Physical & Hydrologic Properties of Rock Outcrop Samples ...on surface outcrop samples (Flint and...

r

I.q- qmmp"Milpeq!21-

-- - W-A&-PHYSICAL AND HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES

OF ROCK OUTCROP SAMPLES ATYUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

by Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, U.S. Geological Survey;Christopher A. Rautman, Sandia National Laboratories; andJonathan D. Istok, Oregon State University

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Open-File Report 95-280

Prepared in cooperation with the

NEVADA OPERATIONS OFFICE,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, under

Interagency Agreement DE-AI08-92NV1 0874

Denver, Colorado1996

CONTENTSAbstract..................................................................................................................................................................................IIntroduction............................................................................................................................................................................ISite description and lithology .................................................................................... 1Methods..................................................................................................................................................................................4

Sample-collection methods......................................................................................................................................... .4Laboratory measurements........................................................................................................................................... .4

Results....................................................................................................................................................................................6Physical properties ......... .......................................................................... 6Hydrologic-flow properties ................................................................................... 11Estimates of hydrologic units for flow modeling........................................................................................................ 13Moisture retention....................................................................................................................................................... .15

Summary and conclusions ..................................................................................... 19References............................................................................................................................................................................. .19Appendix I: Data of physical properties and flow properties for eight outcrop transects .................................................... 21

Table I- ................................................................................... 22Table I-2 ........ ........................................................................... 26Table I-3 ........ ............................................................................ 29Table 14.................................................................................................................................................................... ... 33Table I-5 ........ ............................................................................ 34Table I-6 ........ ............................................................................ 36Table 1-7 .................................................................................... 37Table 1-8 .................................................................................... 39

Appendix II: Moisture-retention measurements for subsamples of 41 outcrop transect cores ............................................ 41Appendix Ill: Graphs of moisture-retention data and curve fits for subsamples of 41 outcrop transect cores .................... 45

FIGURES

1. Map showing study area, potential repository boundary, and location of surface outcrop-samplingtransects.................................................................................................... . ....................................................... 2

2. Conceptual stratigraphic column showing lithostratigraphic units ....................................................................... 33-12. Graphs showing:

3. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Solitario Canyon vertical transect. 74. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Busted Butte vertical transect. 75. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Yucca Wash vertical transect. 76. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Pagany Wash vertical transect. 87. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Calico Hills Formation vertical transect. 88. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Yucca Crest horizontal trasect. 89. Porosity and particle density for core samples from shardy base horizontal transect. 9

10. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Topopah Spring Tuff caprockhorizontal transect...................................................................................................................................... 9

11. Relationship of porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity for samples from(a) Solitario Canyon transect, and (b) Yucca Wash transect....................................................................... 12

12. Relationship of porosity and van Genuchten parameters for (a) Alpha (a), and (b) n, for subsamplesfrom 41 transect samples .18

CONTENTS III

~~~~- brblo iI; _-,,

TABLES

1. Transects and their location, northing and easting according to Nevada State Plane Coordinate System,length, number of samples, and lithologic description .............................................................................................

2. Descriptive statistics for each unit sampled for all transects for porosity, bulk density, and particledensity calculated from 105'C oven-dry weights, and saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivitywith number of samples ............................................................................................................................................

3. Nonlinear regression analysis performed for porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity for theSolitario Canyon transect and the Yucca Wash transect ...........................................................................................

4. Descriptive statistics for all transects, combining lithology into hydrogeologic units for porosity, bulkdensity, and particle density calculated from 1050C oven-dry weights, and saturated hydraulicconductivity and sorptivity with number of samples ................................................................................................

5. Properties and moisture-retention characteristics for subsamples from outcrop transect samples...........................6. Linear regressions of van Genuchten a and n parameters versus porosity for welded, nonwelded,

vitrophyre, and Calico Hills Formation samples ......................................................................................................

CONVERSION FACTORS

11

1416

19

Multiply By To obtain

centimeter (cm)centimeter squared (cm2)

cubic centimeter (cm3)cubic centimeter per cubic

centimeter (cm3/cm3)gram per cubic centimeter Wcm3)

kilometer (kim)megapascals (MPN)

meter (m)meter per second (mrs)

meter per square root of second

0.39370.15500.0610

inchinch squaredcubic inch

1.00000.03610.6214

10.03.28103.28103.2810

cubic inch per cubic inchpound per cubic inchmilebarsfeetfeet per secondfeet per square root of second

Degree Celsius (IC) may be converted to degree Fahrenheit (IF) by using the following equation:OF = 9/5 ( 0C) + 32.

Degree Fahrenheit (IF) may be converted to degree Celsius (IC) by using the following equation:8C-= 5/9 (OF- 32).

Pi CONTENTS

Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Rock OutcropSamples at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

ByLorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Christopher A. Rautman, andJonathan D. Istok

Abstract

A data set was developed from laboratorymeasurements of physical and hydrologic proper-ties of surface outcrop samples collected fromeight transects at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.Transects were located to represent the verticaland spatial variability of nonwelded and weldedtuffs in major flow units. Horizontal variabilitywas examined for several lithologic zones by con-ducting horizontal transects. Physical propertiesmeasured were bulk density, particle density, andporosity. Hydrologic properties were saturatedhydraulic conductivity, sorptivity determined frommeasurements of imbibition, and moisture reten-tion. Curves were fit to moisture-retention datausing van Genuchten and Brooks and Corey equa-tions.

Descriptive statistics of all rock propertiesshowed major differences between nonwelded andwelded units. Hydrogeologic units, based onphysical and hydrologic properties, were deter-mined to simplify flow modeling. Moisture-retention curve-fit parameters were compiled forpredicting unsaturated flow. Relationships ofporosity to saturated hydraulic conductivity andvan Genuchten parameters were examined.

INTRODUCTION

Studies are underway at Yucca Mountain,Nevada, to characterize physical and hydrologic condi-tions for a potential high-level radioactive-waste repos-itory. Site characterization requires the development ofthree-dimensional models describing hydrogeologicunits in terms of inputs for numerical models (physicaland hydrologic-flow properties). It is also important tounderstand the spatial distribution of these properties,vertically and horizontally, in order to estimate valuesat unmeasured points. Deterministic processes of vol-canism caused the initial formation of the rock units,and it is useful to be able to correlate rock properties

with the more qualitative descriptions of rock lithologythat occur on a larger scale (Rautman and Flint, 1992).

Preliminary data were collected to develop meth-ods and evaluate spatial relations to determine sam-pling frequency. In addition, a data base wasdeveloped to provide some of the parameters neededfor preliminary flow-modeling exercises. Surfacetransects of rock outcrops facilitated rapid collection ofclosely spaced samples of all units exposed at andaround Yucca Mountain. This report presents the datacollected, descriptive statistics for various units, ore-liminary hydrogeologic units, and analyses of poljsitycompared with flow properties.

There may be skepticism associated with the useof outcrop samples, many of which have undergonesome degree of weathering, to represent subsurfacematerial properties. However, there is evidence thatphysical and hydrologic properties measured on out-crop samples can be predicted in boreholes (Istok andothers, 1994) even when using nonwelded rocks thatweather more rapidly. In addition, subsurface boreholemoisture conditicis have been successfully modeledusing parameters developed from measurements takenon surface outcrop samples (Flint and others, 1993).

SITE DESCRIPTION AND LITHOLOGY

Yucca Mountain is 130 km northwest ofLas Vegas, Nevada (fig. 1), and is composed of approx-imately 6 km2 of ash-flow and ash-fall tuffs. Theserocks have been tilted, faulted and eroded, and dip tothe east-southeast, providing exposures of the tuffs ofthe Paintbrush Group and underlying tuffaceous bedsof the Calico Hills Formation (fig. 2). At the north endof Yucca Mountain in Yucca Wash (fig. 1), most of thetuff of the Paintbrush Group is exposed south of YuccaWash. The tuffs are composed of vitric to largely devit-rifled rhyolitic and quartz-latitic flows that range fromnonwelded to densely welded rock with interbedded,nonwelded pumice and tuff. The Paintbrush Group iscomposed of two major thick flow units, the TivaCanyon Tuff and the Topopah Spring Tuff. Geologicnomenclature used in this report is based on the unitsdescribed by Scott and Bonk (1984). Between thesemembers are thinly bedded and nonwelded units, as

Abstract I

790,000

780,000 t X

MOUNTAIN

v TRANSECT

770,000 -0

70 >ffi~ w PAGANY WASH

POTENTIAL0)

REPOSITORYc /760,000 BOUNDARY

550,000 560,000 570,000 580,000

Easting, feet

FIgure 1. Study area, potential repository boundary, and location of surface outcrop-sampling transects.

2 Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Rock Outcrop Samples at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Thermal/

Informa Zonation of MechanicalGeologic Geologic Buesch and NomenclatureUnit Nomenclature others(1 995) (Ortiz and

-- I } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~others, 1985)ccr - caprock TpoQrv

Tpcmcuc - upper cliff

TivaCanyon

Tuff

cul - upper lithophysal TDcOrl

cks - clinkstone Tpcpmn

cli - lower lithophysal Tpcpll

ch - hackly Tpcplnh

TCw

cc - columnar

ccs - shardy base

C-

0I.-

-c

.(-a

Yucca Mountain Tuff

Pah Canyon TuffPTn

tn- upper nonweldedTptrv3Tntrv2

TopopahSpring

Tuff

tc - caprock Tptrvl

tr - rounded Tptrn TSw1

tul - upper lithophysal Tptri

Tptpul

tnl - nonlithophysal Tptpmn

til - lower lithophysal Tptpll TSw2

tm - mottled Tptpln

tv - basal vitrophyre Tptpv3 TSw3

nonwelded baseT nt u

4-~~~ 4- CHn1Calico Hills Formation Tht - zeolitized

U- la Prowa) o Pass pp - prow passts cD Tuff0 I _ _ _ _ _I_ I__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _

Figure 2. Conceptual stratigraphic column showing lithostratigraphic units.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND LITHOLOGY 3

well as the Yucca Mountain and Pah Canyon Tuffs.Underlying the Topopah Spring Tuff are the tuffaceousbeds of the Calico Hills Formation, which are non-welded rocks that have been zeolitized at the north endof Yucca Mountain, yet remain vitric toward the southend of the mountain. There are no vitric rocks in thetuffaceous beds of the Calico Hills Formation exposedon or near Yucca Mountain. The Prow Pass Tuff is themost recently deposited and, therefore, the uppermostflow unit within the Crater Flat Group, which underliesthe Calico Hills Formation.

The Pah Canyon and Yucca Mountain Tuffs arerelatively thick to the north in Yucca Wash and containboth welded and nonwelded intervals. However, thewelded units thin rapidly southward toward the pro-posed repository, and only thin intervals of nonweldedrocks occur in the center of the potential repositoryblock. Conversely, the Tiva Canyon Tuff thins to thenorth, conforms to the topography formed by olderrocks, and is missing several areas in this region.Despite the significant thickness changes from north tosouth, some units exhibit consistent physical andhydrologic properties from Pagany Wash, south toBusted Butte (Istok and others, 1994).

METHODS

Sample-Collection Methods

Transects were located to sample all lithol -gicunits exposed at Yucca Mountain (fig. 1), as well as toprovide spatial coverage to assess the horizontal vari-ability of several units. These comprised eight separatetransects: five vertical transects, each covering severalrock units, and three horizontal transects to evaluate thespatial variability of particular units. The location,length, number of samples, and general lithology foreach transect are listed in table 1.

The vertical transects were located at (1) Soli-tario Canyon, at the southern end of the potential repos-itory area, where the Tiva Canyon Tuff, bedded andnonwelded tuffs and upper Topopah Spring Tuff weresampled; (2) Busted Butte to the south, where theTopopah Spring Tuff was sampled; (3) Yucca Wash atthe north end of Yucca Mountain, where the tuffs of thePaintbrush Group and Calico Hills Formation weresampled; (4) Windy Wash west of Yucca Mountain,where the entire section of the tuffaceous beds ofCalico Hills were sampled; and (5) Pagany Wash,about three-fourths of the way up the wash, where theupper portion of the Tiva Canyon Tuff caprock(fig. I) is preserved.

The horizontal transects of selected lithologicunits were conducted at (I) Solitario Canyon, samplingthe nonwelded base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff (shardybase); (2) Solitario Canyon, sampling the vitriccaprock of the Topopah Spring Tuff; and (3) YuccaCrest, sampling the upper-cliff unit of the Tiva CanyonTuff. The base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff is a zone thattransitions from the densely welded tuffs to the under-lying nonwelded and bedded tuffs. This unit (shardybase) is approximately 7-10 m thick throughout thepotential repository region and grades from partiallywelded and 12-15 percent porosity to nonwelded and50-55 percent porosity. It represents a stratigraphicfeature that may form a hydrologic-flow barrier. Thisunit was sampled in detail and discussed by Istok andothers (1994) and Rautman and others (1995). The vit-ric, densely welded caprock unit of the Topopah SpringTuff (vitric caprock) is very thin, approximately 0.2 to0.4 m thick, and seems to be laterally extensive over theentire study area. The unit has a porosity of 1 to 4 per-cent and underlies a high-porosity (40-60 percent)nonwelded tuff. It represents a lithologic discontinuitythat may influence downward movement of water andresult in lateral diversion. The rocks on the crest ofYucca Mountain belong to the upper-cliff unit of theTiva Canyon Tuff, which changes in porosity fromapproximately 30 percent to 10 percent over a shortvertical distance, so that erosion on the crest of theridge has produced a slight north-south trend in poros-ity. Because this unit forms most of the exposed bed-rock surface over the potential repository, it wasimportant to characterize the material properties of thisupper boundary on a north-south trend.

Sampling was performed using water and ahand-held, gas-powered drill with a 2.5-cm I.D. corebit. Field samples ranged from 3 to 10 cm long. Sam-ples were placed in plastic bags and labeled with atransect identification and a sample number. This num-ber was either the distance along the transect or a con-secutive position value. Relative vertical samplepositions were measured using a 1.5-m Jacob's staffand Brunton compass, and they were adjusted to truestratigraphic positions. Relative horizontal positionswere measured in the field using a Topofil string mea-suring device or 30.5-m chain.

Laboratory Measurements

Cores were prepared for measurement in the lab-oratory by trimming the ends to a final core length ofapproximately 5 cm. If less core was obtained, the finalsize was kept as long as possible. All cores werelabeled with a permanent ink marker. Core samples


Table 1. Transects and their location, northing and easting according to Nevada State Plane Coordinate System, iength,number of samples, and lithologic description

[Vertical transects start at the listed location and extend downslope; horizontal transects start at the listed location and extend northward; m, metersl

Length NumberTransect ID Location description Northing Easting Of Lithologic descriptionm) samples

Solitario Canyon West side of crest, 231,650 170,140 315 169 Uppercliff zone of the Tiva Canyon(vertical) below USW UZ-6s. iTff to the top of the lower litho-

physal zone of the Topopah SpringTuff.

Busted Butte Northeast side of 225,920 174,650 135 102 Upper nonwelded tuff of the(vertical) Busted Butte. Topopah Spring Tuff to the basal

vitrophyre.Yucca Wash South side of 238,660 168,550 290 139 Caprock of the Tiva Canyon Tbff(vertical) Yucca Wash. through the Calico Hills

Formation.Pagany Wash Upper Pagany Wash, 236,220 170,700 25 20 Caprock of the Tiva Canyon Tuff to(vertical) north-facing slope. the upper lithophysal zone.

Calico Hills Windy Wash, south- 238,660 167,640 102 66 Calico Hills Formation and(vertical) facing slope. Prow Pass Tuff.

Yucca Crest Crest of Yucca 229,510 170,230 5,030 45 Upper cliff zone of the(horizontal) Mountain. Tiva Canyon 7bff.

Shardy Base West side of crest. 231,650 170,080 701 65 Nonwelded base of the(horizontal) Tiva Canyon Tuff.

Topopah Caprock West side of crest. 231,340 170,080 1,823 50 Vitric caprock of the(horizontal) Topopah Spring Thff.

were saturated with CO2 after evacuation of air under avacuum to enable the saturation of small internal poresand then submersed in distilled, de-aired water and lerovernight. Samples were removed, dried with a damptowel (American Society of Testing Materials, 1977),and weighed to determine saturated weight. The sam-ple was then suspended in a beaker of water in a wirebasket to determine volume displacement and thendried in a relative humidity oven at 600C and 45 percentrelative humidity and reweighed. Relative-humiditydrying removes water from the pores but retains waterin the crystal or mineral structure (Bush and Jenkins,1970). Hydrologic-flow properties were measuredbefore conventional oven drying (1050C) becausestructural damage may occur in certain samples withdelicate clay structures or zeolites. Finally the sampleswere dried at 1050C to obtain a standard dry weight.

A representative set of 41 samples was selectedfor additional measurements to form a composite verti-cal profile of all units. Imbibition tests were conductedon these samples to determine sorptivity at relative-humidity-dried saturations. Samples were weighedand placed on a wet towel saturated by using a Mariottesystem with a constant head of zero. They werereweighed repeatedly, and times and weights were

recorded in order to describe the quantity of waterimbibed with time. When plotted as water imbibedversus the squa. e root of time (t), early imbibition (I) iscalculated as sorptivity (S) according to I = St05

(Philip, 1957; Talsma, 1969).

After the imbibition tests, the samples wereresaturated, and saturated hydraulic conductivity wasdetermined on the same 41 samples using a steady-state permeameter that forces water through the core ata measured pressure while weighing the outflow withtime. All samples were then dried at 1050(C for48 hours for final calculations. Porosity t(saturatedweight-dry weight)/volume], bulk density (dry weight/volume), and particle density [porosity/(l-bulk den-sity)] were calculated. Following these measurements,subsamples approximately 1 cm long were cut, andmoisture-retention curves were determined for thesubsamples using a chilled-mirror psychrometer(Model CX-2 Water Activity Meter, Decagon Devices,Inc., Pullman, Wash.) to determine water potential atvarious saturations. Each of the moisture-retentioncurves were fitted using (1) van Genuchten (1980)fitting a and n, while m = n - l/n; (2) fitting a, n, andm; and (3) Brooks and Corey (1964). For the vanGenuchten fits, residual water content was estimated

METHODS 5

from the difference between relative-humidity oven-dry weight and 1050C oven-dry weight.

RESULTS

Physical Properties

Trends in porosity and particle density areobserved in each of the eight transects (figs. 3-10). Themajor flow units (Tiva Canyon and Topopah SpringTuffs) are apparent in the Solitario Canyon transect(fig. 3), with high porosity zones at the top of eachmajor flow unit and very high porosity zones in thenonwelded units of the Paintbrush Tuff (Ptn, Ortiz andothers, 1985). Particle density follows similar trends inthe welded units but is very low in the PTn. Samplesfrom Busted Butte (fig. 4) show similar trends in prop-erties in the Topopah Spring unit as those from Soli-tario Canyon, and porosity is very low, 2-3 percent, inthe basal vitrophyre. The Yucca Wash vertical transect(fig. 5) extends from the top of the Tiva Canyon Tuffthrough the PTn, the Topopah Spring Tuff and the tuf-faceous beds of Calico Hills Formation. There appearsto be more scatter in the porosities of these cores,which is probably due to differences in welding. TheYucca Mountain and Pah Canyon Tuffs are present inthe Yucca Wash transect, and the Yucca Mountain Tuffcomprises a full suite of nonwelded to welded tuffs.Densely welded caprock of the Tiva Canyon Tuffoccurs in this transect, and in the Pagany Wash transect(fig. 6). Low porosity values that increase rapidly withdepth are recorded for samples from both of thesetransects. Most of the densely welded Tiva CanyonTuff caprock has been eroded south of Drill Hole Wash(fig. 1), resulting in exposures of the more permeablelower caprock and upper-cliff zones. Zeolitized rock inthe Calico Hills Formation (fig. 7) increase slightly inporosity with depth throughout the transect. Two sam-ples of the Prow Pass Tuff of the Crater Flat Tuff arealso present in the Calico Hills transect.

The horizontal transect on Yucca Crest wasdesigned to investigate the properties of the upper cliffunit of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, which decreases in poros-ity with depth fairly rapidly (fig. 8). A regression anal-ysis was performed on porosity with depth and showeda slight trend of decreasing porosity toward the south,where the surface of the mountain is eroded slightlymore. The horizontal transect through the nonweldedshardy base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff (fig. 9), originallydesigned to investigate horizontal variability, actuallyidentified vertical trends. Based on the data from theSolitario Canyon transect, the top of the unit is low inporosity (15 percent) and increases to about 55 percent

porosity over a vertical distance of approximately 7 m.Any deviation in elevation during sampling, such asmoving downslope due to topographic changes alongthe horizontal transect, resulted in a change in porosity.Comparison of the data with the vertical transect atSolitario Canyon indicates that the interpretation of thechanges was due to the vertical porosity trend, ratherthan lateral variation. These trends were investigatedby Istok and others (1995) with a series of 26 verticaltransects through the unit to produce a 2-dimensionalrepresentation of porosity and permeability that sup-ported interpretations of influences of deterministicprocesses on hydrologic properties and the interpreta-tion of a small degree of horizontal variability, whilethe vertical variability, though large, was predictable.The transect along the exposure of the vitric top of thecaprock of the Topopah Spring Tuff (fig. 10) wasplanned following the measurements of physical andhydrologic properties on samples from the SolitarioCanyon transect. The porous PTn under this extremelylow porosity, very thin unit (0.2-0.3 in), has been over-looked or averaged into larger units in several model-ing exercises (Wittwer and others, 1992; Brown andothers, 1994). The sampling of this unit exhibits someof the same problems associated with the sampling ofthe shardy base unit, that of rapid vertical change inporosity. There are several locations along this transectwhere the porosity exceeds 6 percent. These locationsmost likely indicate a deviation downslope from theupper contact of the unit rather than lateral variation.

All individual measurements for each core sam-ple are listed in Appendix I, with all samples listed foreach transect along with transect distance, physicalproperties, and hydrologic-flow properties. Not allmeasurements were obtained from all samples.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for poros-ity, bulk density, particle density, saturated hydraulicconductivity, and sorptivity for each unit sampled forall transects combined (table 2). The principal differ-ences between units are due to the variation in welding,which most directly influences porosity. Another char-acteristic influencing porosity is secondary alteration.Mean porosity varies from 3 percent in the vitriccaprock and basal vitrophyre of the Topopah SpringTuff to as high as 52 percent in the bedded and pumice-fall tuffs. The variation in bulk density shows theinverse trend. Particle density varies from 2.56 g/cm3

in the densely welded caprock of the Tiva Canyon Tuffto 2.31 g/cm3 in the zeolitized part of the Calico HillsFormation. Particle density generally is fairly uniformfor all the welded units and for the rocks that havesomewhat lower densities in the nonwelded units.


Solitario Canyon Transect

0.8 -

0.6

' 0.40.

0.2

00

top

e2.8 E

2.60

2.4 a

2.2 a.

150 200 250 300 350Transect Distance, in meters base

Porosity Particle Density+- e-

Figure 3. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Solitario Canyon vertical transect.

tn tc

0.3 eBusted Butte Transect

00

0.2

0.1

3

2.8 E

C

2.4 2

2.2 i

M.

20 20 40 60 80) 100 120 140

top Transect Distance, in metersPorosity Particle Density

4-

base

Figure 4. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Busted Butte vertical transect.

Yucca Wash Transectbt

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

o 0.3

3

2.8 E

2.6 i~,

2.4

.20..

0 50 100 150 200 250


4- 0E~

_-- 2300

base

Figure 5. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Yucca Wash vertical transect.

RESULTS 7

Pagany Wash Transect

0.3

0.2

00

0.1

e2.8 E

2.6 A

_ 2.4 t_U

- 2.2 E0..

-230

base

0 _0 5 10 15 20 25top Transect Distance, in meters

Porosity Particle Density

Figure 6. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Pagany Wash vertical transect.

Calico Hills Transect

0.5

0.4

2 0.30

0.

0.2

3

2.8 c-bU

2.6 ;

2.4 Nz

2.2 ia.

0.1 I -

0 20 40 60 80 100


4-~~9Figure 7. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Calico Hills Formation vertical transect.

Yucca Crest Transect

_ 2120

base

0.4

0.3U,

0

0.2

0.1

-3

- 2.8 E

2.6 i

2.4

2.2 l2..

- 26,000

north

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

south Transect Distance, in meters

Porosity Particle Density4-~~9

Figure 8. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Yucca Crest horizontal transect.


Shardy Base Transect0.5

03

a40.2

0.1

00 200 400 600south Transect Distance, in meters

Porosity Particle Density- h

Figure 9. Porosity and particle density for core samples from shardy base horizontal transect.

Topopah Spring Caprock Transect

-3

-2.8 '6

2.6 i'

2.4

2.2 Qa

2800

north

0.12 3

0.08

00

0.04

2.8 E

2.6 ;

2.4 C.)

2.2 E0.

0-400

south0 400 800 1200

Transect Distance, in meters

Porosity Particle Density4-

-r 21600

north

Figure 10. Porosity and particle density for core samples from Topopah Spring TufO caprock horizontal transect.

RESULTS 9

° Table 2. Descriptive statistics for each unit sampled for all transects for porosity, bulk density, and particle density calculated from 1 050C oven-dry weights, and

-v saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity with number of samples

5F (cm3fcm3, cubic cenimeter per cubic centimeter; g/cm3, gram per cubic centimeter; m/s meter per second: N, number of samples; --, no data]

a.

'.8

Porosity(cm

3/cm

3)

Bulk density(9/cm3 )

Particle density(g/cm

3)

Saturated hydraulicconductivity

(mls)

Sorptivity(m/S0 .5)

Unit sampledMean StandardMean deviation

Mean standardMen deviation

Mean Standard N Mean StandardMen deviation N en deviation N Mean Standard H

N Mean ~deviation N

Tiva Canyon Tuff

x Caprocko' Upper cliff

° Upper lithophysal

a ClinkstonenM Lower lithophysal0c Hackly

O ColumnarVitrophyre

3 Shardy base-. Yucca Mcuntain Tuff

:, Welded- Nonwelded

8 Pah Canyon Tuff3 Nonwelded

° Bedded/pumicei Topopah Spring Tuff? Nonwelded

c Vitric caprock

cL CaprockRounded

Topopah Spring TuffUpper lithophysalMiddle nonlithophysalLower lithophysalLower nonlithophysalMottledBasal vitrophyre

Calico Hills FormationNonwelded, zeolitized

Prow Pass TuffNonwelded

0.220.240.110.090.090.060.080.070.41

0.060.31

0.360.52

0.390.030.100.14

0.120.080.090.050.090.03

0.33

0.070.050.030.030.030.010.050.040.11

0.010.14

0.120.10

0.120.020.030.02

0.040.020.040.020.010.03

0.05

1.991.952.202.252.282.342.252.201.39

2.321.62

1.551.13

1.482.392.242.16

2.192.282.282.362.342.33

1.54

0.180.100.040.050.090.020.100.110.25

0.020.36

0.330.24

0.270.050.060.06

0.100.050.090.040.050.09

0.12

2.562.552.472.462.492.482.442.362.37

2.472.33

2.402.37

2.422.472.492.52

2.482.482.512.492.562.41

2.31

0.030.040.030.030.020.010.060.020.(8

0.010.11

27 3.IE-9 8.756 2.9E-9 1.0II 8.9E- 12 4.315 3.OE-12 1.117 L.OE- 11 54.06 3.6E- 12 --

15 2.1E-10 15.52 4.5E-10 --

30 1.6E-6 10.1

15 --

21 2.IE-7 13.8

0.11 39 1.8E-8 48.30.10 23 5.9E-6 10.8

27 9.7E-656 9.7E-62 1.6E-6

3 1.3E-63 3.1E-6I 1.2E-68 1.9E.6I 1.IE-6

96 7.2E-5

013 1.5E-4

36 3.9E-412

6 I.OE.41 1.5E-5

7 -

4 2.OE-5

7 3.6E-60

2 3.8E-6I .

2 1.7E-66 9.1E-7

10 1.9E-5

1.71.11.1

2.8

4.5

01.7 2

1.2 2

1

233

2

9

0.130.050.020.04

0.020.040.040.010.040.06

14 4.8E-7 5.659 1.3E-9 --

11 5.4E-11 16.216 1.3E-8 7.6

60 2.1E-11 17.920 --

41 I.IE-12 2.85 1.5E-10 --

10 3.1E-12 1.7

18 3.OE-10 4.1

1.2

1.1

2.0

1.9

1.2

2

3

7

2

2

0.10 62 7.9E-11 3.4 1.4 4

0.25 0.13 1.92 0.32 2.55 0.00 20.25 0.13 1.92 0.32 2.55 0.00 2

Hydrologic-Flow Properties

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (also referredto as conductivity) was not determined on very low-porosity samples with conductivities below 1 E- 12 m/sdue to equipment limitations. This biases the calcula-tion of mean conductivity when it is compared to otherproperties that were measured on many more samples.Conductivity ranged from 5.9E-6 m/s for bedded tuffsto 3.OE-12 m/s for the clinkstone unit of the TivaCanyon Tuff.

Conductivity appears to be well correlated withthe physical properties. Porosity of most of the tuffsmay be of a similar nature, that is, pore structure andtortuosity. Some of the tuffs have alterations to theporosity, such as zeolites, which form in the flow chan-nels of the highly porous Calico Hills Formation andreduce conductivity. Another difference is in vilriccaprock and vitrophyre samples (vitrophyre), many ofwhich have microfractures that contribute to saturatedflow but do not represent a large enough volume toaffect porosity. The relationship between measure-ments of conductivity and porosity is improved whenporosity is calculated using relative-humidity-driedweights compared to when 1 050C dry weights are used.This observation is attributed to the presence of clayminerals in some samples. These clays contain looselybound structural water that is not available for flow.When dried in a high relative-humidity environment,water is removed from the flow channels but main-tained in the minerals, thus allowing for more relevantflow-channel porosity determinations.

Nonlinear regression analyses were performedon porosity and conductivity values measured on sam-

ples from the Solitario Canyon transect and for samplesfrom the Yucca Wash transect (table 3). A scatterplotof conductivity and porosity for the Solitario Canyontransect (fig. II a) illustrates the separate grouping ofthe vitrophyre samples (vitric caprock of the TopopahSpring Tuff and vitrophyre of the Tiva Canyon Tuff).The regressions were done on lithologic groupings ofsamples in order to increase the predictive capability.Coefficients of determination (r2) are high for theSolitario Canyon transect with r2 = 0.72 for the vitricsamples and r2 = 0.90 for all remaining welded andnonwelded samples.

The Yucca Wash transect has a larger scatter ofpoints due to the inclusion of the samples from theCalico Hills Formation and several samples of the PahCanyon Tuff. The samples from the Calico Hills For-mation contain large amounts of zeolites, but the PahCanyon Tuff samples also appear to have high amountsof clay. This is suggested by the large difference inthese samples between porosities calculated from rela-tive humidity dry weights, which retains the water inclays, and 1050C oven-dry weights, which removes thewater from the clays. These samples have high poros-ities, but the development of zeolites and clays withinthe pore channels restricts flow, thus changing the rela-tionship between porosity and saturated hydraulic con-ductivity. The vitrophyre and vitric caprock samples,on the other hand, have higher conductivities thanwould be suggested by their very low porosities. Thesevitrophyre samples have a bimodal pore-size distribu-tion (discussed in following section) with very lowmatrix porosity due to the vitrification but have smallmicrofractures that transmit water yet contribute little

Table 3. Nonlinear regression analysis performed for porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity for theSolitario Canyon transect and the Yucca Wash transect

IN, number of samples; r2, coefficient of determination; K,, saturated hydraulic conductivity; +, porosity, calculated from relativc-humidaydrying]

TM ansect N fithology Regression equation r2

Solitario Canyon transectWelded and nonwelded K, = -13.9 + 33.1 -30.84t 2 0.90 36Vitric Ks = -7.4-56.6 + + 417.6,2 0.72 6

Yucca Wash transect

Welded and nonwelded Ks = 0.00009 - 0.0007 + + 0.0012 .2 0.39 100

Welded and nonwelded, no clays K, = -1 1.9 + 18.1 - 10.7 $2 0.77 88

Clay (Pah Canyon Tuff and Calico Hills Formation) Ks= -8.8- 13.1 $+ 32.1,2 0.50 12Calico Hills Formation Ks = 11.6 - 168.0 , + 318.7 ,2 0.84 6

Vitric Ks = -9.1 - 40.8 + 506.9 4 2 0.28 7

RESULTS 11

(a) Solitario Canyon Transect-4

-6

CO0

-8

-10

-12

-140 0.2 0.4 0.6

Porosity

Yucca Wash Transect

0.8

(b)-2

-4

uA

,-sr

ut

00

-6

-8

r rs

-11)

-12

-140 0.2 0.4 0.6

Porosity0.8

Figure 11. Relationship of porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity for samples from (a) SolitarioCanyon transect, and (b) Yucca Wash transect. Regression lines are for analyses on welded plus non-welded samples only.


to the porosity. Consequently, regression analyseswere performed for several groupings of samples(fig. lib). The samples from the Calico Hills Forma-tion are analyzed separately (Calico Hills) and alsoalong with the clayey samples from the Pah CanyonTuff discussed above (Pah Canyon Tuff). The vitro-phyre and vitric caprock samples are analyzed sepa-rately (vitrophyre). The remaining nonwelded samplescombined with all the welded samples comprised thelast regression analysis. For ease of presentation, onlyregression lines and equations for the welded plus non-welded samples (not including those with highamounts of clays) are included on figures II a and b, butall equations and r2 values are listed in table 3. Thereare some differences between the regression equationsdeveloped using samples from the two transects. Thesedifferences may represent influences of lateral spatialvariability on the relationship between porosity andconductivity. The differences more likely are due tothe much thicker PTn present to the north in the YuccaWash transect and the larger range in porosity, as wellas the inclusion of the samples of the welded parts ofthe Pah Canyon and Yucca Mountain Tuffs. For thesetwo transects, the most significant relationshipsbetween conductivity and porosity occur in the weldedand nonwelded samples, not including samples withclays or vitric samples.

Sorptivity was determined for many fewer sam-ples than conductivity and has a narrower range in val-ues between units. The trends are similar for bothmeasurements though with lower sorptivity in thewelded units and the highest values in the nonweldedunits.

Estimates of Hydrologic Units for FlowModeling

Many of the lithologic units reflect predictablehydrologic and physical properties; however, some ofthese properties are not bounded by lithostratigraphiccontacts. This is noticeably true in the upper TivaCanyon Tuff where the caprock unit grades downwardfrom densely welded to moderately welded tuff and isunderlain by the upper cliff zone that is moderatelywelded tuff at the top and changes rapidly with depth todensely welded tuff. The references to welding in thispaper are loosely characterized, however, and prima-rily infer a relationship with rock density. More currentthought suggests that many of the rocks initially char-acterized as moderately welded are actually welded todensely welded but have a reduced density due to sec-ondary alteration of the pores (C.A. Rautman, SandiaNational Laboratory, personal commun., 1994). This

example prompts the use of welding character ratherthan lithologic description and contacts to definehydrogeologic units with similar hydrologic propertiesand a reduction in variation within the unit.

To compile a complete set of data to accuratelyrepresent the means of each unit present in the unsatur-ated zone (table 4), the saturated hydraulic-conductiv-ity data were extended to include estimates ofconductivity for those samples upon which measure-ments could not be taken because of extremely lowflow rates. Estimates of conductivity were made fordensely welded samples using the regression forwelded plus nonwelded samples from figure 11 a for theSolitario Canyon transect. This should more accu-rately reflect properties of the potential repositoryblock than the Yucca Wash transect regressions. Theseestimates are included with measured data in calcula-tions of mean and standard deviation for each hydro-geologic unit. The stratified nature of each of the majorflow units is maintained, and the Tiva Canyon Tuff isdivided into densely welded caprock, moderatelywelded units, and welded units. All nonwelded tuffsfrom the Paintbrush Group are in one unit, and the cal-culations of the Topopah Spring Tuff include weldedrocks with and without incorporating highly vitric sam-ples. The Calico Hills Formation samples and ProwPass Tuff samples are maintained separately because ofthe lack of data for samples from the Prow Pass unit,and therefore, no evidence supports combining theunits.

This approach reduces the standard deviation ofproperty values within hydrogeologic units and moreaccurately represents the changes with depth thatoccur. The surface of Yucca Mountain is variably cov-ered by the three Tiva Canyon units due to weatheringand erosion (Flint and Flint, 1994). This is significantin the construction of hydrologic models because thesurface unit will control the upper boundary conditionsfor infiltration at all locations. The weak point in thisapproach is in combining the nonwelded units of thePaintbrush Group that vary laterally in thickness, aswell as including very thin layers that may or may notbe laterally extensive. The rapid changes in physicalproperties with depth that occur, especially in the non-welded base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, as well as theintervening bedded and ash-fall tuffs, need to bedescribed for each location to adequately describe thehydrologic character for a flow model. An additionalproblem with this approach is the exclusion of the morewelded Yucca Mountain Tuff that is located north ofthe potential repository location. This welded unitappears to be absent within the potential repositoryblock itself, which could reduce the impact of thisomission and probably only restrict the user to smaller

RESULTS 13

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for all transects, combining lithology into hydrogeologic units for porosity, bulk density, and particle density calculated from

. 1 050C oven-dry weights, and saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity with number of samples

i [Saturated hydraulic conductivity is calculated using both measur d values and estimates from regression with porosity; cm3/cm, cubic centimeter per cubic centimeter, g/cm3, gram per cubic centimeter;

, m/s, meter per second; N. number of samples; -, no data]

° Porosity Bulk density Particle density Saturated hydraulic Sorptivlty

(cm3/cm3) (9/cm3) (g/cm 3) conductivity ()sJ)

Hydrogeologic unit (m/s)

8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Standard Men Standard Standard N en Standard N en Standard NMean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation N Mean deviation N Mean deviation N

TViva Canyon Tuff

Densely welded caprock 0.12 0.02 2.23 0.06 2.54 0.02 6 L.IE-I0 1.9 6 9.7E-6 -- I

Moderately welded 0.25 0.04 1.92 0.10 2.56 0.03 71 5.IE-9 3.4 7; 9.7E-6 -- I

O Welded 0.09 0.04 2.25 0.08 2.47 0.04 64 8.2E-12 14.1 62 1.8E-6 1.9 11

0 Paintbrush Group 0.41 0.13 1.42 0.34 2.42 0.10 129 5.7E-7 32.1 201 I.OE-4 3.7 15

Nonwelded

TopopahSpring Tuff 0.08 0.05 2.28 0.11 2.48 0.05 240 3.2E-11 18.7 96 4.5E-6 2.8 16

Weldcd

g*, Welded, no vitriccaprock 0.11 0.04 2.24 0.10 2.50 0.04 163 2.9E-11 16.6 80 4.7E-6 2.7 14

-< or vitrophyre

U Calico Hills Formation 0.33 0.05 1.54 0.12 2.31 0.10 62 I.OE-I0 3.5 12 I.9E-5 1.4 4

11r. Nonwelded zeolitized05 Prow Pass Tuff 0.25 0.13 1.92 0.32 2.55 0.00 2 -- -- . ..

5.g' Nonwelded

zc.

scale hydrologic modeling. Alternatively, this unitmay be very important in light of flux estimates madeby Flint and Flint (1994), suggesting that the tuffs inthe northern portions of the site have much higher sur-face fluxes than those over the repository block due todowncutting of the washes, which exposes the higherporosity PTn at the surface. As high flux boundaryconditions correspond to surface exposures of the PTn,a detailed geometry of the site and the inclusion ofwelded tuffs within the thick PTn to the north are criti-cal information when flow models are being devel-oped. In any case, this set of calculations provides asubstantial improvement over the data sets used in sim-plified models that have predominated in the past(Nitao and others, 1992; Montazer and Wilson, 1984)and primarily adds the distinction of the variablywelded Tiva Canyon Tuff, which is exposed at varyingelevations in the flow unit over the surface of the site.

Moisture Retention

The results of the moisture-retention character-ization are tabulated in table 5, with bulk density andporosity for the subsample (denoted as the sample IDfrom the original core plus an "s"). Included are resid-ual water-content estimates from the original samplethat were used in the van Genuchten parameter model-ing. The moisture-retention data are tabulated inAppendix 11 and are plotted with the three models fit tothe data for each of the 41 core samples inAppendix III.

The two van Genuchten models generally fit thedata very well. The three-parameter (estimated m) esti-mation model was not very different from the two-parameter (calculated m) model but in some cases fitthe air-entry section of the data slightly better. TheBrooks and Corey model fit many of the curves verywell, but when it did not match, it generally underpre-dicted the wet end of the curve relative to the vanGenuchten models. In general, the van Genuchtenalpha parameter (approximately equal to the reciprocalof the air-entry pressure) increased as the porositydecreased, with the result that the welded samples havehigher alpha values. This tendency was not observedfor samples of Topopah Spring Tuff vitric caprock(BTl s and B12s), which tended to lose water from themicrofractures as the core dried and resulted in a higheralpha parameter. The data for BTls may indicate apossible double-peak curve, which might describe aseparate curve for fractures and matrix. Alternatively,the Tiva Canyon Tuff vitrophyre samples hadextremely low alpha values and very high air-entrypressures. The resolution of the chilled-mirror psy-

chrometer is plus or minus 0.13 MPa, however, and thedescription of air entry using the data may be ;;ghtlyin error. The types of rocks in which the three modelsdiffered the most are the very low-porosity weldedsamples and the high-porosity samples with manylarger pores that resulted in plots with a very flat slopeat the wet end of the curve.

Relationships of porosity versus van Genuchtenparameters were examined as a possible surrogate tointensive laboratory measurements (figs. 12a and b),and simple linear regressions were developed (table 6)for predictive purposes. For predictive purposes andconsidering the variability of n for all samples, porosityis fairly well related to n for nonwelded samples(r2 = 0.44), while the welded samples have a narrowrange of porosity and a larger range for a and n thatreduces predictive capabilities. This interpretation isalso made in light of the study done by Glass and others(1994) that used regressions of porosity andvan Genuchten parameters to predict parameters formodeling flow through a slab of Topopah Sprir.¢ Tuffthat had many measurements of porosity. Their rela-tionships between porosity and van Genuchten param-eters did not appear to be very good (no r2 value wasincluded in the paper) yet moisture-retention curvesgenerated from the best and worst case predictionswere very similar. The Calico Hills Formation zeoli-tized samples also have a narrow range of porosity; butwhereas a has a large range, n is clustered around 1.2,so despite the high r2 value (0.98), the predictive value.s low. While the relationship of porosity to permeabil-ity shown in figures 1 la and b shows similarity for allthe vitrophyre samples (includes both vitric caprockand vitrophyre), the data for the a parameter suggestsome differences. All vitrophyre samples have verylow porosity but air entry (approximately 1/ van Genu-chteuc a, and equal to Brooks and Corey a) is low forthe two Topopah Spring Tuff vitric caprock samples,whereas it is high for the Tiva Canyon and TopopahSpring Tuff vitrophyre samples. This indicates that thes;ze of the microfractures may be larger for the caprocksamples. The similarity of saturated hydraulic conduc-tivities for these samples, however, suggests that themicrofractures in the vitrophyre samples, while havingan air- entry value near zero, will fill with water undera positive head, as done during a permeability measure-ment (or, for that matter, under a perched water body,in tuffs exposed at the surface, or during fracture flow)and contribute to higher flow rates. This may also sug-gest that the high permeability of these samples is duemore to a lack of tortuosity of the microfractures ratherthan the larger size relative to pores. An implication ofthe difference in air entry and the similarity in saturated

RESULTS 15

Table 5. Properties and moisture-retention characteristics for subsampies from outcrop transect samples

a [Modeling parameters were generated using van Genuchten and Brooks and Corey equations; van Genuchten curve fit parameters are modeled for alpha (a). n and m (m est), and a and n only

£ (m calc, where m = I - I/n); residual water content is thea (r); glcm3 , gram per cubic centimeter, cm3 /cm, cubic centimeter per cubic centimeter, MPa, megapascals]0.

-L van Genuchten Brooks a

a.

-. Sample Bulk Porosn Thet Modeled 2 parameters Modeled 3 parametersUnit sampled ID density Cm 3

- (glcm-j~~~~~ID WW (cm /cm) a n ma n in a(eat) (a) cl et

(MPag1 ) (esl) (calc) (eat) (set) (catc) (MPa)

a Tiva Canyon Tuffa: Caprock PW19s 2.305 0.105 0.002 5.00 1.430 0.301 7.20 3.500 0.115 0.204

Upper lithophysal TPC52s 2.220 0.108 0.001 2.90 1.450 0.310 2.50 1.700 0.250 0.204

° Clinkstone TPC35s 2.278 0.081 0.003 2.50 1.400 0.286 4.00 3.900 0.080 0.265

| Lower lithophysal TPC27s 2.218 0.115 0.001 1.35 1.800 0.444 1.30 1.900 0.370 0.198

Lower lithophysal TPCI5s 2.383 0.083 0.002 2.50 1.350 0.259 0.60 0.900 0.600 0.320

9 Hackly TPC9s 2.388 0.032 0.002 1.70 1.429 0.300 0.09 1.100 0.650 0.411

F Vitrophyre TPC5s 2.325 0.035 0.001 0.90 1.254 0.203 0.07 0.900 0.380 0.341

,. Vitrophyre TPC2s 2.309 0.042 0.005 3.10 1.193 0.162 0.10 0.900 0.400 0.202

< Vitrophyre TPCls 2.127 0.120 0.001 1.35 1.250 0.200 0.37 0.900 0.400 0.490

g Shardy base BT27Hs 1.944 0.208 0.010 1.77 1.230 0.187 3.00 1.100 0.220 0.214

aO Shardy base BT26Hs 1.849 0.235 0.035 3.01 1.310 0.237 0.98 1.128 0.600 0.095Cz Shardy base BT25Hs 1.556 0.346 0.010 12.21 1.333 0.250 3.00 1.000 0.600 0.043

3' Tiva Canyon Tuffjr Shardy base BT24Hs 1.378 0.406 0.030 4.27 2.062 0.515 5.00 14.000 0.050 0.053

0.i Shardy base BT23-IHs 1.368 0.412 0.010 13.71 1.476 0.322 7.00 3.300 0.200 0.034

Shardy base BT22Hs 1.360 0.425 0.050 6.35 2.067 0.516 9.46 17.000 0.050 0.032

Yucca Mountain Tuff BT18Hs 1.310 0.442 0.020 4.59 1.942 0.485 7.00 20.000 0.045 0.047

Yucca Mountain Tuff BT17s 1.614 0.442 0.030 3.94 1.716 0.417 5.00 14.000 0.050 0.066

Pah Canyon Tuff BTlls 0.861 0.628 0.030 3.78 1.923 0.480 7.00 20.000 0.045 0.068

Topopah Spring Tuff

Nonwelded BT3Vs 1.615 0.381 0.015 8.00 2.048 0.512 10.00 10.000 0.100 0.033

Caprock, vitric BT2s 2.439 0.063 0.003 24.15 1.225 0.184 20.00 6.000 0.040 0.030

Caprock, vitric BTls 2.456 0.045 0.008 23.69 1.173 0.147 6.00 1.100 0.272 0.028

Caprock, devitrified TS58s 2.279 0.124 0.003 8.97 1.363 0.266 10.00 6.000 0.070 0.043

Caprock, devitrified TSS6s 2.130 0.184 0.007 11.13 1.389 0.280 8.00 12.000 0.050 0.050

and Corey

Slope

-2. ,18

-2.418

-2.760

-2.204

-2.703

-4.190

-9.667-10.728

-4.238

-4.734

-4.170

-3.411

-2.479

-2.598

-3.169

-2.748

-2.694

-2.054

-1.951-4.492

-6.077

-3.616

-2.830

Table 5. Properties and moisture-retention characteristics for subsamples from outcrop transect samples-Continued

van Genuchten Brooks and Corey

Sample Bulk Poros Theta Modeled 2 parameters Modeled 3 parameters

Unit sampled ID density (cm3/cm3 ) Jr) a a(g/cm3) (CM /cm, fet) m (~St) In Sa

(MPa 1 ) (eat) (calc) (WWI) ("t) (cabc) (MPa) Slope

Topopah Spring TuffRounded TS54s 2.258 0.120 0.008 7.68 1.383 0.277 4.00 2.000 0.280 0.066 -3.014

Rounded TSSOs 2,092 0.181 0.007 4.03 1.850 0.459 4.78 15.000 0.050 0.102 -2.254

Rounded TS47s 2.077 0.185 0.005 2.37 2.204 0.546 2.80 4.500 0.200 0.097 -2.192

Upper lithophysal TS40s 2.157 0.156 0.008 4.15 1.536 0.349 5.00 7.000 0.080 0.086 -2.538




Upper lithophysal BB68s 2.322 0.078 0.010 0.65 1.384 0.277 0.80 1.500 0.300 0.171 -5.032

Upper lithophysal BB64s 2.023 0.192 0.010 2.24 1.575 0.365 1.40 2.000 0.360 0.144 -2.227

Lower lithophysal BB45s 2.171 0.141 0.005 3.17 1.309 0.236 1.80 1.400 0.360 0.144 -3.44

Lowerlithophysal BB31s 2.324 0.099 0.005 5.52 1.361 0.265 1.80 i.400 0.360 0.115 -2.730

Mottled BB16s 2.199 0.069 0.005 1.35 1.296 0.228 1.20 1.000 0.360 0.383 -3.228

Topopah Spring TuffMottled BB13As 2.329 0.079 0.009 2.10 1.447 0.309 2.50 6.000 0.106 0.115 -3.254

Basal vitrophyre BB5s 2.328 0.022 0.004 0.03 1.755 0.430 0.02 1.300 0.600 0.914 -5.174

Calico Hills FormationZeolitized CH60s 1.454 0.357 0.015 28.14 1.184 0.155 6.00 1.700 0.190 0.047 -4.253

Zeolitized CH47s 1.632 0.322 0.070 5.18 1.147 0.128 3.00 1.100 0.220 0.071 -7.944

Zeolitized CH44s 1.580 0.337 0.005 14.05 1.160 0.138 11.00 1.800 0.160 0.110 -3.852

Zeolitized CH40s 1.427 0.401 0.090 9.51 1.211 0.174 10.00 9.000 0.040 0.046 -5.815

co

aU,W

-A-J

(a) 0.7

0.6 Welded Id Vitric Calicowelded Hills

0.5 0 0 K>

0.14ADO tS0~~~

so~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~K

0~~

0.2 0~ 0

0.1 0 0

00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Alpha (a), 1/bars

(b) 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.^ 0 4 *$0.43K

0.2 o0 ) 00 C

0.1 0OW

0 I I * I I I I

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4n

Figure 12. Relationship of porosity and van Genuchten parameters for (a) Alpha (a), and (b) n, for sub-samples from 41 transect samples.


hydraulic conductivity may be that in 1-dimensionalmodeling of flow through these units, water is morelikely to enter the vitric caprock under unsaturated con-ditions, whereas higher saturations may be necessaryfor flow to occur through the Tiva Canyon and TopopahSpring Tuff vitrophyres.

Table 6. Unear regressions of van Genuchten a and nparameters versus porosity for welded, nonwelded,vitrophyre, and Calico Hills Formation samples

[r2 .coefficient of determination; N. number of samples; O, porosity]

Sample Regression equation F2 N

Welded a = 0.032 + 2.87(0) 0.20 20

n = 1.17 + 2.66() 0.20 20Nonwelded a = 0.49 + 0.31 (4) 0.01 10

n = 0.95 + 1.94(4) 0.44 10Calico Hills a = 0.29 + 3.19(4) 0.01 4

Formationn = 0.89 + 0.81 (4) 0.98 4

Vitrophyre cc = 0.84 - 0.96(4) 0.01 7n = 1.40-1.21 (0) 0.05 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A set of data has been provided that includesphysical- and hydrologic-flow property measurementson surface-outcrop samples from most of the rock unitsat Yucca Mountain. Observed porosity values rangefrom 2 to 60 percent, and saturated hydraulic-conductivity values range from lE-12 to 4E-6 m/s.The porosity range is much smaller within a lithologicunit. However, large variations may occur over veryshort vertical distances in the shardy-base subunit ofthe Tiva Canyon Tuff. In this unit, porosity changesfrom 15 percent to 55 percent within about 7.3 m.Another example is the transition zone in the upperTopopah Spring Tuff, where the vitric caprock(4-percent porosity) changes abruptly to nonweldedtuff (39-percent porosity) over a vertical distance of afew centimeters. It is apparent that there are many sub-units with distinct properties that could affect the esti-mation of ground-water flow through the unsaturatedzone.

Porosity appears to be a reasonable surrogate orestimator for saturated hydraulic conductivity and pos-sibly van Genuchten moisture-retention parameters forthe welded and nonwelded tuffs. These relationshipsare different for the tuffs with higher water-holdingcapacity such as zeolitized Calico Hills Formation tuffand some of the nonwelded units that retain large vol-

umes of water when dried under relative-humidityconditions. The relationship is also different fordensely welded, highly vitric samples such as the vitriccaprock or vitrophyres that have microfractures. Theserelationships appear to be useful for estimating proper-ties and parameters for modeling water flow in theabsence of complete data sets.

Previous hydrologic modeling efforts have useddata from a few samples to devise parameters for mod-els that consist of relatively few layers such as the VivaCanyon Tuff, the bedded and nonwelded units of thePaintbrush Group, the Topopah Spring Tuff, and thetuffs of the Calico Hills Formation. The data in thisreport describe many subtleties and rapid gradationalchanges within these generalized hydrogeologic-flowunits. These differences may require substantiallymore layers to adequately model water flow. Majorgeologic boundaries do not always reflect hydrologicdifferences, as in the upper Tiva Canyon Tuff weldedand moderately welded units. The existence of veryrapid vertical changes will probably require2-dimensional or 3-dimensional models in severallocations to predict the likely occurrence of lateraldiversions of flow.

Although there have been some successful com-parisons between properties measured on surface out-crop samples and those from borehole samples, it isgenerally not possible to collect both types of samplesin the same location. Additionally, there is inherent lat-eral variability between sampling locations. Therefore,these samples may not represent the true physical andhydrologic property values that exist in the subsurface.However, there also have been studies that indicate thatformation saturations throughout the unsaturated zonecan be predicted using model parameters characterizedfrom outcrop samples. Despite the limitations inherentin an outcrop study, there is little question that there issignificant vertical, and much less lateral variability ofphysical and hydrologic properties at Yucca Mountain.

REFERENCES

American Society of Testing Materials, 1977, Adsorptionand bulk specific gravity of natural building stone:American Society of Testing Materials, ANSIIASTMR97-47 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, part 19.

Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T., 1964, Hydraulic properties ofporous media: Fort Collins, Colorado State University,Hydrology Paper 3.

Brown, T.P., Lehman, L.L., Nieber, J.L., 1994, Testing con-ceptual unsaturated zone models for Yucca Mountain:Proceedings International High-Level RadioactiveWaste Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26,1994, p. 1999-2006.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 19

Buesch, D.C., Spengler, R.W., Moyer, T.C., and Geslin, J.K.,(1996), Proposed revised stratigraphic nomenclatureand macroscopic identification of lithostratigraphicunits of the Paintbrush Group exposed at Yucca Moun-tain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-FileReport 94-469.

Bush, D.C., and Jenkins, R.E., 1970, Proper hydration ofclays for rock property determinations: Journal ofPetroleum Technology, v. 22, no. 7, p. 800-804.

Flint, A.L., and Flint, L.E., 1994, Spatial distribution ofpotential near-surface moisture flux at Yucca Mountain:Proceedings International High-Level RadioactiveWaste Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26,1994.

Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., and Hevesi, J.A., 1993, Influence oflong term climate change on net infiltration at YuccaMountain, Nevada: Proceedings International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference, Las Vegas,Nevada, April 25-30, 1993.

Glass, R.J., Flint, A.L., Tidwell, vi.C., Peplinski, W.,Castro, Y., 1994, Fracture-matrix interaction inTopopah Spring tuff-Experiment and numerical simu-lation: Proceedings International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada,May 22-26, 1994.

Istok, J.D., Rautman, C.A., Flint, L.E., and Flint, A.L., 1994,Spatial variability in hydrologic properties of a volcanictuff: Ground Water, v. 32, no. 5, p. 751-60.

Montazer, P., and Wilson, W.E., 1984, Conceptual hydro-logic model of flow in the unsaturated zone, YuccaMountain, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4345, 55 pp.

Nitao, J.J., Buscheck, T.A., Chestnut, D.A., 1992, The impli-cations of episodic nonequilibrium fracture-matrix flowon site suitability and total site performance: Proceed-ings International High-Level Radioactive WasteConference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 12-16, 1992,p. 279-296.

Ortiz, T.S., Williams, R.L., Nimick, F.B., Whittet, B.C., andSouth, D.L., 1985, A three-dimensional model of refer-

ence thermal/mechanical and hydrological s;..,tigraphyat Yucca Mountain, southern Nevada: Albuquerque,N. Mex., Sandia National Laboratories, SAND84-1076, 76 p.

Philip, J.R., 1957, The theory of infiltration 4. Sorptivity andalgebraic infiltration equations: Soil Science, v. 84,p. 257-264.

Rautman, C.A., and Flint, A.L., 1992, Deterministic pro-cesses and stochastic modeling: Albuquerque,N. Mex., Sandia National Laboratories, SAND91-1925C.

Rautman, C.A., Flint, L.E., Flint, A.L., and Istok, J.D., Phys-ical and hydrologic properties of outcrop samples froma nonwelded to welded tuff transition, Yucca Mountain,Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-ResourcesInvestigations Report 95-4061.

Sawyer, D.A., Flock, R.J., Lanphere, M.A., Warren, R.G.,Broxton, D.E., and Hudson, M.R., 1994, Episodic cal-ern volcanisms in the Miocene southwestern Nevadavolcanic field-Revised stratigraphic framewnrk,40Ar/39Ar geochronology, and implications for magma-tism and extension: Geologic Society American Bulle-tin, v. 106, no. N, p. 1304-1318.

Scott, R.B., and Bonk, J., 1984, Preliminary geologic map ofYucca Mountain with geologic sections, Nye County,Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report84-494, scale 1:12,000.

Talsma, T., 1969, In-situ measurement of sorptivity: Austra-lian Journal of Soil Research, v. 7, p. 269-276.

van Genuchten M.Th., 1980, A closed-form equation forpredicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturatedsoils: Soil Science Society of America Journal,v. 44, p. 892-898.

Wittwer, C.S., Bodvarsson, G.S., Chomack, M.P.,Flint, A.L., Flint, L.E., Lewis, B.D., Spengler, R.W.,and Rautman, C.A., 1992, Design of a three-dimensional site-scale model for the unsaturated zoneat Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Proceedings InternationalHigh-Level Radioactive Waste Conference, Las Vegas,Nevada, April 12-16, 1992, p. 263-271.


APPENDIX 1: DATA OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIESAND FLOW PROPERTIES FOR EIGHT

OUTCROP TRANSECTS

APPENDIX l: DATA OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND FLOW PROPERTIES FOR EIGHT OUTCROP TRANSECTS 21

Table l-1. Solitario Canyon vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculpted usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050 C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using .egression equations intable 3.

Tran- Relative-humidity oven dried 105'C oven dried Measured Estimated RH-Sample Litho- sect Dry Dry saturated saturated dried

SDmple lto dis- bulk Porosity Particle Dry Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulic sorID logyktance denslty (cm3 / density bulk (cm3/ density conduc- conduc tivity

logy lance density ~3 density(in) (g/cm3) cm3) (g/cm ) (g/cm3) cm ) (g/cm3) tivity tivlty (mis0 -5)

(rn/s) (mis)TPC60 cuc 0.0 1.84 0.272 2.53 1.84 0.274 2.54 4.8E-07TPC59 cucTPC58 cucTPC57 cueTPC56 cueTPC55-2 cueTPC54 cueTPC53 culTPC52 culTPC51 culTPC50 culTPC49 culTPC48 culTPC47 culTPC46-1 culTPC45 culTPC44 cksTPC43 cksTPC42 cksTPC41 cks

TPC40 cksTPC39 cksTPC38 cksTPC37 eksTPC36 cksTPC35 cksTPC34 cksTPC33 cksTPC32 cksTPC30 cksTPC31 cksTPC29 cllTPC28 cllTPC27 cllTPC26 cilTPC25 ci1TPC24 cllTPC23 cllTPC22-3 cllTPC21 cilTPC20 clTPC18 cllTPC19 cllTPC17 cll

1.7 1.751.7 1.803.5 1.935.3 2.147.2 1.959.3 2.12

11.4 2.2113.1 2.1814.5 2.2116.3 -.2218.9 2.2918.9 2.2621.9 2.2125.8 2.1926.4 2.1929.7 2.1030.8 2.2132.3 2.2334.3 2.2336.4 2.2741.3 2.2343.1 2.2444.8 2.2847.4 2.3049.5 2.2454.4 2.3256.5 2.2459.6 2.2964.2 2.2964.2 2.3065.1 2.1467.5 2.3069.5 2.1772.5 2.0175.4 2.2278.5 2.3481.2 2.3084.6 2.3385.5 2.3088.1 2.2889.3 2.3189.3 2.2891.0 2.37

0.303 2.510.279 2.500.237 2.530.149 2.520.226 2.520.156 2.510.116 2.500.116 2.470.106 2.470.096 2.460.053 2.410.067 2.420.104 2.460.10 2.460.105 2.450.160 2.500.103 2.460.093 2.450.093 2.460.052 2.4n0.095 2.470.094 2.470.066 2.440.035 2.380.093 2.470.061 2.470.093 2.470.070 2.470.066 2.450.062 2.460.140 2.480.074 2.490.118 2.460.188 2.480.105 2.480.061 2.490.077 2.490.064 2.490.073 2.480.076 2.470.063 2.470.080 2.480.042 2.48

1.751.8(

1.932.141.952.122.212.18

2.212.222.282.262.212.192.19

2.102.202.222.232.272.232.242.272.29

2.242.312.232.29

2.29

2.302.142.302.172.012.222.342.302.332.302.282.312.282.37

0.3050.2820.2370.1490.2270.1570.1170.1160.1070.0980.0590.0680.1050.1090.1070.1600.1040.0960.0950.05 A

0.0970.0960.0710.0410.0960.0640.0960.0760.0680.0630.1400.0760.1190.1890.1080.0630.0770.0650.0750.0780.0650.0810.045

2.522.512.532.522.522.522.502.472.482.462.422.432.472.462.462.502.462.462.462.402.472.482.442.392.472.472.472.472.452.462.482.492.472.482.492.502.492.502.492.472.472.482.48

2.1E-079.3E-08

2.4E-07 9.7E-062.5E- 10

4.9E-088.7E-I I3.4E-I I

6.OE-052.8E-06

3.6E-I I2.OE- I1

1.7E-12 9.2E-076.3E-131.7E-121.8E-I I2.2E-I I1.9E-I I4.4E- 101.7E-1 I9.3E-129.1E-126.OE-13I.OE-I I

3.6E- 12 i.4E-061.5E-12I.9E-138.9E-12

2.7E-12 1.I E-069.1E-122.1 E- 121.6E-12

2.8E-12 1.4E-06I.4E-102.7E-12

1.3E-13 3.3E-06I .8E-091.9E- I11.1E-123.3E-1 2

2.OE-09 3.4E-062.5E-123.OE-121.3E-124.OE- 122.9E- 13

22 Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Rock Outcrop Samples at Yucca MountaIn, Nevada

Table 1-1. Solitario Canyon vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Estimates ol saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations intable 3.--Continued

Tran- Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Measured Estimated RH-

sect Dry Porosity saturated saturated driedSample L dtho u Dry Porosity Panicle Dry Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulic sorp-

D Lito- tdice densit (CM / denstyci bulk (cm3I density conduc- conduc- tivity(M) (glcm3) cm ) (g/cm3) (g/cm ) cm3) (g/cm3 ) tcvity tivity (m/s 0 5)

density ci 34 23 .5 .9 23 .5 .9 38(MIS) (m/s)

TPC16 cli 93.4 2.34 0.057 2.49 2.34 0.059 2.49 3.8 E- 12 2.8E-06

TPC15-2 cil

TPC13 chTPC14-2 ch

TPC12 ch

TPCII ch

TPCIO ch

TPC9 chTPC8 ccTPC7 ccTPC6 cc

TPC5 cc

TPC4 ccTPC3 ccTPC2 cvTPCI cvBT27-l V ccbBT27H ccbBT26H ccb

BT25H ccbBT25-2V ccbBT25-iV ceb

BT24V ccbBT24H ccb

BT23H ccbBT23-lH ccbBT23V ccbBT22V cebBT22H ceb

BT21V ccbBT21H ccbBT20H ccbBT20V ccbBT19H ym

BTI8H ym

BT17 ym

BT16V ym

BT16H ym

BTI5 ym

BT14H PC

BT14V PC

BTIIV pc

BTII pc

BT32 bt

95.9 2.3399.2 2.3099.2 2.32

101.5 2.35104.1 2.35105.8 2.35106.7 2.36109.6 2.38111.6 2.37113.5 2.37116.3 2.33117.X 2.30120.2 2.33123.7 2.31125.7 2.09126.2 1.93126.2 1.98127.1 1.95128.6 1.57128.6 1.55128.6 1.59129.8 1.40129.8 1.40130.5 1.35130.5 1.39130.5 1.34131.5 1.36131.5 1.40132.3 1.36132.3 1.28133.5 0.97133.5 0.93133.8 1.27134.3 1.34134.9 1.34135.6 1.34135.6 1.26136.1 1.49137.5 1.33137.5 1.32139.9 1.13139.9 0.98141.1 1.00

0.068 2.500.071 2.480.072 2.500.053 2.480.044 2.460.049 2.480.038 2.450.039 2.480.049 2.500.040 2.470)022 2.390.024 2.360.02 1 2.380.030 2.380.110 2.340.i72 2.330.155 2.340.176 2.370.312 2.280.317 2.270.296 2.260.391 2.300.388 2.290.407 2.290.392 2.290.415 2.290.407 2.300.389 2.300.411 2.310.447 2.320.582 2.320.599 2.330.450 2.310.412 2.280.413 2.290.431 2.350.440 2.260.375 2.380.441 2.390.444 2.380.520 2.350.569 2.280.588 2.41

2.332.302.322.352.352.352.352.372.372.372.332.292.332.312.081.861.941.911.541.521.551.371.371.311.351.321.331.371.321.260.930.9i1.241.301.311.301.241.441.301.291.100.980.98

0.070 2.510.073 2.480.072 2.500.055 2.480.047 2.470.052 2.480.042 2.460.043 2.480.052 2.500.043 2.480.0_2 2.390.030 2.360.027 2.390.031 2.380.111 2.340.232 2.420.181 2.370.203 2.400.331 2.300.346 2.320.328 2.310.409 2.320.407 2.320.444 2.360.419 2.330.429 2.310.435 2.350.417 2.350.448 2.390.462 2.340.617 2.420.620 2.390.473 2.350.440 2.320.442 2.340.461 2.400.463 2.300.399 2.400.468 2.440.463 2.410.535 2.370.571 2.270.596 2.43

1.8E-122.2E-122.3E-1 2

3.6E-12 1.2E-063.4E- 134.9E- 132.3E-13

3.7E-13 7.1 E-074.8E- 1 32.6E- 1 3

1.2 E-081 .5E-09

5.4E-06

6.7 E-14

4.5E-10 1.I E-062.5E-I I8.5E-10

4.2E-09 6.6E-06I OE-09

5.8E-08 3.1E-053.4E-071.7E-072.3E-06

2.OE-065.4E-063.6E-06

1.7E-04

2.7E-042.3E-04

3.6E-063.2E-06

1.6E-064.4E-06

7.OE-059.1 E-05

5.8E-065.5E-05 5.8E-04

7.8E-066.OE-06

1.3E-063.1E-06

2.5E-049.3E-05

4.7E-065.3E-061.6E-065.4E-06

2.OE-05 3.4E-04I .OE-05

3.4E-06 4.5E-048.5E-06

APPENDIX I: DATA OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND FLOW PROPERTIES FOR EIGHT OUTCROP TRANSECTS 23

Table 1-1. Solitario Canyon vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations intable 3.--Continued

Tran- Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Measured Estimated RH-saturated saturated dried

SDmple Ltho- dis- Dry Porosity Particle Dry Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulicID logy buktance d t cm 3) density dest (cm3 / density conduc- conduc- sorp-

(in) ityg3cm3) (g 3 CM3) (glCM 3) Ilvity thrity 05(m) (g/cm) cm (g/cm (g/CM3) ~~~(mis) (m/s) W

BTI0BT31BT30VBT30V

BT29HBT28BT9HBT9VBT8HBT8VBT7-2HBT7VBT6BT5VBT4VBT4HBT3HBT3-3V

BTIBT2

TS59-1TS59-2TSS8TS57TS56TS55TS54

TS53TS52

TS51TS50TS49TS48TS46TS45TS44TS43TS42TS41TS40TS39TS38TS37TS36

btbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbttc,vitrictc"vitrictctctctrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr

tultultultultultultultultultultul

141.1 1.10141.3 0.92142.2 0.99142.2 1.03143.0 0.98143.6 0.91

143.9 1.02143.9 1.07144.5 1.15144.5 1.04146.0 1.11146.0 1.09146.° 1.67147.5 1.53148.4 1.45148.4 1.53

148.7 1.61

148.7 1.54149.0 2.48149.0 2.45149.7 2.39149.7 2.37151.5 2.28153.6 2.22155.6 2.20158.2 2.24160.5 2.17162.3 2.16163.4 2.20165.8 2.22167.9 2.18170.5 2.27173.1 2.17176.3 2.04182.7 2.14183.8 2.16186.5 1.96188.7 2.19192.6 2.04194.5 2.11196.9 2.17198.7 2.13200.9 2.08203.3 2.13

0.5630.6180.5810.5620.5950.6170.574

0.5490.5250.5690.5440.5520.3490.3830.4130.3870.3690.3940.0390.0540.0170.0240.1180.1340.1480.1250.1490.1550.1430.1310.1450.1090.1500.1920.1510.1400.2140.1330.1880.1560.1240.1450.1640.146

2.522.422.362.352.422.372.402.372.422.422.432.442.562.482.482.502.552.552.582.592.432.432.582.572.582.562.552.562.572.562.552.542.552.522.522.522.492.532.512.502.482.492.492.50

1.060.900.971.010.970.890.991.041.131.021.091.081.65i.511.441.521.601.542.442.412.372.362.262.212.182.222.162.132.182.212.172.252.152.022.132.151.942.172.012.102.162.122.062.12

0.591 2.600.635 2.47

0.590 2.38

0.571 2.36

0.603 2.43

0.623 2.36

0.601 2.48

0.572 2.44

0.540 2.46

0.582 2.45

0.556 2.46

0.565 2.47

0.355 2.57

0.392 2.48

0.418 2.48

0.390 2.49

0.370 2.54

0.395 2.54

0.044 2.56

0.058 2.55

0.020 2.42

0.026 2.42

0.121 2.57

0.138 2.56

0.152 2.57

0.128 2.55

0.151 2.54

0.157 2.52

0.144 2.55

0.131 2.54

0.147 2.55

0.112 2.54

0.152 2.54

0.195 2.51

0.155 2.51

0.142 2.50

0.216 2.47

0.136 2.51

0.191 2.49

0.159 2.49

0.128 2.48

0.147 2.48

0.169 2.48

0.150 2.49

9.8E-066.4E-068.9E-069.8E-068.1 E-066.5E-069.3E-06

3.3E-06 1.2E-04I .OE-059.5E-061 LOE-05I .OE-058.4E-07I .9E-063.5E-062.1E-06I.4E-06

5.OE-07 8.3E-052.5E-137.1 E-135.2E-148.5E-14

1.3E-09 1.5E-05I.IE-I0

4.2E-07 2.2E-056.2E-I I

2.7E-09 1.9E-053.4E-10

4.7E-098.8E-I I

5.5E-09 1.9E-052.4E- I I2.6E-102.3E-092.7E-101.5E-106.6E-099.7E3- II1 .9E-09

5.5E-10 7.8E-065.9E- I11.9E-105.4E-102.1 E- I0


Table l-1. Solitario Canyon vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 105°C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations intable 3.--Continued

Tran- Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Measured Estimated RH-saturated saturated dried

Sample Litl dis- bulk Porosity Particle bulk Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulic soID logy tance dntY (¢¢M3) (deBnse§ dbul (¢CM33 density conduc- conduc tivi)

taCe 5density 3) densiy CM3) c 3) ivity tivity(in) (g/cm3) cm (g/cgcm3) (/m (mis) (mts) (mlSO-)

TS34TS33TS32TS3 ITS30TS29TS28TS27TS26TS26-2TS25TS24TS23TS22TS21-2TS2 I -1TS20TS19TS18

TS17TS16TSISTS 14TSI3TS12TSI ITS10TS9TS8TS7TS6TS5TS4TS3TS2TSI

tul

tultultultultultultultultultultultu1tultultultultultultultultmntmntmntmntmntmntiltiltiltiltltiltiltiltiltil

205.9 2.11207.9 2.15210.8 2.09212.4 2.19

215.2 2.17215.2 2.2321-.9 2.24219.5 2.24221.1 2.28223.1 2.17223.1 2.18225.9 2.21228.0 2.08229.8 2.26232.4 2.32235.0 2.31235.0 2.26237.1 2.32239.9 2.36242.9 2.34245.7 2.35246.7 2.21249.2 2.21252.4 2.22255.1 2.22257.9 2.28263.3 2.31265.9 2.36267.9 2.36275.2 2.35281.5 2.35a85.6 2.34289.9 2.36293.8 2.32301.4 2.34303.7 2.35314.6 2.29

0.152 2.480.162 2.570.156 2.480.120 2.490.129 2.490.104 2.490.099 2.490.100 2.49

0.085 2.490.129 2.490.124 2.490.113 2.490.167 2.500.082 2.460.065 2.480.077 2.500.096 2.500.066 2.480.058 2.500.058 2.480.064 2.510.105 2.470.109 2.480.095 2.460.102 2.480.095 2.520.070 2.490.049 2.480.059 2.500.075 2.540.089 2.580.092 2.580.078 2.560.063 2.480.066 2.500.062 2.500.035 2.37

2.092.142.072.182.142.212.232.222.262.162.i'2.192.062.232.292.262.222.292.312.312.322.202.202.212.212.262.282.3'2.342.322.322. 12.342.302.322.332.24

0.156 2.480.165 2.560.160 2.470.124 2.490.133 2.470.108 2.480.103 2.480.104 2.480.089 2.480.131 2.480.126 2.480.115 2.470.170 2.480.092 2.450.069 2.460.083 2.470.100 2.470.072 2.470.063 2.470.064 2.460.068 2.500.107 2.460.110 2.470.101 2.450.107 2.470.099 2.510.073 2.460.055 2.470.064 2.500.077 2.510.092 2.560.096 2.560.083 2.550.072 2.480.070 2.500.067 2.500.064 2.39

2.9E- I 04.8E-103.5E-10

4.1E-12 2.6E-068.0E-I I1.8E-I I

5.5E-13 3.7E-061.4E- II5.6E-12

3.2E-1 I 3.6E-06.OE-11

3.1E-II6.5E- 104.5E-121.5E-123.3E-12l.I E- II1.6E-128.9E- 139.2E-131.4E-121.8E-II

2.4E-1 IIl.OE- II1.5E-I II.OE- II2.OE- 125.OE-139.5E-132.8E-12

6.8E-128.2E-123.4E-121.3E-121.6E-121.2E-121.8E-13

APPENDIX 1: DATA OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND FLOW PROPERTIES FOR EIGHT OUTCROP TRANSECTS 25

Table 1-2. Busted Butte vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples

Transect Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Saturated

Sample Uthoelgy distance Dry bulk Poros Particle Dry bulk Parteti hydraulic(in) density (cm 3lcm3) density density (crocmy (glcm3) (mMtisdni

(g/cm3) (glcm 3) (9/cm3) rci) (ts

BB1OIBB 100

BB102

BB99

BB98

BB97

BB96

BB9S

BB94

BB93

BB92

BB91

BB90

BB89

BB88

BB87

BB86

BB85

BB84

BB83

BB82

BB81

BB80

BB79

BB78

BB77

BB76

BB75

BB74

BB73

BB72

BB71

BB70

BB69

BB68

BB67

BB66

BB65

BB64

BB63

BB60

BBS9

tntntc, vitric

tc, vitrictc, vitrictcIC

Irtr

tr

tr

tr

tultultultul

tul

tul

tul

tultultul

tul

tul

tul

tul

tultultultultul

tul

tultul

tmntmntmntmntmntmn

til

til

173.4172.8

171.9

171.9

171.0

169.5167.9

166.1

164.9

162.8

160.3

158.5

154.8

153.0

151.5

150.0

148.4

146.3

144.8

141.1

139.0

137.5

133.2

131.4

130.1

129.2

126.8

125.9

124.4

122.5

121.3

119.2

116.7

99.4

96.3

95.1

90.2

86.9

84.4

81.4

71.068.6

1.98

1.67

2.36

2.32

2.30

2.162.16

2.11

2.02

2.18

2.14

2.02

2.22

2.12

2.19

2.10

2.26

2.25

2.09

2.22

2.24

2.20

2.38

2.22

2.13

2.15

2.16

2.29

2.33

2.25

2.292.33

2.34

2.34

2.34

2.30

2.23

2.02

2.05

2.24

2.25

2.36

0.1740.304

0.045

0.042

0.046

0.132

0.135

0.139

0.170

0.123

0.118

0.181

0.092

0.131

0.098

0.151

0.077

0.080

0.1510.096

0.095

0.105

0.050

0.106

0.144

0.140

0.130

0.068

0.0760.104

0.086

0.065

0.057

0.063

0.063

0.085

0.078

0.172

0.177

0.064

0.067

0.051

2.402.40

2.47

2A2

2AI2.48

2.50

2.46

2.43

2.49

2.42

2.47

2.44

2.44

2.43

2.47

2.44

2.44

2.46

2.46

2.48

2.46

2.50

2A8

2.49

2.50

2.48

2.46

2.52

2.51

2.51

2.492.48

2.49

2.49

2.51

2.42

2.44

2.49

2.39

2.42

2.49

1.96

1.66

2.35

2.32

2.29

2.15

2.15

2.11

2.02

2.18

2.14

2.02

2.21

2.12

2.192.09

2.25

2.24

2.08

2.21

2.24

2.20

2.38

2.22

2.122.14

2.15

2.29

2.32

2.25

2.292.32

2.33

2.33

2.33

2.29

2.23

2.02

2.042.23

2.25

2.35

0.1960.3090.049

0.045

0.049

0.1360.142

0.140

0.170

0.124

0.119

0.181

0.096

0.135

0.104

0.155

0.084

0.084

0.161

0.101

0.099

0.111

0.053

0.111

0.1520.147

0.137

0.076

0.085

0.107

0.090

0.0700.064

0.067

0.070

0.091

0.083

0.175

0.180

0.0730.072

0.060

2.432.40

2A7

2.43

2.41

2.49

2.51

2.46

2.43

2.49

2.42

2.47

2.45

2.45

2.44

2.48

2.45

2.45

2.48

2.46

2.49

2.47

2.51

2.49

2.50

2.51

2.50

2.47

2.54

2.52

2.51

2.50

2.49

2.50

2.50

2.52

2.43

2.45

2.49

2.402.42

2.50

4.2kh-11L6.51E-09

1.7E-09

2.6E-10

2.9E-08

8.2E-10

1.6E-10

5.4E-12

1.8E-12

3.2E-12

26 Physical and Hydrologic Propertles of Rock Outcrop Samples at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Table 1-2. Busted Butte vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples--Continued

Transact Relative-humidity oven dried I 050C ovenl dried Saturated

SaDl Ltogy distance Dry bulk Pooiy Particle Dry bulk Poo~ Particle hydraulicM) density (cm3Icm 3) density density (CM3ICM3) density codUtvt(i) (gfCM 3) (glcm3) (g/cm3 (glCM3) m5

BB58

BB57BB56BB55BB54

BB53

BB52BB51

BB50

BB49

BB48BB47BB46BB45BB44BB43BB42BB41CBB40BB39BB38BB37BB36BB35BB34BB33BB32BB31IBB30BB29BB28BB27BB26BB25BB24BB23BB22A

BB22

BB21BB20

BB 19

BB 18

tII

til

tIItII

tII

tIItil111

III

tII'II

IlltiltII(II

tII

tIItiltIItIl

tII

III

IIIdildiltII

IIIl

IIlIIIIlldiltIItilIIItImtMtintm

tmtim

tm

tm

66.464.962.8

60.7

59.7

57.0

55.5

53.650.6

48.2

46.3

'1.8

42.7

40.5

38.7

37.5

36.6

35-4

34.4

33.5

32.6

32.0

31.1

31.1

30.229.3

28.0

26.8

25.3

24.4

23.2

22.6

21.6

21.0

20.1

19.5

18.618.6

18.017.4

16.5

15.8

2.30

2.35

2.34

2.33

2.26

2.32

2.34

2.32

2.33

2.352.072.332.322.18

2.35

2.322.322.33

2.282.281.992.20

2.322.32

2.282.322.33

2.35

2.36

2.34

1.98

2.30

2.34

2.08

2.34

2.34

2.34

2.34

2.312.35

2.19

2.36

0.072

0.068

0.066

0.060

0.090

0.061

0.023

0.059

0.065

0.077

0.170

0.078

0.064

0.1230.057

0.064

0.062

0.057

0.054

0.078

0.203

0.116

0.074

0.068

0.1020.068

0.08A

0.091'

0.080

0.073

0.207

0.061

0.076

0.167

0.091

0.088

0.068

0.067

0.0680.066

0.132

0.086

2.48

2.52

2.50

2.47

2.49

2.47

2.40

2.47

2AJ9

2.552.502.532.482.48

2.49

2.472.48

2.47

2.41

2.48

2.50

2.49

2.50

2.49

2.54

2.49

2.55

2.59

2.57

2.52

2.50

2. 52.53

2.49

2.57

2.57

2.51

2.51

2.472.52

2.52

2.59

2.30

2.34

2.33

2.32

2.26

2.31

2.34

2.32

2.33

2.35

2.07

2.322.322.17

2.34

2.302.32

2.32

2.28

2.27

1.99

2.19

2.31

2.32

2.272.31

2.33

2.35

2.36

2.33

1.98

2.29

2.33

2.08

2.34

2.34

2.34

2.33

2.302.35

2.19

2.36

0.076

0.073

0.073

0.064

0.095

0.067

0.029

0.066

0.072

0.078

0.173

0.086

0.069

0.129

0.067

0.075

0.069

0.068

0.058

0.088

0.204

0.127

0.083

0.073

0.110

0.075

0.088

0.095

0.086

0.083

0.207

0.069

0.083

0.168

0.096

0.091

0.074

0.078

0.0730.070

0.133

0.090

2.49

2.53

2.51

2.48

2.49

2.48

2.41

2.48

2.51

2.55

2.50

2.54

2.49

2.50

2.51

2.49

2.49

2.49

2.42

2.49

2.50

2.50

2.52

2.50

2.55

2.502.55

2.59

2.58

2.54

2.50

2.46

2.54

2.50

2.58

2.57

2.52

2.53

2.482.52

2.52

2.59

4.OE-13

1.2E-10

4.5E-13


Table 1-2. Busted Butte vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples--Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried 105CC oven dried SaturatedSample - hyTranuect

Sapl Lithology distance Dry bulk Porosity Particle Dry bulk Porosity Pargticl conductivityiD )(m; density (cm3/cm3) density density (cm3/cm3) density

BB17 tm 15.5 2.38 0.074 2.58 2.38 0.077 2.58

BB16 tm 14.6 2.37 0.073 2.55 2.36 0.074 2.55

BB1S tin 13.7 2.37 0.069 2.55 2.37 0.074 2.55

BB14 tIn 12.8 2.31 0.101 2.57 2.30 0.103 2.57

BB13A tm 12.2 2.34 0.092 2.58 2.34 0.096 2.59

BB13 tm 12.2 2.34 0.063 2.50 2.34 0.063 2.50

BB12 tm 11.6 2.33 0.096 2.58 2.33 0.096 2.58

BBI trn 11.0 2.21 0.101 2.46 2.21 0.104 2.47

BBIO Im 10.4 2.39 0.078 2.59 2.38 0.080 2.59

BB9 Iv 9.4 2.34 0.017 2.38 2.33 0.024 2.39

BB8 Iv 9.1 2.35 0.012 2.38 2.35 0.019 2.39

BB7 cv 6.1 2.35 0.012 2.37 2.34 0.018 2.38

BB6 tv 4.6 2.35 0.010 2.37 2.34 0.017 38

BB5 tv 3.4 2.34 0.014 2.37 2.34 0.020 a.38

BB4 Iv 1.8 2.28 0.014 2.31 2.27 0.021 2.32

BB3 tv 0.9 2.36 0.010 2.38 2.35 0.016 2.39

BB2 tv 0.0 2.30 0.012 2.33 2.30 0.017 2.34

BBI Iv 0.0 2.35 0.014 2.38 2.34 0.017 2.38


Table 1-3. Yucca Wash vertical transect physical properties, cry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 105 0C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations in table 3.

Relative-humidity oven dried 105°C oven dried Measured Estimated

Sample Ltho- distance Dry Porosity Paritcle, Dry Porosy Particle hydraulc hydraulkID bogy (m) bulk (cm3/ density buk (cm3) dg/cm3 u hondauticty

density CM') (g/CMn) (dcint CM3) (WCM 3) (mVIt)(glCin') tgC3(ISit (mnfs)

UPR-117 ccr

UPR-116 ccr

UPR-ll5 ccr

UPR-114 ccr

UPR-113 ccr

UPR-112 ccr

UPR-11 ccr

UPR-110 ccr

UPR-109 ccr

UPR-108 ccr

UPR-107 ccr

UPR-106 ccr

UPR-105 ccr

UPR-104 cl

UPR-103 cl

UPR-102 cc

UPR-101 cc

UPR-100 cc

UPR-99 cc

UPR-9S cc

UPR-97 cc

UPR-96 cc

UPR-95 cc

UPR-94 cc

UPR-93 ccb

UPR-92 ccb

UPR-91 ccb

UPR-90 ccb

UPR-89 ccb

UPR-88 ccb

UPR-87 ccb

UPR-86 ccb

UPR-85 ccb

UPR-84 ccb

UPR-83 ccb

UPR-82 ccb

UPR-81 bt

UPR-80 bt

UPR-79 bt

UPR-78A bt

UPR-78B bt

0.0

1.4

2.6

3.5

3.7

4.1

4.4

6.6

8.2

10.5

11.7

13.1

15.2

20.7

22.9

25.3

27.4

30.8

32.5

33.5

35.1

36.6

38.3

39.3

40.7

42.2

43.744.7

46.246.948.250.7

51.853.9

55.5

56.156.7

57.3

57.6

58.558.5

2.13

2.13

2.04

2.23

2.18

1.89

1.89

1.73

1.70

1.86

1.911.82

1.91

2.35

2.35

2.30

2.21

2.08

2.10

2.18

2.21

2.25

2.13

2.16

1.68

1.41

1.35

1.37

1.221.22

1.26

1.28

1.27

1.33

1.15

1.24

1.03

1.34

0.93

0.88

0.88

0.174

0.171

0.190

0.115

0.156

0.2780.278

0.309

0.337

0.280

0.271

0.302

0.271

0.075

0.076

0.051

0.0430.150

0.139

0.125

0.115

0.101

0.125

0.1370.322

0.435

0.459

0.4560.496

0.5120.489

0.426

0.445

0.419

0.496

0.462

0.545

0.436

0.592

0.616

0.611

2.57

2.57

2.52

2.52

2.58

2.61

2.62

2.50

2.56

2.58

2.62

2.60

2.62

2.54

2.54

2.42

2.30

2.45

2.44

2.49

2 r ,

2.50

2.43

2.50

2.48

2.50

2.50

2.512.422.49

2.48

2.23

2.28

2.30

2.29

2.30

2.27

2.37

2.28

2.29

2.27

2.12

2.13

2.04

2.22

2.15

1.88

1.89

1.73

1.69

1.86

1.91

1.81

1.91

2.34

2.34

2.28

2.19

2.08

2.10

2.17

2.21

2.24

2.13

2.15

1.67

1.41

1.34

1.36

1.211.20

1.261.21

1.25

1.31

1.13

1.22

1.01

1.280.84

0.83

0.83

0.183

0.175

0.1950.124

0.185

0.282

0.279

0.312

0.342

0.284

0.273

0.304

0.273

0.080

0.081

0.069

0.053

0.152

0.146

0.128

0.11',

0.105

0.128

0.141

0.329

0.439

0.469

0.462

0.5050.5260.4970.494

0.461

0.440

0.518OA86

0.5730.491

0.684

0.664

0.654

2.59 4.2E-09

2.58 7.6E-10

2.53 2.7E-09

2.54 :.2E-09

2.64 6.0E-09

2.62 6.7E-08

2.63 1.8E-08

2.51 7.1E-10

2.57 2.2E-07

2.59 I.IE-08

2.62 1.IE-08

2.61 3.7E-08

2.62 3.AE-0

2.55

2.55

2.45

2.32

2.45 6.8E-10

2.45 1.2E-10

2.49 2.7E-10

2.50 1.3E-10

2.51

2.44 5.2E-10

2.50 5.IE-10

2.49 2.4E-07

2.51 8.4E-07

2.53 6.4E-07

2.53 3.8E-07

2.45 9.2E-072.54 1.4E-06

2.50 5.5E-07

2.40 2.8E-082.32 5.8E-062.35 3.7E-06

2.34 I.IE-05

2.37 1.7E-05

2.36 I.IE-05

2.51 6.6E-07

2.65 9.9E-07

2.47 3.3E-04

2.40 3.3E-04

2.5E-1 I

2.6E-I I

9.8E-12

7.11E-12

6.6E-11


Table 1-3. Yucca Wash vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations in table 3.--Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried 1051C oven dried Measured Estimated

ansect D saturated saturatedSample Utho- distance bulk rsiy atil Dry Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulic

Sapl ftogy Tra bul Porosit Paten bulk (cm3I dons~t conduc- cnutvtID logy (in) ~~density (c 3 dniy densitycndctvii

(9c3) cm)3 gCM3)lc3 (gC3 cm,) (gfCm) ii (mls)(gfcm ~ ~ ~ 91m)(mls)

UPR-77 btUPR-76 ymn

UPR-75 ymr!

UPR-74 ymnl

UPR-73 ymnl

UPR-72 ymnl

UPR-71 ymnl

UPR-70 ymnl

UPR-69 ymnl

UPR-68 ymnl

UPR-67 ymnl

UPR-66 ymnlUPR-65 ymnl

UPR-64 ymlUPR-63 ymlUPR-62 ymlUPR-61 yinm

UPR-60 yinl

UPR-59 yml

UPR-58 ymnl

UPR-57 yml

UPR-56 ymlUPR-55 ymlUPR-54 ymlUPR-53 ymw

UPR-52 ymw

UPR-51 ymw

UPR-50 ymw

UPR-49 ymn

UPR-48 ymn

UPR-47 ymn

UPR-46 bt

UPR-45 btUPR-44 bt

UPR-43 bt

UPR-42 bt

UPR-41 bt

UPR-40 rz

UPR-39B z

UPR-39A pcnUPR-38 pen

59.3

60.2

61.1

62.6

62.6

63.6

65.2

66.3

67.5

69.6

71.0

73.0

76.4

80.3

83.4

83.484.3

85.5

87.3

89.0

91.0

92.5

93.7

95.1

96.0

98.3

99.2

100.7

103.0104.7

105.6

106.1

107.0

107.7

108.7

109.3

109.7

121.5

129.8

129.8

135.9

0.861.14

1.31

1.45

1.45

1.73

1.77

1.88

1.98

2.08

2.20

2.23

2.31

2.33

2.28

2.34

2.31

2.34

2.30

2.30

2.31

2.31

2.312.28

2.33

2.33

2.34

2.34

1.831.40

1.38

1.57

IA1

1.13

1.48

1.42

1.35

1.38

1.44

1.55

1.05

0.6110.483

0.410

0.314

0.326

0.217

0.283

0.235

0.185

0.166

0.106

0.079

0.052

0.061

0.072

0.057

0.068

0.057

0.078

0.072

0.072

0.065

0.0710.069

0.062

0.053.

0.054

0.055

0.165

0.374

0.401

0.331

0.393

0.510

0.360

0.376

0.413

0.401

0.383

0.341

0.550

2.20

2.21

2.22

2.12

2.15

2.21

2.47

2.45

2.43

2.49

2.46

2.42

2.43

2.48

2.46

2.48

2.48

2.48

2.49

2.48

2.49

2.47

2.49

2.45

2.48

2.46

2.48

2.47

2.20

2 242.30

2.35

2.32

2.31

2.31

2.28

2.30

2.31

2.33

2.35

2.34

0.83

1.13

1.30

1.44

1.44

1.72

1.77

1.88

1.98

2.07

2.19

2.22

2.30

2.32

2.28

2.332.31

2.33

2.30

2.29

2.31

2.30

2.30

2.27

2.32

2.33

2.33

2.33

1.78

1.37

1.29

1.53

1.38

1.11

1.44

1.41

1.33

1.37

1.42

1.491.03

0.6420.501

0.422

0.338

0.326

0.223

0.287

0.236

0.188

0.169

0.119

0.086

0.055

0.066

0.071

0.064

0.071

0.063

0.081

0.076

0.075

0.072

0.079

0.074

0.066

0.0580.064

0.059

0.2160.402

0.491

0.371

0.424

0.528

0.398

0.395

0.435

0.412

0.401

0.400

0.573

2.31 1.4E-042.26 1.IE-05

2.25 1.8E-06

2.18 4.OE-07

2.13 4.OE-07

2.22 7.OE-09

2.48 4.9E-08

2.46 1.9E-082.44 6.8E-09

2.49 2.3E-09

2.48

2.43

2.44

2.49

2.46

2.49

2.48

2.49

2.50

2.48

2.50

2.48

2.502.46

2.49

2.47

2.49

2.48

2.28

2.30 3.6E-07

2.53 2.6E-06

2.43 6.4E-06

2.39 2.4E-072.36 3.9E-06

2.39 2.4E-06

2.32 1.IE-062.36 I.IE-06

2.34 I.IE-06

2.37 1.4E-12

2.48 2.5E-06

2.41 2.3E-06

7.8E-1 I

2.9E-I I

1.OE-II1.5E- ll

2.2E- II

1.3E-111.9E-1I

1.3E-11

2.8E-11

2.2E-11

2.2E-1I

1.7E-II

2.1E-11

2.OE-1l1.5E-II

l.1E-11l

1I.E-11

1.2E-lI

6.3E-10


Table 1-3. Yucca Wash vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1 050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations in table 3.--Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried 105°C oven dried Measured EstimatedTransact ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~saturated sauteSample Litho- distance lDry Porosity Particle Dry Porosity Particle hydraulic hydraulic

ID lowy bulk (cm3I density buk (Cm 3I density codc conductivityIDy (m) density cm3) ( dcms) ( itcmy cm3 ) ( 31cm') tivity c ucis)

UPR-37 pen 138.4 1.17 0.504 2.35 1.14 0.528 2.42 1.8E-06UPR-36 pcn 140.5 1.16 0.504 2.34 1.11 0.557 2.51 1.9E-06UPR-35 pcn 142.3 1.18 0.498 2.34 1.15 0.523 2.41 2.SE-06UPR-34 pcn 144.3 1.22 0.480 2.34 1.19 0.505 2.41 9.SE-07UPR-33 pcn 145.5 1.24 0.474 2.35 1.19 0.521 2.48 3.8E-07UPR-32 pcn 147.4 1.24 0.468 2.34 1.22 0.491 2.40 2.OE-07UPR-31 pcn 149.5 1.20 0.485 2.33 1.18 0.505 2.38 2.4E107UPR-30 pcn 151.0 1.15 0.503 2.32 1.13 0.531 2.40 5.3E-07UPR-29 pcn 152.6 1.30 0.433 2.30 1.27 0.462 2.37 6.3E-09UPR-28 pcn 154.4 1.51 0.379 2.42 1.49 0.394 2.46 6.3E-09UPR-27 pcpw 156.1 1.53 0.389 2.50 1.52 0.398 2.53 2.1E-07UPR-26 pcpw 157.9 1.66 0.341 2.52 1.65 0.354 2.55 3.1E-08UPR-25 pcpw 160.0 1.73 0.313 2.51 1.72 0.322 2.53 3.2E-08UPR-24 pcpw 162.9 1.90 0.240 2.50 1.89 0.250 2.52 3.9E-09UPR-23 pcpw 164.3 2.03 0.196 2.52 2.01 0.210 2.55 7.3E-llUPR-22 pcpw 165.8 1.93 0.235 2.52 1.92 0.242 2.54 1.7E-08UPR-21 pcpw 167.3 1.85 0.270 2.54 1.85 0.275 2.55 2.6E-08UPR-20 pcpw 169.5 1.88 0.256 2.53 1.86 0.272 2.56 1.9E-09UPR-19 pcpw 170.5 1.83 0.272 2.51 1.81 0.291 2.55 7.5E-09UPR-18 pcpw 172.2 1.83 0.265 2.49 1.80 0.290 2.54 8.0E-09UPR-I/ pcpw 173.1 1.92 0.232 2.50 1.88 0.267 2.57 1.9E-09UPR-16 pcpw 174.0 1.90 0.240 2.49 1.86 0.272 2.56 1.2E-09UPR-15 pcpw 180.4 2.17 0.123 2.48 2.11 0.182 2.59 7.OE-IIUPR-14 pcpw 185.2 1.90 0.265 2.58 1.89 0.279 2.62 2.1E-09UPR-13 pcpw 187.6 1.94 0.225 2.50 1.93 0.234 2.52 2.9E-10UPR-12 pcpw 188.7 1.97 0.201 2.47 1.93 0.237 2.54 6.OE-IIUPR-II pcpw 190.0 1.81 0.239 2.38 1.76 0.297 2.50 1.2E-10UPR-10 pcn 193.2 1.58 0.288 2.22 1.49 0.372 2.38 1.5E-10UPR-9 pcn 199.0 1.60 0.266 2.17 1.50 0.357 2.34 5.OE-11UPR-8 pcn 200.4 1.63 0.237 2.13 1.53 0.334 2.30 1.OE-10UPR-7 pcn 201.9 1.41 0.367 2.24 1.33 0.455 2.43 1.4E-09UPR-6 pen 203.5 1.39 0.382 2.25 1.31 0.463 2.44 6.6E-10UPR-5 pen 210.2 1.31 0.414 2.24 1.23 0.494 2.44 1.IE-09UPR-4 tn 210.8 1.41 0.365 2.23 1.33 0.448 2A1 3.4E-06UPR-3 in 211.7 1.66 0.359 2.59 1.64 0.376 2.64 6.9E-07UPR-2 tc 212.8 2.30 0.026 2.36 2.38 0.033 2.46 1.SE-10UPR-1 tc 212.4 2.40 0.013 2.43 2.46 0.021 2.51 2.9E-10CRT-7 tn 212.0 1.66 0.230 2.16 1.58 0.316 2.31 1.OE-07CRT-6 In 212.1 1.68 0.233 2.19 1.61 0.310 2.33 2.9E-08CRT-5 tn 212.1 1.93 0.139 2.24 1.83 0.237 2.40 4.8E-11CRT-3 tc 213.1 2.41 0.007 2.43 2.40 0.021 2.45 4.4E-10


Table 1-3. Yucca Wash vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1 051C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments. Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity done using regression equations in table 3.-Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Measured EsSmatedTransect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~saturated saturated

Sample Litho- Trntsnct Dry Porosity Particle Dry Porosity particle hydraulic hydraulicID logy distance bulk (cm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l denal bulk (CM31 done conduc- conductivity~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(c3I des~y cmI en~tID logym3 cm3, (9/cmt (gtomnm(in) density CM dedity 3onductvIty

(glc 3)cm) (g/cm2 (gtcm3) Cm) WScm) 1 (mis)

CRT-2 tc 213.1 2.43 0.066 2.60 2.43 0.070 2.61 2.6E-10

CRT-I tc 216.6 2.36 0.075 2.55 2.36 0.079 2.56 5.3E-10

LPR-32 tc 216.6 2.49 0.013 2.53 2.49 0.017 2.53 3.8E-09

LPR-31 cc 217.0 2.39 0.069 2.57 2.39 0.074 2.58 3.2E-10

LPR-30 tr 219.5 2.30 0.082 2.50 2.29 0.086 2.51 4.0E-10

LPR-29 tr 222.4 2.32 0.089 2.54 2.31 0.092 2.55 4.1E-09

LPR-28 tr 224.6 2.32 0.05 2.45 2.31 0.09 2.54 9.5E-12

LPR-27 tul 227.7 2.1 0.15 2.47 2.09 0.19 2.58 3.8E-10

LPR-26 tul 231.6 2.29 0.078 2.48 2.28 0.081 2.48 2.8E-II

LPR-25 tmn 233.3 2.24 0.099 2.48 2.22 0.112 2.51 7.7E-II

LPR-24 tmn 236.4 2.26 0.089 2.50 2.24 0.107 2.51 2.8E-12

LPR-23 tmn 237.9 2.24 0.099 2.48 2.23 0.105 2.49 I.OE-12

LPR-22 tmn 239.7 2.26 0.089 2.48 2.26 0.091 2.49 4.2E-1 I

LPR-21 tlt 241.6 2.23 0.080 2.43 2.21 0.102 2.46 3.1E-11

LPR-19 til 247.3 2.31 0.067 2.47 230 0.070 2.48 1.9E-II

LPR-18 til 248.9 2.32 0.062 2.47 2.32 0.066 2A8 1.5E-II

LPR-17 till 251.5 2.38 0.044 2.49 2.37 0.056 2.51 7.5E-12

LPR-16 IlI 254.1 2.40 0.028 2.47 2.40 0.035 2.48 4.0E-12

LPR-15 tv 256.8 2.42 0.023 2.48 2.41 0.032 2.49 IAE-10

LPR-10 tv 267.0 2.34 0.011 2.37 2.33 0.019 2.38 3.5E-11

LPR-7 Iv 273.3 2.16 0.055 2.29 2.12 0.099 2.35 2.IE-10

LPR-6A ThI 276.3 1.60 0.232 2.08 1.53 0.314 2.23 7.0E-1I

LPR-6B Tht 276.3 1.64 0.204 2.06 1.52 0.313 2.21 3.SE-10

LPR-5 Tht 279.8 1.62 0.204 2.04 1.53 0.299 2.18 3.9E-10

LPR-4 Tht 284.4 1.53 0.320 2.25 1.45 0.397 2.41 3.OE-10

LPR-3B Tht 286.8 1.50 0.301 2.15 1.40 0.359 2.18 1.OE-10

LPR-3A Tht 286.8 1.45 0.304 2.09 1.43 0.378 2.29 6.5E-II

LPR-2 ThIt 288.6 1.48 0.319 2.17 1.40 0.398 2.33 3.7E-10

LPR-I Tht 290.2 IA2 0.306 2.05 1.34 0.387 2.19 7.1E-11


Table 14. Pagany Wash vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples

Transact Relative-humidity oven dried 105°C oven dried Saturated

Sample LPtolocy distance Dlry bulk Partile Dry bulk P ertice hydraulicID Ltooy dtnc Drbuk Porosity Pril Dyblk Porosity dnty conductivty(in) density (CM3lCM 3) dest dest density

(gIcm3) (glcm3) (g1CM 3) (M1ma) (gWcm2) (mls)

PW20 ccr 0.0 2.30 0.091 2.53 2.30 0.092 2.53 1.2E-09

PWl9 ccr 0.0 2.29 0.095 2.54 2.29 0.097 2.54

PW18 ccr 0.2 2.16 0.155 2.56 2.16 0.156 2.56 3.9E-09

PWI7 ccr 1.5 2.27 0.108 2.55 2.27 0.109 2.55

PWI6 ccr 2.1 2.20 0.128 2.52 2.20 0.129 2.52

PWIS ccr 3.0 2.18 0.132 2.51 2.18 0.134 2.52

PW14 ccr 5.8 1.93 0.238 2.53 1.93 0.239 2.53

PW13 ccr 7.6 1.92 0.243 2.53 1.91 0.246 2.54

PW12 ccr 9.4 1.93 0.245 2.55 1.92 0.246 2.55

PWII ccr 11.0 1.82 0.290 2.56 1.82 0.291 2.56

PW10 ccr 11.9 1.86 0.278 2.58 1.86 0.280 2.58

PW9 ccr 13.4 1.89 0.267 2.57 1.88 0.269 2.58

PW8 ccr 15.2 1.81 0.287 2.54 1.81 0.288 2.55

PW7 ccr 16.9 1.89 0.264 2.57 1.89 0.265 2.57

PW6 cuc 18.6 2.07 0.187 2.54 2.07 0.187 2.55

PWS cuc 19.5 1.97 0.227 2.55 1.97 0.228 2.55

PW4 cuc 21.0 2.05 0.197 2.55 2.05 0.198 2.55

PW3 cuc 22.1 2.03 0.198 2.53 2.03 0.199 2.53

PW2 cul 23.5 2.13 0.156 2.52 2.13 0.157 2.52

PWI cul 25.0 2.13 0.157 2.52 2.12 0.159 2.52


Table 1-5. Calico Hills Formation vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculatedusing relative humidity oven and 1 05°C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculate. .romimbibition experiments on relative-humidity-dried samples

Relative-t

Sampbe Litho- Transect DrySampe oy distance bulk

(M) density(glcm3)

iumidily oven dried 105°C oven dried

CH64 Thtz

CH63 Thtz

CH62 Thtz

CH61 Thtz

CH59G Thtz

CH59R* Thtz

CH58 Thtz

CH57 Thtz

CH56 Thtz

CH55 Thtz

CH54 Thtz

1HS3 Thtz

CH52 Thtz

CH5I Thtz

CHSO Thtz

CH49 Thtz

CH48 Thtz

CH47 Thtz

CH46 Thtz

CH45 Thtz

CH44 Thtz

CH43 Thtz

CH42 Thez

CH41 ThtzCH40 Thtz

CH39 ThtzCH38 ThtzCH37 ThtzCH36 ThtzCH35 ThtzCH34 ThtzCH35A ThtzCH33 ThtzCH32 Thtz

CH31B Thtz

CH31A Thtz

CH30 ThtzCH29 Thtz

CH28 Thtz

CH27 Thtz

CH26 ThtzCH25 Thtz

0.0

1.8

2.7

4.6

7.9

7.99.3

10.7

11.9

13.6

15.1

16.9

18.3

19.x

22.3

23.8

25.0

26.427.9

29.6

30.8

32.3

33.534.936.4

37.9

39.340.8

42.4

43.9

44.844.8

46.548.049.7

49.7

51.2

52.7

55.5

57.8

59.160.4

2.11

1.94

1.99

1.801.61

1.60

1.71

1.51

1.68

1.62

1.42

1.56

1.59t.66

1.60

1.71

1.74

1.721.77

1.74

1.671.54

1.62

1.581.56

1.631.611.75

1.77

1.72

1.73

1.76

1.781.72

1.651.78

1.841.58

1.39

1.501.541.49

Porosity Particle(cm3 i densitycm3) (g/cm3 )

0.104 2.35

0.137 2.25

0.083 2.17

0.158 2.14

0.215 2.05

0.231 2.08

0.181 2.09

0.285 2.1l

0.215 2.14

0.263 2.20

0.308 2.05

0.278 2.15

0.267 2.16

0.254 2.23

0.278 2.22

0.230 2.22

0.217 2.23

0.231 2.23

0.203 2.22

0.216 2.22

0.223 2.15

0.303 2.21

0.260 2.19

0.291 2.22

0.294 2.21

0.277 2.26

0.280 2.23

0.213 2.22

0.213 2.25

0.223 2.2i

0.218 2.22

0.217 2.25

0.211 2.25

0.229 2.24

0.255 2.22

0.211 2.25

0.206 2.32

0.275 2.18

0.371 2.22

0.305 2.16

0.281 2.13

0.302 2.14

Dry bulkdensity(gIcm

3 )

2.09

1.87

1.89

1.71

1.52

1.51

1.62

1.43

1.591.53

1.35

1.47

1.50

1.59

1.521.631.66

1.63

1.69

1.651.591.46

1.55

1.511.50

1.581.54

1.66

1.69

1.64

1.65

1.66

1.70

1.65

1.581.71

1.80

1,531.34

1.44

1.48

1.43

Porosity(cm

31

cm3)

0.126

0.201

0.178

0.249

0.302

0.317

0.269

0.366

0.300

0.351

0.380

0.360

0.353

0.324

0.355

0.314

0.304

0.313

0.286

0.300

0.3020.380

0.334

0.3620.3540.3320.3410.3010.294

0.301

0.298

0.3110.291

0.308

0.329

0.2810.251

0.3320.425

0.362

0.3390.359

Saturatedhydraulic RH-dried

Particle conduc- sorptivitydensity tivity (m/s's5)(gwcm 3 ) (mIs)

2.39

2.34

2.30

2.28

2.18

2.21

2.22

2.25

2.28

2.362.17

2.30

2.32

2.36

2.36

2.37

2.382.38 2.9E-II

2.37

2.362.28 8.4E- II

2.36

2.33

2.362.32 2.1E-10

2.362.342.372.392.34

2.36

2.412.39 4.6E-122.38 1.4E-0S

2.352.38

2.40

2.29

2.33

2.262.23

2.24 3.1E-05

34 Physical and Hydrologic Propertles ot Rock Outtrop Samples at Yucca Mountain, Nevada

Table 1-5. Calico Hills Formation vertical transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculatedusing relative humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated fromimbibition experiments on relative-humidity-dried samples--Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Saturated

Sample Litho- Trnat Dyhydraulic RH-drieddistance Dry Porosity Particle Dry bulk Porosity Particle conduc- sorptivity

ID logy (m) deybulk (cm3 i density density (cm 3/ density tivity (mnsOs5)ID logy (in) ~~~density 3 ) (IM) 3

(g/cm3) cm3 ) (gfcm3) {gicm3 ) cm3) (glcm3 ) (mis)

CH24 Thtz 61.6 1.48 0.307 2.14 1.42 0.370 2.25

CH23 Thtz 63.1 1.42 0.327 2.10 1.35 0.392 2.22

CH22 Thtz 64.9 1.54 0.305 2.22 1.48 0.368 2.34

CH21 Thtz 65.8 1.43 0.317 2.10 1.38 0.374 2.20 I.4E-05

CH20 Thtz 66.8 1.42 0.356 2.20 1.36 0.413 2.31

CHI19 Thtz 68.0 1.37 0.382 2.22 1.32 0.432 2.32

CH18 Thtz 69.6 1.43 0.314 2.09 1.37 0.375 2.19 2.1E-05

CH17 Thtz 71.0 1.52 0.301 2.17 1.46 0.362 2.28

CH16 Thtz 72.5 1.56 0.293 2.21 1.50 0.356 2.33

CH15 Thtz 74.2 1.50 0.304 2.15 1.44 0.365 2.26

CH14 Thtz 75.6 1.44 0.371 2.29 1.38 0.430 2.42

CH13 Thtz 75.7 1.57 0.293 2.22 1.51 0.357 2.34

CH12 Thtz 77.1 1.75 0.222 2.25 1.69 0.287 2.37

CHII Thtz 78.6 1.54 0.312 2.23 1.48 0.371 2.35

CHI0 Thtz 80.2 1.47 0.339 2.23 1.42 0.392 2.34

CH9 Thtz 81.4 1.50 0.323 2.21 1.44 0.381 2.33

CH8 Thtz 83.8 1.55 0.303 2.22 1.49 0.362 2.34

CH7 Thtz 86.0 1.61 0.304 2.31 1.55 0.363 2.44

CH6 Thtz 87.5 1.67 0.257 2.25 1.61 0.317 2.36

CH5 Thtz 89.0 1.62 0.296 2.30 1.57 0.347 2.41

CH4 Thtz 93.6 1.93 0.189 2.38 1.88 0.239 2.47 1.IE-I0 1.2E-05

CH3 Thtz 94.8 1.90 0.203 2.38 1.86 0.241 2.45

CH2 pp 99.1 1.61 0.370 2.55 1.60 0.372 2.56

CHI pp 101.5 2.24 0.121 2.55 2.24 0.123 2.55

R specifies red alteration of sample, which is about 2 cm above the sample with green alteration, G.


Table 1-6. Yucca Crest horizontal transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated using

relative-humidity oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivity calculated from imbibitionexperiments on relative-humidity-dried samples

Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried SaturatedTransect

ID Lithology distance Dry bulk p Particle Dry bulk Porosity Particle hydraullcSample m(i) density {cm3/cm3) pensi t density (CM3/CM3) density coucti

IY1m cuc (g0cm13) (g0CM 3) 2c56 (g1CM 3) (mis0

Iy u 0.0 1.96 0.234 2.56 1.96 0.235 2.56 4.01E-082Y3Y4YSY

6Y7YBY9Y

10yily12Y13Y14Y

15Y16Y17Y1BY19Y

20Y21Y22Y23Y24Y25Y26Y27Y28Y29Y30Y31Y32Y33Y34Y35Y36Y37Y38Y39Y40Y41Y42Y43Y44Y45Y

cuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuccuc

cuecuccuccuc

cuccuccuccuccuccuccuc

cuecuecuccuccuccuccuc

Viecudcudcudcuccudcuccudcudcuccuccel

0.0152.4152.4304.8304.8457.2457.2609.6609.6762.0914.4914.4

1,066.81,219.21,219.21,371.61,371.61,524.01,676.41,828.81,981.22,133.62,286.02,438.42,590.82,743.22,895.63,048.03,200.43,352.83,505.23,657.63,810.03,962.44,114.84,267.24,419.64,572.04,572.04,724.44,724.44,876.84,876.85,029.2

2.211.871.932.042.021.981.952.122.111.911.941.932.241.861.841.941.902.021.892.022.081.891.901.791.741.941.841.991.891.941.941.901.981.821.871.831.951.931.802.021.921.891.871.95

0.1150.2820.2570.1820.1910.2280.2370.1390.1570.2560.2410.2470.1020.2730.2810.2400.2330.2080.2620.2120.1920.2430.2600.3100.3170.2460.2780.2220.2640.2480.2500.2630.1960.3010.2810.2800.2220.249.0.3060.1970.2440.2640.2650.241

2.492.602.602.492.502.562.562.462.50

2.562.56

2.562.492.552.562.562.482.55

2.572.57

2.572.502.572.60

2.552.582.552.562.562.582.592.57

2.472.602.602.542.512.57

2.602.522.542.562.542.57

2.201.87

1.932.03

2.021.98

1.952.112.11

1.901.941.932.231.861.84

1.941.902.02

1.892.022.071.89

1.901.79

1.741.941.841.991.891.941.941.901.981.811.871.831.951.931.802.021.911.881.871.95

0.1230.2840.2570.1860.1930.2290.2380.1390.157

0.2570.2410.2470.105

0.2730.2830.2410.2340.208

0.2630.212

0.1950.2430.2600.311

0.3190.2470.2790.2220.2650.2490.2500.2640.1980.3030.2820.2800.2230.2520.3070.1980.2500.2640.2650.242

2.512.61

2.602.50

2.512.56

2.562.46

2.502.562.562.562.502.552.57

2.562.482.552.572.572.572.502.572.602.552.582.552.562.572.582.592.582.472.602.612.552.512.582.602.522.552.562.542.58

7.7E-09

11.4E-07

I .OE-07

1.4E-07

8.0E-09

3.7E-08

9.8E-08


Table 1-7. Shardy base horizontal transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven-dry weights and saturated hydraulic conductivity

Relative-humidity oven dTransect

Sample ID Llthology distance Dry bulk Porosit(in) density (CM~jM 3)

(fM 3)

Irled Saturatedhydraulic

0+00

I +00

1 +43

2+05

2+45

2+90

3+45

3+65

3+70

3+90

4+20

4+60

5+00

5 + 75

5+90

6+10

6+45

6+70

7+20

7+50

8+40

8+60

8 +85

8+90

9+009 +80

10+00

10 + 20

10+40

10 + 65

11 + 0511 + 25

11 +45

11 + 65

11 + 90

12 + 20

12 + 35

12 + 80

13+00

13+20

13 + 70

13+90

14 + 10

ccbccbccbccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccbccbccb

ccb

ccbccbccb

ccbccbccbccbccb

ccbccbccbccbccbccbccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccbccb

ccb

ccb

ccb

ccbccbccb

ccb

0.0

30.5

43.6

62.5

74.7

88.4

105.2111.3

112.8

118.9

128.0140.2

152.4

175.3

179.8

185.9

196.6

204.2

219.5228.6

256.0

262.1

269.7

271.3

274.3

298.7

304.8

310.9317.0

324.6

336.8

342.9

349.0

355.1

362.7

371.9

376.4

390.1

396.2

402.3417.6

423.7

429.8

1.42

1.571.37

1.32

1.39

1.26

1.36

1.47

1.33

1.51

1.38

1.40

1.33

1.35

1.33

1.39

1.39

1.53

1.27

1.41

1.38

1.32

,.351.41

1.27

1 311.31

1.30

1.53

1.29

1.29

1.29

1.27

1.35

1.471.62

1.76

1.53

1.34

1.30

1.34

1.29

1.37

0.391

0.334

0.412

0.430

0.410

0.452

0.411

0.374

0.428

0.354

0.408

0.397

0.431

0.418

0.432

0.406

0.404

0.355

0.451

0.400

0.409

0.438

0.429

0.409

0.461

0.4270.435

0.443

0.355

0.449

0.449

OA540.459

0.423

0.373

0.313

0.261

0.353

OA290.446

OA320.451

0.417

Particle densIty(grCm3)

2.33

2.35

2.34

2.32

2.35

2.29

2.30

2.35

2.32

2.33

2.32

2.33

2.34

2.33

2.34

2.34

2.332.37

2.31

2.352.34

2.35

2.36

2.38

2.36

2.282.33

2.34

2.37

2.34

2.34

2.352.35

2.34

2.342.37

2.37

2.37

2.35

2.34

2.37

2.34

2.35

conductivity(mS)

1.8E-06

7.3E5-08

5.3E-06

9.3E-06

3.IE5-06

9.01E-06

5.31E-06

2.BE-06

6.9E-06

1.2E-06

9.6E-06

3A4E-06

6.7E-06

8.3E-06

2.7E-06

7.IE-06

2.5E-06

8.4E-07

7.2E-06

3.0E3-06

4.5E-06

8.BE-06

2.3E-06

1.5E-06

5.413-06

5.O1E-068.7E-06

8.7E-06

1.4E-07

3.91E-06

4.91E-06

5.2E-06

2.5E-06

2.3E-06

3.7E-07

2.2E-10

4.IE-07

3.61E-06

2. IE-06

3.2E-06

4.71E-06

4.6E-07


Table 1-7. Shardy base horizontal transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particle density calculated usingrelative-humidity oven-dry weights and saturated hydraulic conductivity--Continued

Relative-humidity oven dried SaturatedTransect hydraulic

Sample ID Lithology distance Dry bulk Porosity Particledensity conductivityIm) density (cm3lcm3 ) (g/cm3) (mts)

14 + 30 ccb 435.9 1.34 0.429 2.34 9.4E-0714 + 50 ccb 442.0 1.44 0.377 2.31 7.3E-0714 + 70 ccb 448.1 1.40 0.400 2.33 4.5E-0614 + 95 ccb 455.7 1.32 0.432 2.33 7.3E-06

15 + 15 ccb 461.8 1.42 0.388 2.32 5.2E-0615 +40 ccb 469.4 1.86 0.222 2.39 4.8E-I115 + 70 ccb 478.5 1.70 0.283 2.37 1.6E-0816+20 ccb 493.8 1 58 0.334 2.37 1.1E-0716 + 40 ccb 499.9 1.53 0.352 2.36 5.2E-0716 + 65 ccb 507.5 1.73 0.348 2.35 1.2E-0716+ 85 ccb 513.6 1.35 0.426 2.36 2.7E-0617 +05 ccb 519.7 1.43 0.393 2.35 4.5E-0617 + 25 ccb 525.8 1.35 0.430 2.36 3.3E-0620 + 85 ccb 635.5 1.35 0.411 2.28 5.3E-0621 +05 ccb 641.6 1.40 0.393 2.30 5.9E-0621 +40 ccb 652.3 1.44 0.391 2.36 3.1E-0721 +75 ccb 662.9 1.32 0.434 2.34 5.4E-0621 +95 ccb 669.0 1.32 0.434 2.33 8.7E-06

22 + 15 ccb 675.1 1.37 0.397 2.28 2.9E-06

22 + 60 cCb 688.8 1.35 0.414 2.31 8.4E-06

22 + 80 ccb 694.9 1.35 0.413 2.30 1.OE-0523 + 00 ccb 701.0 1.32 0.421 2.28 6.5E-06


Table I-8. Topopah Spring Tuff vitric caprock horizontal transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particledensity calculated using relative-humidify oven and 1050C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivitycalculated using imbibition experiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Transect distance is zero at borehole USW-UZ6s,and positive is north.

Samp- Transect Relative-humidity oven dried 1050C oven dried Saturated

ID I distance Dry bulk po it Particle Dry bulk Particle hydraulicIDin/density (cm3 ct 3) density d Porosity densim) (gfcm3 C/M3) (g/cm3) (g/cm3) (CM3/M3 (9/cm3) WmS)

TC46TC45

TC44

TC43

TC42

TC41

TC40

TC39

TC38

TCI

TC2

TC3TC4

TC5

TC6

TC7

TC8

TC9

TCIO

TC1IB

TCIIR

TC12

TCI3

TC13ATC14

TCIS

TC16

TC17

TC18TCI9

TC20

TC21

TC22

TC22A

TC23

TC24

TC25

TC26

TC27

TC28

TC29

IC

tC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

tC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

IC

tC

tC

-247.5-228.6

-198.1

-173.7

-132.3

-98.5

-63.4

-42.7

-30.5

36.6

67.1

85.3

144.8

189.6

210.3

248.7

271.9

294.7

320.0

365.8

365.8

403.3

414.5

414.6466.3

490.7

559.3

632.5

685.8

748.0

778.2

800.1

833.0

833.0

891.5

952.5

986.0

1,011.9

1,097.3

1,145.4

1,192.4

2.37

2.37

2.37

2.37

2.36

2.50

2.41

2.36

2.36

2.32

2.39

2.49

2.43

2.41

2.42

2.41

2.46

2.37

2.37

2.41

2.40

2.43

2.40

2.452.41

2.37

2.26

2.412.41

2.38

2.42

2.40

2.39

2.46

2.32

2.41

2.41

2.39

2.31

2.51

2.38

0.017

0.011

0.016

0.015

0.019

0.011

0.026

0.024

0.076

0.043

0.028

0.0150.011

0.017

0.010

0.015

0.036

0.015

0.017

0.023

0.029

0.013

0.0170.0170.0200.0200.1020.0470.0150.0310.0120.011

0.0170.0240.0280.0130.015

0.0270.0550.0170.056

2.41

2.392.402.412.40

2.522.472.422.552.42

2.462.532.452.452.452.452.552.412.412.46

2.472.462.442.492.462.422.512.532.442.452.452.422.442.522.392.452.452.462.452.552.52

2.37

2.362.362.372.352.492.412.362.352.32

2.392.482.422.412.422.412.462.372.37

2.412.402.432.402.442.412.372.252.412.402.372.422.39

2.392.452.322.412.412.392.312.502.37

0.019

0.014

0.018

0.017

0.022

0.016

0.0280.026

0.0770.045

0.0310.0210.0130.0200.0130.0180.0380.0170.019

0.0240.0310.0140.0180.0210.0220.0220.1040.0500.0170.0330.0130.0140.0200.0300.031

0.016

0.0160.0300.059

0.0220.058

2.412.402.412.412.412.532.472.422.552.43

2.462.532.462.452.452.452.562.412.41

2.472.482.462.442.502.462.422.522.542.452.452.452.432.442.532.392.452A52.462.452.562.52

2.7E-09

2.OE-092.8E-09

7.4E-091.4E-092.1E-09

1.7E-08

3.0E-09

1.6E-09

8.3E-09

1.8E-07

9.5E-10

5.6E-09

9.8E-10

1.7E-10

1.7E-09


Table I-S. Topopah Spring Tuff vitric caprock horizontal transect physical properties, dry bulk density, porosity, and particledensity calculated using relative-humidity oven and 1 05°C oven-dry weights; saturated hydraulic conductivity and sorptivitycalculated using imbibition experiments on relative-humidity-dried samples. Transect distance is zero at borehole USW-UZ6s,and positive is north.--Continued

Relative-humidlty oven dried 105 0C oven dried Saturated

Sampb Ltho distance Dry bulk P y Particle Dry bulk Porcet Particle hydraulic(M) ~~~(cm3lCM 3) (gmicm 3) (densm3)

(gfcrn3) Wc (91CM3) ~~~(gfCm3) eTC30 Ic 1,255.8 2.40 0.059 2.55 2.40 0.061 2.55TC31 tc 1,345.7 2.42 0.021 2A7 2.42 0.023 2.47 7.01-10TC32 tc 1,365.5 2.51 0.011 2.54 2.51 0.016 2.55TC33 tc 1,443.2 2.50 0.026 2.56 2.49 0.028 2.57TC34 tc 1,446.9 2.36 0.023 2.41 2.35 0.026 2.42TC35 tc 1,492.0 2.37 0.030 2.45 2.37 0.032 2.45 2.7E-09TC36 Ic 1,524.0 2.39 0.015 2.42 2.38 0.018 2A3TC37B tc 1,575.8 2.43 0.021 2.48 2.43 0.025 2.49 2.7E-09TC37R ic 1,575.8 2.40 0.014 2.43 2.40 0.016 2.44


Physical & Hydrologic Properties of Rock Outcrop Samples ...on surface outcrop samples (Flint and...

Documents

Transcript of Physical & Hydrologic Properties of Rock Outcrop Samples ...on surface outcrop samples (Flint and...