0.56 0.41 0.77 0.45 0.33 0.60
Tcpbt 1 2020 2060 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.75 0.75 0.75
Tcb 12 2060 2440 0.83 0.31 2.25 0.55 0.23 1.31
Tcbbt 2 2440 2480 0.59 0.48 0.72 0.56 0.53 0.59
Tct 5 2480 3300 1.11 0.59 2.09 0.64 0.31 1.30
(3)
Total 144 (145)
Notes : + One Outlier Specimen Discarded in Dc min

++ Two Outlier Specimens Discarded in Dc min
* Number in ( ) represents the number of specimens for Ds min
One Tpcrv (Outlier) specimen is not displayed in this table
228
6.6.2 Seismic Wave Velocities versus Depth
The seismic wave velocities measured in the free-free URC tests were complied
into the stratigraphic column at Yucca Mountain to view the variation of seismic wave
velocity with depth that would be determined using only tests on cores.
The distribution of seismic wave velocity in stratigraphic unit was assumed to
have a log-normal distribution. In addition, the median and corresponding 16th and 84th
percentile numbers are three important “indices” used to evaluate the representative
seismic wave velocities acquired from the results of the free-free URC tests as discussed
in Section 6.6.1. Using these values, profiles of seismic wave velocities versus depth
from the cores were established. The Vs profile over the entire depth is shown in Figure
6.24. Expanded profiles of shear wave velocities are shown in Figures 6.25, 6.26 and 6.27.
In Figures 6.24 through 6.26, the in-situ shear wave velocity ranges determined
with SASW tests in each stratigraphic unit are marked to present a comparison with the
shear wave velocities measured in the free-free URC tests in the laboratory. The red solid
lines with dot show the shear wave velocity range measured in the repository tunnel and
the black solid line with dot show the shear wave velocity range measured from the
ground surface in field. The shear wave velocities in the field are generally less than the
shear wave velocities measured in the laboratory because of the presence of fractures,
cracks and other flaws which are much less prevalent in the cores tested in the laboratory.
The overall correlation of the shear wave velocities from field tests with the stratigraphic
units show weaker relation than the correlation of the shear wave velocities measured in
laboratory with the stratigraphic units.
The depths of the formations shown in Figures 6.24 through 6.36 were estimated
by accumulating the average thickness of each formation. This information was supplied
by Bechtel SAIC company. If the thickness information was not given for some
229
formations, it was assumed as follows: Rainier Mesa Tuff (Tmr) = 60ft, Tuff “X” (Tpki)
= 40ft, Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) = 160ft. Some formations were skipped in this profile
even though their existence were supplied by geologist because they are relatively thin
layers and no testing of them exists. The skipped formations are as follows: Tiva Canyon
vitric crystallized (Tpcrv), Topopah Spring crystallized vitric formation (Tptrv), Topopah
Spring poorly-crystallized lithic formation (Tptpf/Tptrf), and Topopah Spring bedded tuff
(Tpbt1).
The figures enclosed by parenthesis in the profile represent the number of data
which were used to calculate the statistical values. Due to the defect in some specimens,
some specimens were left out but there are notes in the figures. As seen in the figures, the
distribution of seismic wave velocities of the cores shows a reasonable trend with
stratigraphic unit. In general, the median shear wave velocities decrease in the following
order: (1) welded tuff with no lithophysae (Tpcrn, Tpcpmn, Tpcpln; Tptrn, Tptpmn,
Tptpln), (2) welded tuff with lithophysae (Tpcrl, Tpcpul, Tpcpll; Tptrl, Tptpul, Tptpll),
(3) moderately welded tuff (Tcp, Tcb, Tct), and (4) nonwelded tuff (Tmr, Tpki, Tpp, Tpy,
Tac). Figure 6.26 presents the comparison of shear wave velocity values of the Tiva
Canyon Tuff and the Topopah Spring Tuff units. The variation of shear wave velocities
with depth in both stratigraphic units shows a similar pattern. This comparison shows that
similar geological processes happened in both units which agrees with David Buesch’s
comments (Buesch, 2006).
The same series of figures is shown for the unconstrained compression wave
velocity (Vc) as follows: (1) Figure 6.29 presents the summary profile, and (2) Figures
6.30, 6.31 and 6.32 show expanded profiles. The series of figures is also repeated for the
constrained compression wave velocity profile (Vp) in Figures 6.33 through 6.36. As in
the Vs profile, the Vc and Vp profiles show the same trends with stratigraphic units.
230
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 (3) Rainier Mesa Tmr 0
(8) Tpki
(26)** Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
(5) Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp, Tpbt2 Tpy, Tpbt3
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
(12) Tptpul 200
(9) Tptpmn
Topopah Spring
Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
1000
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv 400
1500 (10) Calico Hills Tac
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(21) Prow Pass Tcp
2000 600
(1) Tcpbt
Preliminary Profile (12) Bullfrog Tcb

Includes 154 Specimens
Excludes Five Outlier Specimens Tcbbt
(2)
2500 * One Outlier Discarded
** Two Outliers Discarded
( ) : Number of Specimens
800
(5)
Tram Tct
3000 Median Shear Wave Velocity
16th, 84th Pecentile Shear Wave Velocity
in Lognormal Distribution
Shear Wave Velocity Measured at Ground Surface in Field
Shear Wave Velocity Measured at Tunnel in Field
1000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Notes :
z The thicknesses of Rainier Mesa Tuff(Tmr), Tpki and Tiva Canyon Tuff(Tpc) are assumed as
follows : Thickness of Tmr = 60ft, Thickness of Tpki = 40ft, Thickness of Tpc = 160ft
z The following material types are left off because no rock samples were recovered from these
relatively thin layers : Tpcrv, Tptrv, Tptpf/Tptrf, Tpbt1
Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft
231
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 0
Rainier Mesa Tmr

(3)
20
(8) Tpki
100
(7)* Tpcrn
(2) Tpcrl
40
(8) Tpcpul
(3) Tpcpmn
Tiva Canyon Tuff
(2) Tpcpll
Depth, m
Depth, ft
200
(3) Tpcpln 60
(1)* Tpcpv
Preliminary Profile
(3) Excludes Two Outlier Specimens Tpy
* One Outlier Discarded Yucca Mt. Tuff 80
(4) Tpbt3
300
(3) Tpp
100
Pah Canyon Tuff
Median Shear Wave Velocity
(2) Shear Wave Velocity Measured at Ground Surface in Field
Tpbt2
400 Shear Wave Velocity Measured at Tunnel in Field
120
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Notes :
232
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(6)*
500 Tptrn 150
(2) Tptrl
600
(12) Tptpul
200
700
(9) Tptpmn
800
Preliminary Profile 250
Excludes Three Outlier Specimens
Depth, m
Depth, ft
Topopah Spring
* One Outlier Discarded
900 ** Two Outliers Discarded
Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
300
1000
1100
350
(8) Tptpln
1200
(5)
1300 16th, 84th Pecentile Shear Wave Velocity Tptpv
400
1400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Notes :
233
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
400
500
(21) Tcp
Prow Pass
2000 600
(1) Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog
Tcb
700
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
900
3000
Preliminary Profile

1000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Notes :
234
Tpcrn (7) (6)* Tptrn
Tpcrl (2) (2) Tptrl
Tpcpul (12) (8) Tptpul
Tiva Topopah
Canyon Tpcpmn Tiva Canyon Tuff (9) (3) Tptpmn Spring
Topopah Spring Tuff
Tuff Tuff
Tpcpll (2) (7)** Tptpll
Tpcpln (8) (3) Tptpln
Tpcpv (5) (1) Tptpv
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, fps
Notes : * One lower outlier discarded

** Two Outlier discarded
( ) : Number of specimen from Tiva Canyon Tuff
( ) : Number of specimen from Topopah Spring Tuff
Figure 6.28 Comparison of Median Shear Wave Velocity of Sub-Units within the Tiva
Canyon Tuff and Topopah Spring Tuff as Determined from Free-Free URC
Tests
235
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
(8) Tpki
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
(12) Tptpul 200
(9) Tptpmn
Topopah Spring
Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
1000
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv 400
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(21) Prow Pass Tcp
2000 (1)
600
Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog Tcb
(2) Tcbbt
2500 Preliminary Profile
Excludes Five Outlier Specimens
800
* One Lower Outlier Discarded
** Two Lower Outliers Discarded
(5)
Tram Tct
3000
Median Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity
16th, 84th Pecentile Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity 1000
3500
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :

from Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft
236
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 0
Rainier Mesa Tmr

(3)
20
(8) Tpki
100
(7)* Tpcrn
(2) Tpcrl
40
(8) Tpcpul
(3) Tpcpmn
Tiva Canyon Tuff
(2) Tpcpll
Depth, m
Depth, ft
200
(3) Tpcpln 60
(1)* Tpcpv
(3) Tpy
Yucca Mt. Tuff 80
(4) Tpbt3
Excludes Two Outlier Specimens
(3) Tpp
( ) : Number of Specimens 100
Pah Canyon Tuff
Median Median Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity

16th, 84th Pecentile Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity
(2) in Lognormal Distribution
Tpbt2
400
120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Notes :

237
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
(6)*
500 Tptrn 150
(2) Tptrl
600
(12) Tptpul
200
700
(9) Tptpmn
800
250
Depth, m
Depth, ft
Topopah Spring
900 Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
1000 Includes 52 Specimens
1100 ( ) : Number of Specimens
16th, 84th Pecentile Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity 350
Tptpln
1200 (8)
1300 (5) Tptpv

400
1400
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :

238
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
400
500
(21) Tcp
Prow Pass
2000 600
(1) Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog
Tcb
700
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
900
3000
Preliminary Profile
1000
16th, 84th Pecentile Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity
3500
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :

239
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 (2)* Rainier Mesa Tmr 0
(3)*** Tpki
(22)**** Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp, Tpbt2 Tpy, Tpbt3
(5)
500 (6)* Tptrn
(2) Tptrl
(12) Tptpul 200
(9) Tptpmn
Topopah Spring
Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
1000
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv 400
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(21) Prow Pass Tcp
2000 (1)
600
Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog Tcb
Preliminary Profile (2) Tcbbt

Excludes Five Outlier Specimens 800
*** Five Outliers Discarded (5)
**** Six Outliers Discarded Tram Tct
Median Constrained Compression Wave Velocity

16th, 84th Pecentile Constrained Compression Wave Velocity 1000
3500
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :
Figure 6.33 Constrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain from
Free-Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft
240
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 0
(2)* Rainier Mesa Tmr
20
(3)**** Tpki
100
(5)*** Tpcrn
(2) Tpcrl
40
(6)** Tpcpul
(2)* Tpcpmn
Tiva Canyon Tuff
(2) Tpcpll
Depth, m
Depth, ft
200
(3) Tpcpln 60
(2) Tpcpv
(3) Tpy
Yucca Mt. Tuff 80
(4) Tpbt3
Excludes Two Outlier Specimens
(3) * One Outlier Discarded Tpp
*** Three Outliers Discarded
100
**** Five Outliers Discarded Pah Canyon Tuff
(2) Median Constrained Compression Wave Velocity Tpbt2

16th, 84th Pecentile Constrained Compression Wave Velocity
400 in Lognormal Distribution
120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Notes :
241
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
(6)*
500 Tptrn 150
(2) Tptrl
600
(12) Tptpul
200
700
(9) Tptpmn
800
250
Depth, m
Depth, ft
Topopah Spring
900 Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
16th, 84th Pecentile Constrained Compression Wave Velocity 350
Tptpln
1200 (8)
1300 (5) Tptpv

400
1400
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :
242
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
400
500
(21) Prow Pass

Tcp
2000 600
(1) Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog
Tcb
700
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
900
3000
Preliminary Profile
1000
16th, 84th Pecentile Constrained Compression Wave Velocity
3500
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Notes :
243
6.6.3 Material Damping Ratios versus Depth
The summary profiles of material damping ratios in shear (Ds min) and material
damping ratios in unconstrained compression (Dc min) are shown in Figures 6.37 and 6.38,
respectively. These figures display the median, 16 percentile and 84 percentile values of
the material damping ratios of each stratigraphic unit measured in the laboratory with the
core. The test results generally indicate large differences between stratigraphic units
when the material damping ratios are used for making the comparisons as opposed to
using seismic wave velocities for the comparisons. This difference is likely an artifact of
the material damping ratio being more sensitive to flaws in the specimens that the seismic
wave velocities.
6.7 SAMPLE SIZE VERSUS LINEAR DYNAMIC PROPERTY VARIATION
Five large specimens, with diameters larger than 3 inches, were tested in the free-
free URC device. Four specimens were sampled from the Topopah Spring upper
lithophysae (Tptpul) formation and the other one was sampled from the Topopah Spring
middle non-lithophysae (Tptpmn) formation. By comparing the results with the results of
the tuff specimens with diameter smaller than 3.0 inches, an idea of size effect on the
specimen can be estimated. The data of all dynamic properties measured on the Tptpul
and Tptpmn specimens are summarized in Tables 6.9 and 6.10, respectively.
The distributions of shear wave velocities with the dimensions of 14 Tptpul tuff
specimens are shown in Figure 6.39. The data from the free-free URC tests for the re-
cored specimens which were cored in the laboratory for fixed-free RCTS tests are added
in an attempt to the trend of the size effect on dynamic properties. Since the original
Tptpul formation contains significant voids, tuff specimens sampled from this formation
will have a tendency to more voids as the dimensions increases.
244
Material Damping Ratio, Ds, %
0 2 4 6 8
(8) Tpki
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
(4)* Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp, Tpbt2 Tpy, Tpbt3
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
(11)* Preliminary Profile
Tptpul 200
(9) Excludes 9 Outlier Specimens Tptpmn
* One Lower Outlier Discarded Topopah Spring
** Two Lower Outliers Discarded Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv
400
1500 (9)* Calico Hills Tac
Depth, m
Depth, ft
Median Material Dampimg Ratio

(21) in Shear Prow Pass Tcp
16th, 84th Pecentile Material Dampimg Ratio
2000 (1)
in Shear 600
Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog Tcb
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
3000
1000
0 2 4 6 8
Notes :
Figure 6.37 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Shear of Yucca Mountain from Free-
Free URC Tests of 145 Tuff Specimens
245
Material Damping Ratio, Dc, %
0 2 4 6 8
(7)* Tpki
(7) Tucca Mt. Tuff
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
Preliminary Profile
(11)* Tptpul 200
(7)** ( ) : Number of Specimens Tptpll
1000
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv
400
Depth, m
Depth, ft

(21) in Unconstrained Compression Prow Pass Tcp
2000 (1)
in Unconstrained Compression 600
Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog Tcb
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
3000
1000
0 2 4 6 8
Material Damping Ratio, Dc, %
Notes :
Figure 6.38 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression of Yucca

Mountain from Free-Free URC Test of 144 Tuff Specimens
246
With this reasoning, the shear wave velocities of the Tptpul specimens are generally
decreasing as the dimensions of the specimens increase. The distributions of shear wave
velocities with specimen dimensions for the 12 Tptpmn specimens are shown in Figure
6.40. Data from re-cored specimens are also added. Unlike the variation of the shear
wave velocities of the Tptpul tuff specimens, the shear wave velocities of the Tptpmn
specimens show a nearly constant value regardless of their dimensions. Since the Tptpmn
formation has few of any defects in the laboratory cores, the number of defects per unit
volume in the specimens might be similar even though the dimensions of the test
specimens increase. So, the seismic wave velocities are not affected by the defects and
show a relatively constant value regardless of the specimen dimension.
Dynamic Property Measurements of Tptpul Tuff Specimens
Dimaeter of Vc Vs Vp Dc min Ds min

Specimen No.
Speicmen (fps) (fps) (fps) (%) (%)
01025904 11872 7321 12626 0.47 2.11
Less than 01025905 10880 6998 12870 0.45 0.49
2 inches UTA-42-K(11C) *
11714 7968 12977 0.72 0.86
*
UTA-42-L(12C) 10720 7443 11924 1.12 1.20
01025865 8996 5507 10499 0.40 0.85
01025866 8715 5299 10269 0.49 0.72
2 inches ~ 01025867 12307 7620 12759 0.39 0.48
3 inches 01025868 11459 7319 12577 0.30 0.52
01025888 8220 5038 10397 0.64 1.10
01025889 6917 4067 9167 0.79 1.49
01037510-1 5141 5141 5141 5141 5141
Larger than 01037508-1 5210 5210 5210 5210 5210
3 inches 01037512-1 5080 5080 5080 5080 5080
01031164-1 5960 5960 5960 5960 5960
Note: * Re-cored Specimen
Dynamic Property Measurements of Tptpmn Tuff Specimens
247
Dimaeter of Vc Vs Vp Dc min Ds min
Specimen No.
Speicmen (fps) (fps) (fps) (%) (%)
01025906 11872 7321 12626 0.47 2.11
Less than UTA-42-C(3C)* 10880 6998 12870 0.45 0.49

2 inches UTA-42-M(13C)* 11714 7968 12977 0.72 0.86
UTA-42-N(14C)* 10720 7443 11924 1.12 1.20
01025908 8996 5507 10499 0.40 0.85
01025909 8715 5299 10269 0.49 0.72
01025910 12307 7620 12759 0.39 0.48
2 inches ~
01025907 11459 7319 12577 0.30 0.52
3 inches
01025938 8220 5038 10397 0.64 1.10
01025869 6917 4067 9167 0.79 1.49
01025871 5141 5141 5141 5141 5141
Larger than
01031166-1 5210 5210 5210 5210 5210
3 inches
Note: * Re-cored Specimen
Distribution of unconstrained compression wave velocities and constrained

compression wave velocities of Tptpul and Tptpmn specimens are shown in Figures 6.41,
6.42, 6.43 and 6.44, respectively. The unconstrained and constrained compression wave
velocities of Tptpul and Tptpmn show the same trends as the shear wave velocities with
decreasing in Tptpul and constant in Tptpmn as dimension of specimen increases.
Distribution of material damping ratio in shear and in unconstrained compression of
Tptpul and Tptpmn specimens are shown in Figure 6.45 through 6.48, respectively.
Unlike the seismic wave velocities, the variation trends of material damping ratios of
Tptpul and Tptpmn specimens are nearly constant regardless of specimen dimension. The
distribution of material damping ratios of Tptpul shows more scatter than Tptpmn due to
effect of internal flaws such as voids.
248
5
Number of Specimen(s) Type : Tptpul
4 Range of Diameterss : Less than 2 inches
Velocity Measured in Free-Free Test
3
2
Total Number of Specimens : 4 EA
1 Original Specimens : 2 EA
Re-cored Specimens : 2 EA
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
5
Number of Specimen(s)
Type : Tptpul
4 Range of Diameters : 2 inches ~ 3 inches
Velocity Measured in Free-Free Test
3
2
Total Number of Specimens : 6 EA
1 Original Specimens : 6 EA
Re-cored Specimen : 0 EA
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
5
Type : Tptpul Total Number of Specimens : 4 EA

4 Range of Diameters : Larger than 3 inches* Original Specimens: 4 EA
Velocity Measured in Free-Free Test Re-cored Specimen : 0 EA
3
1
* Actually 4 in. Diameter
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Figure 6.39 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of Specimen
Diameter of Tptpul Specimens
249
10
Number of Specimen(s) Type : Tptpmn Total Number of Specimens : 4 EA
8 Range of Diameters : Less than 2 inches Original Specimen : 1 EA
Velocity Measured in Free-Free Test Re-cored Specimens : 3 EA
6
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
10
Type : Tptpmn Total Number of Specimens : 7 EA

8 Range of Diameters : 2 inches ~ 3 inches Original Specimens : 7 EA
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
10
Type : Tptpmn Total Number of Specimen : 1 EA

8 Range of Diameters : Larger than 3 inches* Original Specimen : 1 EA
6
2
* Actually 6 in. Diameter
0
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000
Figure 6.40 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of Specimen
Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens
250
5
Number of Specimen(s) Type : Tptpul Total Number of Specimens : 4 EA
4 Range of Diameters : Less than 2 inches Original Specimens : 2 EA
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
5

3
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
5

4 Range of Diameters : Larger than 3 inches Original Specimens : 4 EA
3
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
Figure 6.41 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity

with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens
251
5
Range of Diameters : Less than 2 inches Original Specimen : 1 EA
4
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
10

6
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
10

8 Range of Diameters : Larger than 3 inches Original Specimen : 1 EA
6
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
Figure 6.42 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity

with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens
252
5
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
5

3
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
5

3
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
Figure 6.43 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Constrained Compression Wave Velocity

with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens
253
5
4
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
10

6
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
10

6
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
Figure 6.44 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Constrained Compression Wave Velocity

with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens
254
5
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
5

3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
5

3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 6.45 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Size
of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens
255
5
4
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
10

6
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
10

6
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 6.46 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with Size
of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens
256
5
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
5

3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
5

3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 6.47 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained

Compression with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpul Specimens
257
5
4
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
10

6
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
10

6
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Figure 6.48 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained

Compression with Size of Specimen Diameter of Tptpmn Specimens
258
6.8 SUMMARY
A total of 135 tuff specimens were prepared for free-free URC and Direct Arrival
tests. Also, 19 data sets measured in 2002 and shown in a report for Yucca Mountain
Project by Soil and Rock Dynamics Laboratory in University of Texas at Austin included
in this analysis. Therefore, 154 data sets were used to study general trends in the dynamic
properties of Yucca Mountain tuffs.
The free-free URC test equipment was first calibrated with reference material, an
aluminum cylindrical rod, whose properties are well known through previous studies,
Menq (2003), and Sun (1993). By comparing the current testing results of the reference
specimen with the previously measured properties, the calibration of the testing system
was performed. According to the calibration results, the overall testing system for free-
free URC testing is working well.
Analyses were conducted to evaluate the general relationships between the
seismic wave velocities (Vc, Vp, and Vs) and physical properties such as total unit weight
(γt), porosity (n) and Poisson’s ratio (ν). According to the analysis, seismic wave
velocities are proportionate to the total unit weights and are inverse-proportionate to the
porosities. By combining the constrained compression wave velocity (Vp) and shear wave
velocity (Vs), values of Poisson’s ratio can be computed according to elastic theory.
Interestingly, the values of Poisson’s ratio exhibited wide scattering, more than other
properties. They are ranged between 0.1 and 0.4, and they showed a weak trend of
decreasing values as the seismic wave velocities increased.
Material damping ratios in shear and in unconstrained compression were also
analyzed to study their relationships with other properties such as seismic wave velocity,
total unit weight and porosity. Material damping ratios showed an increasing value and
increasing variability in the values as seismic wave velocity and total unit weight
259
decreased. Through the comparison between the material damping ratios in shear and the
material damping ratios in unconstrained compression, the following relation was
detected for material damping ratios less than 1.0:
Dc min = 0.89 ⋅ Ds min (6.24)
By processing the testing results statistically under the assumption that the rock
properties follow a logarithmic distribution, the median, 16 percentile and 84 percentile
value in each formation were computed and the seismic velocity profile versus depth was
drawn using them. In these profiles, the seismic wave velocities are higher in the welded
tuff formations than the nonwelded tuff formations. The profile of material damping
ratios was also drawn following the profile of seismic wave velocity after processing the
data of material damping ratios statistically. The material damping ratio has a higher
sensitivity to internal flaws in the tuff specimens. Therefore, the profiles of damping ratio
versus depth exhibit more variability than the wave velocity profiles.
The effect of specimen size of the values measured in the free-free URC tests was
studied using specimens from the Tptpul formation and Tptpmn formation. The Tptpul
sub-unit shows deceases of seismic wave velocities with an increase in the dimensions of
test specimens. On the other hand, the Tptpmn sub-unit shows nearly constant seismic
wave velocities for increasing dimensions of the test specimen. This phenomenon is good
evidence of the fundamental reason why specimen affects these measurements. The size
effect develops when a larger size of the test specimen has a higher chance of including
more defects which can be avoided by small sized specimens because they could not be
tested with the defects.
260
Chapter 7
Measurements of Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties of Tuffs by

Fixed-Free RCTS Tests
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Dynamic measurements of tuffs were performed with the fixed-free RCTS tests
and these results are presented and discussed in this chapter. As stated earlier, the fixed-
free RCTS tests have an advantage that it can be used to measure the variation of shear
modulus and material damping ratio in shear with the magnitude of confining pressure
and shear-strain amplitude. The variation of the dynamic properties with confining
pressure (σo) and shear strain (γ) such as log Gmax – log σo, Ds min - log σo, G – log γ,
G/Gmax – log γ, and Ds – log γ are generally used to describe the dynamic properties of
tuffs for earthquake site-response modeling. Sixteen specimens were tested with this
method in 2002 and 31 tuff specimens were selected and tested from 2003 to 2006. The
tuff specimens were sampled from the major formations around the proposed radioactive
waste repository facility. Information on these tuffs is presented in Tables 5.6 and 5.7.
The equipment used to perform the RCTS tests is calibrated every year by using
NIST traceable reference equipment, much of which was calibrated by Bechtel SAIC. In
addition, overall system checks were conducted with reference brass metal specimens
whose properties are constant and known through material type and previous studies,
Hwang (1997) and Darandeli (2001). With the calibrated fixed-free RCTS equipment, the
47 tuff specimens tested with fixed-free RCTS device were used to evaluate the dynamic
properties of tuffs with magnitude of shear strain. In Section 7.2, a comparison of the
linear dynamic properties measured with the free-free URC tests on the original tuff
261
specimens and on the re-cored tuff specimens is presented to study the effect of re-coring.
The linear dynamic properties of the tuff specimens measured with the fixed-free RCTS
tests are then compared in Section 7.3 with the URC measurement. Section 7.3.1 presents
the comparison of the linear dynamic properties of the re-cored specimens from the free-
free URC tests and from the fixed-free RCTS tests. In Section 7.3.2, relationships
between the total unit weights and linear dynamic properties are presented. Section 7.3.3
and 7.3.4 present the effect of confining pressure on the linear dynamic properties. The
nonlinear dynamic properties of the tuff specimens are presented in Section 7.4. Section
7.4.1 shows the general relationships between shear modulus or normalized shear
modulus and shear strain. Section 7.4.2 shows the general relationships between material
damping ratio and shear strain.
7.2 EFFECT OF RE-CORING ON TUFF SPECIMENS
The diameters of the tuff specimens that were delivered to laboratory ranged from
1.6 to 4.2 inches. To test the tuff specimens in the fixed-free RCTS device, the test
specimens had to be cored to make them smaller. Their diameter were reduced to 1.6 in..
After re-coring of the tuff specimens, free-free URC tests were performed to check for
any change in the values of the dynamic properties. Two specimens, UTA-42-A (1G) and
UTA-42-B (2A, 2B, 2C) were not re-tested after re-coring because 0.8-in. diameters of
the 1G and 2C specimens were too small to allow free-free URC tests to be performed.
Also, specimens 2A, 2B were not re-cored but only the ends were cut. The fixed-free
specimens tested in 2002 were not tested using the free-free URC device after re-coring.
Hence, a total of 29 specimens, tested during 2003 ~ 2006, are presented in the Figures
7.1 through 7.5 to show the effect of re-coring.
The linear dynamic properties between the original specimens and the re-cored
specimens are given in Table 7.1. Figure 7.1 shows the change of seismic wave velocities
262
due to re-coring. On the whole, re-coring has very little impact on velocity. The two
largest differences in shear wave velocities are about 56 % and 19 %, which are found in
the 32A and 5C specimens as shown in Figure 7.2, respectively.
Table 7.1 Summary of Dynamic Properties Determined with Original Tuff Specimens
and Re-cored Tuff Specimens
Specimen No. Test No. Formation Type γt Vc Emax Dc min Vs Gmax Ds min Vp Mmax ν
(SMF ID) (UT ID) Symbol
(pcf) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf)
Original 144.0 13,551 8.21E+08 0.146 8,756 3.43E+08 0.366 13,914 8.66E+08 0.17
01025910 UTA-42-C(3C) Tptpmn
After Re-Coring 144.3 13,127 7.72E+08 0.382 8,402 3.16E+08 0.401 13,925 8.69E+08 0.21
Original 139.5 10,986 5.23E+08 0.254 6,663 1.92E+08 0.242 11,351 5.58E+08 0.24
01025886 UTA-42-D(4C) Tptrn
Original 131.5 8,985 3.30E+08 0.262 6,526 1.74E+08 0.388 11,348 5.26E+08 0.25
01025914 UTA-42-E(5C) Tptpll
Original 145.0 13,984 8.81E+08 0.142 9,163 3.78E+08 0.181 14,449 9.40E+08 0.16
01025915 UTA-42-F(6C) Tptpln
Original 99.5 7,291 1.64E+08 0.478 4,787 7.08E+07 0.520 8,324 2.14E+08 0.25
01025881 UTA-42-G(7C) Tac
Original 90.8 9,044 2.31E+08 0.388 5,901 9.82E+07 0.416 9,708 2.66E+08 0.21
01025890 UTA-42-H(8C) Tac
Original 133.4 9,706 3.90E+08 0.420 6,539 1.77E+08 0.375 9,824 4.00E+08 0.10
01025913 UTA-42-I(9A) Tptpll
Original 138.8 9,190 3.64E+08 0.754 6,103 1.61E+08 0.778 11,734 5.93E+08 0.31
01025912 UTA-42-J(10A) Tptpll
Original 133.2 12,307 6.26E+08 0.387 7,620 2.40E+08 0.480 12,759 6.73E+08 0.22
010125867 UTA-42-K(11C) Tptpul
Original 133.9 11,459 5.46E+08 0.298 7,319 2.23E+08 0.519 12,577 6.58E+08 0.24
01025868 UTA-42-L(12C) Tptpul
Original 141.8 12,948 7.38E+08 0.190 8,766 3.38E+08 0.216 13,178 7.65E+08 0.10
01025908 UTA-42-M(13C) Tptpmn
Original 143.0 13,097 7.62E+08 0.219 8,595 3.28E+08 0.301 13,798 8.46E+08 0.18
01025871 UTA-42-N(14C) Tptpmn
Original 139.5 11,699 5.93E+08 0.373 7,482 2.43E+08 0.405 12,239 6.49E+08 0.20
01025873 UTA-42-O(15C) Tptpll
263
Table 7.1 Summary of Dynamic Properties Determined with Original Tuff Specimens
and Re-cored Tuff Specimens (Continued)
Specimen No. Test No. Formation Type γt Vc Emax Dc min Vs Gmax Ds min Vp Mmax ν
(SMF ID) (UT ID) Symbol
(pcf) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf) (%) (fps) (psf)
Original 127.4 12,151 5.84E+08 0.565 7,110 2.00E+08 0.581 12,329 6.01E+08 0.25
01025925 UTA-42-P(16C) Tptpll
Original 108.7 9,103 2.80E+08 0.514 6,014 1.22E+08 0.713 9,368 2.96E+08 0.15
01025933 UTA-42-Q(17C) Tcp
Original 118.3 8,936 2.93E+08 0.410 5,732 1.21E+08 0.733 9,172 3.09E+08 0.18
01025920 UTA-42-R(18C) Tcp
Original 147.6 12,922 7.65E+08 0.389 8,557 3.36E+08 0.295 13,384 8.21E+08 0.15
01025994 UTA-42-S(19C) Tcb
Original 109.7 8,661 2.56E+08 0.765 5,670 1.10E+08 0.764 9,136 2.84E+08 0.19
01025989 UTA-42-T(20C) Tct
Original 102.3 8,123 2.10E+08 0.355 5,191 8.56E+07 0.604 8,541 2.32E+08 0.21
01025992 UTA-42-U(21C) Tct
Original 89.6 6,860 1.31E+08 0.496 4,595 5.88E+07 0.727 7,024 1.37E+08 0.13
01026002 UTA-42-W(23C) Tpy
Original 80.5 5,608 7.86E+07 0.646 3,519 3.09E+07 0.774 6,600 1.09E+08 0.30
01026004 UTA-42-X(24C) Tpbt3
Original 72.9 6,453 9.43E+07 0.371 4,163 3.92E+07 0.489 7,244 1.19E+08 0.25
01026005 UTA-42-Y(25C) Tpp
Original 141.5 9,922 4.33E+08 0.760 6,303 1.75E+08 0.738 11,812 6.13E+08 0.30
01025877 UTA-42-AA(27C) Tptpv3
Original 65.3 3,281 2.18E+07 2.546 2,069 8.68E+06 5.331 3,911 3.10E+07 0.31
01026003 UTA-42-AB(28E) Tpbt2
Original 109.5 9,254 2.91E+08 0.477 5,983 1.22E+08 0.451 9,727 3.22E+08 0.20
01025884 UTA-42-AC(29C) Tac (Devitrified)
Original 142.3 11,695 6.05E+08 0.376 7,756 2.66E+08 0.380 11,943 6.30E+08 0.14
01026707 UTA-42-AD(30A) Tcpm
Original 115.8 9,049 2.95E+08 0.628 6,080 1.33E+08 0.648 9,204 3.05E+08 0.11
01026731 UTA-42-AE(31A) Tcbuv
Original 103.8 5,142 8.52E+07 0.930 3,239 3.38E+07 1.819 7,829 1.98E+08 0.40
01026713 UTA-42-AF(32A) Tcblv
Original 109.0 7,118 1.72E+08 1.981 4,457 6.72E+07 2.082 8,235 2.30E+08 0.29
01026716 UTA-42-AG(33A) Tctuv(z)
264
(a) Vs from Re-cored Specimen, m/sec
0 1000 2000 3000
Vs from Original Specimen, m/sec

Vs from Original Specimen, ft/sec
12000
29 Re-cored Specimens
10000 3000
8000
2000
6000
4000
1000
2000
0 0
0 4000 8000 12000
Vs from Re-cored Specimen, ft/sec
(b) Vc from Re-cored Specimen, m/sec (c) Vp from Re-cored Specimen, m/sec
0 2000 4000 6000 0 2000 4000 6000
Vp from Original Specimen, m/sec

Vc from Original Specimen, m/sec
Vp from Original Specimen, ft/sec

Vc from Original Specimen, ft/sec
20000 6000 20000 6000

29 Re-cored Specimens 29 Re-cored Specimens
15000 15000
4000 4000
10000 10000
2000 2000
5000 5000
0 0 0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Vc from Re-cored Specimen, ft/sec Vp from Re-cored Specimen, ft/sec
Figure 7.1 Comparison of: (a) Shear Wave Velocities (Vs), (b) Unconstrained
Compression Wave Velocities (Vc), and (c) Constrained Wave Velocities
(Vp) of Original and Re-cored Tuff Specimens
265
(a) (b)
Figure 7.2 Tuff Specimens Excluded in Analysis of Re-coring Effect: (a) UTA-42-E
(5C), Tptpll and (b) UTA-42-AF (32A), Tcblv
If these two specimens are excluded, the differences in the shear wave velocities
are not larger than 12 %. These differences could come from the change in the relative
amount of internal flaws rather than the re-coring operation because the overall average
value of the shear wave velocities before and after re-coring are quite close as seen in
Table 7.2. If the re-coring had some effect, the average values might increase or decrease.
In the Figure 7.1b and 7.1c, the unconstrained and constrained compression wave
velocities show similar trends as shear wave velocities. Figure 7.3 shows the changes of
shear modulus, unconstrained Young’s modulus and constrained elastic modulus due to
re-coring. The differences and trends of change of moduli are similar to the seismic wave
velocities because the average values of the each modulus before and after re-coring are
very close to each other. Hence, the re-coring operation had little effect on the moduli.
The change of total unit weight before and after re-coring is shown in Figure 7.4. On the
whole, the differences due to re-coring are nearly negligible although a slight increase in
total unit weights was detected. The effect on Poisson’s ratios due to the re-coring is
presented in Figure 7.5. The changes of Poisson’s ratios seem to be random and the
266
magnitude of the change is typically small. The average values of Poisson’s ratios before
and after re-coring are almost the same.
The most change in dynamic properties due to re-coring occurred in the material
damping ratio in shear and in unconstrained compression as shown in Figure 7.6. Unlike
the other parameters, the material damping ratios seem to be affected by re-coring
because the overall trend shows increase in material damping ratios. Table 7.2 also shows
the increase of average values of material damping ratios due to re-coring. The increase
of material damping ratio due to re-coring seems to be happened due to the increase of
water content because circulated water for cooling can infiltrate into the re-cored
specimens during re-coring operations.
Consequently, the dynamic properties, except material damping ratio, are not
affected by the re-coring work but seem to be affected by the change of internal flaws.
Only material damping ratio seems to be increased by re-coring operation.
Table 7.2 Summary of Average Values of Dynamic Properties of Original and Re-
cored Tuff Specimens
After Re-coring
Dynamic Property Original Specimen Absolute Difference Relative Difference (%)
Specimen
Vs (fps) 6329 6185 -144.28 2.28
Vc (fps) 9792 9469 -323.36 3.30
Vp (fps) 10425 10130 -295.86 2.84
Gmax (psf) 1.73E+08 1.69E+08 -3.32E+06 1.92
Emax (psf) 4.13E+08 4.01E+08 -1.23E+07 2.98
Mmax (psf) 4.62E+08 4.51E+08 -1.05E+07 2.27
γt (pcf) 119 121 1.96 1.64
Ds (%) 0.57 1.18 0.62 108.62
Dc (%) 0.74 1.07 0.32 43.40
ν 0.21 0.20 -0.01 2.68

Note: 5C and 32A are excluded in calculation of average.
267
(a) Gmax from Re-cored Specimen, Mpa
60 10000 20000
Gmax from Original Specimen, Mpa

Gmax from Original Specimen, psf
500x10
400 20000
300
200 10000
100
0 0 6
0 100 200 300 400500x10
Gmax from Re-cored Specimen, psf
(b) Emax from Re-cored Specimen, Mpa (c) Mmax from Re-cored Specimen, Mpa
90 20000 40000 90 20000 40000
Mmax from Original Specimen, Mpa

Emax from Original Specimen, Mpa
Mmax from Original Specimen, psf

Emax from Original Specimen, psf
1.2x10 1.2x10
1.0 1.0
0.8 40000 0.8 40000
0.6 0.6
0.4 20000 0.4 20000
0.2 0.2
0.0 0 9 0.0 0 9
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2x10 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2x10
Emax from Re-cored Specimen, psf Mmax from Re-cored Specimen, psf
Figure 7.3 Comparison of: (a) Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax), (b) Unconstrained
Young’s Modulus in Small Strain (Emax), and (c) Constrained Elastic
Modulus (Mmax) of Original and Re-cored Tuff Specimens
268
3
γt from Re-cored Specimen, kN/m
0 10 20 30
γt from Original Specimen, kN/m

200
γt from Original Specimen, pcf

30
150 25
20
100 15
10
50
5
0 0
0 50 100 150 200
3
γt from Re-cored Specimen, pcf
Figure 7.4 Comparison of Total Unit Weights (γt) of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Specimens
Poisson's Ratio from Original Specimen, ν
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Poisson's Ratio from Re-Cored Specimen, ν
Figure 7.5 Comparison of Poisson’s Ratios (ν) of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Specimens
269
(a) Quality Factor from Re-cored Specimen, Q
Quality Factor from Original Specimen, Q

16.67
6 8.33
Ds from Original Specimen, %

5
4
3 16.67
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ds from Re-cored Specimen, %
(b) Quality Factor from Re-cored Specimen, Q

16.67 8.33
6
Dc from Original Specimen, %
5
4
3 16.67
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dc from Re-cored Specimen, %
Figure 7.6 Comparison of: (a) Material Damping Ratios in Shear (Ds min), and (b)
Material Damping Ratios in Unconstrained Compression (Dc min) of Original
and Re-cored Tuff Specimens
270
7.3 LINEAR DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF TUFFS THROUGH FIXED-FREE RCTS TESTS
Linear dynamic properties were measured in the small-strain range where soil and
rock behave as linear elastic material. All results from the free-free URC tests are in the
linear range because the vibrations of specimens are extremely small. In addition, the
initial resonances in the fixed-free RCTS tests are linear dynamic properties because the
strains are less than elastic threshold strain. All 47 re-cored tuff specimens, tested in the
fixed-free RCTS device, have also been tested with free-free URC method. Hence, the
comparison between the linear dynamic properties from the fixed-free RCTS tests and the
linear properties from the free-free URC tests are presented in this section. In addition,
general relationships between the linear dynamic properties from the fixed-free RCTS
tests and other parameters such as total unit weights and confining pressures are
discussed.
7.3.1 Dynamic Properties in the Small-Strain Range and Unconfined State
Linear dynamic properties of 47 tuff specimens were measured by: (1) free-free
URC tests, and (2) fixed-free RCTS tests. A listing of the linear dynamic properties
measured from these tests is given in Tables 7.3 and 7.4. The 16 tuff specimens tested in
2002 and two specimens, UTA-42-A(1G) and UTA-42-B(2A, 2B, 2C), tested in 2003 ~
2006 were not tested with free-free URC device after re-coring. Hence, the linear
dynamic properties measured from free-free URC tests with the original specimens are
used instead of the results of the re-cored specimens.
The shear wave velocities measured in both types of tests are compared in Figure
7.7. Since UTA-42-B and UTA-42-C have three and two test results respectively, 50 test
results from 47 specimens are plotted in the figure. Both sets of tests were performed
under the unconfined state and all dynamic properties were measured at shear strains
271
below 0.0001 %. As seen in the Figure 7.7, the welded tuffs with non-lithophysae are the
stiffest materials. Then, the welded tuffs with lithophysae appear in the middle right zone.
The moderately welded tuffs exhibit slightly lower velocities. Finally, the nonwelded
tuffs fall in at the lower left zone of the figure. The largest difference between both sets
of test results is shown by UTA-42-A(1G) which is 65 %. A possible reason for this
difference is a size effect of the specimen. As previously stated, the comparison of the
shear wave velocities of 1G was conducted between re-cored specimen (fixed-free
RCTS) and original specimen (free-free URC). However, the size of the re-cored
specimen of 1G was 0.8 inch (diameter) by 1.6 inch (length) and the size of original
specimen was 3.2 inch (diameter) by 7.2 inch (length), which was 64 times of re-cored
specimen as shown in Figures 7.8a and 7.8b. Hence, the re-cored specimen was less
likely to have internal flaws and its shear wave velocity jumped higher than the original
core. If the specimen 1G is considered as exception, the next largest differences are
shown by specimen UTA-23-B of 35 % as shown in Figure 7.8c. The reason of this
difference was guessed that the glue-bonding between the specimen and top cap or base
pedestal might not have sufficient stiffness because of too early start of RCTS test.
Excluding the above two specimens, all differences between both results are below 20 %.
However, there is the increasing trend of Vs from free-free URC tests with the increase of
Vs from the fixed-free RCTS tests. In Table 7.5, this trend can be checked again. The
welded tuff group with non-lithophysae show largest average difference in shear wave
velocities. However, the difference becomes smaller in the welded tuff group with
lithophysae and the difference becomes even smaller in the moderately welded tuff group.
In the nonwelded tuff group, Vs from the fixed-free RCTS tests are slightly larger than Vs
from the free-free URC tests. The reason of this trend might come from that the fixed
condition between specimen and base pedestal became more difficult to be satisfied with
272
the increase of stiffness of specimen. The bonding glue between specimen and base
pedestal could generate slight deformation due to applied torque. This deformation can
contribute to make more relative error due to smaller total deformation in case of stiffer
tuff specimen.
Table 7.3 Summary of Dynamic Properties Measured by Free-Free URC and Fixed-
Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens; Tested in 2002
Total Free-Free URC Test Fixed-Free RCTS Test
Specimen No. Formation
No. Test No.(UT ID) Unit Weight
(SMF ID) Symbol Vs Ds min Gmax Vs Ds min Gmax
(pcf)
(fps) (%) (psf) (fps) (%) (psf)
1 01012371 UTA-20-A Tpki 88.3 3395 1.48 3.16E+07 3387 1.10 3.15E+07
2 01012372 UTA-20-B Tpcrn 121.4 5953 0.72 1.33E+08 5522 0.70 1.15E+08
3 01012373 UTA-20-C Tpcrn 128.1 6534 0.47 1.70E+08 5233 0.60 1.09E+08
4 01012370 UTA-20-D Tpki 99.1 3867 1.53 4.60E+07 4050 0.77 5.05E+07
5 01011666 UTA-20-F Tpki 75.1 3413 1.18 2.72E+07 3931 0.85 3.60E+07
6 01011668 UTA-20-G Tpki 80.3 3813 1.53 3.63E+07 3758 0.66 3.52E+07
7 01012512 UTA-23-A Tpki 98.0 3561 1.01 3.76E+07 4086 0.99 6.17E+07
8 01012516 UTA-23-B Tpcrn 126.4 6174 1.30 1.50E+08 4022 2.33 6.35E+07
9 01012518 UTA-23-C Tpcpul 134.4 6913 0.19 1.86E+08 6925 1.80 2.00E+08
10 01012519 UTA-23-D Tpcpmn 147.5 8551 0.20 3.35E+08 7426 1.35 2.30E+08
11 01012520 UTA-23-E Tpcrn 118.4 5064 1.06 9.45E+07 4987 0.63 9.15E+07
12 01012522 UTA-23-F Tpcrn 132.4 6427 0.26 1.69E+08 6368 0.40 1.67E+08
13 01012525 UTA-23-G Tpcpul 145.5 7866 1.03 2.79E+08 7398 0.50 2.48E+08
14 01012527 UTA-23-H Tpcpmn 146.2 7854 1.19 2.80E+08 7230 1.01 2.38E+08
15 01012535 UTA-23-I Tpcrn 86.2 3804 2.01 3.88E+07 4559 0.25 5.57E+07
16 01012538 UTA-23-J Tpcpul 140.6 7893 1.02 2.72E+08 6869 1.30 2.02E+08
Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006
(pcf)
(fps) (%) (psf) (fps) (%) (psf)
1 01025902 UTA-42-A(1G) Tptrl 136 3686 1.33 5.55E+07 6100 0.41 1.57E+08
UTA-42-B(2A) Tptpul 137 6998 0.49 2.08E+08 5840 0.74 1.45E+08
2 01025905 UTA-42-B(2B) Tptpul 135 6998 0.49 2.08E+08 5668 0.89 1.35E+08
UTA-42-B(2C) Tptpul 141 6998 0.49 2.08E+08 7987 0.29 2.80E+08
273
Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens; Tested in 2003 ~ 2006
(Continued)
(pcf)
(fps) (%) (psf) (fps) (%) (psf)
UTA-42-C(3C) Tptpmn 144 8402 0.40 3.16E+08 7157 0.54 2.29E+08
3 01025910
UTA-42-C(3K) Tptpmn 147 8402 0.40 3.16E+08 8401 0.52 3.22E+08
4 01025886 UTA-42-D(4C) Tptrn 145 6683 0.32 2.00E+08 5994 0.37 1.61E+08
5 01025914 UTA-42-E(5C) Tptpll 138 7755 0.90 2.58E+08 6739 0.53 1.95E+08
6 01025915 UTA-42-F(6C) Tptpln 147 9154 0.36 3.81E+08 7960 0.59 2.89E+08
7 01025881 UTA-42-G(7C) Tac 103 4835 0.80 7.46E+07 4798 0.33 7.35E+07
8 01025890 UTA-42-H(8C) Tac 94 5966 0.69 1.04E+08 5817 0.31 9.85E+07
9 01025913 UTA-42-I(9A) Tptpll 136 6573 0.53 1.82E+08 5653 0.85 1.35E+08
10 01025912 UTA-42-J(10A) Tptpll 138 5725 0.74 1.40E+08 5366 0.83 1.24E+08
11 010125867 UTA-42-K(11C) Tptpul 139 7968 0.86 2.74E+08 7183 0.60 2.23E+08
12 01025868 UTA-42-L(12C) Tptpul 137 7443 1.20 2.38E+08 6786 0.45 1.96E+08
13 01025908 UTA-42-M(13C) Tptpmn 144 8442 0.83 3.18E+08 7514 0.52 2.52E+08
14 01025871 UTA-42-N(14C) Tptpmn 144 8675 0.83 3.38E+08 7616 0.84 2.59E+08
15 01025873 UTA-42-O(15C) Tptpll 143 6912 1.02 2.12E+08 6391 0.52 1.82E+08
16 01025925 UTA-42-P(16C) Tptpll 138 7293 1.12 2.28E+08 6673 0.42 1.91E+08
17 01025933 UTA-42-Q(17C) Tcp 110 5706 0.91 1.11E+08 5542 0.56 1.05E+08
18 01025920 UTA-42-R(18C) Tcp(unit 3) 119 5634 0.97 1.17E+08 5415 0.30 1.08E+08
19 01025994 UTA-42-S(19C) Tcb 149 8485 0.43 3.33E+08 7327 0.52 2.48E+08
20 01025989 UTA-42-T(20C) Tct 111 5307 0.72 9.66E+07 5353 0.47 9.84E+07
21 01025992 UTA-42-U(21C) Tct 103 5298 0.59 9.01E+07 5072 0.30 8.26E+07
22 01026002 UTA-42-W(23C) Tpy 91 4370 1.12 5.38E+07 4208 0.68 4.99E+07
23 01026004 UTA-42-X(24C) Tpbt3 81 3126 1.75 2.45E+07 3296 0.75 2.72E+07
24 01026005 UTA-42-Y(25C) Tpp 76 3820 1.26 3.42E+07 4141 0.35 4.02E+07
25 01025877 UTA-42-AA(27C) Tptpv3 145 5579 2.97 1.40E+08 5264 1.18 1.24E+08
26 01026003 UTA-42-AB(28E) Tpbt2 63 1819 4.23 6.56E+06 2064 0.87 8.36E+06
27 01025884 UTA-42-AC(29C) Tac(Dev) 109 5798 0.67 1.14E+08 5561 0.58 1.05E+08
28 01026707 UTA-42-AD(30A) Tcpm 143 7564 0.58 2.51E+08 6804 1.16 2.05E+08
29 01026731 UTA-42-AE(31A) Tcbuv 120 5890 1.02 1.26E+08 5401 0.79 1.09E+08
30 01026713 UTA-42-AF(32A) Tcblv(z) 105 5051 1.02 8.34E+07 4912 0.68 7.90E+07
31 01026716 UTA-42-AG(33A) Tctuv(z) 110 4528 1.90 7.00E+07 4660 0.81 7.42E+07
274
Shear Wave Velocity from Fixed-Free Test (m/s)
0 1000 2000 3000
Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test (m/s)

Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free Test (fps)
10000 3000
Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Moderately Welded Tuff *
8000 2500
Non-welded Tuff
Unconfined State *
γ < 0.0001% 2000
6000
23-B
1500
4000 *
1G
1000
2000 47 specimens, 50 test results 500

* Small Size Specimen (0.8 inch Dia.)
Tested in Fixed-Free Device
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Shear Wave Velocity from Fixed-Free Test (fps)
Figure 7.7 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocities at Small Strains Measured by Free-
Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens
275
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 7.8 Tuff Specimens Excluded in Comparison of the Results between Free-Free
URC and Fixed-Free RCTS: (a) Original Specimen of UTA-42-A (1G),
Tptrl, (b) Re-cored Specimen of UTA-42-A (1G), Tptrl and (c) UTA-23-B,
Tpcrn
The comparison of shear moduli at small strains between the two measurements is
shown in Figure 7.9. The differences between the testing results are amplified due to the
squaring of the differences between the shear wave velocities. The trend, which is same
as that found with shear wave velocities, shows up more clearly in this figure. In Figure
7.10, the comparison of material damping ratios in shear at small-strains (Ds min) is shown.
In this figure, Ds min from the free-free URC tests is generally larger than Ds min from the
fixed-free RCTS tests. In Table 7.5, there is a noticeable trend in that the difference
between the material damping ratios becomes larger as the welding degree of tuffs
decreases.
Possible reasons for these differences between the two testing methods: (1) the
different vibration source; the free-free URC tests uses the impulse shock as excitation
source but the fixed-free RCTS uses a continuous sinusoidal electro-magnetic force, (2)
276
the different way of signal processing; the free-free URC test uses the FFT algorithm to
get an amplitude-response curve but the fixed-free RCTS tests uses continuous amplitude
measurements with the driving frequency to get the amplitude-response curve, (3) a
frequency effect; the general resonance frequency in the free-free URC tests rang from
1300 Hz to 7200 Hz but the resonant frequency in the fixed-free RCTS tests are below
500 Hz, and (4) different boundary conditions. The exact reason or reasons are unknown
but boundary conditions may be most the most significant factor.
Table 7.5 Comparison of Average Values of Dynamic Properties between Free-Free

URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens
Free-Free Fixed-Free Difference
Tuff Type Dynamic Property
URC Test RCTS Tests (%)
Shear Wave Velocity (Vs, fps) 8270 7412 10.4

Welded Tuff
Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax, psf) 3.11E+08 2.47E+08 20.3
with Non-lithophysae
Material Damping Ratio in Shear (Ds min, %) 0.57 0.72 26.3

Welded Tuff
Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax, psf) 2.23E+08 1.89E+08 15.1
with Lithophysae
Moderately Welded Tuff Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax, psf) 1.35E+08 1.18E+08 12.5
Non-welded Tuff Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax, psf) 4.91E+07 5.15E+07 4.7
Total Shear Modulus in Small Strain (Gmax, psf) 1.84E+08 1.57E+08 14.7
Note: UTA-42-A(1G) and UTA-23-B are excluded in calculation of average value.
277
G in Small-Strain from Fixed-Free Test (Mpa)
60 5000 10000 15000
G in Small-Strain from Free-Free Test (Mpa)

400x10
G in Small-Strain from Free-Free Test (psf)

Moderately Welded Tuff
Non-welded Tuff * 15000
300 Unconfined State
γ < 0.0001%
200
* 10000
23-B
1G
100 5000
* 47 specimens, 50 test results
* Small Size Specimen (0.8 inch Dia.)
Tested in Fixed-Free Device
0 0 6
0 100 200 300 400x10
G in Small-Strain from Fixed-Free Test (psf)
Figure 7.9 Comparison of Shear Moduli at Small Strains Measured by Free-Free URC
and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens
278
Qaulity Factor, Q
Material Damping Ratio from Free-Free Test (%)

20 10
5
47 specimens, 50 test results
Qaulity Factor, Q
3
20
2
Unconfined State
γ < 0.0001%
1 Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff

Non-welded Tuff
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Material Damping Ratio from Fixed-Free Test (%)
Figure 7.10 Comparison of Material Damping Ratios in Shear at Small Strains Measured
by Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens
279
7.3.2 General Relationships of Vs – γt, Gmax – γt, Ds min – γt, and Vs – Ds min
The general relationship between shear wave velocity (Vs) and total unit weight of
47 re-cored specimens is shown in Figure 7.11. The free-free data from the stiff
specimens approximately follow the general trend line (black dotted line) which was
determined from fitting the results of the free-free URC tests with 149 original specimens
(see Figure 6.4). However, the fixed-free data points of stiff specimens typically fall
below the general trend line, likely due to a lack of fixity at the base of the specimen. On
the other hand, the free-free and fixed-free data of soft tuff specimens fall above the
general trend line because the specimens with a good condition are typically selected for
the fixed-free RCTS testing. However, there is a strong trend, of Vs decreasing as γt
decreases regardless of the testing methods. This trend is emphasized in Figure 7.12
showing shear modulus because shear modulus is the squares of the shear wave velocity.
The general relationship between total unit weights and shear moduli seems to be
exponential.
The relationship between material damping ratio at small strains and total unit
weight is shown in Figure 7.13. Material damping ratios from the free-free URC tests
show a wider variation and higher damping with the decrease of the total unit weights.
However, the material damping ratios from the fixed-free RCTS tests show a more
constant trend, regardless of the total unit weight. So, the difference of average values
between these two groups becomes larger with the decrease of the total unit weight. This
trend can be checked in Table 7.5. The relationship between material damping ratio at
small strains and shear wave velocity is shown in Figure 7.14. The general trend of the
fixed-free and free-free data in the figure shows material damping ratio slightly
increasing with the decrease of the shear wave velocity. It is interesting to note that again
280
shear wave velocity has a higher correlation with material damping ratio rather than with
total unit weight.
3
Total Unit Weight (kN/m )
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
10000 3000
Free-Free Test 47 specimens, 50 test results
8000 Non-welded Tuff
2500
Fixed-Free Test
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)

Shear Wave Velocity (fps)

2000
6000 Non-welded Tuff
1500
4000
1000
2000 Unconfined State

γ < 0.0001%
500
General Relationship from Free-Free URC Tests with 154 Original Specimens
0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160
Total Unit Weight (pcf)
Figure 7.11 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Shear Wave Velocity
at Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS Tests for the
Tuff Specimens
281
3
6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
400x10
Free-Free Test
Non-welded Tuff 15000
300 Fixed-Free Test
G in Small Strain (Mpa)

G in Small Strain (psf)

Non-welded Tuff
200
Unconfined State 10000
γ < 0.0001%
47 specimens, 50 test results
100 5000
0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 7.12 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Shear Modulus at
Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS for the Tuff
Specimens
282
3
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
5 10
47 specimens, 50 test results Free-Free Test
Unconfined State Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
γ < 0.0001% Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Material Damping Ratio in Shear (%)

4 Non-welded Tuff
Fixed-Free Test
Quality Factor, Q
3 Non-welded Tuff
20
0
60 80 100 120 140 160
Figure 7.13 General Relationship between Total Unit Weight and Material Damping
Ratio in Shear at Small Strains from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free RCTS
Tests for the Tuff Specimens
283
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

5 10
47 specimens, 50 test results Free-Free Test
Unconfined State Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
γ < 0.0001% Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Material Damping Ratio in Shear (%)

4 Non-welded Tuff
Fixed-Free Test
Quality Factor, Q
3 Non-welded Tuff
20
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Shear Wave Velocity (psf)
Figure 7.14 General Relationship between Material Damping Ratio in Shear at Small
Strains and Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free URC and Fixed-Free
RCTS Tests for the Tuff Specimens
7.3.3 Log Vs – Log σo and Log Gmax – Log σo Relationships
With the RCTS tests of 47 tuff specimens, the variation of low-amplitude shear
wave velocities (Vs) and low-amplitude shear moduli (Gmax) with the magnitude of
confining pressure were measured. The results of these measurements are presented in
FigureS 7.15 and 7.16, respectively. The variation of shear wave velocities with
confining pressure for each sub-group of tuffs, divided according to the degree of
welding and arranged in descending order of welding, are presented in Figures 7.17
284
through 7.20. Two Tptpul (UTA-42-K(11C) and UTA-42-L(12C)) specimens were not
tested under confinement in the fixed-free RCTS tests because the surface sealing of
these specimens for confinement was impossible due to the large voids in the specimen
surface as shown in Figure 7.21. Hence, 45 tuff specimens (48 test results) are shown in
Figure 7.15 and 7.16 to develop the general relationship between confining pressure and
shear wave velocity or Gmax, respectively. The specimens were confined under total
isotropic pressures that were applied by the compressed nitrogen gas. To sustain the
internal pressure of the specimens at atmospheric pressure, a ventilation holes was drilled
at the bottom of the specimen before setup and the hole was connected to the outside
atmosphere. The confining pressures for the low-amplitude fixed-free RCTS tests were
intended to be composed of six stages as described in Section 5.4.2. The data grouped on
the left side in Figures 7.15 through 7.20 are the test results under the unconfined state,
σo = 0. As shown in Figure 7.15, pressure dependencies of shear wave velocities
decreased as the specimen had higher shear wave velocity and the shear wave velocity
was nearly unaffected by the confining pressure if it is larger than 3,000 fps. Similar
phenomenon was found by Choi (2008). In his study, he monitored the pressure
dependencies of shear wave velocities of Bandelier tuffs from New Mexico and Topopah
Spring tuffs from Yucca Mountain and he concluded that the shear wave velocity of
2,000 fps is the threshold value between soil-like material with pressure dependency of
shear wave velocity and rock-like material with pressure independency of shear wave
velocity.
285
Isotropic Confining Pressure, σo, kPa
1 2 3 4
Geologic Unit Spec. ID.5 γt (pcf)
10 10 10 10 Tptrl 1G
10 136
4
10 Tptpul 2A-3 137 3
Tptpul 2B-3 135
9 Tptpul 2C-2 141
Tptpmn 3C-2 144
8 Tptpmn 3K-2 147
Tptrn 4C-2 145
Tptpll 5C-2 138
7 Tptpln 6C-2 147
Tac 7C-2 103 2
Tac 8C-2 94
6 Tptpll 9C-2 136
Tptpll 10A-2 138
Tptpmn 13C-2 144
Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Vs , ft/sec
Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/sec

Tptpmn 14C-2 144
5 Tptpll 15C-3 143
Tptpll 16C-2 138
Tcp 17C-2 110
Tcp 18C-2 119
4
Tcb 19C-2 149
Tct 20C-2 111
Tct 21C-2 103
Tpy 23C 91
Tpbt3 24C 81
Tpp 25C 76
1000
3 Tptpv3 27C 145
9
Tpbt2 28E 63
Tac 29C 109
Tcpm 30A 143 8
Tcbuv 31A 120
Tcblv(z) 32A 105
Without Confinememt 7
Tctuv(z) 33A 110
Tpki 20-A 88
Tpcrn 20-B 121
2 Tpcrn 20-C 128 6
Tpki 20-D 99
Tpki 20-F 75
Tpki 20-G 80
Tpki 23-A 98 5
Tpcrn 23-B 126
Tpcpul 23-C 134
Tpcpmn 23-D 148
Tpcrn 23-E 118 4
45 Specimens, 48 Test Results Tpcrn 23-F 132
γ < 0.0001% Tpcpul 23-G 145
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpcpmn 23-H 146
Tpcrn 23-I 86
Tpcpul 23-J 141
3
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Isotropic Confining Pressure, σo, psf
Figure 7.15 Variation of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Isotropic Confining
Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff Specimens
286
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 Geologic
10 Unit Spec. ID. 10 γt (pcf)
6 Tptrl 1G 136
10 9 Tptpul 2A-3 137
8 Tptpul 2B-3 135 4
7 Tptpul 2C-2 141
6 Without Confinememt 3
Tptpmn 3C-2 144
5 Tptpmn 3K-2 147
Tptrn 4C-2 145
4 2
Tptpll 5C-2 138
Tptpln 6C-2 147
3 Tac 7C-2 103
Tac 8C-2 94
Tptpll 9A-2 136 4
2
9
10
Tptpll 10A-2 138
Tptpmn 13C-2 144 8
7
Tptpmn 14C-2 144
Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus, Gmax, MPa

6
Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus, Gmax, ksf
Tptpll 15C-3 143

5 Tptpll 16C-2 138 5
10 9 Tcp 17C-2 110
8 4
Tcp 18C-2 119
7 Tcb 19C-2 149
6 3
Tct 20C-2 111
5 Tct 21C-2 103
Tpy 23C 91 2
4
Tpbt3 24C 81
Tpp 25C 76
3
Tptpv3 27C 145
Tpbt2 28E 63
3
2 Tac 29C 109
9
10
Tcpm 30A 143
8
Tcbuv 31A 120
7
Tcblv(z) 32A 105
6
Tctuv(z) 33A 110
4 Tpki 20-A 88 5
10 9 Tpcrn 20-B 121 4
8
Tpcrn 20-C 128
7
Tpki 20-D 99 3
6
Tpki 20-F 75
5 Tpki 20-G 80
4 Tpki 23-A 98 2
Tpcrn 23-B 126
3 Tpcpul 23-C 134
Tpcpmn 23-D 148
Tpcrn 23-E 118 2
2
45 Specimens, 48 Test Results Tpcrn 23-F 132
9
10
Tpcpul 23-G 145 8
γ < 0.0001% Tpcpmn 23-H 146 7
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpcrn 23-I 86 6
3
Tpcpul 23-J 141
5
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 7.16 Variation of Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus with Isotropic Confining

Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff Specimens
287
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4
10 3

9
8
7
2
6
5
Without Confinememt
4
1000
3 9
Geologic Unit Spec. ID. γt (pcf) 8
Tptpmn 3C-2 144 7
Tptpmn 3K-2 147
2 Tptrn 4C-2 145 6
7 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens Tptpln 6C-2 147

5
8 Test Results Tptpmn 13C-2 144
Tptpmn 14C-2 144
γ < 0.0001% 4
Tpcpmn 23-D 148
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpcpmn 23-H 146
3
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with Seven Welded Nonlithophysal
Tuff Specimens

1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4
10 3
9 Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/sec

8
7
2
6
4 Geologic Unit Spec. ID. γt (pcf)

Tptrl 1G 136
Tptpul 2A-3 137 1000
Tptpul 2B-3 135
Tptpul 2C-2 141 8
Tptpll 5C-2 138 7
Tptpll 9C-2 136
2 6
Tptpll 10A-2 138
10 Welded Lithophysal Specimens Tptpll 15C-3 143 5
12 Test Results Tptpll 16C-2 138
γ < 0.0001% Tpcpul 23-C 134
4
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpcpul 23-G 145
Tpcpul 23-J 141
3
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with Nine Welded Lithophysal Tuff
Specimens
288
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4
10 3

8 Tcp 17C-2 110
7 Tcp 18C-2 119
2
Tcb 19C-2 149
6
Tct 20C-2 111
5 Tct 21C-2 103
Tptpv3 27C 145
4 Tcpm 30A 143
Tcbuv 31A 120
Tcblv(z) 32A 105 1000
3 Tctuv(z) 33A 110 9
Without Confinememt Tpcrn 20-B 121 8
Tpcrn 20-C 128
7
Tpcrn 23-B 126
2 Tpcrn 23-E 118 6
Tpcrn 23-F 132
16 Moderately Welded Specimens Tpcrn 23-I 86 5
16 Test Results
γ < 0.0001% 4
Time = 30 min at each σo
3
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 16 Moderately Welded Tuff
Specimens

1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4
10 3
9 Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/sec

8
7
2
6

Tac 7C-2 103
Tac 8C-2 94 1000
3 Tpy 23C 91 9
Tpbt3 24C 81 8
Tpp 25C 76 7
Tpbt2 28E 63
Tac 29C 109
Tpki 23-A 98
12 Nonwelded Specimens 5
Tpki 20-A 88
12 Test Results
Tpki 20-D 99
γ < 0.0001% Tpki 20-F 75
4
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpki 20-G 80
3
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
289
(a) (b)
Figure 7.21 Picture of Specimens, (a) UTA-42-K (11C), Tptpul (Welded Lithophysal
Tuff) and (b) UTA42-L (12C), Tptpul (Welded Lithophysal Tuff), that are
not Tested under Confinement
As shown in figures, all tuff specimens except two specimens exhibited little or
no change in Vs and Gmax with increasing σo. The two specimens that show a pressure-
dependency of Vs and Gmax, are bedded tuffs; One Pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff
(UTA-42-X (24C), Tpbt3) and One Pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff (UTA-42-AB (28E),
Tpbt2) as shown in Figure 7.22. To analyze the general trend of pressure- dependency of
tuff specimens, the following quantitative relationships between VS and Gmax versus σo,
which describe the general trends shown in Figures 7.15 and 7.16, were introduced (Choi,
2008):
V s = A v ⎛⎜ σ o / Pa ⎞⎟ nv (7.1)
⎝ ⎠
G max = A G ⎛⎜ σ o / Pa ⎞⎟ nG (7.2)
⎝ ⎠
where: AV = small-strain shear wave velocity at σo = 1 atm,

AG = small-strain shear modulus at σo = 1 atm,
σo = isotropic confining pressure in the same units as Pa,
Pa = one atmosphere (2117 psf or 100 kPa),
nV = a dimensionless exponent in the seismic velocity relationship, and
290
nG = a dimensionless exponent in the shear modulus relationship.
(a) (b)
Figure 7.22 Picture of Tuff Specimens, (a) UTA-42-AB (28E), Tpbt2 (Nonwelded Tuff)
and (b) UTA-42-X (24C), Tpbt3 (Nonwelded Tuff), that Show the Most
Pressure-Dependency in Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus
The parameters, Av, nv, AG, and nG, can be determined by log-log fitting between
Vs versus σo and Gmax versus σo. These parameters, nv and nG, describe pressure-
dependency of the specimens. They represent the slope of increasing or decreasing Vs
and Gmax with increasing confining pressure. If they are close to zero, there is no
pressure-dependency of the specimen. Table 7.6 shows the statistical analyses of nv , Av
nG, and AG average and standard deviation, which represent the pressure-dependency of
each sub-group. According to Table 7.6, the nonlithophysal welded tuffs group shows the
minimum pressure-dependency. The pressure-dependency slowly increases with the
decreasing degree of welding but it is very small. The nonwelded group shows the most
pressure-dependency which is only nv∼0.005 and nG∼0.01. The tuff specimen which
shows the most pressure-dependency is Tpbt2 (UTA-42-AB(28E)), with nv∼0.08 and
nG∼0.16. However, considering the values of nv and nG of Bandelier tuffs are as high as
0.25 and 0.5, respectively, as shown by Choi (2008), the shear wave velocity and shear
modulus at small strains of the tuff from Yucca Mountain can be considered to be nearly
unaffected by confining pressure.
291
Table 7.6 Summary List of Statistical Analysis of nv, Av, nG and AG of Yucca
Mountain Tuff Specimens
AV AG
nv nG
(fps) (psf)
Number of
Group Included Fomration
Specimen
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Average Average Average Average
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
Welded Tpcpmn, Tptrn,

7 0.0008 0.0025 7429 696 0.0039 0.0042 2.50E+08 4.66E+07
Nonlithophysal Tuff Tptpmn, Tptpln
Welded Tpcpul, Tptrl,

10 0.0025 0.0037 6551 766 0.0058 0.0082 1.87E+08 4.68E+07
Lithophysal Tuff Tptpul, Tptpll
Moderately Tpcrn, Tcp,

16 0.0031 0.0037 5599 758 0.0064 0.0075 1.23E+08 5.06E+07
Welded Tuff Tcb, Tct
Tac, Tpki, Tpp,

Non-welded Tuff 12 0.0117 0.0230 4214 955 0.0209 0.0459 5.33E+07 2.93E+07
Tpy, Tpbt
Total 45 0.0047 0.0122 5796 1363 0.0094 0.0240 1.43E+08 8.07E+07
7.3.4 Ds min – Log σo Relationships
The variations of low-amplitude material damping ratio of 45 tuff specimens with

confining pressure are shown in Figure 7.23. Figures 7.24 through 7.27 show the Ds min –
log σo relationships of each sub-group. A material damping ratio under confinement of
the tuff specimens are less than 2.0 %, most likely because better specimens were
selected for the fixed-free RCTS tests. The general trend, with the exception of Specimen
UTA-42-AA(27C) that is shown in Figure 7.28, shows that the material damping ratios
are nearly constant or slowly decrease with increasing confining pressure. The reason that
Specimen UTA-42-AA(27C, Tptpv3) show more influence is that it likely has more
internal flaws because the specimen shows many apparent bedding layers and joints.
292
Geologic Unit Spec. ID. γt (pcf)
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 Tptrl 1G 10 136
4 Tptpul 2A-3 137 12.5
Tptpul 2B-3 135
45 Specimens, 48 Test Results Tptpul 2C-2 141
γ < 0.0001% Tptpmn 3C-2 144
Tptpmn 3K-2 147
Time = 30 min at each σo
Tptrn 4C-2 145
Tptpll 5C-2 138
Tptpln 6C-2 147
Tac 7C-2 103
Tac 8C-2 94
Tptpll 9C-2 136
3 Tptpll 10A-2 138
Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio, Dmin, %
Tptpmn 13C-2 144

Tptpmn 14C-2 144
Tptpll 15C-3 143
Without Confinememt Tptpll 16C-2 138
Tcp 17C-2 110
Tcp 18C-2 119
Tcb 19C-2 149
Quality Factor, Q
Tct 20C-2 111
Tct 21C-2 103
Tpy 23C 91
2 Tpbt3 24C 81 25
Tpp 25C 76
Tptpv3 27C 145
Tpbt2 28E 63
Tac 29C 109
Tcpm 30A 143
Tcbuv 31A 120
Tcblv(z) 32A 105
Tctuv(z) 33A 110
Tpki 20-A 88
Tpcrn 20-B 121
1 Tpcrn 20-C 128
Tpki 20-D 99
Tpki 20-F 75
Tpki 20-G 80
Tpki 23-A 98
Tpcrn 23-B 126
Tpcpul 23-C 134
Tpcpmn 23-D 148
Tpcrn 23-E 118
Tpcrn 23-F 132
Tpcpul 23-G 145
0 Tpcpmn 23-H 146
2 3 4 5 Tpcrn 623-I 86 7
10 10 10 10 Tpcpul 1023-J 141 10

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 45 Tuff Specimens
293
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4 12.5

7 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens Tptpmn 3C-2 144
8 Test Results Tptpmn 3K-2 147
γ < 0.0001% Tptrn 4C-2 145
3 Time = 30 min at each σo Tptpln 6C-2 147
Tptpmn 13C-2 144
Quality Factor, Q
Tptpmn 14C-2 144
Tpcpmn 23-D 148
Tpcpmn 23-H 146
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10

Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens

1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4 12.5

10 Welded Lithophysal Specimens Tptrl 1G 136
12 Test Results Tptpul 2A-3 137
γ < 0.0001% Tptpul 2B-3 135
Tptpul 2C-2 141
3 Time = 30 min at each σo
Tptpll 5C-2 138
Tptpll 9C-2 136
Without Confinememt
Quality Factor, Q
Tptpll 10A-2 138

Tptpll 15C-3 143
Tptpll 16C-2 138
2 Tpcpul 23-C 134 25
Tpcpul 23-G 145
Tpcpul 23-J 141
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10

Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
294
1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4 12.5

16 Moderately Welded Specimens Tcp 17C-2 110
16 Test Results Tcp 18C-2 119
γ < 0.0001% Tcb 19C-2 149
Time = 30 min at each σo Tct 20C-2 111
3 Tct 21C-2 103
Without Confinememt Tptpv3 27C 145
Quality Factor, Q
Tcpm 30A 143
Tcbuv 31A 120
Tcblv(z) 32A 105
2 Tctuv(z) 33A 110 25
Tpcrn 20-B 121
Tpcrn 20-C 128
Tpcrn 23-B 126
Tpcrn 23-E 118
Tpcrn 23-F 132
1 Tpcrn 23-I 86
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10

Welded Tuff Specimens

1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10
4 12.5

12 Nonwelded Specimens Tac 7C-2 103
12 Test Results Tac 8C-2 94
γ < 0.0001% Tpy 23C 91
Time = 30 min at each σo Tpbt3 24C 81
3 Tpp 25C 76
Without Confinememt Tpbt2 28E 63
Quality Factor, Q
Tac 29C 109

Tpki 23-A 98
Tpki 20-A 88
2 Tpki 20-D 99 25
Tpki 20-F 75
Tpki 20-G 80
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10

Confining Pressure from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests with 12 Nonwelded Tuff
Specimens
295
Figure 7.28 Picture of Tuff Specimen, UTA-42-AA (27C), Tptpv3 (Moderately Welded
Tuff) that Show the Increasing Material Damping Ratio with Increase of
Confinement Pressure
To analyze the general trend for pressure-dependency on material damping ratios,

the same form of a quantitative relationship of Dmin versus σo as VS or Gmax versus σo was
used. This relationship was introduced by Choi (2008) and expressed as:
Dmin = AD (σ o / Pa) nD (7.3)
where: AD = small-strain material damping ratio at σo = 1 atm,

Pa = one atmosphere (2117 psf or 100 kPa), and
nD = a dimensionless exponent of the pressure term.
AD and nD represent D - log σo relationship and the pressure-dependency is
represented by nD. Like Vs and Gmax, AD and nD were evaluated through a log-log fitting
between material damping ratios and confining pressures. The statistical representative
values of nD of each sub-group, average and standard deviation, were computed and are
shown in Table 7.7. Unlike Vs and Gmax, the welded lithophysal tuffs show the minimum
pressure-dependency. However, this may have occurred due to the small data set for each
sub-group. The general trend of pressure-dependency shows the welded nonlithophysal
tuffs and moderately welded tuffs exhibiting the similar pressure-dependency and the
296
nonwelded tuffs showing most. Considering that nD of Bandelier tuffs was as much as -
0.3 (Choi, 2008), the material damping ratio of tuffs from Yucca Mountain can be
thought to be relatively unaffected by the external confining pressure because the
maximum value of nD is -0.1 and the average value of nD is -0.03.
Table 7.7 Summary of Statistical Analysis of nD and AD of Yucca Mountain Tuff

Specimens
AD
nD
Number of (%)
Specimen
Standard Standard
Average Average
Deviation Deviation

7 -0.0293 0.0275 0.65 0.28

10 -0.0130 0.0181 0.73 0.43

16 -0.0228 0.0282 0.64 0.33
Tac, Tpki, Tpp,

Non-welded Tuff 12 -0.0523 0.0797 0.57 0.24
Tpy, Tpbt
Total 45 -0.0288 0.0463 0.65 0.33
7.4 NONLINEAR DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF TUFFS THROUGH FIXED-FREE RCTS TESTS
7.4.1 G– Log γ and G/Gmax-Log γ Relationships
The variation of shear modulus (G) with the magnitude of shear strain (γ) of 47
tuff specimens is shown in Figure 7.29. As stated previously in Section 4.3.2,
measurements of shear moduli and material damping ratios at small strains were
performed at six pressure stages if the tests followed the standard procedure. The testing
to evaluate the G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ, and D – log γ relationships were conducted at
three pressure stages out of the six pressure stages as follows: (1) unconfined state (σo = 0
psi), (2) the estimated in-situ pressure or σo = 100 psi and (3) four times the estimated in-
situ pressure or σo = 400 psi.
297
Shear Strain, γ (decimal)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) Pressure
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptrl (1G) 110 psi
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpul (2A-3) 160 psi
16000
Tptpul (2B-3) 160 psi
Tptpul (2C-2) 160 psi
Usual Upper Limit Tptpmn (3C-2) 450psi
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia.
of Shear Strain Tptpmn (3K-2) 450 psi
300000
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tptrn (4C-2) 450 psi
Tptpll (5C-2) 400 psi
14000
Tptpln (6C-2) 400 psi
Tac (7C-2) 400 psi
Tac (8C-2) 400 psi
Tptpll (9A-2) 400 psi
250000 Tptpul (11C-1) 0 psi
12000
Tptpmn (13C-2) 400 psi
Shear Modulus, G, MPa

Shear Modulus, G, ksf
Tcp (17C-2) 400 psi

10000
200000 Tcp (18C-2) 400 psi
Tcb (19C-2) 400 psi
Tct (20C-2) 400 psi
Tct (21C-2) 400 psi
Tpy (23C) 328 psi
Tpbt3 (24C) 400 psi 8000
Tpp (25C) 400 psi
150000 Tptpv3 (27C) 400 psi
Tpbt2 (28E) 400 psi
Tac (29C) 400 psi
Tcpm (30A) 400 psi
Tcbuv (31A) 400 psi 6000
Tcblv(z) (32A) 400 psi
Tctuv(z) (33A) 400 psi
100000 Tpki (20-A) 280 psi
Tpcrn (20-B) 460 psi
Tpcrn (20-C) 450 psi
Tpki (20-D) 220 psi 4000
Tpki (20-F) 2 psi
Tpki (20-G) 4 psi
Tpki (23-A) 264 psi
50000
Tpcpul (23-C) 450 psi
Tpcpmn (23-D) 450 psi 2000
Tpcrn (23-E) 72 psi
Tpcrn (23-F) 272 psi
Tpcpul (23-G) 450 psi
Tpcpmn (23-H) 450 psi
Tpcrn (23-I) 450 psi
0 Tpcpul (23-J) 450 psi 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Figure 7.29 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff Specimens at the
Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process
298
The G – log γ curves measured at the highest pressure for each specimen are shown in
Figure 7.29. The measurement at the highest pressure are shown because the maximum
power of the fixed-free RCTS device was typically employed in the final pressure stage
to produce the largest strain in the G – log γ curve. Because of unforeseen problems such
as damage to the interface between the specimen and top cap or base pedestal, the above
standard procedure could not be followed sometimes but most tuff specimens had been
tested successfully according to the standard procedure. Only two specimens (11C-1 and
12C-1) were tested only in the unconfined state because the application of a membrane
on their surface was not possible due to large voids in these specimens as shown in
Figure 7.21. As seen in Figure 7.29, each G-Log γ curves begins with a range of constant
shear moduli called the linear range. Then, shear modulus begins to reduce after a
threshold shear strain, γte. Typically, the shear strain range after 0.98 of G/Gmax is
considered as the nonlinear range for dynamic properties. Through the nonlinear range,
the shear modulus decreases as shear strain increases. The results shown go to largest
strain that the RCTS device can generate and then the test is finished. Shear moduli in the
linear strain range show a wide variation from 2.16 × 107 psf to 3.26 × 108 psf. The
maximum value of Gmax is nearly 16 times the minimum value of Gmax although the range
in total unit weights is from 60 pcf to 149 pcf (2.5 times).
The shear moduli of the specimens generally fall in the welding degree of the tuff
specimens as follows: (1) welded nonlithophysal tuff group (Tpcpmn, Tptrn, Tptpmn,
Tptpln) with shear moduli ranging from 1.69 × 108 psf to 3.26 × 108 psf, (2) welded-
lithophysal tuff group (Tpcpul, Tptrl, Tptpul, Tptpll) with shear moduli ranging from
1.29 × 108 psf to 2.80 × 108 psf, (3) moderately welded tuff group (Tcp, Tcb, Tct, Tpcrn)
with shear moduli ranging from 5.57 × 107 psf to 2.58 × 108 psf, and (4) nonwelded tuff
299
group (Tpp, Tpy, Tpbt, Tac) with shear moduli ranging from 2.15 × 107 psf to 1.08 × 108
psf. This trend can be seen in Figures 7.30 through 7.33 in more detail.
If three small-diameter specimens (Tptrl 1G, Tptpul 2C-2, and Tptpmn 3K-2) are
excluded (with diameter of 0.8 in.), shear strains no larger than 0.02 % were generated if
the shear modulus of tuff was larger than 1.3 × 108 psf because of the power limit of the
RCTS device (8 in.-lb of torque). If the shear modulus of the tuff specimen was smaller
than 1.3 × 108 psf, the maximum shear strain increases to 0.1 % with decreasing shear
modulus of the tuff specimen. It is interesting to study the two small specimens, 2C-2 and
3K-2, that exhibited larger linear ranges and larger shear modulus than the normal-sized
specimens. The possible reason for this difference is that the smaller-sized specimens
have less chance of having internal flaws and this makes them more competent with a
larger linear range and a higher shear modulus. Specimen 1G shows relatively less
linearity and a lower shear modulus than other small-sized specimens because it has
voids which can be seen by eye on its surface as shown in Figure 7.8. These voids make
it less linear and less stiff.
The normalized shear modulus curves of 47 tuff specimens determined from the G - log γ
curves in Figure 7.29 are shown in Figure 7.34. The normalization means that the shear
moduli (G) at each strain are divided with the shear modulus in the linear range (Gmax).
By doing this, the curve shapes of G/Gmax – log γ can be compared more easily and the G
- log γ curves in the field can be deduced from the G/Gmax – log γ curves. The linear
range can be distinguished more clearly from the nonlinear range in Figure 7.34. The
Figures 7.35 through 7.38 shows the G/Gmax – log γ curves of each welding group. They
also show that the largest shear strain generated in the welded tuffs is typically 0.02 %
and the largest shear strain generated in the nonwelded tuffs is generally about 0.1 %.
300
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
16000
300000 14000
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia. (3K-2)

250000 12000
10000
200000 Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf)
Tptpmn (3C-2) 144 8000
150000 Tptpmn (3K-2) 147
Tptrn (4C-2) 145 6000
7 Welded Non-lithophysal Specimens Tptpln (6C-2) 147
100000 8 Test Results
Tptpmn (13C-2)144
Time > 30 minute in each σo 4000
Tptpmn (14C-2)144
50000 Shear Strain 0.02% Tpcpmn (23-D) 148
2000
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Confining Pressure of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf) 16000
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia. (1G, 2C-2) Tptrl (1G) 136
300000 14000
Tptpul (2A-3) 137
Tptpul (2B-3) 135
250000 Tptpul (2C-2) 141 12000

Tptpll (5C-2) 138
Tptpll (9A-2) 136 10000
200000
Tptpll (10A-2) 138
Tptpul (11C-1) 139 8000
150000 Tptpul (12C-1) 137
Tptpll (15C-3) 143 6000
100000 Tptpll (16C-2) 138
12 Welded Lithophysal Specimens
14 Test Results
Tpcpul (23-C) 134 4000
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tpcpul (23-G) 145
50000 Tpcpul (23-J) 141 2000
Shear Strain 0.015%
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
301
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
16 Moderately Welded Specimens Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf) 16000
16 Test Results Tcp (17C-2) 110
300000 Time > 30 minute in each σo
Usual Upper Limit
Tcp (18C-2) 119 14000
of Shear Strain
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tcb (19C-2) 149

Tct (20C-2) 111 12000

250000
Tct (21C-2) 103
Tptpv3 (27C) 145
Tcpm (30A) 143 10000
200000
Tcbuv (31A) 120
Tcblv(z) (32A) 105 8000
150000 Tctuv(z) (33A) 110
Tpcrn (20-B) 121
6000
Tpcrn (20-C) 128
100000 Tpcrn (23-B) 126
Tpcrn (23-E) 118 4000
Tpcrn (23-F) 132
50000 Tpcrn (23-I) 86 2000
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
12 Nonwelded Specimens Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf) 16000
12 Test Results Tac (7C-2) 103
300000 Time > 30 minute in each σo Tac (8C-2) 94 14000
Usual Upper Limit Tpy (23C) 91
of Shear Strain Tpbt3 (24C) 81

250000 with 1.6 inch Dia. 12000
Tpp (25C) 76
Tpbt2 (28E) 63
Tac (29C) 109 10000
200000
Tpki (20-A) 88
Tpki (20-D) 99 8000
150000 Tpki (20-F) 75
Tpki (20-G) 80
6000
Tpki (23-A) 98
100000
4000
50000 2000
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
302
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptrl (1G) 110 psi
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpul (2A-3) 160 psi
Tptpul (2B-3) 160 psi
Tptpmn (3C-2) 450psi
Tptpmn (3K-2) 450 psi
Tptrn (4C-2) 450 psi
1.0 Tptpll (5C-2) 1.0
400 psi
Tptpln (6C-2) 400 psi
Tac (7C-2) 400 psi
Tac (8C-2) 400 psi
Normalized Shear Modulus, G/Gmax


0.8 0.8
Minimum G/Gmax = 0.8 Tcp (17C-2) 400 psi
Tcp (18C-2) 400 psi
Reference Line Tcb (19C-2) 400 psi
in Geotechnical Data Report Tct (20C-2) 400 psi
of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tct (21C-2) 400 psi
0.6 (Darandeli, 2001) Tpy (23C) 0.6
328 psi
G 1 Tpbt3 (24C) 400 psi
= Tpp (25C) 400 psi
G max ⎛ ⎞a
⎜ γ⎟ Tptpv3 (27C) 400 psi
1+⎜ ⎟
Tpbt2 (28E) 400 psi
⎜ γr ⎟
⎝ ⎠ Tac (29C) 400 psi
where γ r = 0.26 and a = 0.92 Tcpm (30A) 400 psi
Tcbuv (31A) 400 psi
0.4 Tctuv(z) (33A) 0.4
400 psi
Tpki (20-A) 280 psi
Non-welded Tuff Tpcrn (20-C) 450 psi
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tpki (20-D) 220 psi
Tpki (20-F) 2 psi
0.1% Tpki (20-G) 4 psi
Usual Upper Limit Tpki (23-A) 264 psi
of Shear Strain Tpcrn (23-B) 450 psi
0.2 of Welded Tuff Tpcpul (23-C) 0.2
450 psi
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tpcpmn (23-D) 450 psi
Tpcrn (23-E) 72 psi
0.02% Tpcrn (23-F) 272 psi
Tpcpul (23-J) 450 psi
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process
303
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
Reference Line
0.8 in Geotechnical Data Report
0.8
of Yucca Mountain (2007)
Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf)
0.6 Tptpmn (3C-2) 144 0.6
Tptpmn (3K-2) 147
Tptrn (4C-2) 145
0.4 Tptpln (6C-2) 147 0.4
Tptpmn (13C-2)144
7 Welded Non-lithophysal Specimens Tptpmn (14C-2)144
0.2 8 Test Results 0.2
Tpcpmn (23-D) 148
Time > 30 minute in each σo
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia. (1G, 2C-2)

1.0 1.0
Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf) Reference Line
Tptrl (1G) 136 in Geotechnical Data Report
0.8 of Yucca Mountain (2007) 0.8
Tptpul (2A-3) 137
Tptpul (2B-3) 135
Tptpul (2C-2) 141
0.6 Tptpll (5C-2) 138 0.6
Tptpll (9A-2) 136
Tptpll (10A-2) 138
0.4 Tptpul (11C-1) 139 0.4
Tptpul (12C-1) 137
Tptpll (15C-3) 143
0.2 Tptpll (16C-2) 138 12 Welded Lithophysal Specimens 0.2
Tpcpul (23-C) 134 14 Test Results
Tpcpul (23-G) 145 Time > 30 minute in each σo
Tpcpul (23-J) 141
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
304
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2

Tcp (17C-2) 110
1.0 Tcp (18C-2) 119 1.0
Tcb (19C-2) 149
Tct (20C-2) 111
0.8 Tct (21C-2) 103 0.8
Tptpv3 (27C) 145
Reference Line Tcpm (30A) 143
in Geotechnical Data Report Tcbuv (31A) 120
0.6 of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tcblv(z) (32A) 105
0.6
Tctuv(z) (33A) 110
Tpcrn (20-B) 121
0.4 Tpcrn (20-C) 128 0.4
Tpcrn (23-B) 126
Tpcrn (23-E) 118
16 Moderately Welded Specimens Tpcrn (23-F) 132
0.2 16 Test Results
0.2
Tpcrn (23-I) 86
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Reference Line

in Geotechnical Data Report
1.0 of Yucca Mountain (2007) 1.0

0.8 0.8
Tac (7C-2) 103
Tac (8C-2) 94
Tpy (23C) 91
0.6 Tpbt3 (24C) 81
0.6
Tpp (25C) 76
Tpbt2 (28E) 63
0.4 Tac (29C) 109 0.4
Tpki (20-A) 88
Tpki (20-D) 99
0.2 Tpki (20-F) 75 12 Nonwelded Specimens 0.2
Tpki (20-G) 80 12 Test Results
Tpki (23-A) 98 Time > 30 minute in each σo
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
305
Most shear modulus reduction curves do not extend to G/Gmax values less than 0.9.
A few tuffs reach to G/Gmax values of 0.8 of because of the limited power of RCTS
device. To interpolate the normalized curve, the modified hyperbolic model for G/Gmax –
log γ relationship as proposed by Darandeli (2001) is often used. The hyperbolic model is
described as:
G 1
= (7.4)
G max ⎛ ⎞a
⎜ γ ⎟
1+⎜ ⎟
⎜γr⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γr is reference strain (%), and

a is curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
The reference strain, γr, is defined as the value of γ equal to the shear strain at which
G/Gmax equals 0.5. Darandeli (2001) suggested a constant value of 0.92 for the “a” value
for soil. The reference line in Figures 7.34 through 7.38 is cited from the Geotechnical
Data Report of Yucca Mountain (2007). The reference line was determined from data of
tuffs below Tiva Canyon formation using the same equation of Darandeli (2001). Values
of the “a” and the “γr” of the reference line are 0.92 and 0.26, respectively. If excluding
the small-sized specimens (1G, 2C-2, and 3K-2) and outlier specimens (23C and 27C),
trends of G/Gmax – log γ curves in Figures 7.35 through 7.38 showed similar variation
shapes and similar elastic threshold strains (γte) regardless of welding degree of the tuffs.
As stated previously, the G/Gmax value of all tuff specimens could not extend to
values smaller than 0.8. Hence, deciding the reference strain, γr, is a difficult
extrapolation in current data set from the fixed-free RCTS tests and higher strain data are
needed.
306
7.4.2 Ds – Log γ Relationships
The curves showing the variation of material damping ratio with shear strain are
shown in Figure 7.39. As with the G – log γ and G/Gmax – log γ relationships, the figure
also contains the nonlinear curves evaluated at the highest confining pressure for each
tuff specimen. As stated in Section 7.4.1, two Tptpul specimens, 11C-1 and 12C-1, were
not included because they were only tested at the unconfined state. The majority of the
material damping ratios measured at small strains are less than 1 %. A few of tuff
specimens have small-strain material damping ratios in the range of 1 to 1.5 % but none
exhibit values above 1.5 %. These relatively small damping ratios likely come from the
tendency to select the higher quality specimens for RCTS testing. As with the G – log γ
relationships, the small-sized specimens, 2C-2 and 3K-2, exhibited the largest linear
ranges compared with the other larger specimens. Specimen 1G shows less linearity than
other small specimens because this specimen has voids which can be seen by eye on its
surface and the flaws make it behave less linearly.
Like the relationships of G – log γ and G/Gmax – log γ, the material damping ratios
remain constant at minimum values in the linear range after which the material damping
ratios start to increase and show an accelerated increase with increasing shear strain
amplitude. Most values of material damping ratios, with the exception of nine tuff
specimens, do not exceed 2.0 % even at the highest strain because of the power limitation
of the device. Even for the nine specimens with higher values of D, these values do not
exceed 3 %. Figure 7.40 through 7.43 show the variation curves in each welding group.
The reference line in figures was determined from data of tuffs in Geotechnical Data
Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) using an equation of Choi (2008) as follows:
307
⎛ ⎞ aD
⎜ γ ⎟
D − D min = C⎜ ⎟ (8.13)
⎜γD⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γD is reference shear strain which is the shear strain

whose D-Dmin is equal to C (%),
Dmin is the minimum material damping ratio at small strains (%),
C is the reference material damping ratio (%), and
aD is a curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
The parameters of the reference line are 0.45 for the Dmin, 0.77 for the “aD”, 0.13 for the
γD, and 5.0 for the C. These parameters were determined by the material damping ratios
of tuffs below Tiva Canyon formation, tested in 2003 through 2006. Variation trend of D
- log γ curves of each sub-group showed similar patterns and similar elastic threshold
strains (γte) regardless of welding level of the tuffs.
308
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10
Tptrl (1G) 110 psi
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptpul (2A-3) 160 psi
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpul (2B-3) 160 psi
Tptpmn (3C-2) 450psi
Tptpmn (3K-2) 450 psi
Tptrn (4C-2) 450 psi
4 Tptpln (6C-2) 400 psi
Reference Line from Tuffs
Tac (7C-2) 400 psi
Discussed in Geotechnical Data Tac (8C-2) 400 psi
Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tptpll (9A-2) 400 psi
(Tuffs below Tiva Canyon) Tptpll (10A-2) 400 psi
(Choi, 2008) Tptpul (11C-1) 0 psi
⎛ ⎞ aD Tptpmn (13C-2) 400 psi
⎜ γ ⎟
D − D min = C⎜ ⎟
Material Damping Ratio, D, %

⎜γ D⎟ Tptpll (15C-3) 400 psi
⎝ ⎠
3 where, D min = 0.45 %, a D = 0.79, Tcp (17C-2) 400 psi
Quality Factor, Q
Tcp (18C-2) 400 psi
γ D = 0.13, C = 5.0 %
Tcb (19C-2) 400 psi
Tct (20C-2) 400 psi
Tct (21C-2) 400 psi
Tpy (23C) 328 psi
20
Tpbt3 (24C) 400 psi
Tpp (25C) 400 psi
Tptpv3 (27C) 400 psi
Tpbt2 (28E) 400 psi
2 Tac (29C) 400 psi
Tcpm (30A) 400 psi
Tcbuv (31A) 400 psi
Tctuv(z) (33A) 400 psi
Tpki (20-A) 280 psi
Tpcrn (20-C) 450 psi
Tpki (20-D) 220 psi
Tpki (20-F) 2 psi
1 Tpki (20-G) 4 psi
Tpki (23-A) 264 psi
Tpcpul (23-C) 450 psi
Tpcpmn (23-D) 450 psi
Tpcrn (23-E) 72 psi
Tpcrn (23-F) 272 psi
0 Tpcpul (23-J) 450 psi
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure in the Stage Testing Process
309
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10
7 Welded Non-lithophysal Specimens Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf)
8 Test Results Tptpmn (3C-2) 144
Material Damping Ratio, D, % 4 Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpmn (3K-2) 147
Tptrn (4C-2) 145
Tptpln (6C-2) 147
Quality Factor, Q
Reference Line from Tuffs Tptpmn (13C-2) 144
Discussed in Geotechnical Data
3 Tptpmn (14C-2) 144
Report of Yucca Mountain (2007)
Tpcpmn (23-D) 148
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146 20
2

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10
12 Welded Lithophysal Specimens Geologic Unit (Spec. ID) γt(pcf)
14 Test Results Tptrl (1G) 136
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpul (2A-3) 137

4
Tptpul (2B-3) 135
Reference Line from Tuffs Tptpul (2C-2) 141
Quality Factor, Q
Discussed in Geotechnical Data Tptpll (5C-2) 138

3 Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tptpll (9A-2) 136
Tptpll (10A-2) 138
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia. (1G, 2C-2)
Tptpul (11C-1) 139
20
Tptpul (12C-1) 137
2 Tptpll (15C-3) 143
Tptpll (16C-2) 138
Tpcpul (23-C) 134
Tpcpul (23-G) 145
1 Tpcpul (23-J) 141
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
310
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10
16 Moderately Welded Specimens
Tcp (17C-2) 110
16 Test Results
Material Damping Ratio, D, % 4 Time > 30 minute in each σo
Tcp (18C-2) 119
Tcb (19C-2) 149
Tct (20C-2) 111
Quality Factor, Q
Reference Line from Tuffs Tct (21C-2) 103
Discussed in Geotechnical Data Tptpv3 (27C) 145
3 Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tcpm (30A) 143
Tcbuv (31A) 120
Tcblv(z) (32A) 105 20
Tctuv(z) (33A) 110
2 Tpcrn (20-B) 121
Tpcrn (20-C) 128
Tpcrn (23-B) 126
Tpcrn (23-E) 118
1 Tpcrn (23-F) 132
Tpcrn (23-I) 86
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10
12 Nonwelded Specimens
12 Test Results Tac (7C-2) 103
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tac (8C-2) 94

4 Tpy (23C) 91
Tpbt3 (24C) 81
Reference Line from Tuffs
Quality Factor, Q
Tpp (25C) 76
Discussed in Geotechnical Data
Tpbt2 (28E) 63
3 Report of Yucca Mountain (2007)
Tac (29C) 109
Tpki (20-A) 88
Tpki (20-D) 99
20
Tpki (20-F) 75
2
Tpki (20-G) 80
Tpki (23-A) 98
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shear Strain, γ, %
Isotropic Confining Pressure of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens
311
7.5 SUMMARY
By comparing the results of free-free URC tests before and after re-coring tuff
specimens, the effect of re-coring was evaluated and concluded that the re-coring
generally had no effect on Vs and Gmax but had a little effect on Dmin. The re-coring
increased Dmin of specimens due to an increase of water content during the re-coring.
The comparisons between the linear dynamic properties of the re-cored specimens
from free-free URC tests and from the fixed-free RCTS tests showed the following
trends: (1) Vs from the free-free URC tests exhibited slightly larger values than the Vs
values from the fixed-free RCTS tests and their differences increased with increasing
values of Vs, (2) Dmin from the free-free URC tests showed a little higher values than Dmin
from the fixed-free RCTS tests, (3) the relationships Vs-γt, Gmax-γt , Dmin-γt and Vs-Dmin
showed similar trends as those already found in original specimens with the free-free
URC tests.
The fixed-free RCTS testing of 47 tuff specimens was used to evaluate the linear
and nonlinear dynamic properties of the major formations around the proposed high-level
radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The effects on G and D of increasing
confining pressure (σo) and increasing shear strain amplitude (γ) were evaluated. The test
results showed that G and Vs were generally nearly constant or gradually increased with
increasing σo and material damping ratios (D) were also nearly constant or slowly
decreased with increasing σo.
The maximum attainable shear strain with the current RCTS device was not
higher than 0.02 % in the case of the welded tuffs and 0.1 % in the case of the nonwelded
tuffs. The shear modulus reduction usually does not decrease below 0.9 for G/Gmax, with
a few exceptions where it reached 0.8. Likewise, material damping ratios generally did
not exceed 2.0 %, with a few exceptions where it reached 3.0 %. These limitations on
312
values of G/Gmax and D occurred because of the power limit of the RCTS device.
Variation trends of G/Gmax – log γ of D - log γ curves of each sub-group showed similar
variation shapes and similar elastic threshold strains (γte) regardless of welding degree of
the tuffs.
Generally, the information supplied by the fixed-free RCTS tests enabled
prediction of the ground response motion due to earthquake shaking for the design of the
proposed underground repository facility at Yucca Mountain. However, information on
the dynamic properties in the high strain-range is lacking due to the power limitations of
the current device. The information at high strains is necessary to justify the dynamic-
property variation in the middle-strain range and they are also needed to enhance the
prediction of dynamic behavior near a potential failure strain range. Therefore, a new
method, the cyclic torsional shear (CTS) test, was developed in this study to evaluate
dynamic properties in this high-strain range. The results with the CTS device are
discussed in the next chapter.
313
Chapter 8
Measurements of Cyclic Shear Properties at High Strains through Slow

Cyclic Torsional Shear Testing
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The dynamic properties of tuff were measured in two ways in this study: (1) free-
free unconfined resonant column and direct arrival (URC) tests and (2) fixed-free
resonant column and torsional shear (RCTS) tests. These two methods were used to
measure a variety of dynamic properties such as the seismic wave velocities (Vc, Vs, and
Vp) and associated small-strain moduli (Emax, Gmax, and Mmax), material damping ratios at
small strains (Ds,min, Dc,min), poisson’s ratio (ν), the variations of shear wave velocity,
shear modulus and material damping ratio with the confining pressure, and the variation
of shear modulus, normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio with shear strain.
However, due to the power limitation of the RCTS device, the dynamic properties at high
strains near failure could not be measured. To overcome this shortcoming, a slow cyclic
torsional shear (CTS) test was developed. By applying sufficiently large cyclic torsional
loads to tuff specimens at a slow rates, the stress-strain hysteresis loop can be measured
until the specimen breaks. With the hysteresis loop, the shear modulus (G) and material
damping ratio in shear (Ds) can be determined. A detail explanation of the cyclic torsional
shear (CTS) testing method is presented in Section 4.4.
Twelve tuff specimens were tested using the CTS testing method and the results
are discussed in this chapter. Twelve specimens were selected, mainly from the Topopah
Spring tuff formation where the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository tunnels
are to be located. In section 8.2, typical hysteresis loops measured for each sub-group of
314
tuff specimens are presented in the following order: (1) welded nonlithophysal tuff in
Section 8.2.1, (2) welded lithophysal tuff in Section 8.2.2, (3) moderately welded tuff in
Section 8.2.3, and (4) nonwelded tuff in Section 8.2.4. An explanation of how the low-
amplitude shear modulus (Gmax CTS) is determined from the cyclic hysteresis loops is
presented in Section 8.3. The mechanical properties from the CTS tests such as low-
amplitude shear modulus (Gmax CTS), shear modulus at failure (Gfailure), shear strength (τf)
and failure shear strain (γf) are correlated with physical properties (total unit weight (γt)
and porosity) and the parameters from free-free URC tests (shear modulus (Gmax URC) and
shear wave velocity (Vs)) in Section 8.3. Using the stress-strain hysteresis loops, the
variations of shear modulus and material damping ratio with the shear strain were
determined and these results are compared with the data set from the fixed-free RCTS
tests in Section 8.4 by sub-groups of the tuff specimens. These comparisons show how
the results from the CTS tests can be used to extend the typical dynamic property curves
of each sub-group.
8.2 CYCLIC BEHAVIORS OF TUFFS
8.2.1 Hysteresis Loops of Welded Nonlithophysal Tuffs
Four welded nonlithophysal tuff specimens were tested with the CTS testing
method. Three tuff specimens from the Tptpmn formation (UTA-CTS-05, UTA-CTS-11
and UTA-CTS-13) and one tuff specimen from the Tptpln formation (UTA-CTS-07)
were selected for the testing. Typical hysteresis loops from the first loading stage to the
last (seventh) loading stage, which were measured with the tuff specimen UTA-CTS-11
are shown in Figures 8.1 through 8.4. These figures show the typical cyclic behaviors of
welded nonlithophysal tuffs. Figure 8.4(b) shows the combined hysteresis loops from the
first stage to the last stage of loading. The strain rate in these tests was 3.0 × 10-5 %/sec
315
Shear Strain (decimal) Shear Strain (decimal)
(a) -0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 (b) -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003
30 60
200 Specimen ID No. : 01025909
400
Specimen ID No. : 01025909
Borehole No. : ESF-HD-TEMP-2 Borehole No. : ESF-HD-TEMP-2
Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpmn) Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpmn)
Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m)
20 Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.4 in., Dia. = 2.4 in. 40 Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.4 in., Dia. = 2.4 in.
3 3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 143 pcf (2.29 g/cm ) Specimen Total Unit weight = 143 pcf (2.29 g/cm )
Distance between Proximitor : 5.2 inch Distance between Proximitor : 5.2 inch
Stress Rate Controlled 1st Loading Stage 100 Stress Rate Controlled 2nd Loading Stage 200
-5 -5
Average Strain Rate : 3.0 X 10 %/sec Average Strain Rate : 3.0 X 10 %/sec
10 20
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
with Cyclic Shear Modulus
8 Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
of 3.39 X10 psf with Cyclic Shear Modulus
8
0 0 0 of 3.41 X10 psf 0
-10 -20
-100 -200
-20 -40
8
8 Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf from Free-Free URC Test
from Free-Free URC Test
-200 -400
-30 -60
-0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
Figure 8.1 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) First and (b) Second Loading
Specimen (UTA-CTS-11)
(a) -0.00004 -0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 (b) -0.00008 -0.00004 0.00000 0.00004 0.00008
80 200
Specimen ID No. : 01025909 Specimen ID No. : 01025909
60 Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) 400 150 Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) 1000
Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.4 in., Dia. = 2.4 in. Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.4 in., Dia. = 2.4 in.
3 3
40 Stress Rate Controlled 3rd Loading Stage 100
Stress Rate Controlled 4th Loading Stage
-5 -5
200 500
20 50
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
with Cyclic Shear Modulus with Cyclic Shear Modulus
8 8
of 3.39 X10 psf of 3.23 X10 psf
0 0 0 0
-20 -50
-200 -500
-40 -100
-60 -400 -150 -1000

8 8
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf
from Free-Free URC Test from Free-Free URC Test
-80 -200
-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 -0.008 -0.004 0.000 0.004 0.008
Figure 8.2 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) Third and (b) Fourth Loading
316
-0.0002 -0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004
(a) 400
(b) 800
300 Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) 2000 600 Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) 4000
3 3
200 Stress Rate Controlled 5th Loading Stage 400 Stress Rate Controlled 6th Loading Stage
-5 -5
1000 2000
100
Shear Stress (kPa)

200
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

with Cyclic Shear Modulus Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
8
of 2.86 X10 psf with Cyclic Shear Modulus
8
of 2.41 X10 psf
0 0 0 0
-100 -200
-1000 -2000
-200 -400
-300 8 -2000 -600 -4000

Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf 8
from Free-Free URC Test Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf
-400 -800
-0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Figure 8.3 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) Fifth and (b) Sixth Loading
(a)2000 0.0000 0.0002

0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
(b) 2000
-0.0004 0.0000
0.0004 0.0008

Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpmn) Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpmn) 12000
Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m) 12000 Depth : 85.6 ft (26.1 m)
3 3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 143 pcf (2.29 g/cm ) 1500 Specimen Total Unit weight = 143 pcf (2.29 g/cm )
Distance between Proximitor : 5.2 inch Distance between Proximitor : 5.2 inch 10000
1500 Stress Rate Controlled 7th Loading Stage Stress Rate Controlled on All Loading Stage
-5
10000 -5
8000
1st Loading Stage
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
2nd Loading Stage

1000
8000 3rd Loading Stage Failed at 1389 psi,
4th Loading Stage Failure Strain : 0.092% 6000
5th Loading Stage
1000 6th Loading Stage
Failed at 1389 psi, Failure Strain : 0.092% 7th Loading Stage
Secant shear modulus at failure point,
6000 4000
8 500
2.01 X10 psf
2000
4000
500
0 0
8
8
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 3.56 X10 psf -2000
0 0 -500
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Figure 8.4 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loop from the (a) Last and (b) All Loading Stages
of the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tptpmn Specimen
(UTA-CTS-11)
317
which is slow enough to be considered as static loading. The dashed line in these figures
is the line with a slope equal to the shear modulus from the free-free URC tests with the
given specimen. In initial loading stage, the slope of hysteresis loop is nearly the same
slope as the dashed line. However, the slopes of the hysteresis loops, which are the secant
shear moduli determined at the peak strains in the loading stages, gradually decrease. On
the other hand, the area that is enclosed by the hysteresis loop is slowly increasing as the
maximum load in the stages increases. Since the enclosed area is directly related to the
material damping ratio, this phenomenon means that the material damping ratios are
increasing with increasing shear strain. This result agrees with the measurements in the
fixed-free RCTS tests. In case of this specimen, the first, second and third stages of
loading can be regarded as in the linear range because the shear moduli in all stages are
very similar. Beginning with the fourth loading stage, the cyclic behavior seems to show
non-linear behavior due to the reduction in the value of the shear modulus. In the fifth
and the sixth loading stages, the hysteresis loops show asymmetric and non-typical
shapes. A possible reason for this phenomenon is that locally small property differences
may be induced due to non-uniform micro-crack generation. The locally non-uniform
generation of micro-cracks in the specimen makes the specimen inhomogeneous. The
progression of the micro-cracking is assumed to produce the non-typical hysteresis loop.
In the last loading stage, the tuff specimen was monotonically loaded to failure. At failure,
the maximum shear stress was 1389 psi at a shear strain of 0.092 %. The mechanical
parameters such as low-amplitude shear modulus, shear modulus at failure, shear strength
(failure stress) and failure shear strain are discussed in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. The
variation of shear modulus and material damping ratio of the welded nonlithophysal tuff
specimens are discussed in Section 8.4.1. Figure 8.5 shows four pictures of the broken
tuff specimens that were failed in the CTS tests.
318
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 8.5 Broken Specimens of: (a) UTA-CTS-05 (Tptpmn), (b) UTA-CTS-07
(Tptpln), (c) UTA-CTS-11 (Tptpmn), and (d) UTA-CTS-13 (Tptpmn) that
were Torsionally Failed in Shear during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic
Torsional Shear Tests
8.2.2 Hysteresis Loops of Welded Lithophysal Tuffs
Six welded lithophysal tuff specimens were tested in the CTS device. Four tuff
specimens from the Tptpul formation (UTA-CTS-04, UTA-CTS-06, UTA-CTS-10 and
UTA-CTS-11) and two tuff specimens from the Tptpll formation (UTA-CTS-03 and
UTA-CTS-09) were selected for testing. Figures 8.6 through 8.8 show the typical
hysteresis loops from the first loading stage to the last (sixth) loading stage, which were
measured in the CTS test of tuff specimen UTA-CTS-12. The hysteresis loops show the
typical cyclic behavior of welded lithophysal tuffs. Figure 8.9 shows the combined
hysteresis loops from first stage to last stage of loading. The strain rate in these tests was
4.0 × 10-5 %/sec which is slow enough to be considered as static loading. The dashed
lines in the figures are the lines with a slope equal to the shear modulus from the free-free
URC test on this specimen. Unlike the welded nonlithophysal specimens in the previous
section, the slope of the hysteresis loop is somewhat different(less stiff) than the dashed
319
(a) -0.000015
10
-0.000010 -0.000005 0.000000 0.000005 0.000010 0.000015 (b) -0.00003
15
-0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003
Specimen ID No. : 01037508-1
100
Borehole No. : Surface 60 Borehole No. : Surface
Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpul) Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpul)
Depth : N/A Depth : N/A
Specimen Dimension : Length = 7.9 in., Dia. = 4.2 in. 10 Specimen Dimension : Length = 7.9 in., Dia. = 4.2 in.
3 3
5 Stress Rate Controlled 1st Loading Stage 50
Stress Rate Controlled 2nd Loading Stage
-5 -5
5
Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve 20 Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

7 7
of 7.19 X10 psf of 6.58 X10 psf
0 0 0 0
Secant shear modulus
at 0.0003% strain point,
7
7.37 X10 psf
-20
-5
-5 -50
-40
-10
7
from Free-Free URC Test -60
-10 -15 -100

-0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
Figure 8.6 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from the (a) First and (b) the Second
Tptpul Specimen (UTA-CTS-12)
(a) Shear Strain (decimal)
(b)
Shear Strain (decimal)
-0.00004 -0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 -0.00010 -0.00005 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010
30 200 40
Specimen ID No. : 01037508-1 Specimen ID No. : 01037508-1
Borehole No. : Surface Borehole No. : Surface
Depth : N/A Depth : N/A 200
20 Specimen Dimension : Length = 7.9 in., Dia. = 4.2 in. Specimen Dimension : Length = 7.9 in., Dia. = 4.2 in.
3 3
Stress Rate Controlled 3rd Loading Stage 100 20
Stress Rate Controlled 4th Loading Stage
-5 -5
10 100
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

7 7
of 6.57 X10 psf of 6.11 X10 psf
0 0 0 0
-10 -100
-100 -20
-20
-200
7 7
-30 -200 -40

-0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010
320
(a) -0.00015 -0.00010 -0.00005 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 (b) 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0012
100 300
Specimen ID No. : 01037508-1 Specimen ID No. : 01037508-1 2000
Borehole No. : Surface 600 Borehole No. : Surface
Depth : N/A Depth : N/A
3 3
50 Distance between Proximitor : 4.0 inch Distance between Proximitor : 4.0 inch
Stress Rate Controlled 5th Loading Stage Stress Rate Controlled 6th Loading Stage 1500
-5 -5
200
200
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

7
of 6.55 X10 psf
0 0 150
Failed at 187 psi, Failure Strain : 0.062 % 1000
7
Secant shear modulus at failure point, 4.30 X10 psf
Secant shear modulus
-200 7
at 0.05% strain point, 5.22 X10 psf
100
-50 Secant shear modulus

7 500
-400 at 0.026% strain point, 6.20 X10 psf
50
7
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 9.53 X10 psf 7
from Free-Free URC Test Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 9.53 X10 psf
-600 from Free-Free URC Test
-100 0 0
-0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
-0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008

300
2000
Borehole No. : Surface
Type : Topopah Spring (Tptpul)
Depth : N/A
Specimen Dimension : Length = 7.9 in., Dia. = 4.2 in.
3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 113 pcf (1.81 g/cm ) 1500
Distance between Proximitor : 4.0 inch
200
Stress Rate Controlled on All Loading Stage
-5
Average Strain Rate : 4.0 X 10 %/sec
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (psi)
1000
Failed at 187 psi,
Failure Strain : 0.062%
100
500
0 0
1st Loading Stage
2nd Loading Stage
3rd Loading Stage
4th Loading Stage
7 5th Loading Stage
6th Loading Stage
-100
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain (%)
Figure 8.9 Stress-Strain Hysteresis Loops from All Loading Stages of the Unconfined,
Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tptpul Specimen (UTA-CTS-12)
321
line, even in the first loading stage. This difference is assumed to result from the presence
of voids in the specimen because these voids reduce the effective cross-sectional area and
this reduction of cross-sectional area likely causes stress concentrations which negatively
affect the cyclic shear modulus more than the dynamic shear modulus. Just like the
welded nonlithophysal tuffs, the slopes of the hysteresis loops gradually decrease with
increasing torsional load. On the other hand, the areas enclosed by the hysteresis loops
slowly increase with the increasing torsional load. Unlike the welded nonlithophysal tuffs,
the hysteresis loop in the first stage can not be guaranteed to be in the elastic (linear)
range because the shear modulus from the second stage loop already shows some
reduction in value. In this case, Darandeli’s fitting curve was employed to extrapolate the
shear modulus back to the linear range to estimate the low-amplitude shear modulus. A
detail explanation of how the low-amplitude shear modulus was estimated is discussed in
Section 8.3.1. On the whole, the hysteresis loops of the welded lithophysal tuffs show
less typical shapes than the loops of welded nonlithophysal tuffs because the lithophysal
tuffs have many non-uniformly distributed voids in them and these voids cause increased
cracking. In the last loading stage, the tuff specimen was monotonically loaded to failure.
At failure, the maximum shear stress was 187 psi and the shear strain was 0.062 %. The
signal during the last cycle was a little noisy due to the shaking of the torsional drive
system. The main mechanical parameters such as low-amplitude shear modulus, shear
modulus at failure, shear strength (failure stress) and failure shear strain are summarized
in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. The variation of shear modulus and material damping ratio of
the welded nonlithophysal tuff specimens are discussed in Section 8.4.2. Figure 8.10
shows six pictures of the broken tuff specimens that were failed in the CTS tests.
322
(c)
(b)
(a)
(d)
(f)
(e)
Figure 8.10 Broken Specimens: (a) UTA-CTS-03 (Tptpll), (b) UTA-CTS-04 (Tptpul),
(c) UTA-CTS-06 (Tptpul), (d) UTA-CTS-09 (Tptpll), (e) UTA-CTS-10
(Tptpul), and (f) UTA-CTS-12 (Tptpul) that were Torsionally Failed in
Shear during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests
323
8.2.3 Hysteresis Loops of Moderately Welded Tuffs
As the first pilot test, one tuff specimen from the Prow Pass (Tcp) formation was
selected. This specimen was selected because it is a moderately welded tuff which
exhibits dynamic properties between the welded and nonwelded tuffs. Figures 8.11
through 8.13 show the hysteresis loops from the CTS tests with specimen UTA-CTS-01.
The dynamic shear modulus of this specimen measured in the free-free URC tests is 1.71
× 108 psf which is represented by the dotted line in the figures. The driving power in the
first cycle was selected so that the maximum shear strain was less than 10-3 %. The power
was then doubled in each next stage. The strain rate of the test was 6.0 × 10-5 %/sec
which was slow enough to be considered as static loading. Figure 8.14 shows the
combined hysteresis loops from the first to last loading stages. Like the welded
lithophysal tuff specimens, the loop of the first loading stage is not in the linear range. So,
the low-amplitude shear modulus has to be estimated using the Darandeli’s fitting curve.
Due to the homogeneity of the specimen, the hysteresis loops in every stage show the
expected shape. In the sixth loading stage, the specimen is monotonically loaded and
reaches failure at a failure shear stress of 744 psi and a failure shear strain of 0.073 %.
The mechanical parameters such as low-amplitude shear modulus, shear modulus at
failure, shear strength (failure stress) and failure shear strain are summarized in Section
8.3.1. The variations of shear modulus and material damping ratio of the moderately
welded tuff specimen is discussed in Section 8.4.3. Figure 8.15 shows a picture of the
broken Tcp tuff specimen tested in the CTS device.
324
(a) -0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 (b) -0.00004 -0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004
30 200 50
Borehole No. : UE-25 UZ#16
Borehole No. : UE-25 UZ#16 300
Type : Prow Pass (Tcp) 40 Type : Prow Pass (Tcp)
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m)
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m)
20 Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.1 in., Dia. = 2.4 in. Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.1 in., Dia. = 2.4 in.
3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 122 pcf (1.95 g/cm ) 30 3
Stress Rate Controlled 1st Loading Stage 100 Distance between Proximitor : 4.8 inch
Stress Rate Controlled 2nd Loading Stage
-5
Average Strain Rate : 6.0 X 10 %/sec 20
Shear Stress (kPa)

-5
10
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

100
10
0 8
of 1.644 X10 psf
0 0 8
of 1.621 X10 psf 0
-10
-10 -100
-20
-100
-30 -200
-20
8
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 1.71 X10 psf -40 8
Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 1.71 X10 psf
from Free-Free URC Test from Free-Free URC Test -300
-30 -200 -50
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 -0.0040 -0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 0.0040
(a) -0.00010
100
-0.00005 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010
(b) -0.0002
200
-0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002
600 Specimen ID No. : 01025921
Type : Prow Pass (Tcp)
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m)
150 Type : Prow Pass (Tcp)
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m) 1000
3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 122 pcf (1.95 g/cm ) 400 3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 122 pcf (1.95 g/cm )
50 Distance between Proximitor : 4.8 inch 100 Distance between Proximitor : 4.8 inch
Stress Rate Controlled 3rd Loading Stage Stress Rate Controlled 4th Loading Stage
-5 -5
500
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)
200 50
0 8
of 1.610 X10 psf 0 0 8
of 1.577 X10 psf 0
-200 -50
-500
-50 -100
-400
8 -150 8
-1000
from Free-Free URC Test -600 from Free-Free URC Test
-100 -200
-0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
325
(a) -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004
(b) 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
400 1200
Specimen ID No. : 01025921 Specimen ID No. : 01025921 8000
Borehole No. : UE-25 UZ#16 Borehole No. : UE-25 UZ#16
Type : Prow Pass (Tcp)
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m) 2000 Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m)
3 3
200 Distance between Proximitor : 4.8 inch Distance between Proximitor : 4.8 inch
Stress Rate Controlled 5th Loading Stage Stress Rate Controlled 6th Loading Stage 6000
-5
1000 -5
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (kPa)
Average Strain Rate : 6.0 X 10 %/sec 800
Shear Stress (psi)

Shear Stress (psi)
100
8
of 1.544 X10 psf
0 0 600 4000
Failed at 744 psi, 0.073%
-100 8
with Secant Shear Modulus of 1.434 X10 psf
-1000 400
-200 2000
8
200 from Free-Free URC Test
-300 8
-2000
-400 0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
8
Secant Shear Modulus of 1.52 X10 psf at 0.04% Strain

-0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
6000
Depth : 1657.2 ft (505.1 m)
Specimen Dimension : Length = 8.1 in., Dia. = 2.4 in.
3
Specimen Total Unit weight = 122 pcf (1.95 g/cm )
600 Stress Rate Controlled on All Loading Stage 4000
-5
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (psi)
400 Failed at 744 psi,

Failure Strain : 0.073%
2000
200
1st Loading Stage
2nd Loading Stage
3rd Loading Stage
0 4th Loading Stage 0
5th Loading Stage
6th Loading Stage
-200 Stress-Strain Line with Shear Modulus of 1.71 X10 psf

8

-2000
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Shear Strain (%)
Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tcp Specimen (UTA-CTS-01)
326
Figure 8.15 Broken Specimen UTA-CTS-01 (Tcp) that was Torsionally Failed in Shear
during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests
8.2.4 Hysteresis Loops of Nonwelded Tuffs
As a second pilot test, one tuff specimen from the Calico Hills (Tac) formation
was selected. This specimen was selected because it was a nonwelded tuff which can be
broken with the current power system although its diameter was larger than 3.0 inches.
Figures 8.16 through 8.18 show the hysteresis loops measured in the CTS tests with tuff
specimen UTA-CTS-02 until it broke. The dynamic shear modulus of this tuff specimen
measured in the free-free URC tests was 5.40 × 107 psf which is shown by the dotted line
in the figures. The strain rate in the test was 8.0 × 10-5 %/sec which is slow enough to be
considered as static loading. Figure 8.19 shows the combined hysteresis loops from the
first to last loading stages. Like the Tcp tuff specimen (moderately welded tuff), the loop
of the first loading stage can not be regarded as in the linear range. So, the low-amplitude
shear modulus was determined by estimating with Daradeli’s model. On the whole, the
hysteresis loops in every stage show expected shapes due to good homogeneity in the
specimen. In the sixth loading stage, the specimen was monotonically loaded to the
failure point which was a failure shear stress of 332 psi and a failure shear strain as of
327
0.17 %. The mechanical parameters such as low-amplitude shear modulus, shear modulus
at failure, shear strength (failure stress) and failure shear strain are summarized in Section
8.3.1. The variations of shear modulus and material damping ratio of nonwelded tuff
specimen are presented in Section 8.4.3. Figure 8.20 shows a picture of the broken Tac
specimen as a result of the CTS tests.
-0.00003 -0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 -0.00006 -0.00004 -0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006
(a) 10
(b) 20
Borehole No. : USW UZ-14 60 Borehole No. : USW UZ-14
Type : Calico Hills (Tac) Type : Calico Hills (Tac)
Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) 100
3 3
5 Stress Rate Controlled 1st Loading Stage 10 Stress Rate Controlled 2nd Loading Stage
-5 -5
Average Strain Rate : 8.0 X 10 %/sec Average Strain Rate : 8.0 X 10 %/sec 50
20 Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

Cyclic Shear Stress-Shear Strain Curve 7
of 4.44 X10 psf
7
0 of 4.48 X10 psf 0 0 0
-20
-50
-5 -10
-40
7 -100
from Free-Free URC Test -60
-10 -20
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006
328
-0.00015 -0.00010 -0.00005 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003
(a) 40
(b) 80
Borehole No. : USW UZ-14 Borehole No. : USW UZ-14
Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) 200 60 Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) 400
3 3
20 Stress Rate Controlled 3rd Loading Stage 40 Stress Rate Controlled 4th Loading Stage
-5 -5
100 200
Shear Stress (kPa)

20
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

7 7
of 4.33 X10 psf of 4.14 X10 psf
0 0 0 0
-20
-100 -200
-20 -40
-200 -60 -400

7 7
-40 -80
-0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
(a) -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 (b) 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020
200 500
Specimen ID No. : 01025883 Specimen ID No. : 01025883
Borehole No. : USW UZ-14 Borehole No. : USW UZ-14
150 Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) 1000 Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m) 3000
3 3
100 Stress Rate Controlled 5th Loading Stage Stress Rate Controlled 6th Loading Stage 2500
-5 -5
500
50
Shear Stress (kPa)
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi)
Shear Stress (psi)

with Cyclic Shear Modulus 300
2000
7
of 3.67 X10 psf
0 0
1500
200 Failed at 332 psi, 0.17%
-50 7
Secant shear modulus at failure point, 2.81 X10 psf
-500
1000
-100 7
100 from Free-Free URC Test
-1000 500
-150 7
-200 0 0
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 7
0.20
Secant shear modulus at 0.7% strain point, 3.08 X10 psf
329
-0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020

400
Borehole No. : USW UZ-14
Type : Calico Hills (Tac)
Depth : 1443.5 ft (440.0 m)
300 Specimen Dimension : Length = 10.8 in., Dia. = 3.28 in.
3
Stress Rate Controlled on All Loading Stage
-5
Failed at 332 psi,
200 Failure Strain : 0.17%
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (psi) 1000
100
1st Loading Stage

0 2nd Loading Stage 0
3rd Loading Stage
4th Loading Stage
5th Loading Stage
6th Loading Stage
-100
7
-200
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Shear Strain (%)
Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests of Tac Specimen (UTA-CTS-02)
Figure 8.20 Broken Specimen UTA-CTS-02 (Tac) that was Torsionally Failed in Shear
during the Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests
330
8.3 CYCLIC SHEAR PROPERTIES OF TUFFS FROM CTS TESTING
8.3.1 Summary of Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuff Specimens
With the CTS tests, the linear and nonlinear moduli and damping ratio of 12 tuff
specimens were measured, The hysteresis loops at each loading stage in the stress-strain
domain were successfully measured. As previously stated, the value of low-amplitude
shear modulus (Gmax), shear strength(τf), failure shear strain (γf), and the variations of
shear modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D) with shear strain (γ) were evaluated
with the hysteresis loops and loading to failure.
The shear moduli in all cyclic loading stages were determined by fitting the
strain-stress loops at the peak shear strains. The representative shear strain of a given
loading stage was determined by averaging the absolute values of the positive and the
negative peak shear strains. The shear modulus in the last stage was determined from the
slope of the line connecting the y-intercept and the failure point. The material damping
ratio is each loading stage was computed from:
AL
D= (8.1)
4πAT
where: AL is the area enclosed by the hysteresis loop, and

AT is the triangular area formed by the origin, and endpoint of the hysteresis loop
and the projection of the end point on the strain-axis.
The material damping ratio was not calculated in the last loading stage because
the last loading was simply monotonic.
The following Darandeli’s fitting equation was employed to extrapolate to Gmax
by:
331
G 1
= (8.2)
G max ⎛ ⎞a
⎜ γ ⎟
1+ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ γr⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γr is the reference shear strain (%),

which is equal to the shear strain at G/Gmax = 0.5, and
a is the curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
By using this equation, the best fitting values of Gmax, γr and “a” were determined
through the least squares fitting. Figure 8.21 shows an example of the extrapolated results
of Gmax using the Darandeli’s equation.
1.2
7
Gmax = 7.817* 10 psf
1 a = 0.72
γ r = 0.0172 %
0.8
G/Gmax CTS
0.6
0.4
Specimen ID :
0.2 UTA-CTS-04
0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear Strain (%)
Figure 8.21 Example of Extrapolation to Estimate Gmax of Specimen UTA-CTS-04,

Tptpul
The normalized shear modulus in each loading stage was calculated by dividing
the shear modulus in the given loading stage by Gmax of the specimen. The summary of
the cyclic shear properties of all 12 tuff specimens determined from the CTS tests is
presented in Table 8.1.
332
Table 8.1 Summary of Cyclic Shear Properties of Tuff Specimens from Unconfined, Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests
Total Unit Vs from Gmax URC Shear Strength Shear Modulus at

Test No. Stratigraphic Specimen No. Porosity, Gmax CTS Gmax CTS / Failure Strain, Gfailure /
Weight, γt Free-Free from Free-Free (Failure Stress), Failure,
(UT. ID.) Unit (SMF ID.) n from CTS (psf) Gmax URC γf, (%) Gmax URC
(pcf) URC (fps) URC (psf) τf (psi) Gfailure (psf)
UTA-CTS-01* Tcp 01025921 122 0.232 6717 1.71E+08 1.65E+08 0.96 0.0731 744 1.43E+08 0.87
Tac
UTA-CTS-02* 01025883 98 0.386 4218 5.40E+07 4.52E+07 0.84 0.167 332 2.81E+07 0.62
(Devitrified)
UTA-CTS-03* Tptpll 01025872 143 0.103 6112 1.66E+08 1.66E+08 1.00 0.103 466 6.03E+07 0.36
*
UTA-CTS-04 Tptpul 01037512-1 109 0.315 5080 8.73E+07 7.82E+07 0.90 0.101 167 1.86E+07 0.24
*
UTA-CTS-05 Tptpmn 01025938 143 0.102 8958 3.56E+08 3.61E+08 1.01 0.151 1622 1.51E+08 0.42
*
UTA-CTS-06 Tptpul 01031164-1 112 0.299 5960 1.23E+08 1.06E+08 0.86 0.0785 235 4.01E+07 0.38
3
3
3
*
UTA-CTS-07 Tptpln 01025917 143 0.098 9110 3.70E+08 3.75E+08 1.01 0.0397 838 2.92E+08 0.78
UTA-CTS-09** Tptpll 01025924 142 0.108 2231 2.20E+07 2.27E+07 1.03 0.623 148 3.20E+06 0.14
UTA-CTS-10** Tptpul 01025889 109 0.318 4067 5.58E+07 4.66E+07 0.83 0.867 184 2.78E+06 0.06
UTA-CTS-11** Tptpmn 01025909 143 0.104 8928 3.53E+08 3.40E+08 0.96 0.0925 1388 2.01E+08 0.59
UTA-CTS-12** Tptpul 01037508-1 113 0.290 5210 9.53E+07 7.73E+07 0.81 0.0618 187 4.30E+07 0.56
UTA-CTS-13** Tptpmn 01025907 140 0.121 8724 3.31E+08 3.16E+08 0.95 0.06 1017 2.43E+08 0.77
Note: * Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests According to the Initial (First Generation) Setup
** Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests According to the Initial (First Generation) Setup
333
8.3.2 General Relationships of Gmax CTS and Gfailure versus γt , porosities, Gmax URC,
and Vs
There are two representative shear moduli that are considered in representing the
tuffs in this section. One is the shear modulus at small strains and the other is the shear
modulus at failure. The shear modulus at small strains represents the initial stiffness of
tuffs and it is used in normalizing the shear modulus in the presentation of the variation
of normalized shear modulus with shear strain. The shear modulus at the failure shear
strain is the other shear modulus. The modulus at the failure represents the minimum
stiffness of the tuff at failure strain.
In Figure 8.22, Gmax from free-free URC tests (Gmax URC) and Gmax from CTS tests
(Gmax CTS) are compared. The dashed line represents the unity line (1:1 line) and the
dashed and dotted line represents the least-squares fitting line between the value of Gmax
measured in the two tests. The value of Gmax CTS is nearly proportional to Gmax URC. The
largest difference between them occurs for the lithophysal tuffs, as expected. In Figure
8.23, Gmax URC and the shear modulus at failure from the CTS tests (Gfailure) are compared.
The dashed line is the best fitting line between Gmax URC and Gfailure. The dashed and
dotted line in Figure 8.23 is above the dashed line because the shear modulus at failure is
always smaller than the initial shear modulus. The two sets of best fitting lines in Figure
8.23 used as guide lines to predict Gmax CTS and Gfailure from Gmax URC. These best fitting
lines can be expressed by the following equations:
G max CTS = 1.015 * G max URC − 9.970 * 10 6 (R2=0.997) (8.3)
G failure = 0.7 * G max URC − 2.534 * 10 7 (R2=0.864) (8.4)
where: Gmax URC is shear modulus from free-free URC test (psf),
334
Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC Test, Gmax URC, MPa
Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS, MPa

Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS, psf
60 5000 10000 15000 20000
500x10
Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff (4 EA)
Welded Lithophysal Tuff (6 EA)
Moderately Welded Tuff (1 EA) 20000
400 Nonwelded Tuff (1 EA)
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
15000
300
200 1:1 Line 10000
100 5000
Fitting Line :
6
Gmax CTS = 1.015 * Gmax URC - 9.970*10
2
(R = 0.997)
0 0 6
0 100 200 300 400 500x10
Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC Test, Gmax URC, psf
Figure 8.22 General Relationship between Low-Amplitude Shear Moduli from CTS
Tests and Free-Free URC Tests
60 5000 10000 15000 20000

500x10
Shear Modulus at Failure from CTS test, Gfailure, MPa

Shear Modulus at Failure from CTS test, Gfailure, psf

Moderately Welded Tuff (1 EA)
Nonwelded Tuff (1 EA)
20000
400
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
15000
300
Fitting Line between
Gmax URC and Gmax CTS
200 10000
100 5000
Fitting Line :
7
Gfailure = 0.7 * Gmax URC - 2.534*10
2
(R = 0.864)
0 0 6
0 100 200 300 400 500x10
Figure 8.23 General Relationship between the Shear Modulus at Failure from the CTS
Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC Tests
335
Gmax CTS is shear modulus in linear range from CTS test (psf), and
Gfailure is shear modulus at failure from CTS test (psf).
The relationships between Vs and Gmax CTS and Gfailure are shown in Figure 8.24.
The dashed line is the least squares fit between Vs and Gmax CTS and the dashed and dotted
line is the best fitting line between Vs and Gfailure. Both fitting curves show good
correlation between the parameters, with values of R2 of dashed line and dashed and
dotted line are 0.98 and 0.85, respectively. Figure 8.25 shows the correlation between
total unit weight (γt) versus Gmax CTS and Gfailure. If cracked specimen (UTA-CTS-09) is
excluded in fitting, the best fitting lines show good correlation between the parameters,
with the value of R2 of dashed line and dashed and dotted line are 0.88 and 0.57,
respectively. Gmax CTS, Gfailure and tend to be affected by internal flaws such as cracks and
voids as well as the mineralogy of the specimens. However, since the total unit weight
tends to be more affected by voids but less affected by cracks, the correlation between
Gmax CTS and Gfailure versus γt is weaker than the correlation between Gmax CTS and Gfailure
versus Vs. The following equations, determined by exponential least-squares fitting,
describe the general relationships between Gmax CTS and Gfailure versus Vs and γt as:
G max CTS = 9.347 * 10 6 * exp (4.108 * 10 -4 * V s ) (R2=0.98) (8.5)
G failure = 8.811 * 10 5 * exp (6.370 * 10 -4 * V s ) (R2=0.85) (8.6)
G max CTS = 6.484 * 10 5 * exp (0.0433 γ t ) (R2=0.88) (8.7)
G failure = 3.687 * 10 4 * exp (0.0594 γ t ) (R2=0.57) (8.8)
where: Vs is shear wave velocity from free-free URC test (fps),

γt is total unit weight of tuff specimen (pcf),
336
Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free URC Test,Vs, m/s
60 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS & Gfailure, MPa
500x10
Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS & Gfailure, psf
Gmax CTS Gfailure
400 Nonwelded Tuff (1 EA)
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
Fitting Line :
6 -4 2 15000
300 Gmax CTS = 9.347 * 10 * exp( 4.108 * 10 * Vs), (R = 0.98)
5 -4 2
Gfailure = 8.811 * 10 * exp( 6.370 * 10 * Vs), (R = 0.85)
200 10000
100 5000
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free URC Test,Vs, fps
Shear Wave Velocity from the Free-Free URC Tests
3
6 14 16 18 20 22 24
Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS & Gfailure, MPa
500x10
Shear Modulus from CTS Test, Gmax CTS & Gfailure, psf
Gmax CTS Gfailure

Welded Lithophysal Tuff (6 EA) 20000
400 Moderately Welded Tuff (1 EA)
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
5 2
Gmax CTS = 6.484 *10 * exp( 0.0433 * γt), (R = 0.88)
15000
300 4 2
Gfailure = 3.687 *10 * exp( 0.0594 * γt), (R = 0.57)
(Cracked specimen was left out in general fitting)
200 10000
100 5000
Cracked Specimen UTA-CTS-09
0 0
80 100 120 140 160
Total Unit Weight
337
Gfailure is shear modulus at failure from CTS test (psf).
The correlations between the ratio of Gmax CTS / Gmax URC versus γt and porosity are
shown in Figures 8.26 and 8.27. Figure 8.27 is simply the reverse of Figure 8.26 from left
to right because all porosities are calculated under the assumption of a constant water
content (zero water content) and a constant specific gravity (2.55). In Figure 8.27, the
dashed and dotted line is the line of Gmax CTS / Gmax URC which was derived by Tatsuoka
and Shibuya (1992) which is presented in Section 3.4.2. As shown by line, the difference
between the two parameters begins to develop as porosity decreases above zero. This
theoretical line has the limitation that it is derived from an extreme rock specimen model
whose softer parts are located in one portion of the specimen. However, the softer parts in
actual rock specimens are often more uniformly distributed over the specimen. Due to
this difference of distribution in the softer parts between the theoretical model and actual
specimens, the theoretical line might not match the experimental results in this study. The
following equation, determined by quadratic least-squares fitting, was found to represent
the general relationship between Gmax CTS / Gmax URC and porosity (n) as:
G max CTS
= 0.7057 n 2 − 0.96n + 1.092 (R2=0.817) (8.9)
G max URC
n is porosity of tuff specimen (decimal).
338
3
14 16 18 20 22 24
1.2 1.2
1.1 Nonwelded Tuff (1 EA) 1.1
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
1.0 1.0
Gmax CTS / Gmax URC
Gmax CTS / Gmax URC

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
80 100 120 140 160
Figure 8.26 General Relationship between Gmax URC / Gmax CTS and Total Unit Weight
Porosity, n (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.2 1.2
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
1.0 1.0
Gmax CTS / Gmax URC
Gmax CTS / Gmax URC
0.8 0.8
Shear Modulus Ratio from Tests
0.6 0.6
Theoretical Ratio of Shear Modulus (Tatsuoka and Shibuya, 1992)
(Gsoft / Ghard = 0.2)
2
Best Fir Line: Gmax CTS / Gmax URC = 0.7057*n - 0.96*n + 1.092
2
(R = 0.817)
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Porosity, n (Decimal)
Figure 8.27 General Relationship between Gmax URC / Gmax CTS and Porosity
339
8.3.3 General Relationships of τf and γf versus γt, Gmax URC and Vs
In this section, the shear strength (failure stress, τf) and failure shear strain (γf) of
tuff specimens, are correlated with γt, Gmax URC, and Vs. The correlations between τf and γf
versus γt are shown in Figures 8.28 and 8.29. If the cracked Specimen (UTA-CTS-09) is
excluded, τf is generally proportional to γt because the R2 value of the exponential least
squares fitting is 0.68. However, γf show no general correlation with γt. Figures 8.30 and
8.31 show the general relationship between τf and γf versus Gmax URC. Figures 8.32 and
8.33 show the general relationship between τf and γf versus Vs. τf shows reasonable
generalized relationship with both parameters, Gmax URC and Vs, with the R2 values of 0.85
and 0.81 in Figures 8.30 and 8.32,respectively. However, γf does not show a strong
relation with Gmax URC and Vs.
The following equations were found through exponential least-squares fitting with
the τf of tuffs and γt,Gmax URC and Vs as:
τ f = 3.337 * exp (0.0398 * γ t ) (R2=0.68) (8.10)
τ f = 145.1 * exp (6.036 * 10 −9 * G max URC) (R2=0.85) (8.11)
τ f = 49.315 * exp (3.6 * 10 −4 * V s ) (R2=0.81) (8.12)
where: Vs is shear wave velocity from free-free URC test (fps),

γt is total unit weight of tuff specimen (pcf),
τf is shear strength (failure stress) from CTS test (psi).
340
3
14 16 18 20 22 24
2000 1400
1500
Shear Strength, τf,(ton/m )

12 Specimens
1000
Shear Strength, τf , (psi)
Unconfined State
Fitting Line :
Shear Strength = 3.337 * exp( 0.0398 * γt)
2 800
(R = 0.68)
1000 (Cracked specimen was left out in general fitting)
600
400
2
500
200
0 0
80 100 120 140 160
Cracked Specimen UTA-CTS-09
Specimens from CTS Tests and Total Unit Weight
3
14 16 18 20 22 24
1.0 0.0030
12 Specimens
Unconfined State
0.0025
Shear Strain at Failure, γf , (decimal)
0.8
Shear Strain at Failure, γf , (%)
Relatively Smaller Size (2.4'' Dia.)

Tptpul Specimen UTA-CTS-10
0.0020
0.6
Specimen UTA-CTS-09
Shear Modulus Ratio from Tests
with Initial Cracks 0.0015
0.4 Welded Lithophysal Tuff (6 EA)
Nonwelded Tuff (1 EA) 0.0010
0.2
0.0005
0.0 0.0000
80 100 120 140 160
Figure 8.29 General Relationship between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens from
CTS Tests and Total Unit Weight
341
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

2000 1400
1500

12 Specimens
1000
Unconfined State
Fitting Line :
-9
Shear Strength = 145.1 * exp( 6.036 * 10 * Gmax URC) 800
2
(R = 0.85)
1000
600
400
2
500
200
0 0 6
0 100 200 300 400x10
Specimens from CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-
Free URC Tests
0 5000 10000 15000 20000

1.0 0.010

0.8 Relatively Smaller Size (2.4'' Dia.) 0.008
Tptpul Specimen UTA-CTS-10 12 Specimens

Unconfined State
0.6 0.006
Specimen UTA-CTS-09
with Initial Cracks
0.4 0.004
0.2 0.002
0.0 0.000
6
0 100 200 300 400 500x10
Figure 8.31 General Relation between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens from CTS
Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus from Free-Free URC Tests
342
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

2000 1400
1500

12 Specimens
1000
Unconfined State
Fitting Line :
-4 800
Shear Strength = 49.315 * exp( 3.6 * 10 * Vs)
1000 2
(R = 0.81)
600
400
2
500
200
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Specimens from CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity from
Free-Free URC Tests
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

1.0 0.0025
Nonwwelded Tuff (1 EA)

0.8 0.0020
Relatively Smaller Size (2.4'' Dia.)

Tptpul Specimen UTA-CTS-10 12 Specimens
Unconfined State
0.6 0.0015
Specimen UTA-CTS-09
with Initial Cracks
0.4 0.0010
0.2 0.0005
0.0 0.0000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Figure 8.33 General Relationship between Failure Shear Strain of Tuff Specimens from
CTS Tests and Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity from Free-Free URC
Tests
343
8.4 NONLINEAR CYCLIC SHEAR PROPERTIES OF TUFFS FROM CTS TESTING
8.4.1 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Welded Nonlithophysal

Tuffs
With the hysteresis loops from the CTS tests of the 12 tuff specimens, shear strain
(γ), shear modulus (G) and material damping ratio (D) in each loading cycle were
determined. The low-amplitude shear moduli (Gmax) of all tuff specimens were also
determined by fitting Darandeli’s equation. By dividing G at a given shear strain by Gmax
of the specimen, the normalized shear modulus (G/Gmax) versus shear strains curve was
determined. Through this process, the variations of G - log γ, G/Gmax - log γ, and D – log
γ of all 12 tuff specimens were obtained. Figures 8.34 through 8.36 show the variations of
G, G/Gmax and D with shear strain of the four, welded nonlithophysal tuff specimens,
respectively. Specimen 3K-2 from the fixed-free RCTS tests was not plotted because the
specimen had a diameter of 0.8 inch was considered to be so small as to distort,
somewhat, the representative properties of the formation. In Figure 8.34, the variations of
G - log γ from the fixed-free RCTS tests and from the CTS tests were compared. The
maximum strain generated in the fixed-free RCTS tests was about 0.02 % but the
maximum shear strain generated in the CTS test was almost 0.1 % (which was the largest
values of the failure strain). In addition, G/Gmax from the fixed-free RCTS tests were no
smaller than 0.8 but G/Gmax from the CTS tests went to strains that resulted in one value
as low as 0.4, as shown in Figure 8.35. The best fitting line (solid line) of G/Gmax- log γ in
Figure 8.35 was determined using both data sets from the fixed-free RCTS tests and the
CTS tests. Darandeli’s equation was used to develop the best fitting. The parameters of
the Darandeli’s equation, “a”(curvature coefficient) and γr (reference strain), were
determined by the least-squares method and the best fitting line (solid line) is shown in
Figure 8.35.
344
Shearing Strain, γ (decimal)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
400000
*
*
*
* 15000
300000

10000
200000
Unconfined CTS
4 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens Geologic Unit (Test No.) γt(pcf) σο(psi)
Tptpmn (3C-2) 144 450
Fixed-Free RCTS Tptrn (4C-2) 1455000450
100000
7 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens Tptpln (6C-2) 147 400
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpmn (13C-2) 144 400
Tptpmn (14C-2) 144 400
* values used for Gmax Tpcpmn (23-D) 148 450
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146 450
Tptpmn (CTS-05) 143 0
Tptpln (CTS-07) 143 0
Shear Strain = 0.02% Tptpmn (CTS-11) 143 0
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Shearing Strain, γ, %
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens
and from CTS Tests of Four Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff Specimens
345
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
Geologic Unit (Test No.) γt(pcf) σο(psi)

Tptpmn (3C-2) 144 450
Tptrn (4C-2) 145 450
Tptpln (6C-2) 147 400
0.6 Tptpmn (13C-2) 144 400 0.6
Tptpmn (14C-2) 144 400
Tpcpmn (23-D) 148 450
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146 450
0.4 Tptpmn (CTS-13) 140 0
0.4
Best Fitting Line (a = 1.06, γt= 0.116 %)
Upper Limit Line (a = 1.10, γt= 0.2 %)
Lower Limit Line (a = 0.90, γt= 0.045 %)
Reference Line from Geotechnical Data
0.2 0.2
Unconfined CTS
4 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens
Fixed-Free RCTS Largest γf
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Specimens
346
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
10 5
Tptpmn (3C-2) 144 450
Tptrn (4C-2) 145 450
Tptpln (6C-2) 147 400
Tptpmn (13C-2) 144 400
Tptpmn (14C-2) 144 400
8 Tpcpmn (23-D) 148 450
Tpcpmn (23-H) 146 450

Best Fitting Line
(Dmin=0.56 %, aD=1.42, γD=0.059 %, C=14.0 %)
6 Upper Limit Line
Quality Factor, Q
(Dmin=1.04 %, aD=1.50, γD=0.025 %, C=14.0 %)
Lower Limit Line
(Dmin=0.33 %, aD=1.00, γD=0.26 %, C=14.0 %)
Reference Line from Tuffs Discussed 10
in Geotechnical Data
Unconfined CTS
4 4 Welded Nonlithophysal Specimens
Fixed-Free RCTS
2
Largest γf
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 8.36 Comparison of the Variations of Material Damping Ratio with Shear Strain
from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of Seven Welded Nonlithophysal Tuff
Specimens
347
Upper and lower limit lines (dotted and dashed lines, respectively) were also fitted using
Darandeli’s equation in order to include as many measured points as possible. On the
other hand, the best fitting line (solid line) for material damping ratio in Figure 8.36 was
derived based on the following equation introduced by Choi (2008):
⎛ ⎞ aD
⎜ γ ⎟
D − D min = C⎜ ⎟ (8.13)
⎜γD⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γD is reference shear strain which is the shear strain

whose D-Dmin is equal to C (%),
Dmin is the minimum material damping ratio at small strains (%),
C is the reference material damping ratio (%), and
aD is a curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
Average values of Dmin measured from the fixed free-RCTS tests were employed
as Dmin for the best fitting line. The upper limit and lower limit lines (dotted and dashed
lines, respectively) were also determined using Choi’s equation in order to include as
many measured points as possible. The maximum and minimum values of Dmin from the
fixed-free RCTS tests were used as the values of Dmin for the upper- and lower-limit lines,
respectively. Since the data sets from CTS tests allowed measurements in the high strain
range, the best fitting line and the upper and lower limit lines have more reliability than
earlier relationships derived with only data from the fixed-free RCTS tests. The reference
line from Geotechnical Data Report of Yucca Mountain (2007), which is presented with
the dashed and dotted line in Figures 8.35 and 8.36, was derived from the data of fixed-
free RCTS tests with tuff specimens. Since the fixed-free RCTS tests were performed
with confined states, the reference line showed more linearity than the best fitting line
from CTS tests.
348
8.4.2 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Welded Lithophysal Tuffs
Figures 8.37 through 8.39 show the variations of G, G/Gmax and D with shear
strain of welded lithophysal tuff specimens. Specimens 1G and 2C-2 from the fixed-free
RCTS tests were not plotted because the specimens with diameter of 0.8 inch were
considered to be so small as to distort, somewhat, the representative properties of the
formation. The variation curves of G – log γ from the fixed-free RCTS tests and from the
CTS tests were compared in Figure 8.37. The maximum shear strain generated in CTS
tests was almost 1.0 %. In addition, the minimum value of G/Gmax was as low as 0.06 as
shown in Figure 8.38. The best fitting line (solid line), the upper limit line and the lower
limit line (dotted and dashed lines, respectively) of the normalized shear modulus and
material damping ratio were derived using Darandeli’s equation (as shown in Figure
8.38) and Choi’s equation (as shown in Figure 8.39), respectively. The parameters of the
best fitting curve were determined with least-squares fitting. One tuff specimen (UTA-
CTS-09) was excluded in deriving the best fitting line because the specimen had big
cracks. The big cracks can cause an abnormal cyclic shear behavior. Hence, specimens
with cracks, joints and fractures usually show the earlier decrease of normalized shear
modulus and earlier increase of material damping ratio. The tuff specimen with cracks in
other sub-groups also showed similar behavior as the specimen UTA-CTS-09. The
reference line from Geotechnical Data Report of Yucca Mountain (2007), which is
presented with the dashed and dotted line in Figures 8.38 and 8.39, was derived from the
data of fixed-free RCTS tests with tuff specimens. Since the fixed-free RCTS tests were
performed with confined states, the reference line showed more linearity than the best
fitting line from CTS tests.
349
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
Unconfined CTS Geologic Unit (Test No.) γt(pcf) σο(psi)
6 Welded Lithophysal Specimens Tptpul (2A-3) 13716000 160
Tptpul (2B-3) 135 160
Fixed-Free RCTS
Tptpll (5C-2) 138 400
Tptpll (9A-2) 136 400
300000 12 Test Sets
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpll (10A-2) 13814000 400
Tptpul (11C-1) 139 0
Tptpul (12C-1) 137 0
Tptpll (15C-3) 143 400
Tptpll (16C-2) 138 400
250000 Tpcpul (23-C) 13412000 450
Tpcpul (23-G) 145 450
Tpcpul (23-J) 141 450
Tptpll (CTS-03) 143 0

Tptpul (CTS-04) 109 0

Tptpul (CTS-06) 11210000 0
200000 Tptpll (CTS-09) 142 0
* * values used for Gmax 8000
150000
6000
*
100000
4000
**
50000 *
2000
*
Shear Strain = 0.015%
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 11 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens and from
CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
350
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Unconfined CTS
Fixed-Free RCTS
12 Test Sets
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

Tptpul (2A-3) 137 160
Tptpul (2B-3) 135 160
Tptpll (5C-2) 138 400
Tptpll (9A-2) 136 400
0.6 0.6
Tptpll (10A-2) 138 400
Tptpul (11C-1) 139 0
Tptpul (12C-1) 137 0
Tptpll (15C-3) 143 400
Tptpll (16C-2) 138 400
Tpcpul (23-C) 134 450
0.4 Tpcpul (23-G) 145 450 0.4
Tpcpul (23-J) 141 450
0.2 0.2
Reference Line from Geotechnical Data Largest γf
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
Specimens and from CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
351
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
25 2
Tptpul (2A-3) 137 160
Tptpul (2B-3) 135 160
Tptpll (5C-2) 138 400
Tptpll (9A-2) 136 400
Tptpll (10A-2) 138 400
20 Tptpul (11C-1) 139 0
Tptpul (12C-1) 137 0
Tptpll (15C-3) 143 400
Tptpll (16C-2) 138 400
Tpcpul (23-C) 134 450
Tpcpul (23-G) 145 450

Tpcpul (23-J) 141 450
15
Quality Factor, Q
Tptpul (CTS-12) 113 0 4
Reference Line from Tuffs Discussed
10 CTS-09 is NOT represented in general fitting
Largest γf
Unconfined CTS
Fixed-Free RCTS
11 Welded Lithophysal Specimens Best Fitting Line
5 12 Test Sets (Dmin=0.72 %, aD=0.78,
Time > 30 minute in each σo γD=0.096 %, C=13.3 %)
Upper Limit Line
(Dmin=1.25 %, aD=0.90,
γD=0.025 %, C=13.3 %) and
Lower Limit Line
(Dmin=0.40 %, aD=0.78,
γD=0.35 %, C=13.3 %)
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 11 Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens and
from CTS Tests of Six Welded Lithophysal Tuff Specimens
352
8.4.3 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of Moderately Welded and
Nonwelded Tuffs
Figures 8.40 through 8.42 show the variation of G, G/Gmax and D with shear strain
of moderately welded tuff specimens. Figures 8.43 through 8.45 show the variation of G,
G/Gmax and D with shear strain of nonwelded tuff specimens. CTS tests for these sub-
groups were not conducted sufficiently because the proposed radioactive waste repository
tunnel is not located in these formations. Due to insufficient number of CTS testing, data
of high strain range were not as many as the previous groups.
Using the same fitting equations (Darandeli’s equation and Choi’s equation), the best
fitting line (solid line), the upper limit line and lower limit line (dotted and dashed lines,
respectively) of normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio were derived and
shown in Figures 8.41, 8.42, 8.44 and 8.45. Data of Specimen 27C from the fixed-free
RCTS tests was excluded in deriving the best fitting curve of the normalized shear
modulus and the material damping ratio for the moderately welded tuff group because of
its cracks. Likewise, Data of Specimens 23C and 23-A from the fixed-free RCTS tests
were left out in deriving the best fitting curve of the normalized shear modulus and the
material damping ratio for the nonwelded tuff group because of their cracks. As stated
previously, all these outlier specimens with cracks, joints and fractures show the earlier
decrease of normalized shear modulus and earlier increase of material damping ratio.
The reference line from Geotechnical Data Report of Yucca Mountain (2007),
which is presented with the dashed and dotted line in Figures 8.41, 8.42, 8.44 and 8.45,
was derived from the data of fixed-free RCTS tests with tuff specimens. Since, tuff
specimen with better quality were selected for the CTS tests, the best fitting lines derived
from CTS tests showed similar or more linearity than the reference line from the fixed-
free tests although the fixed-free RCTS tests were performed with confined states.
353
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
Unconfined CTS 16000
1 Moderately Welded Specimens Tcp (17C-2) 110 400
Tcp (18C-2) 119 400
Fixed-Free RCTS Tcb (19C-2) 149 400
16 Moderately Welded Specimens Tct (20C-2) 111 400
300000
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tct (21C-2) 103 400 14000
Tptpv3 (27C) 145 400
Tcpm (30A) 143 400
Tcbuv (31A) 120 400
Tcblv(z) (32A) 105 400
250000 Tctuv(z) (33A) 110 400 12000
Tpcrn (20-B) 121 460
Tpcrn (20-C) 128 450
Tpcrn (23-B) 126 450

Tpcrn (23-E) 118 72

Tpcrn (23-F) 132 272 10000
200000 Tpcrn (23-I) 86 450
Tcp (CTS-01) 122 0
8000
*
150000
6000
100000
4000
50000
2000
* values used for Gmax

0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens and from
CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff Specimen
354
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Unconfined CTS
Fixed-Free RCTS
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
27C is NOT represented in general fitting
Geologic Unit (Test No.) γt(pcf)
Tcp (17C-2) 110
Tcp (18C-2) 119
Tcb (19C-2) 149
0.6 0.6
Tct (20C-2) 111
Tct (21C-2) 103
Tptpv3 (27C) 145
Tcpm (30A) 143
Tcbuv (31A) 120
Tcblv(z) (32A) 105 Largest γf
0.4 Tctuv(z) (33A) 110 0.4
Tpcrn (20-B) 121
Tpcrn (20-C) 128
Tpcrn (23-B) 126
Tpcrn (23-E) 118
Tpcrn (23-F) 132
Tpcrn (23-I) 86
0.2 Tcp (CTS-01) 122 0.2
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
Specimens and from CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff Specimen
355
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
10 5
Geologic Unit (Test No.) γt(pcf) σο(psi) Unconfined CTS
Tcp (17C-2) 110 400
Tcp (18C-2) 119 400 Fixed-Free RCTS
Tcb (19C-2) 149 400 16 Moderately Welded Specimens
Tct (20C-2) 111 400 Time > 30 minute in each σo
Tct (21C-2) 103 400
8 Tptpv3 (27C) 145 400
Tcpm (30A) 143 400
Tcbuv (31A) 120 400
Tcblv(z) (32A) 105 400
Tctuv(z) (33A) 110 400
Tpcrn (20-B) 121 460
Tpcrn (20-C) 128 450

Tpcrn (23-B) 126 450
6 Tpcrn (23-E) 118 72
Quality Factor, Q
Tpcrn (23-F) 132 272
Tpcrn (23-I) 86 450
Tcp (CTS-01) 122 0
Reference Line from Tuffs Discussed 10
Largest γf
27C is NOT represented in general fitting
Best Fitting Line

(Dmin=0.44 %, aD=1.04,
2 γD=0.28 %, C=6.9 %)
Upper Limit Line
(Dmin=0.95 %, aD=1.0,
γD=0.10 %, C=6.9 %) and
Lower Limit Line
(Dmin=0.23 %, aD=0.70,
γD=1.20 %, C=6.9 %)
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 16 Moderately Welded Tuff Specimens and
from CTS Tests of One Moderately Welded Tuff Specimen
356
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
350000
Unconfined CTS Tac (7C-2) 103 100 16000
1 Nonwelded Specimens Tac (8C-2) 94 400
Tpy (23C) 91 328
Fixed-Free RCTS Tpbt3 (24C) 81 400
300000 12 Nonwelded Specimens
Tpp (25C) 76 400
Time > 30 minute in each σo 14000
Tpbt2 (28E) 63 400
Tac (29C) 109 400
* values used for Gmax Tpki (20-A) 88 280
Tpki (20-D) 99 220
250000 Tpki (20-F) 75 2 12000
Tpki (20-G) 80 4
Tpki (23-A) 98 264
Tac (CTS-02) 98 0

10000
200000
8000
150000
6000
100000
4000
50000 *
2000
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens and CTS Tests of
One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen
357
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0

0.8 23C and 23-A are NOT represented in general fitting 0.8
Geologic Unit (Test No) γt(pcf) σο(psi)
Tac (7C-2) 103 100
Tac (8C-2) 94 400
Tpy (23C) 91 328
Tpbt3 (24C) 81 400
0.6 Tpp (25C) 76 400 0.6
Tpbt2 (28E) 63 400
Tac (29C) 109 400
Tpki (20-A) 88 280
Tpki (20-D) 99 220
Tpki (20-F) 75 2
Tpki (20-G) 80 4
0.4 Tpki (23-A) 98 264 0.4
Tac (CTS-02) 98 0
Largest γf
0.2 Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) 0.2
Unconfined CTS
Fixed-Free RCTS
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens and
from CTS Tests of One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen
358
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
10 10 10 10 10 10
10 5
Tac (7C-2) 103 100
Tac (8C-2) 94 400
Tpy (23C) 91 328
Tpbt3 (24C) 81 400
Tpp (25C) 76 400
8 Tpbt2 (28E) 63 400
Tac (29C) 109 400
Tpki (20-A) 88 280
Tpki (20-D) 99 220
Tpki (20-F) 75 2
Tpki (20-G) 80 4
Tpki (23-A) 98 264 Largest γf
Tac (CTS-02) 98 0
6
Quality Factor, Q
Reference Line from Tuffs Discussed
10
Unconfined CTS
4 Fixed-Free RCTS
23C and 23-A are NOT represented in general fitting

Best Fitting Line
(Dmin=0.43 %, aD=1.0,
2 γD=0.24 %, C=15.8 %)
Upper Limit Line
(Dmin=0.69 %, aD=1.0,
γD=0.20 %, C=15.8 %) and
Lower Limit Line
(Dmin=0.23 %, aD=0.90,
γD=1.20 %, C=15.8 %)
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 12 Nonwelded Tuff Specimens and from
CTS Tests of One Nonwelded Tuff Specimen
359
8.4.4 Nonlinear Dynamic and Cyclic Shear Properties of All Tuffs
Figures 8.46 through 8.48 show the variation of G, G/Gmax and D with shear strain
measured from the CTS tests of 12 tuff specimens. The data from the CTS test and from
fixed-free RCTS tests were compared in Figure 8.46. The small size specimens (1G, 2C-2,
and 3K-2) whose diameters were 0.8 in. were not plotted in plots because the specimens
with diameter of 0.8 in. was considered to be so small as to distort, somewhat, the
representative properties of the formations. The maximum shear strain generated by the
CTS tests was larger value than the maximum shear strain from the fixed-free RCTS tests
as shown in Figure 8.46. The minimum value of G/Gmax generated by CTS tests was also
smaller than the value from RCTS tests as shown in Figure 8.47. The variation curve of D
– log γ from CTS tests presented material damping ratio in high strain range as shown in
Figure 8.48. The best fitting line (solid line) of normalized shear modulus and material
damping ratio were derived using the Darandeli’s equation and Choi’s equation. The
upper and lower limit lines (dotted and dashed lines, respectively) were also derived
using the same equations to include as many points as possible. Data of Specimens 23C,
27C and 23-A from the fixed-free RCTS tests were excluded in deriving the best fitting
line of normalized shear modulus and material damping ratio due to their cracks. In
addition to these specimens, data of Specimen UTA-CTS-09 from the CTS tests was also
excluded in deriving the best fitting line of material damping ratio. The CTS tests
allowed the measurement of dynamic properties in higher strain range than the fixed-free
RCTS tests. By combining the data from the CTS tests and the fixed-free RCTS tests,
complete variation curves of dynamic properties from small strain to failure strain were
evaluated.
360
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
400000 Geologic Unit (Test No.)
Tptpul (2A-3) Tcp (CTS-01)
Unconfined CTS
12 Specimens
Tptpul (2B-3) Tac16000
(CTS-02)
Tptpmn (3C-2) Tptpll (CTS-03)
Fixed-Free RCTS Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-04)
46 Specimens, 47 Test Results Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpmn (CTS-05)
Three Specimens with 0.8 in. Dia. were left out Tptpln (6C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-06)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tac (7C-2)
Tptpln
14000(CTS-07)
Tac (8C-2)
Tptpll (CTS-09)
Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptul (CTS-10)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1) Tptpmn (CTS-11)
300000 Tptpul (12C-1) Tptpul (CTS-12)
Tptpmn (13C-2) Tptpmn (CTS-13)
12000
Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)

Tcb (19C-2) 10000

Tct (20C-2)
Tct (21C-2)
Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C)
200000 Tpp (25C)
Tptpv3 (27C) 8000
Tpbt2 (28E)
Tac (29C)
Tcpm (30A)
Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tctuv(z) (33A) 6000
Tpki (20-A)
Tpcrn (20-B)
Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
100000 Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G) 4000
Tpki (23-A)
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
Tpcpmn (23-D)
Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F) 2000
Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from CTS Tests of 12
Tuff Specimens
361
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Geologic Unit (Test No.)
Tptpul (2A-3)
Tptpul (2B-3)
Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpln (6C-2)
1.0 Tac (7C-2) 1.0
Tac (8C-2)
Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (13C-2)
Minimum G/Gmax = 0.8 Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)

0.8 0.8
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)
Tcp (CTS-01)
Tcb (19C-2)
Tac (CTS-02)
Tct (20C-2)
Tptpll (CTS-03) Tct (21C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-04) Tpy (23C)
Tptpmn (CTS-05) Tpbt3 (24C)
0.6 Tptpul (CTS-06) Tpp (25C) 0.6
Tptpln (CTS-07) Tptpv3 (27C)
Tptpll (CTS-09) Tpbt2 (28E)
Tptul (CTS-10) Tac (29C)
Tcpm (30A)
Tptpmn (CTS-11)
Tcbuv (31A)
Tptpul (CTS-12)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tptpmn (CTS-13) Tctuv(z) (33A)
Best Fitting Line (a = 1.18, γt= 0.096 %) Tpki (20-A)
0.4 0.4
Upper Limit Line (a = 1.40, γt= 0.25 %) Tpcrn (20-B)
Lower Limit Line (a = 0.80, γt= 0.015 %) Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
Tpki (23-A)
23C, 27C and 23-A are NOT represented in general fitting
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
0.2 Unconfined CTS 0.2
Tpcpmn (23-D)
12 Specimens
Tpcrn (23-E)
Fixed-Free RCTS Tpcrn (23-F)
46 Specimens, 47 Test Results Tpcpul (23-G)
Three Specimens with 0.8 in. Dia. were left out Tpcpmn (23-H)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Largest γf Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from CTS
Tests of 12 Tuff Specimens
362
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
25 Geologic Unit (Test No.) 2
Geologic Unit (Test No.) Tptpul (2A-3)
Tcp (CTS-01) Tptpul (2B-3)
Tac (CTS-02) Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptpll (CTS-03) Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-04) Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpmn (CTS-05) Tptpln (6C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-06) Tac (7C-2)
Tptpln (CTS-07) Tac (8C-2)
20 Tptpll (CTS-09) Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptul (CTS-10) Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpmn (CTS-11) Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (CTS-12) Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (CTS-13) Tptpmn (13C-2)
Unconfined CTS Tptpmn (14C-2)
12 Specimens Tptpll (15C-3)
Fixed-Free RCTS Tptpll (16C-2)

46 Specimens, 47 Test Results Tcp (17C-2)
15 Three Specimens with 0.8 in. Dia. were left out Tcp (18C-2)
Quality Factor, Q
Tcb (19C-2)
Best Fitting Line Tct (20C-2)
(Dmin=0.57 %, aD=1.18, Tct (21C-2)
γD=0.127 %, C=13.5 %) Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C) 4
Upper Limit Line
(Dmin=1.04 %, aD=0.8, Tpp (25C)
Tptpv3 (27C)
γD=0.03 %, C=13.5 %) and
Tpbt2 (28E)
Lower Limit Line
Tac (29C)
10 (Dmin=0.23 %, aD=1.4,
Tcpm (30A)
γD=0.20 %, C=13.5 %) Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
23C, 27C, 23-A and CTS-09 are NOT
Tctuv(z) (33A)
represented in general fitting
Tpki (20-A)
Tpcrn (20-B)
Largest γf Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
5
Tpki (23-A)
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
Tpcpmn (23-D)
Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F)
Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
0 Tpcpul (23-J)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests of 46 Tuff Specimens and from CTS Tests of
12 Tuff Specimens
363
The reference line (dashed and dotted line in Figures 8.47 and 8.48) derived from fixed-
free data in Geotechnical Data Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) showed more linearity
than the best fitting line from CTS tests due to confinement conditions of fixed-free tests.
8.5 SUMMARY
The Unconfined, Slow Cyclic Torsional Shear (CTS) test was developed to
determine cyclic shear behaviors of tuff specimens at higher strain ranges. Twelve tuff
specimens were selected for the CTS tests and tested until they broke. Ten specimens
were sampled from the Topopah Spring tuff formation where the proposed radioactive
waste repository tunnel is to be located. The remaining two specimens were sampled
from Prow Pass (Tcp) and Calico Hills (Tac), respectively.
Testing results showed clear stress-strain hysteresis loops regardless of the sub-
group of tuff specimens. From the measured hysteresis loops, shear strength (τf), failure
shear strain (γf), shear moduli (G) and material damping ratios (D) in given shear strains
were obtained. The low amplitude shear modulus (Gmax CTS) was determined by means of
extrapolation using Darandeli’s equation.
Gmax CTS, shear modulus at failure (Gfailure) and shear strength (τf) from the CTS
tests showed proportionate relationships with total unit weight (γt), shear modulus (Gmax
URC) and shear wave velocity (Vs) from the free-free URC tests.
On the whole, the CTS tests allowed to measure data of shear properties at higher
strain ranges. The extension of the variation curves of normalized shear modulus
(G/Gmax) and material damping ratio (D) could be performed by utilizing the data from
CTS tests. The more reliable best fitting line, the upper limit line and the lower limit line
of the variation of G/Gmax and D with shear strain could be evaluated using the following
equations which were suggested by Darandeli (2001) and Choi (2008), respectively:
364
G 1
= (8.14)
G max ⎛ ⎞a
⎜ γ ⎟
1+⎜ ⎟
⎜γr⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ aD
⎜ γ ⎟
D − D min = C⎜ ⎟ (8.15)
⎜γD⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γr is reference strain (%),

a is curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent),
γD is reference shear strain, which is the shear strain
for which D-Dmin is equal to C (%),
Dmin is minimum material damping ratio at small strains (%),
C is reference material damping ratio (%), and
aD is curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
Tables 8.2 and 8.3 summarize the parameters for the best fitting line, the upper
limit line and the lower limit line for G/Gmax and D of tuff specimens.
365
Lower Limit Line for the Normalized Shear Modulus (G/Gmax) Variation
with Shear Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS Tests with Tuff
Specimens
Type of Tuff Parameter Best Fitting Upper Limit Lower Limit
All Specimens a 1.18 1.4 0.8
γr 0.0956 0.25 0.015
Welded-Nonlithophysae a 1.06 1.1 0.9
γr 0.1156 0.2 0.045
Welded-Lithophysae a 1.02 1.2 0.8
γr 0.049 0.12 0.015
Moderately Welded a 0.65 0.76 0.5
γr 1.5 3 0.3
Non-Welded a 0.98 1.2 0.9
γr 0.2479 0.5 0.15
Lower Limit Line for the Material Damping Ratio (D) Variation with Shear
Strain from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS Tests with Tuff Specimens
All Specimens Dmin 0.57 1.04 0.23
aD 1.18 0.8 1.4
γD 0.1272 0.03 0.2
C 13.5 13.5 13.5
Welded-Nonlithophysae Dmin 0.56 1.04 0.33
aD 1.42 1.5 1
γD 0.0593 0.025 0.26
C 14 14 14
Welded-Lithophysae Dmin 0.72 1.25 0.40
aD 0.78 0.9 0.78
γD 0.0956 0.025 0.35
C 13.3 13.3 13.3
Moderately Welded Dmin 0.44 0.95 0.23
aD 1.04 1 0.7
γD 0.28 0.1 1.2
C 6.9 6.9 6.9
Non-Welded Dmin 0.43 0.69 0.23
aD 1 1 0.9
γD 0.24 0.2 1.2
C 15.8 15.8 15.8
366
Chapter 9
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 SUMMARY
The Yucca Mountain site has been designated as the proposed geologic repository
for high-level radioactive waste. This project is a special underground construction
project in volcanic tuffs that requires high levels of safety and security, and has a very
long design life of 10,000 years. To satisfy these requirements, consideration of the
effects of earthquakes on the repository is required to design the repository properly. To
evaluate the effects of earthquakes, ground motions around and within the repository
block must be predicted. This effect requires an understanding of the dynamic properties
of the geologic materials at the Yucca Mountain site.
The main geologic material in the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain
radioactive waste repository is tuff. Tuffs are formed by sedimentation of volcanic ash
but they are different from other sedimentary rocks because they were formed at high
temperatures. In this study, measurements of the dynamic properties of tuffs from Yucca
Mountain were performed with two types of dynamic tests: (1) the free-free Unconfined
Resonant Column (URC) test and (2) the fixed-free Resonant Column and Torsional
Shear (RCTS) test. However, these dynamic tests could not be used to evaluate the
boblinear properties in the higher-strain range due to power limitations of the dynamic
testing devices. Hence, to overcome the power limitations associated with the URC and
RCTS device, an unconfined Cyclic Torsional Shear (CTS) test device was developed.
The CTS device was used to evaluate nonlinear modulus and damping properties of tuffs
in the higher-strain range.
367
The free-free URC test was used to measure the following dynamic properties:
unconstrained compression wave velocity (Vc), constrained compression wave velocity
(Vp), shear wave velocity (Vs), unconstrained elastic modulus (Emax), constrained elastic
modulus (Mmax), shear modulus (Gmax), material damping ratio in shear (Ds,min), and
material damping ratio in unconstrained compression (Dc,min). In addition, Poisson’s ratio
(ν) was calculated from the wave velocities. Free-free URC tests were used to measure
these properties in the small strain range (strain less than 0.001 %) where the properties
are strain independent. Relationships were then developed between the dynamic
properties and other physical properties such as porosity (n) and total unit weight (γt). In
this study, 135 tuff specimens were tested with the free-free URC device. Data from 19
tuff specimens tested in a previous effort in 2002 were added to the data set to develop
general relationships between the dynamic properties and total unit weight and porosity.
The profiles of dynamic properties with depth were estimated with this data set using the
assumption of a lognormal distribution of the dynamic properties. The effects of
specimen size was studied by comparing the variation of shear wave velocities with
specimen size and stratigraphic unit.
The fixed-free RCTS test has the advantages of being able to determine variations
of the small-strain (linear) and nonlinear dynamic properties with the magnitude of
isotropic confining pressure (σo) (log Vs – log σo, log Gmax – log σo, and Ds min – log σo)
and shear strain (γ) (G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ, and Ds – log γ). In this study, 31 tuff
specimens were tested with the fixed-free RCTS device. In addition, data from 16 tuff
specimens tested in a previous effort in 2002 were added to the data set to determine
general relationships between the linear and nonlinear dynamic properties and other
properties of tuff specimens. The effect of re-coring was studied by comparing the
dynamic properties from free-free URC tests of the tuff specimens before and after re-
368
coring. The relationships between the linear dynamic properties from the fixed-free
RCTS tests and the linear dynamic properties from free-free URC tests and total unit
weight were developed. Pressure dependency of the linear dynamic properties of tuffs
was studied and the results are shown in terms of plots of log Gmax – log σo, log Vs – log
σo and Ds min – log σo. The variation of dynamic properties with shear strain are presented
in terms of plots of G – log γ, G/Gmax – log γ and Ds – log γ.
The dynamic properties of tuffs for much of the earthquake design were
determined by the fixed-free RCTS tests. However, the current RCTS device cannot
evaluate the variation of dynamic properties in the range of high shear strains near the
failure shear strain. Hence, an unconfined, slow Cyclic Torsional Shear (CTS) test was
developed in this study to monitor the cyclic shear behavior of tuffs in the higher shear
strain range. In addition, the increased power of the CTS device allowed larger tuff
specimens to be tested. The stress-strain hysteresis loops in shear of tuff specimens under
cyclic torsional loading were evaluated in the CTS tests. Torsional loading was driven by
a torque motor in a machine developed to test metals. The magnitude of applied torque in
this machine was measured with a torque cell. The twist (rotational) displacement of the
tuff specimens was measured with either two or four proximitor sensors that were
directly installed on the surface of the tuff specimens. Stress and strain were computed
from the measured torque and twist displacement, respectively. Finally, stress-strain
hysteresis loops were constructed from the test measurement.
Twelve tuff specimens sampled from major formations around the proposed
radioactive waste repository were selected and tested in the CTS device. Using the
measured data, stress-strain hysteresis loops of the specimens could be constructed.
Typical mechanical properties such as Gmax, Gfail, τf, and γf, were determined from the
CTS test results. General relationships between the mechanical properties, total unit
369
weight and the dynamic properties from the free-free URC tests were investigated.
Variations of shear modulus (G), normalized shear modulus (G/Gmax) and material
damping ratio (D) with shear strain (γ) were evaluated from the CTS test results and
compared with the variation of dynamic properties with shear strain determined from
fixed-free RCTS tests. This work was performed to extend the nonlinear curves
representing dynamic properties up to the failure-strain range.
9.2 CONCLUSIONS
9.2.1 Linear Dynamic Properties from Free-Free URC Tests
The seismic wave velocities (Vc, Vp, Vs) of tuff specimens from free-free URC
tests showed exponentially proportionate relationships with total unit weights (γt) and
exponentially inversely proportionate relationships with porosities (n). The seismic wave
velocities also showed weak linear inverse proportionate relationships with Poisson’s
ratio (ν). Using least-squares fitting, the following general relationships between the
parameters were obtained:
γt – Vs : V s = 736 ⋅ exp(0.0169 γ ) (R2=0.654) (9.1)
t
γt – Vc : V c = 1323 ⋅ exp(0.0158 γ ) (R2=0.684) (9.2)

t
γt – Vp : V p = 1933 ⋅ exp(0.0134 γ ) (R2=0.725) (9.3)

t
n – Vs : V s = 10831 ⋅ exp(-2.679 ⋅ n) (R2 = 0.654) (9.4)
n – Vc : V c = 16330 ⋅ exp(-2.499⋅ n) (R2 = 0.684) (9.5)
n – Vp : V p = 16298 ⋅ exp(-2.132 ⋅ n) (R2 = 0.725) (9.6)
Vs - ν: ν = −2.507 * 10 -5 * V s + 0.374 (R2 = 0.338) (9.7)

370
Vc - ν: ν = −1.465 * 10 -5 * V c + 0.361 (R2 = 0.261) (9.8)
Vp - ν: ν = −9.147 *10 - 6 * V p + 0.374 (R2 = 0.0935) (9.9)
where: Vs is shear wave velocity (fps),

Vc is unconstrained compression wave velocity (fps),
Vp is constrained compression wave velocity (fps),
γt is total unit weight (pcf),
n is porosity (dimensionless), and
ν is Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless).
Material damping ratio in shear and in unconstrained compression showed
inversely proportional trends with total unit weight, shear wave velocity and
unconstrained compression wave velocity. These relationships are presented in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Summary of General Relationships between Dc min and Ds min versus Vs, Vc,
γt and n of Tuff Specimens
Relation
Best Fitting Upper Limit Lower Limit
Type
Ds min - γt D s min = −0.0109 * γ t + 1.92 (R2=0.0630) D s min = −0.155 * γ t + 23.5 D s min = −0.005 * γ t + 0.8
Ds min - Vs D s min = −0.000173 * V s + 1.748 (R2=0.265) D s min = −0.0008 * V s + 8 D s min = −0.000033 * V s + 0.45
Ds min - n D s min = 1.727 * n − 0.194 (R2=0.0630) D s min = 24.664 * n − 1.164 D s min = 0.796 * n − 0.0044
Dc min - γt D c min = −0.00725 * γ t + 1.388 (R2=0.0672) D c min = −0.08 * γ t + 12 D c min = −0.005 * γ t + 0.8
Dc min - Vc D c min = −0.0000842 * V c + 1.317 (R2=0.242) D c min = −0.0003 * V c + 4.5 D c min = −0.00003 * V c + 0.5
Dc min - n D c min = 1.153 * n + 0.236 (R2=0.0672) D c min = 12.730 * n − 0.730 D c min = 0.796 * n − 0.0044
Note: Units of material damping ratios (Dsmin and Dcmin) are %.

Units of seismic wave velocities (Vs and Vc) are fps.
Unit of total unit weight (γt) is pcf.
371
Both types of material damping ratio showed proportionate relationships with porosity
due to the inversely proportional relationships with total unit weight. Also, both types of
material damping ratio showed higher correlations with the seismic wave velocities than
total unit weights, although the correlations with wave velocities is weak and the
correlations with γt and n is very poor.
The general relationship between Ds min and Dc min was proportional, with Ds min
increasing as Dc min increased. The values of Ds min were slightly greater than Dc min. For
cores with material damping ratios less than 1.0 %, this general relationship is given by:
Dc min = 0.89 Ds mi (R2=0.60) (9.10)
The variation of shear wave velocity of two different types of tuff specimens
(Tptpul, which showed many voids on the specimen surface, and Tptpmn, which showed
an intact surface) with specimen size was studied. Tests of these rock specimens in the
laboratory showed that the dynamic properties (E, G, etc) tended to decrease with an
increase in specimen size due to the greater presence of internal flaws (voids, cracks,
joints and fractures). As expected, the Tptpul specimens showed a decrease in shear wave
velocity with an increase in specimen size. However, the Tptpmn specimens showed little
change of shear wave velocity with an increase of specimen size. In these tests, specimen
size ranged from 1.6 in. to 4 in..
The distribution of shear wave velocities of the tuff specimens with depth showed
a correlation with the stratigraphic units as presented in Figure 9.1. In general, the
seismic wave velocities decreased in the following order of each formation: welded
nonlithophysal tuffs (Tpcpmn, Tpcpln; Tptrn, Tptpmn, Tptpln), welded lithophysal tuffs
(Tpcrl, Tpcpul, Tpcpll; Tptrl, Tptpul, Tptpll), moderately welded tuffs (Tpcrn, Tcp, Tcb,
Tct), and nonwelded tuffs (Tmr, Tpki, Tpp, Tpy, Tac).
372
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(8) Tpki
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
(12) Tptpul 200
(9) Tptpmn
Topopah Spring
Tuff
(7)** Tptpll
1000
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv 400
Depth, m
Depth, ft
(21) Prow Pass Tcp
2000 (1)
600
Tcpbt
Preliminary Profile (12) Bullfrog Tcb

Excludes Five Outlier Specimens Tcbbt
(2)
2500 * One Outlier Discarded
800
(5)
Tram Tct
3000 Median Shear Wave Velocity
1000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Notes :
z The following material types are left off because no core samples were recovered from these
Figure 9.1 Shear Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain Tuff Specimens from Free-
Free URC Tests; Depth 0 ft ~ 3500 ft
373
A correlation of material damping ratios in shear of the stratigraphic units was not
as well defined as with the seismic wave velocities as presented in Figure 9.2. The
material damping ratios showed wider variations than the seismic wave velocities
because material damping ratios seemed to be more sensitive to flaws in the specimens
than the seismic wave velocities.
9.2.2 Linear and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties from Fixed-Free RCTS Tests
Tuff specimens had to be re-cored to make their size small enough to test
effectively in the fixed-free RCTS device. To investigate if the specimens were effected
by the re-coring process, free-free URC tests were performed with the original tuff cores
and the re-cored tuff cores. As seen in Figure 9.3, the dynamic properties (Vs and Gmax)
and γt were not affected by the re-coring process but did appear to be somewhat affected
by the “assumed” change in amount of internal flaws (by visual inspection). Only
material damping ratios increased slightly due to the re-coring process as seen in Figure
9.3d.
A summary of the indices representing the pressure dependency of Vs, Gmax and
Dmin of tuff specimens (nv, nG, and nD) is represented in Table 9.2. The indices show that
Vs and Gmax were typically constant or increased slowly with confining pressure (σo).
Dmin values of the tuff specimens were generally constant or decreased slowly with
confining pressure (σo). General relationships between Vs, Gmax, Dmin and σo are
described in Equations 9.11, 9.12 and 9.13 as follows:
V s = A v ⎛⎜ σ o / Pa ⎞⎟ nv (9.11)
⎝ ⎠
G max = A G ⎛⎜ σ o / Pa ⎞⎟ nG (9.12)
⎝ ⎠
Dmin = AD (σ o / Pa) nD (9.13)
374
where: AV = small-strain shear wave velocity at σo = 1 atm,
0 2 4 6 8
(8) Tpki
(7) Yucca Mt. Tuff
500 (6)* Tptrn

(2) Tptrl
(11)* Preliminary Profile
Tptpul 200
(7)** Tptpll
(8) Tptpln
(5) Tptpv 400

Depth, m
Depth, ft

(21) in Shear Prow Pass Tcp
2000 (1)
in Shear 600
Tcpbt
(12) Bullfrog Tcb
(2) Tcbbt
2500
800
(5)
Tram Tct
3000
1000
0 2 4 6 8
Notes :
z The following material types are left off because no core samples were recovered from these
Figure 9.2 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Shear of Yucca Mountain Tuff
Specimens from Free-Free URC Tests of 145 Tuff Specimens
375
Gmax from Recored Specimen, Mpa Vs from Recored Specimen, m/sec
(a) (b)
60 10000 20000 0 1000 2000 3000
Gmax from Original Specimen, Mpa

Gmax from Original Specimen, psf
Vs
Vs from Original Specimen, ft/sec
500x10 12000
from Original Specimen, m/sec

400 20000 10000 3000

8000
300
2000
6000
200 10000
4000
1000
100 2000
0 0 6 0 0
0 100 200 300 400500x10 0 4000 8000 12000
Gmax from Recored Specimen, psf Vs from Recored Specimen, ft/sec
(c) γt from Re-cored Specimen, kN/m

3
(d) Quality Factor from Re-cored Specimen, Q

0 10 20 30 33.33
16.67
γt from Original Specimen, kN/m
200 3.0
γt from Original Specimen, pcf
Ds from Original Specimen, %

30 29 Re-cored Specimens
29 Re-cored Specimens One Outlier not Shown
25 2.5
150
20 2.0
100 15 1.5 33.33
10 1.0
50
5 0.5
0 0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
3
γt from Re-cored Specimen, pcf Ds from Re-cored Specimen, %
Figure 9.3 Comparison of (a) Gmax, (b) Vs, (c) γt, (d) Ds of Original and Re-cored Tuff
Cores Determined from Free-Free URC Tests
AG = small-strain shear modulus at σo = 1 atm,

AD = small-strain material damping ratio at σo = 1 atm,
Pa = one atmosphere (2117 psf or 100 kPa),
nV = a dimensionless exponent in the seismic velocity relationship,
nG = a dimensionless exponent in the shear modulus relationship, and
nD = a dimensionless exponent in the material damping ratio relationship.
376
Table 9.2 Summary of Statistical Analysis of nv, Av, nG, AG, nD and AD of Yucca
Mountain Tuff Specimens
AV AG AD
nv nG nD
(fps) (psf) (%)
Number of
Specimen
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation

7 0.0008 0.0025 7429 696 0.0039 0.0042 2.50E+08 4.66E+07 -0.0293 0.0275 0.65 0.28

10 0.0025 0.0037 6551 766 0.0058 0.0082 1.87E+08 4.68E+07 -0.0130 0.0181 0.73 0.43

16 0.0031 0.0037 5599 758 0.0064 0.0075 1.23E+08 5.06E+07 -0.0228 0.0282 0.64 0.33
Tac, Tpki, Tpp,

Non-welded Tuff 12 0.0117 0.0230 4214 955 0.0209 0.0459 5.33E+07 2.93E+07 -0.0346 0.0391 0.58 0.23
Tpy, Tpbt
Total 45 0.0047 0.0122 5796 1363 0.0094 0.0240 1.43E+08 8.07E+07 -0.0244 0.0294 0.65 0.32
All G – log γ relationships determined for the 47 tuff specimens are presented in
Figure 9.4. As seen in figure, the welded nonlithophysal tuff group exhibited the highest
shear moduli of all sub-groups. The group with the second highest shear modulus is the
welded lithophysal tuff group. The third group is the moderately welded tuff group. The
nonwelded tuff group shows the smallest shear moduli.
The G/Gmax – log γ relationships, which are derived from Figure 9.4, are presented
Figure 9.5. The G/Gmax – log γ relationships show that shear moduli of welded tuff
specimens generally began to decrease at shear strains of 10-3 % or greater. The shear
strains generated in the welded tuff specimens did not exceed 0.02 % with the current
fixed-free RCTS testing device. However, the maximum shear strain did reach 0.1 % in
the case of the nonwelded tuffs.
The D - log γ relationships are presented in Figure 9.6. As seen in this figure,
material damping ratios of the tuff specimens typically began increasing at shear strains
around 10-3 %.
377
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 Geologic Unit
-2 (Test No.) -1
10 10 10 10 10 Tptrl 10
(1G) 10
350000 Tptpul (2A-3)
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptpul (2B-3)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpul (2C-2) 16000
Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptpmn (3K-2)
Tptrn (4C-2)
Specimen with 0.8 inch Dia. Usual Upper Limit
Tptpll (5C-2)
of Shearing Strain
300000 Tptpln (6C-2)
with 1.6 inch Dia.
Tac (7C-2) 14000
Tac (8C-2)
Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (12C-1)
250000 Tptpmn (13C-2) 12000
Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)

Tcb (19C-2) 10000

200000 Tct (20C-2)
Tct (21C-2)
Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C)
Tpp (25C)
Tptpv3 (27C) 8000
Tpbt2 (28E)
Tac (29C)
150000
Tcpm (30A)
Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tctuv(z) (33A) 6000
Tpki (20-A)
Tpcrn (20-B)
Tpcrn (20-C)
100000 Tpki (20-D)
Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G) 4000
Tpki (23-A)
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
Tpcpmn (23-D)
50000 Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F) 2000
Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0 0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 9.4 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain of 47 Tuff Specimens at the
Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing
378
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
Geologic Unit -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 (1G)(Test No.)
Tptrl 10
1.2 Tptpul (2A-3) 1.2
Tptpul (2B-3)
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptpul (2C-2)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptpmn (3K-2)
Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpln (6C-2)
1.0 Tac (7C-2) 1.0
Tac (8C-2)
Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (13C-2)
Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)

0.8 0.8
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)
Tcb (19C-2)
Minimum G/Gmax = 0.8 Tct (20C-2)
Tct (21C-2)
Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C)
0.6 Tpp (25C) 0.6
Tptpv3 (27C)
Tpbt2 (28E)
Tac (29C)
Tcpm (30A)
Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tctuv(z) (33A)
0.4 Tpki (20-A) 0.4
Tpcrn (20-B)
Tpcrn (20-C)
Non-welded Tuff Tpki (20-D)
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
0.1% Tpki (23-A)
Usual Upper Limit Tpcrn (23-B)
of Shearing Strain Tpcpul (23-C)
0.2 of Welded Tuff Tpcpmn (23-D) 0.2
with 1.6 inch Dia. Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F)
0.02% Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing
379
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3
Geologic Unit -2
(Test No.) -1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Tptrl (1G) 10
5 Tptpul (2A-3) 10
Tptpul (2B-3)
Tptpul (2C-2)
47 Specimens, 50 Test Results Tptpmn (3C-2)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Tptpmn (3K-2)
Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpln (6C-2)
Tac (7C-2)
Tac (8C-2)
4 Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (13C-2)
Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)
3 Tcb (19C-2)
Quality Factor, Q
Tct (20C-2)
Tct (21C-2)
Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C)
Tpp (25C) 20
Tptpv3 (27C)
Tpbt2 (28E)
Tac (29C)
Tcpm (30A)
2 Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tctuv(z) (33A)
Tpki (20-A)
Tpcrn (20-B)
Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
Tpki (23-A)
1 Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
Tpcpmn (23-D)
Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F)
Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Specimens at the Highest Isotropic Pressure Used in Stage Testing
380
9.2.3 Linear and Nonlinear Cyclic Shear Properties from the CTS Tests
Correlations between Gmax CTS, Gfailure, τf, and γf from the CTS tests and γt, Gmax
URC, and Vs from the free-free URC tests led to the following conclusions. First, Gmax CTS
and Gfailure had proportionate relationships with γt, Gmax URC and Vs. These relationships
are presented in the Equations 9.14 through 9.19, which were determined using linear or
exponential least-squares fitting. Second, τf had proportionate relationships with γt, Gmax
URC and Vs, as presented by Equations 9.20 through 9.22. Finally, there was no clear
relationship between γf and the other parameters.
G max CTS = 1.015 * G max URC − 9.970 * 10 6 (9.14)
G failure = 0.7 * G max URC − 2.534 * 10 7 (9.15)
G max CTS = 9.347 * 10 6 * exp (4.108 * 10 -4 * V s ) (9.16)
G failure = 8.811 * 10 5 * exp (6.370 * 10 -4 * V s ) (9.17)
G max CTS = 6.484 * 10 5 * exp (0.0433 γ t ) (9.18)
G failure = 3.687 * 10 4 * exp (0.0594 γ t ) (9.19)
τ f = 3.337 * exp (0.0398 * γ t ) (9.20)
τ f = 145.1 * exp (6.036 * 10 −9 * G max URC) (9.21)
τ f = 49.315 * exp (3.6 * 10 −4 * V s ) (9.22)
Gmax CTS is shear modulus in the linear range from CTS test (psf),
Gfailure is shear modulus at failure from CTS test (psf),
381
Vs is shear wave velocity from free-free URC test (fps),
γt is total unit weight of the tuff specimen (pcf), and
τf is shear strength (failure stress) from CTS test (psi).
The ratios between Gmax CTS and Gmax URC were correlated with porosity (n) of the
tuff specimens. This relationship is presented by:
G max CTS
= 0.7057 n 2 − 0.96n + 1.092 (9.23)
G max URC
Gmax CTS is shear modulus in the linear range from CTS test (psf), and
n is porosity of tuff specimens (decimal).
Comparisons between results from the CTS tests and results from the fixed-free
RCTS tests are summarized in Figures 9.7 and 9.8. It is shown in these two figures that
the dynamic property curves from the fixed-free RCTS tests can be reasonably extended
using the test results from the CTS tests. Parameters of the best fit curves, the upper-limit
curves and the lower-limit curves in Figures 9.7 and 9.8 are summarized in Tables 9.3
and 9.4. By combining the parameters with Equations 9.24 (Darandeli, 2001) and 9.25
(Choi, 2008), extended dynamic curves for consideration in earthquake design of the
proposed radioactive waste repository in Yucca Mountain were generated.
G 1
= (9.24)
G max ⎛ ⎞ a
⎜ γ ⎟
1+⎜ ⎟
⎜ γr ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞ aD
⎜ γ ⎟
D − D min = C⎜ ⎟ (9.25)
⎜γD⎟
⎝ ⎠
where: γr is reference strain (%),

382
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
1.2 1.2
Tptpul (2A-3)
Tptpul (2B-3)
Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpln (6C-2)
1.0 Tac (7C-2) 1.0
Tac (8C-2)
Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (13C-2)
Minimum G/Gmax = 0.8 Tptpmn (14C-2)
Tptpll (15C-3)

0.8 0.8
Tptpll (16C-2)
Tcp (17C-2)
Tcp (18C-2)
Tcp (CTS-01)
Tcb (19C-2)
Tac (CTS-02)
Tct (20C-2)
Tptpll (CTS-03) Tct (21C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-04) Tpy (23C)
Tptpmn (CTS-05) Tpbt3 (24C)
0.6 Tptpul (CTS-06) Tpp (25C) 0.6
Tptpln (CTS-07) Tptpv3 (27C)
Tptpll (CTS-09) Tpbt2 (28E)
Tptul (CTS-10) Tac (29C)
Tcpm (30A)
Tptpmn (CTS-11)
Tcbuv (31A)
Tptpul (CTS-12)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
Tptpmn (CTS-13) Tctuv(z) (33A)
Best Fitting Line (a = 1.18, γt= 0.096 %) Tpki (20-A)
0.4 0.4
Upper Limit Line (a = 1.40, γt= 0.25 %) Tpcrn (20-B)
Lower Limit Line (a = 0.80, γt= 0.015 %) Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
Report of Yucca Mountain (2007) Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
Tpki (23-A)
23C, 27C and 23-A are NOT represented in general fitting
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
0.2 Unconfined CTS 0.2
Tpcpmn (23-D)
12 Specimens
Tpcrn (23-E)
Fixed-Free RCTS Tpcrn (23-F)
46 Specimens, 47 Test Results Tpcpul (23-G)
Three Specimens with 0.8 in. Dia. were left out Tpcpmn (23-H)
Time > 30 minute in each σo Largest γf Tpcrn (23-I)
Tpcpul (23-J)
0.0 0.0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 9.7 Extension of the Relationship of G/Gmax - log γ with the CTS Test Results
and the Best-Fit Curve of the G/Gmax - log γ Curve
383
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
25 Geologic Unit (Test No.) 2
Geologic Unit (Test No.) Tptpul (2A-3)
Tcp (CTS-01) Tptpul (2B-3)
Tac (CTS-02) Tptpmn (3C-2)
Tptpll (CTS-03) Tptrn (4C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-04) Tptpll (5C-2)
Tptpmn (CTS-05) Tptpln (6C-2)
Tptpul (CTS-06) Tac (7C-2)
Tptpln (CTS-07) Tac (8C-2)
20 Tptpll (CTS-09) Tptpll (9A-2)
Tptul (CTS-10) Tptpll (10A-2)
Tptpmn (CTS-11) Tptpul (11C-1)
Tptpul (CTS-12) Tptpul (12C-1)
Tptpmn (CTS-13) Tptpmn (13C-2)
Unconfined CTS Tptpmn (14C-2)
12 Specimens Tptpll (15C-3)
Fixed-Free RCTS Tptpll (16C-2)

46 Specimens, 47 Test Results Tcp (17C-2)
15 Three Specimens with 0.8 in. Dia. were left out Tcp (18C-2)
Quality Factor, Q
Tcb (19C-2)
Best Fitting Line Tct (20C-2)
(Dmin=0.57 %, aD=1.18, Tct (21C-2)
γD=0.127 %, C=13.5 %) Tpy (23C)
Tpbt3 (24C) 4
Upper Limit Line
(Dmin=1.04 %, aD=0.8, Tpp (25C)
Tptpv3 (27C)
γD=0.03 %, C=13.5 %) and
Tpbt2 (28E)
Lower Limit Line
Tac (29C)
10 (Dmin=0.23 %, aD=1.4,
Tcpm (30A)
γD=0.20 %, C=13.5 %) Tcbuv (31A)
Tcblv(z) (32A)
23C, 27C, 23-A and CTS-09 are NOT
Tctuv(z) (33A)
represented in general fitting
Tpki (20-A)
Tpcrn (20-B)
Largest γf Tpcrn (20-C)
Tpki (20-D)
Tpki (20-F)
Tpki (20-G)
5
Tpki (23-A)
Tpcrn (23-B)
Tpcpul (23-C)
Tpcpmn (23-D)
Tpcrn (23-E)
Tpcrn (23-F)
Tpcpul (23-G)
Tpcpmn (23-H)
Tpcrn (23-I)
0 Tpcpul (23-J)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Figure 9.8 Extension of the Relationship of D - log γ with the CTS Test Results and the
Best-Fit Curve of the D - log γ Curve
384
a is curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent),
γD is reference shear strain for which D-Dmin is equal to C (%),
Dmin is minimum material damping ratio at small strains,
C is reference material damping ratio (%), and
aD is curvature coefficient (dimensionless exponent).
These curves in Figure 9.7 and 9.8 are simply proposed for consideration and
possible use in more comprehensive deliberations leading to design curves for the Yucca
Mountain repository.
Lower-Limit Curve for the Normalized Shear Modulus (G/Gmax) Variation
with Shear Strain from a Combination of Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS
Tests of Tuff Specimens

All Specimens a 1.18 1.4 0.8
γr 0.0956 0.25 0.015
Welded-Nonlithophysae a 1.06 1.1 0.9
(Tptrn, Tptpln, Tptpmn, Tpcpmn) γr 0.1156 0.2 0.045
Welded-Lithophysae a 1.02 1.2 0.8
(Tptpul, Tptpll, Tpcpul) γr 0.049 0.12 0.015
Moderately Welded a 0.65 0.76 0.5
(Tpcrn, Tcp, Tcb, Tct, Tptpv3) γr 1.5 3 0.3
Non-Welded a 0.98 1.2 0.9
(Tpbt2, Tpbt3, Tpp, Tpy, Tac, Tpki) γr 0.2479 0.5 0.15
385
Lower-Limit Curve for the Material Damping Ratio (D) Variation with
Shear Strain from a Combination of Fixed-Free RCTS Tests and CTS Tests
of Tuff Specimens
All Specimens Dmin 0.57 1.04 0.23
aD 1.18 0.8 1.4
γD 0.1272 0.03 0.2
C 13.5 13.5 13.5
Welded-Nonlithophysae Dmin 0.56 1.04 0.33
(Tptrn, Tptpln, Tptpmn, Tpcpmn) aD 1.42 1.5 1
γD 0.0593 0.025 0.26
C 14 14 14
Welded-Lithophysae Dmin 0.72 1.25 0.40
(Tptpul, Tptpll, Tpcpul) aD 0.78 0.9 0.78
γD 0.0956 0.025 0.35
C 13.3 13.3 13.3
Moderately Welded Dmin 0.44 0.95 0.23
(Tpcrn, Tcp, Tcb, Tct, Tptpv3) aD 1.04 1 0.7
γD 0.28 0.1 1.2
C 6.9 6.9 6.9
Non-Welded Dmin 0.43 0.69 0.23
(Tpbt2, Tpbt3, Tpp, Tpy, Tac, Tpki) aD 1 1 0.9
γD 0.24 0.2 1.2
C 15.8 15.8 15.8
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Comparisons of data from fixed-free RCTS tests and CTS tests allowed for the
evaluation the dynamic property curves, G/Gmax – log γ and D - log γ up to failure in
unconfined tests.
Using the CTS device, large tuff specimens, for which the diameters ranged from
2.4 in. to 6 in. and the lengths ranged from 7 in. to 18 in., were tested to evaluate the
cyclic shear properties of the tuff specimens. To improve the CTS testing system by
reducing potential bending motions and background noise, the following modifications
are recommended for consideration. First, the electrical motor might be replaced with a
hydraulic motor to reduce electrical noise and to supply more stable torque. Second, the
386
horizontal specimen orientation that was used in the current study should be replaced
with a vertical orientation to avoid bending motion might develop due to the self-weight
of the test specimen and end platens.
In addition, a confining pressure system should be installed so that a confining
pressure could be applied to the specimens to allow evaluation of the effects of
confinement on the mechanical properties such as shear strength, shear stiffness and
material damping ratio in shear.
387
Reference
Abou-Sayed, A.S., and Brechtel, C.E., (1976), “Experimental Investigation of the Effects
of Size on the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Cedar City Quartz Diorite,” Site
Characterization 17th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Snowbird, Utah, August.
Ang,A. H-S., and Tang, W.H., (1975), “Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning
and Design,” ISBN 047103200X (v. 1), Wiley, Newyork.
Avedissian, Y. M. and Wood, L. E., (1968), “Prediction of Compressive Strength of

Rock from Its Sonic Properties,” Proc. 10th Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of
Texas, Austin, pp 55-71.
Avar, B.B. and Hudyma, N.W., (2007), “Observations on the Influence of Lithophysae
on Elastic (Young’s) Modulus and Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Topopah Spring
Tuff at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 44, pp 266-270.
Avar, B.B., Hudyma, N.W., and Karakouzian, M., (2003), “Porosity Dependece of the
Elastic Modulus of Lithophysae-rich Tuff: Numerical and Experimental
Investigations,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 40, pp
919-928.
Avar, B.B., Hudyma, N.W., and Karakouzian, M., (2004), “Compressive Strength and
Failure of Lithophysae-rich Topopah Spring Tuff Specimens and Analog Models
Containing Cavities,” Engineering Geology 73, pp 179-190.
Bandis, S. C., Lumsden, A. C., and Barton, N. R., (1983), “Fundamentals of Rock Joint
Deformation,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 20, No. 6, pp 24 –
268.
Bagde, M.N. and Petros, V., (2005), “Fatigue Properties of Intact Sandstone Samples
Subjected to Dynamic Uniaxial Cyclical Loading,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 42, pp 237-250.
Bates, M. B. and Watts, D. G., (1988), “Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its
Applications,” ISBN 0-471-81643-4, Jon Wiley & Sons.
388
Bell, F.G, (1992), “Engineering in Rock Masses,” ISBN 0-7506-1063-8, Butterworth-
Heineman Ltd.,
Bieniawski, Z.T., (1967), “The Effect of Specimen Size on Compressive Strength of

Coal,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences Vol. 5, pp 325-
335.
Bieniawski, Z.T., Van Heerden, W.L., (1975), “The Significance of In Situ Tests on
Large Rock Specimens,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 12, pp 101-113.
Brown, W.S., and Swanson, S.R., (1970), “Influence of Load Point Path and State of
Stress on Failure Strength and Stress-Strain Properties of Rocks,” Report UYEC 70-
025, University of Utah, Mechanical Engineering Department.
Broxton, D.E., Chipera, S.J., Byers Jr., F.M., Rautman, C.A., (1993), “Geologic
Evaluation of Six Nonwelded Tuff Sites in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain,” Nevada
for a Surfaced-Based Test Facility for the Yucca Mountain Projetc, LA-12542-MS,
UC-814, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Buesch, D.C., Spengler, R.W., Moyer, T.C., and Geslin, J.K., (1996), “Proposed
Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic
Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” Open-File
Report 94-469, Denver, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey.
Buesch, D.C., Stokoe K.H., Choi W.K., Jeon S.Y., Lee J.J., and Schuhen M.D. (2006).
“Lithostartigraphy and Shear-Wave Velocity in the Crystallized Topopah Spring Tuff,
Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management
Conference, April 30 – May 4, 2006, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Cellestino, V.M., (2006), “Measurement of Vp and Vsin Dry and Saturated Sand
Specimens with Piezoelectric Transducers,” Ph.D dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin.
Cheon, D.S., (1999), “A Study on Hydromechanical Behaviors of Rock Jonts using

Rotary Shear System,” Master Thesis, Seoul National University.
389
Chen, A.T.F. and Stokoe, K.H., (1979), “Interpretation of Strain – Dependent Modulus
and Damping from Torsional Soil Tests,” U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department
of Energy.
Ciccotti, M. and Mulargia, F., (2004) “Differences between static and dynamicelastic
moduli of typical seismogenic rock,” Geophysics J. Int., 157, pp 474-477.
Cho, S.H., Ogata, Y., and Kaneko, K., (2003), “Strain-rate dependency of the dynamic
tensile strength of rock,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 40, pp 763-777.
Chocron, S., Dannemann, K.A., Nicholls, A. and Walker, J.D., (2006), “Apache Leap
Tuff Rock: High Strain Rate Characterization and Support Simulations,” Journal De
Physque IV, France 134, pp 565-570.
Choi, W.K., (2008), “Dynamic Properties of Ash-Flow Tuffs,” Ph.D dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin.
Cunha, A.P.D., (1990), “Scale Effect in Rock Masses,” ISBN 90-6191-126-5,

A.A.Balkema, Rotterdam.
Darendeli, B.M. (2001). "Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus

Reduction and Material Damping Curves," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas.
Eissa, E.A., Kazi, A., (1988), “Relation between Static and Dynamic Young’s Moduli of
Rocks,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 25, No. 6, pp 479 – 482.
Fox, D. J., Kana, D. D., Hsiung, S. M., (1998), “Influence of Interface Roughness on
Dynamic Shear Behavior in Jointed Rock,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. vol. 35, No. 7,
pp 923-940.
Gere, J. M. and Timonshenko, S. P., (1990), “Mechanics of Materials (3rd. Ed.),” PWS-
KENT Publishing Company, Boston.
Goodman, R.E., (1989), “Introduction to Rock Mechanics (2nd ed.),” ISBN 0-471-81200-
5, John Wiley & Sons.
Graves, R.M., (1988), “Biaxial Acoustic and Static Measurement of Rock Elastic
Properties,” Master Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
390
Gray, M.B., Stamatakos, J.A., Ferril, D.A., and Evans, M.A., (2005), “Fault-zone
deformation in welded tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA”, Journal of Structural
Geology 27, pp 1873-1891.
Guyer, R. A., McCall, K. R., Johnston, P. A., Rasolofosaon P. N. J. and Zinszner, B.,
(1995), “Equation of state hysteresis and Resonant bar measurement on rock,” Rock
Mechanics, Daemen & Schultz (eds), Balkme, Rotterdam., pp 177-181.
Harrsion, J.P., Hudson, J.A., (1997), “Engineering Rock Mechanics, an introduction to

the principle,” ISBN 0-08-041912-7, Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd..
Harrsion, J.P., Hudson, J.A., (2000), “Engineering Rock Mechanics; part 2 Illustrative
worked examples,” ISBN 0-08-043010-4, Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd..
Haupt. R.W., Martin R.J., Tang, W., Dupree, W.J., and Price, R.H., (1991), “Modulus
Dispersion and Attenuation in Tuff and Granite,” Sandia National Laboratory Report,
SAND 091-1926C.
Hilbert, L.B., Hwong, T.K., and Cook, N.G.W., (1994), “Effetcs of Strain Amplitude on
the Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Deformation of Berea Sandstone,” Rock
Mechanics, ISBN 90-5410-380-8, Nelson & Laubach (eds), Balkme, Rotterdam, pp
497-504.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., (1980), “Underground Excavation in Rock,” Inst. Mining and
Metallurgy, London.
Hwang, S.K. (1997). “Dynamic Properties of Natural Soil,” Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Ide, J.M., (1936) “Comparison of Statically and Dynamically Determined Young’s

Modulus of Rocks,” Proc. National Academy of Science 22, No. 2, 1936.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R., LoPresti, D.C.F., and Pallara, O. (1994). “Stiffness of
Toyoura sand at small and intermediate strains,” Proceedings, 13th international
Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering (1), New Delhi, pp 169-
172.
391
Joh, S. H., Hwang, S.H., Kwon, B. S. and Kang, T. H., (2003), “Theoretical Modeling of
the Resonant Column Testing with the Viscosity of a Specimen Considered,” Journal
of Korean Geotechncial Engineering Association Vol. 19, No. 4, pp 145-153.
Joh, S. H. and Kang, T. H., (2003), “Data Reduction and Analysis of the Resonant
Column Testing based on the Equation of Motion,” Journal of Korean Geotechncial
Engineering Association Vol. 19, No. 4, pp 134-144.
Johnson, P.A., Zinszner, B., Rasolofosaon, P., Cohen, F., and Koen Van Den Abeele,
(2004), “Dynamic Measurements of the Nonlinear Elastic Parameter α in rock under
varying conditions,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 109, B02202.
Jumikis, A.R., (1983), “Rock Mechanics 2nd ed.,” Trans Tech Publication, Houston.
Kazi, A., Sen, Z., and Sadagah, B. H., (1983), “Relationship between Sonic Pulse
Velocity and Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rocks,” Proc. 24th U.S. Symp. on
Rock Mechanics, Texas A&M Univ., College Station.
King, M.S., (1983), “Static and Dynamic Elastic Properties of Rocks from the Canadian
Shield,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 20, No. 5, pp 237– 241.
Lajtai, E.Z., Scott Duncan E.J. and Carter B.J., (1991), “The Effect of Strain Rate on
Rock Strength,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 24, pp99-109.
Lankford, J., (1981), “Mechanisms Responsible for Strain-Rate-Dependent Compressive

Strength in Ceramic Materials,” Communications of the American Ceramic Society,
Feb., C-33 ~ C-34.
Lewis, M.D.,(1990), “A Laboratory Study of the Effect of Stress State on the Elastic
Moduli of Sand,” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 362P.
Li, H.B., Zhao, J., Li, J.R., Liu, Y. Q. and Zhou, Q.C., (2004), “Experimental Studies on
the Strength of Different Rock Type under Dynamic Compression,” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 41, No. 3, CD-ROM.
Li, H.B., Zhao, J. and Li, T.J., (2000), “Micromechanical Modelling of the Mechanical
Properties of a Granite under Dyanmic Uniaxial Compressive Loads,” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37, pp 923-935.
392
Li, N., Chen, W., Zhang, P. and Swoboda, G., (2001), “The Mechanical Properties and a
Fatigue-Damage Model for Jointed Rock Masses Subjected to Dynamic Cyclical
Loading,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 38, pp
1071-1079.
Lin, M., Brechtel, C.E., Hardy, M.P., and Bauer, S.J., “Rock Mass Mechanical Property
Estimation Strategy for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project,” Sandia
National Laboratory Report, SAND 92-2826C.
Lo Presti, D.C.F., Pallara, O., Lancellotta, R., Armandi, M., and Maniscalco, R., (1993),
“Monotonic and Cyclic Loading Behavior of Two Sands at Small Strains,”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 16, No. 4, December, pp 409-424
Lundborg, N., (1967), “The Strength-Size Relation of Granite,” International Journal of

Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 4, pp 269-272.
Martin, R.J., Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., and Haupt, R.W., (1991), “Anisotropy of the
Topopah Spring Member Tuff,” Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND 91-0894.
Martin, R.J., Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., and Noel, J.S., (1993), “The Influence of Strain Rate
and Sample Inhomogeneity on the Moduli and Strength of Welded Tuff,”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts vol. 30, No. 7, pp 1507-1510.
Martin, R.J., Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., and Noel, J.S., (1994), “Bulk and Mechanical
Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Recovered from Borehole USW NRG-7/7A: Data
Report,” Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND 94-1996.
Martin, R.J., and Haupt, R.W., (1994), “Static and Dynamic Elastic Moduli in Granite:
The Effect of Strain Amplitude,” Rock Mechanics, ISBN 90-5410-380-8, Nelson &
Laubach (eds), Balkme, Rotterdam, pp 473-480.
Martin, R.J., Noel, J.S., Boyd, P.J., and Price, R.H., (1996), “Thermal Expansion as a
Function of Confining Pressure for Welded Tuff from Yucca Mountain,” Sandia
National Laboratory Report, SAND 096-0320C.
393
Martin, R.J., Noel, J.S., Boyd, P.J., and Price, R.H., (1997), “Creep and Static Fatigue of
Welded Tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences vol. 34, No. 3-4, paper no. 190.
Ma, L. and Daemen, J.J.K., (2006), “An Experimental Study on Creep of Welded Tuff”,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43, pp 282-291.
Ma, L. and Daemen, J.J.K., (2004), “Strain Rate-Dependence of Mechanical Properties of

Welded Topopah Spring Tuff,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 41, No. 3, CD-ROM.
Menq, F.Y., (2003) “Dynamic Properties of Sandy and Gravelly Soils,” Ph.D dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin.
Nimick, F.B., Schwartz, B.M., and Price, R.H., (1988), “Calculation of Experimental
Uncertainity in Laboratory Determination of Several Geoengineering Properties of
Tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada”, Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND
88-3164.
Park, B.S., Joh, S.H., Lee, S.H., and Kang, T.H., (2006), “Resonance of Unconstrained
Compressive, Shear and Flexural Waves in Free-Free Cylinder Specimens,” KGS
spring conference, March 24-25, Seoul, Korea.
Plona, T.J. and Cook, J.M., (1995), “Effects of stress cycles on Static and Dynamic
Young’s moduli in Castlegate, Rock Mechanics,” Daemen & Schultz (eds), Balkme,
Rotterdam, pp 155-160.
Pratt, H.R., Black, A.D., Brown, W.S., and Brace, W.F., (1971), “The Effect of Specimen
Size on the Mechanical Properties of Unjointed Diorite,” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences vol. 9, pp 513-529.
Price, R.H., (1982), “Analysis of the Rock Mechanics Properties of Volcanic Tuff Units
from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site,” Sandia National Laboratory Report,
SAND 82-1315.
Price, R.H., (1985), “Effects of Sample Size on the Mechanical Behavior of Topopah
Spring Tuff,” Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND 85-0709.
394
Price, R.H., Boyd, P.J., Noel, J.S., and Martin, R.J. (1994), “Relationship between Static
and Dynamic Rock Properties in Welded and Nonwelded Tuff,” Rock Mechanics,
ISBN 90-5410-380-8, Nelson & Laubach (eds), Balkme, Rotterdam, pp 505-512.
Price, R.H., Martin R.J., and Haupt, R.W., (1992), “The Effect of Frequency on Young’s
Modulus and Seismic Wave Attenuation,” Sandia National Laboratory Report,
SAND 092-0847C.
Price, R.H., Martin, R.J., Boyd, P.J.,and Boitnott, G.N., (1994), “Mechanical and Bulk
Properties of Intact Rock Collected in the Laboratory in Support of the Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Project,” Sandia National Laboratory Report, SAND
094-2243C.
Puzrin, A.M. and Burland, J.B., (1996), “A Logarithmic Stress-Strain Function of Rocks
and Soils,” Geotechnique 46, No. 1, pp 157-164.
Richart, E.E. Jr., Hall, J.R. Jr., and Woods, R.D., (1970), “Vibrations of soils and
foundations,” ISBN 0139417168, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Salve, R., Oldenburg, C.M., Wang, J.S.Y., (2003), “Fault-matrix Interactions in

Nonwelded Tuff of the Paintbrush Gropu at Yucca Mountain,” Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 62-63, pp 269-286.
Schuhen, M., (2007), “Technical Report: Geotechnical Data for a Geologic Repository at
Yucca Mountain Nevada,” Sandia National Laboratory.
Seber, S.A.F. and Wild, C.J., (2003), “Nonlinear Regression,” ISBN 0-471-47135-6,
John Wiley & Sons.
Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T., Fukuda, F., and Degoshi, T., (1995), “Strain Rate Effects on
Shear Modulus and Damping of Normally Consoloidated Clay,” Geotechnical
Testing Journal, GTJODJ, vol. 18, No. 3, September, pp 365-375.
Starzec, P., (1999), “Dynamic Elastic Properties of Crystalline Rocks from South-west
Sweden,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36, pp 265-
272.
395
Stokoe, K.H., Hwang, S.K., and Roesset, J.M., (1994), “Laboratory Measurement of
Small Strain Material Damping of Soil Using a Free-Free Resonant Column,”
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Earthquake Resistant
Construction and Design, Berlin, Germany, June 15-17, pp 195-202.
Stokoe, K.H., II, Darendeli, M.B., Andrus, R.D. and Brown, L.T. (1999). “Dynamic Soil
Properties: Laboratory, Field and Correlation Studies,” Proceedings, Second
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Sêco e Pinto,
Editor, A.A. Balkema Publishers/Rotterdam & Brookfield, Netherlands, Vol. 3, pp.
811-845
Sun, C.W. (1993). “Stiffness and Damping from the Frequency Response of a Free-Free
Specimen,” M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Sutherland, R.B., (1962), “Some Dynamic and Static Properties of Rock,” Proc. 5th Symp.
on Rock Mechanics, Minneapolis, pp 473-490.
Tang, C.A., Tham, L.G., Lee, P.K.K., Tsui, Y., and Liu, H., (2000), “Numerical Studies
of the Influence of Microstructure on Rock Failure in Uniaxial Compression – Part
II : Constrain, Slenderness and Size Efffect,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 37, pp 571-583.
Tatsuoka, F. and Shibuya, S., (1992), “Deformation Characteristics of Soil & Rocks from
Field and Lab testing,” Reports of the institute of industrial science 37 (1), Serial No.
235, University of Tokyo, 136p.
Vutukuri, V.S., Lama, R.D., and Saluja, S.S., (1974), “Handbook of Mechanical
Properties of Rocks,” Testing techniques and Results, vol 1, Transtech Publications,
Bayvillage, Ohio.
Walsh, J.B., Brace, W.F., and Wawersik, W.R., (1970), “Attenuation of Stress Waves in
Cedar City Quartz Diorite,” Report AFWL-TR-70-8 Air Force Weapons Laboratory,
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. In press.
Walsh, J.B., (1965), “The Effect of Cracks on the Compressibility of Rocks,” Journal of
Geophysical Research, 70:381-389.
396
Wohletz, K., Wolfsberg, A., Olson, A., and Gable, C., (1999), “Evaluating the Effect of
Underground Nuclear Testing Below the Water Table on Groundwater and
Radionuclide Migration in Tuff Pile Region of Yucca Flat: Numerical Simulations,”
FY 99 Report, Geology and Geochemistry Group, Los Alamo National Laboratory.
Yale, D.P. and Jamieson, W.H., (1994), “Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of
Carbonates”. Model and Measurements, Challenges from Industry, eds. Nelson and
Laubsch, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 463-472.
Yale, D.P. and Nieto, J.A., (1995), “The Effect of Cementation on the Static and
Dynamic Mechanical Properties of the Rotligendes Sandstone”. Rock Mechanics,
ISBN 90-5410-552-6, Daemen & Schultz (eds), Balkme, Rotterdam, pp169-175.
Yeghishe, M.A., Wood, L.E., (1972), “Prediction of Compressive Strength of Rock from
its Sonic Properties,” Basic and Applied Rock Mechanics, Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (10th : 1968 : University of Texas at Austin), pp 55-71.
Zhang, Z.X., Kou, S.Q., Yu, J., Yu, Y., Jiang, L.G. and Lindqvist, P.-A., (1999), “Effects
of Loading Rate on Rock Fracture,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 36, pp 597-611.
Zhao, J., (2000), “Applicability of Mohr-Coulomb and Hoek-Brown Strength Criteria to

the Dynamic Strength of Brittle Rock,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 37, pp 1115-1121.
Zisman, W.A., (1933) “Comparison of the statically and Seismologically Determined

Elastic Constants of Rocks,” Proc. National Academy of Science 19, No. 7.
397
Vita
Seong Yeol Jeon was born in Masan, Korea, on January 24, 1972, the son of
Byoung Soon Jeon and Mang A Roh. After graduated from Ma-San High School, Masan,
Korea, he entered the Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in March, 1990. He
received the B.S. Degree in Mineral and Petroleum Engineering in February, 1994. He
started the master program in Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea in March, 1994.
He received the M.S. Degree in Mineral and Petroleum Engineering in February, 1996. In
January 1996, He started his first engineering work at You One Engineering and
Construction Co. Ltd. His first working site was the construction of water way tunnel of
Yong Dam dam with T.B.M method and he continued this work until the end of the site
in July, 2001. In January, 2003, he entered the Geotechnical Engineering Department in
University of Texas at Austin and continued his studies in geotechnical earthquake rock
engineering at UT. He married Yoon Joo Lee in February 13, 2000. They have a
daughter, Bokyung Jeon and a son, William Philmo Jeon.
Permanent address: 731 dong – 403 ho, ShinSiGaJi APT.

927 Mok1dong, YangchunGu,
Seoul, Korea
This dissertation was typed by the author.
398

T - 2008 - Jeon - Dynamic and Cyclic Properties in Shear of Tuff Specimens From Yucca Mountain, Nevada PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T - 2008 - Jeon - Dynamic and Cyclic Properties in Shear of Tuff Specimens From Yucca Mountain, Nevada PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Copyright

Seong Yeol Jeon

Dynamic and Cyclic Properties in Shear of Tuff Specimens

from Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Kenneth H. Stokoe II, Supervisor

from Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Seong Yeol Jeon, B.S.; M.S.

The University of Texas at Austin

for the Degree of

The University of Texas at Austin

My Parents, My Wife, My Daughter and My Son

I would like to appreciate my supervisor professor Dr. Kenneth H. Stokoe, II for

always inspired and impressed me.

I also would like to appreciate my dissertation committee members, Dr. Ellen M

knowledge of geotechnical engineering.

Laboratory, Alberquerque, New Mexico are gratefully acknowledged.

graduate students that I unfortunately omitted.

support, encouragement and patience.

from Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Seong Yeol Jeon, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2008

Supervisor: Kenneth H. Stokoe, II

influence of earthquakes on the repository is necessary. Prediction of earthquake-induced

performed and general relationships between them are proposed. In addition, an

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii

Figure 3.13 Influence on Specimen Strength of Height to Width (H/W) of Specimen

Figure 3.15 Comparison between Strain Rate and Loading Frequency........................... 56

Figure 3.27 Variation of Absolute Increment of Strength with Strain Rate at

Figure 4.10 Displacements and Strains in Longitudinal or Torsional Motion of a

Figure 4.13 The Variation of Unconstrained Longitudinal Compression Wave

Figure 4.16 Example of Dynamic Response Curve Measurement in the RC Test

Figure 4.24 Initial Noise Generated by the Initial (First-Generation) Displacement

Figure 4.25 Improved (Second-Generation) Displacement Measurement System ........ 132

Figure 4.27 Proximitor Calibration Process ................................................................... 136

Figure 4.41 Grout Specimen Failed in Torsional Shear ................................................. 149

Figure 5.1 Location of Proposed Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive Waste

Figure 5.6 Mineralogical and Chemical Composition of Tuffs in the Vicinity of

Figure 6.2 Power Spectrum of Longitudinal Resonance Measured with an

Figure 6.3 Power Spectrum of Shear Resonance Measured with Two

Figure 6.9 Variation of Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity

Figure 6.10 Variation of Constrained Compression Wave Velocity with Porosity of

Figure 6.12 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Unconstrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.13 Variation of Poisson’s Ratio with Constrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.17 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression

Figure 6.18 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression

Figure 6.19 Variation of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression

Figure 6.22 Relationship between Material Damping Ratios in Shear and

Figure 6.30 Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

Figure 6.31 Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

Figure 6.32 Unconstrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

Figure 6.33 Constrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

Figure 6.36 Constrained Compression Wave Velocity Profile of Yucca Mountain

Figure 6.38 Profile of Material Damping Ratio in Unconstrained Compression of

Figure 6.39 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of

Figure 6.40 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity with Size of

Figure 6.41 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.42 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Unconstrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.43 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Constrained Compression Wave

Figure 6.45 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with

Figure 6.46 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in Shear with

Figure 6.47 Distribution of Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio in

Figure 7.7 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocities at Small Strains Measured by

Figure 7.10 Comparison of Material Damping Ratios in Shear at Small Strains