ML19210C160
| ML19210C160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1979 |
| From: | Bolt B CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210C158 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130371 | |
| Download: ML19210C160 (39) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARD In the Matter of )
. )
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Dccket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523
)
(3kagit Nuclear Powei- Project )
Units 1 and 2) )
)
TESTIMONY OF DR. BRUCE A. BOLT
. 1321 040 7911130 he l
TESTIMONT OF DR. BRUCE A. BOLT My name is Bruce A. Bolt. I testified previously in this proceeding during July 1975 on the subject of seismology. I further testified in this proceeding in March 1978. At that time, I evaluated the USGS's postulates for the two mt -imum earthquakes in the region around the Skagit site, which they think should control the SSE.
I am a professor of seismology in the Department of Geology and Geophysics and the director of the seismographic stations at the University of California at Berkeley. Attached hereto is an updated statement of my educational and profesrional qualifications, including an updated list of publications.
I have been asked by the Applicants to address the subject of correlation between ground acceleration and (a) the magnitude and (b) the intensity of an earthquake. The Board raised this subject in a recent hearing (Tr . 14,20 2. ) In the course of my discussion I will review ' gain my evaluations of the two USGS postulates.
1321 041
Correlation of Acceleration with Magnitude One method of assessing acceleration at the Skagit site is to use curves which correlate acceleration with earthquake magnitude. An example of such a curve appears in Figure la, which is from Schnabel and Seed (1973). This particular cor-relation was mentioned by the Board in its request for clarification of methodology. This is applicable to the earthquake postulated by the USGS on the Devil's Mountain Fault.
The Schnabel and Seed correlations in Figure la were derived from recorded and computed data from earthquakes in the western United States and Mexico, including the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Schnabel and Seed plotted the maximum (i.e. peak) acceleration measured on rock against the distance of the recording instrument (a strong motion accelerometer) from the causative fault. As was found by Schnabel and Seed, the plotted points are rather scattered because earthquakes have different mechanisms (e.g. strike slip-movement v. thrust movement) and occur in different geological environments.
Nevertheless, for each level of magnitude studied, Schnabel and Seed found that the plotted data points fell within a definable range. They indicated that the range represents the upper and lower bounds within which the peak acceleration values are likely to lie. The ranges for magnitudes of about 5.2, 5.6 and 7.6 are shown by the cross hatched zones in Figure lb. The 1321 042
curves in Figure la show the average peak accelerotions at various distances for a number of magnitudes (approximately 5.2, 5.6, 6.6, 7.6 and 8.5).
The Schnabel and Seed curves, which were published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, have been widely used for engineering design purposes, The curves are used in the following way. If one assumes that an earthquake of a certain magnitude (for example magnitude 5.6) could occur on a fault which is a certain distance (for example 20 milec) from a site, then one enters the set of curves (Figure la) and reads off the peak acceleration (in our example, about 0.09g).
Th* ranges from Figure Ib (in our example, 0.03g to 0.14g) indicate the uncertainties involved.
A value within this range on the Schnabel and Seed correla-tions can be selected to account appropriately for the type of earthquake mechanisms to be expected in the situation under consideration. For example, the earthquake postulated by the USGS for Devil's Mountain Fault would probably arise from a largely strike-slip rupture of the fault; that is, the ground would move horizontally with very little vertical offset. In my opinion, strike-slip earthquakes tend to produce somewhat lower accelerations than do thrust-type mechanisms such as in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. It would follow that correlations, such as from Schnabel and Seed, that contain data
_3_
!321 043
from many different earthquake mechanisms, are conservative for a site which would be shaken mainly by a strike slip mechanism.
Application of a curve correlating peak accelecation with magnitude and distance is not as straightforward as it may seem. It calls for judgment based on the use to which the acceleration values are to be put. A significant limitation to be kept in mind is that even small magnitude earthquakes can cause quite high peaks of acceleration. There are many examples of this. A very recent example is the earthquake of 6 August 1979 on the Calaveras fault in central California. At magnitude 5.9, this earthquake was only moderate in size. It caused very little damage. It was well instrumented in that six strong motion instruments were in the vicinity of the ruptured fault. Wnat was interesting, however, was the re-cording of a wide range of accelerations, up to 0.4g both horizontally and vertically. Even more extrema examples can be given, such as the peak horizontal accelerations of 0.6g or greater that occurred during the aftershocks to the 1976 Oroville, California earthquake. The lack of correlation between local magnitude and (of ten high) peak acceleration in these nondamaging earthquakes is clear from Figure 2.
In these cases, the high peak accelerations are generally of very short duration (high frequency) and thus have very little energy associated with them. Consequently, they cause 1321 044
little or no damage to even quite weak structures. It would be quite inappropriate to use these very high peak accelerations that sometimes occur in small or moderate earthquakes to scale the seismic design spectra for a substantial structure such as a power plant or le.oe dam.
Let us now apply the above-describcd methodology to the postulated maximum earthquake given by the USGS for the Devils Mountain Fault. The highly conservative USGS postulate is a shallow magnitude 7.0 to 7-1/4 earthquake on the Devil's Moun-tain Fault, 21 kilcmeters (13 miles) from the site. I per-formed this exercise in my prior testimony (follows Tr. 8566) for a slightly greater earthquake (magnitude 7.5) , using cor-relations by Schnabel and Seed and by others. Interpolating on Figure la (See Figure 3 for interpolated curves drawn for convenience) yields an average peak acceleration of about 0.349 for the 7-1/4 magnitude earthquake, which is the high value on the range specified by the USGS. This value is less than the 0.35g value specified for the safe shutdown earthquake. The acceleration value for magnitude 7.0 is 0.30g according to Schnabel and Seed's curves so that there is room for the formal uncertainty that arises in the drawing of the curve.
In preparing their curves, Schnabel and Seed did not discount any of the instrumentally measured peak accelerations which have high frequencies of little engineering 1321 045 significance. Neither did they discount any of the values for topographic or structural considerations. As well, Schnabel and Seed point out that "in.many cases, the effective acceleration of a rock motion may be about 25 to 30 percent less than the actual maximum acceleration of the motion." For the above reasons, there is substantial conservatism in adoption of 0.359 for the SSE value for the Skagit site so far as the Devil's Mountain Fault postulate is concerned. .
Correlation of Acceleration with Intensity A second method for estimating peak acceleration is to use correlations between peak acceleration and the intensity of the ground shaking. Unlike magnitude, intensity assessments do not depend upon the instrumental measurement of ground motion, but depend on actual observation of the effects of an earthquake.
Intensity is an older measure of earthquake siz3, which was in use long before instruments were available to measure the amplitude of earthquake waves and hence to calculate a magni-tude.
Correlations between intensity and acceleration have been widely used in nuclear power siting in the United States, particularly in the eastern United States where the size of earthquakes considered is usually less than in the west and the historical record is longer than in the western states.
1321 046
Intensity, however, is a cruder measure of the size of an earthquake than magnitude. Also, intensity presents problems of application to the modern engineering concepts of the dynamic response of structures as will become clear.
Intensity is assessed through the use of a descriptive scale, such as the Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931.
At each intensity level on the scale are various indicators of possible earthquake effects on people, vegetation, bodies of water, the ground and buildings. For example, the intensity VIII level on the Modified Mercalli scale (1956 version) discusses the steering of cars being af fected, the partial collapse of poor-quality masonry, the fall of stucco, the breaking off of decayed piling, breaking off of tree branches, and cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. Therefore, each level of the intensity scale contains many different kinds of data.
During an earthquake, there are typically many damage and felt reports within the meizoseismal area, which is the area of the strongest shaking and most significant damage. For -
example, of 100 reports within a meizoseismal area, 30 might fit indicators for intensity VIII, 80 for intensity VII, and the other 10 might be appropriate for an intensity of VI or less. What intensity should be selected in this example to characterize the earthquake? Should it be the highest 1321 047
_7_
intensity reported (VIII in our example) or a value representative of the great majority of the reports in the meizoseismal area (VII in our example). The results of this decision will carry great weight in the correlations that are made between intensity and peak acceleration. The practice in most scientific and engineering correlations is to pick a representative value out of the suite of observations and calculate a measure of scatter such as the standard deviation.
In contrast, in most of the past intensity studies, the highest intensity for the meizoseismal region is usually chosen. It is very important to keep this practice in mind when considering the amount of conservatism which is built into correlations between intensity and peak acceleration. In the correlations by (1) Coulter, Waldron and Devine (Figure 4), (2) Neumann (Figure 5) and (3) Trifunac and Brady (Figure 5) , considered below, the maximum reported intensity has been correlated against the peak acceleration reported by instruments in the general vicinity (not always the same site) .
Another importanc point to be kept in mind is that inten-sity reports during an earthquake vary considerably depending upon fcundation conditions. Many published intensity maps show that there is less damage to structures founded on rock than to similar ones en soil. One example is the 1965 Puget Sound earthquake in which much higher intensities were found on the 1321 048 lowlands along the Duwamish River than on the surrounding high ground. A second example is provided by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 8-1/4.) Figure 6 shows the well-known comparison by H. O. Wood of intensities and geology on the San Francisco peninsula in the 1906 earthquake. The peninsula is only 2 to 10 miles eaut of the San Andreas Fault. Intensities varied from VI to X throughout the area. The comparison shows how much the~ geologic conditions influenced the intensity.
Even when intensity X is observed on sand, silt and clay along the shore, the intensity on rock (Franciscan) two miles away is rated only as VI. In fact, contemporary reports from San Francisco indicate that on rocky hills, such as Telegraph Hill, even brick chimneys withstood the shake.
Before turning to correlations between intensity and peak acceleration, it might also be helpful to review the place of peak acceleration in the characterization of ground motion.
Two actual ground motion records will be examined for this purpose. The first record, which is shown at the bottom of Figure 7, is of the 1952 earthquake (M g= 7. 2) in Kern County, California. This record was made on a strong motion instrument at Taft, 28 miles f rom the epicenter. As one of the few strong motion records of a really large earthquake, this record is most important. Figure 7 shows that the horizontal shaking continued for a considerable time (over 20 seconds) during 1321 049 which the amplitude of the ground motion varied considerably.
The maximum amplitude, which is marked by an arrow on Figure 7, corresponds to a peak single acceleration of about 0.18g.
Several other peaks approach this level. Also to be seen from Figure 7 is that the frequency of the motion varied considerably throughout the earthquake. We can see that the ground shaking is quite strong. None of these additional details are included in the simple measure of the peak acceleration. However, the overall energy can be taken into account in describing the response spectra for a proposed structure. Conservatism can be built into this spectra, depending upon the importance of the particular structure being designed.
The second strong motion record (top of Figure 7) is of a much smaller earthquake, a magnitude 4.6 California earthquake near Melendy Ranch in 1972. The shaking lasted no more than about 4 seconds. However, about nalf way through the earthquake, there was a sharp peak of ground movement, lasting a fraction of a second with an acceleration of about 0.79 The energy in this motion is very small and would not be sufficient to cause damage to even very weak structures.
It might well be asked that if even small earthquakes can have very large peak acceleration, what is the point of making the correlations that we have discussed? Let me stress again 1321 090 that the judgment of the seismologist or the earthquake en-gineer who is applying the correlations is very important.
These very small earthquakes should not be included in the ccrrelations between either peak acceleration and magnitude or peak acceleration and intensity when such correlations are applied to the engineering of large structures. What should be taken into account is not only the single highest peak accele-ration but also the lesser peak accelerations which indicate that substantial shaking continued at a certain acceleration level for many cycles. This takes us to the idea of effective peak acceleraticns which has been introduced into earthquake engineering in recent years. The effective peak acceleration can be thought of as the maximum acceleration in earthquakes on rock or firm ground after the high frequencies that do not affect sizable structures have been discounted. The concept of effective peak acceleration makes the scaling value of maximum acceleration much more stable and phys 2 'lly meaningful.
Let us now turn to some of the correlations that have been made between peak acceleration and intensity on tl.e Modified Mercalli scale. The first corr. elation iE'from Coulter, Waldron and Devine and is shown in Figure 4. This correlation was developed for use in the evaluation of the suitability of proposed nuclear power plant sites. As can be seen on 1321 05I Figure 4, they have taken into account tha foundation condi-tions where the intensity was assessed and where the accelera-tion was measured on the strong motion accelerometer. Due to the scatter in the data, a range of values is shown for any given intensity. The curve should only be used to estimate a peak acceleration from a specific intensity. Thus, for intensity VI we can read of f a range of accelerations from 0.06g to 0.13g for firm bedrock.
The second correlation is one that I will call the Neumann-Trifunac-Brady Curve. This curve summa'izes the work done in 1954 by Frank Neumann, who incidentally was very fami-liar with intensities and acceleration in the Puget Sound area, and the more recent 1975 work using further data by Trifunse and Brady. I have treated these curves as one since it is very hard to draw them separately on an ordinary piece of graph paper. This curve is shown on Figure 5. Once again, Neumann and Trif unac and Brady plot the peak acceleration against the intensity.
Also shown on Figure 5 are alternative curves, marked Bolt that I published in 1978.- These curves depart substantially from the Neuman.-Trifuaac-Brady curve. First the data are selected diff erently from that of Neumann and that of Trifunac and Brady with emphasis on the cases with high intensities.
Secondly, the intensity values used in deriving the Bolt curves 1321 052 are representative intensity values, not the maximum intensity values used in the other correlations. The representative values were derived by taking the central tendency (actually the modal line) of the histogram (frequency distribution) of felt and damage reports from the meizoseismal area of each earthquake studied. I explained the " central tendency" methodology in my prior testimony.
The Bolt curves also were prepared to illustrate that the correlation approach follcwed by Trifunac and Br207 was unsatisfactory from a statistical point of view. Trifunac and Brady assumed that there could be errors in the measurement of the acceleration, but did not take into account errors of the intensity. Yet, it is in the assessment of intensity that the greatest uncertainty arises. Consequently, in making any formal mathematical correlation between acceleration and inten-sity, the error in assessment of intensity should be taken into account. Figure 5 shows how much of a difference that con-sideration makes. The dashed line (marked E) includes con-sideration of the error in assessment of intensity whereas the solid line (marked EF) does not consider the error. Obviously the result is a very different slope.
!321 053 Evaluation of USGS's Postulate Regarding 1872 Earthquake Having reviewed several correlations between intensity and acceleration, I would now like to consider the USGS's other postulated maximum earthquake for the region around the Skagit site. This is "an earthquake similar to the one that occurred December 15, 1872 but having its epicenter sufficiently close to the site that no attenuation effects be considered." Trans-ferring the 1872 event to the plant site is generally agreed to be highly conservative and speculative. (The intensity observed in the Skagit site region in 1872 was, in all published studies, no greater than MM VII.)
If the 1872 earthquake were transferred westward to the Skagit site, the same general pattern of intensities would be produced as were observed during the 1872 event. Another way of viewing this " transfer" is that the intensity map for the 1872 event would be shifted to the west until it overlaid the Skagit site area. Some regions around the site would be marked by intensity IX, some by VIII and others by VII or VI, depending in large part on foundation conditions.
The intensity pattern in the 1872 earthquake was generally that the maximum intensities were assessed at sites on alluvial materials along the edges of rivers and lakes. As previously pointed out, this has been the common experience in other earthquakes. Therefore, under the USGS pcstulate, ground 1321 054 cracks and ejection of sand and mud (intensity IX) would probably occur in and near tne Skagit Valley on unstable slopes or along large river terraces. On the alluvial materials of the floodplain, ground cracking, ejection of sand, and damage to coorly constructed buildings might be found. These would be assessed as intensities of VIII-IX and perhaps even X (" mud shif ted horizontally on beaches") . On bedrocP, including that at the site, the intensities would be lower, perhaps even much lower. My judgment is that a maximum intensity of VIII or less might be expected at the Skagit bedrock site in the occurrence of the 1872 type event as postulated by the USGS.
Taking this upper value of intensity on the rock Skagit site (intensity VIII) , reference can be made to the correlations to estimate a peak acceleration level. From the Coulter, Waldron and Devine correlation in Figure 4, intensity VIII on firm bedrock yielda an average of about 0.18g and a range of about 0.101 to 0.269 Similarly, the Neumann-Trifunac-Brady curve in Figure 5 produces approximately 0.25g. These evaluations , it should be remembered, do not separate soil f rom rock sites as do the Coulter , Waldron and Devine values and no allowance is made for the scatter of observed intensity values.
1321 055 As I explained in my testimony in this proceeding in March 1976, I evaluated the meizoseismal area of the 1872 earthquake. I determined that the value representative of the ,
majority of the data, or the central tendancy of the data, is about intensity VIII. I had previously assessed this earthquake as VIII+, or a little less than halfway to IX.
This, of course, reflects ef f ects en soil. Suppose that even a mar.imum intensity on the rock site ;tself midway between VIII and IX is allowed. Then Coulter , Waldron and Devine's curve for rock gives a range of 0.20g to 0.40g with a mean value of 0.289 ; the Neumann-Trif unac-Brady curve yields 0.35g and the Bolt curve gives 0.22g.
My conclusion is that the precision of formal estimation of a peak acceleration from the acceleration-intensity method, for the high intensities speculated for Skagit, is lower than that of the acceleration-magnitude method unless special judgment is applied. I concur with the USGS that the postulate on the 1872 earthquake can be accommodated by an SSE of 0.359 1321 056
BIOGRAPHY - BRUCE A. BOLT Born: Fcbruary 15, 1930 Degrees and Diplo=as: B.Sc. (with honors), New England University College of the University of Sydney,1952; M.Sc. , University of Sydney,1956; Ph.D. , University of Sydney,1959; D.Sc. , University of Sydney,1972; Diploma of Education, Sydney Teachers College, 1953.
Academic and Research Career: Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, 1954-62, Department of Applien Mathematics, University of Sydney.
Research Scientist, 1960, Lamont Geological Observatory, Colu=bia University, New York.
Visiting Scientist, 1961, Depart =ent of Geodesy and Geophysics, Ca= bridge University, England.
Consultant, 1961, U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, Seismic Research Group.
Professor of Seis= ology, 1963 - , Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley.
Director, Seis=ographic Station, 1963 - , University of California, Berkeley.
Visiting Professor, Michaelmas Ters, 1969, Department c: Applied Mathe=atics, University of Sydney.
Acting Chair =an, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, Su==er 1970.
Visiting Professor, Tokyo and Kyoto Universities, Japan Society for Promotion of Science, Japan, Su=ser 1972.
Visiting Professor, Depart =ent of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge, England, January - June,1973.
Visiting Lecturer, Academia Sinica, People's Repub'lic of China, July 1973.
Visiting Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain, July - August, 1976.
Visiting Lecturer, Academia Sinica, Republic of China (Taiwan), Septe=ber 1976.
Lecturer, International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, November 1977.
Lecturer, University of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, August, 1979.
Overseas Fellev, Churchill College, Cambridge, 1980.
1321 057
Elected or Apoointed Position:
University Council (elected by Convocation), New England University 1957 Council, Royal Society of N.S.W. 1959 Council, Mathe=atical Association of N.S.W. 1959 Executive Co--4 ttee, International Association of Seis= ology and Physics of the Earth's Interior, IUGG 1963 - 67 Cennittee on Seismology of U.S. National Academy of Sciences 1965 - 72 Board of Directors, Seismological Society of America 1965 - 71 and 1973 - 76 Vice President, Seismological Society of A= erica 1973 - 74 President, Seismological Society c: America 1974 - 75 Editor, " Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 1965 - 71
. America" Associate Editor " " 1971 - 72 Committee Advisory of ESSA and NOAA, U.S. National Academy of Sciences / National Academy of Engineering 1966 - 72 (Chair =an, Panel on Solid-Earth, Geophysics and Earthquake Engineering and Solid Earth Working Group)
Me=ber, Consulting Board for Earthquake Analysis, California Department of Water Resources 1967 -
Earthquake and Wind Forces Committee, Veterans Administration 1971 - 75 Advisory Co=mittee on Structural Safety, Veterans Adminis tration 1973 - 75 Governor's Earthquake Council, California 1972 - 74 Secretary, Working Group 6, Inter-Union Com 4ssion on Geodynamics 1972 75 Associate Editor, " Journal of Computational Physics" 1973 -
Geophysical Monograph Board, American Geophysical Union (Chair =an, 1976-78) 1971 - 78 Arthur L. Day Fund Selection Committee, National Acade=y of Sciences 1974 - 76 1321 058
Task Group 1, Applied Technology Council, ATC-3 Development of Comprehensive Seismic Design Provisions 1975 - 78 First Vice President, International Associatio. of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior 1975 -
Member, Office of Emergency -Services Advisory Panel on Earthquake Prediction 1975 -
Member, Coc=tittee on Earthquakes, U.S. Committee on Large Da=s 1975 - 77 Uha'irman, Panel on Nation'la S'eismograph' Networks, National Acadecy of Sciences 1977 - 80 Me=ber, Advisory Committee for Geophysics and Environmental Physics, International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste 1978 -
Member, Seismic Safety Commission, California 1978 -
Chair =an, Subgroup on Favorable Array Locations, International Workshop on Strong-Motion Earthquake Instrument Arrays 1978 Honors:
Fulbright Research Scholar 1960 Elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union 1967 H.O. Wood Awards for Research in Seismology by Carnegie Institution of Washington 1967 and 1972 Research Professor, Miller Institute of the University of California for Basic Research in Science 1967 - 68 Elected Fellow, Geological Society of America 1970 Degree of Doctor of Science, University of Sydney 1972 Elected Fellow, California Academy of Sciences 1972 Outstanding I= migrant of Year Award International Institute of East Bay 1977 Elected Member, U.S. National Academy of Engineering 1978 i321 059
Me=ber:
American Geophysical Union (Fellow)
Australian Mathe=atical Society Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (Fellow)
Geological Society of America (Fellow)
Seismological Society of America Sigma Xi 1321 060
c COMPLETE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS - BRUCE A BOLT
- 1. "Mathe=atical Aspects of Auto =atic Digital Computing Machines",
M.Sc. thesis, (University of Sydney), 1955. .
- 2. "The South Australian Earthquake of 1939 March 26", Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 90, 19-28, 1956 (with K.E. Bullen).
- 3. "The Epicentre cf the Adelaide Earthquake of 1954 March 1",
ibid.,9J[,39-43,1956.
- 4. "The Velocity of the Seismic Waves Lg and Rg across Australia",
Nature, 180, 495, 1957.
- 5. " Earth Models with Continuous Density Distribution", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Geophysical Supplement, 7, 360-368 ,1957.
- 6. "On Taking Means of Density Distribution in the Earth",
ibid., 7, 369-371, 1957.
- 7. " Earth Models with Chemically Homogeneous Cores", ibid., 7,,
372-378, 1957.
- 8. "The Dynamics of a Bowl", Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathe=atics, JJ., 351-363,1953 (with M.N. Brearley) .
- 9. "Scismic Observations from the 1956 Atomic Explosions in Australia", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society,J., 135-144, 1958 Geith H. Doyle and D. Sutton) .
- 10. "Some Problems on the Structure of the Earth' , Ph.D. thesis, (University of Sydney).,1958.
- 11. " Seismic Travel-Times in Australia", Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 91,,64-71, 1959.
- 12. " Travel-Times of PKP up to 145'", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2,, 190-198, 1959. .
- 13. "The Diffusion of Carbon Dioxide from Coal", Fuel, 38, 333-337, 1959 (with J.A. Innes).
- 14. "Kayleigh Wave Dispersion for a Single Layer on an Elastic Ealf Space", Australian Journal of Physics, 13,, 498-504, 1960 (with J.C. Butcher) .
- 15. "The Revision of Earthquake Epicentres, Focal Depths and Origin-Ti=es, Using a High-Speed Computer", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 3,, 433-440, 1960.
1321 0Ai aut 1 isis
- 16. " Spheroidal Oscillations of the Moon", Nature, ~188,1176-1177,1960.
- 17. " Machine Processing of Seismic Travel-Ti=e Data", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 51, 259-267, 1961.
- 18. " Phase and Group Velocities of Rayleigh Waves in a Spherical Gravitational Earth", Journal of Geophysical Research, 66, 2965-2981, 1961 ('with J. Dorman). -
- 19. " Theoretical Phase Velocities for a Lunar Seismic Experiment",
ibid., 66, 3513-3518, 1961.
- 20. "Eigenvibrations of the Earth Observed at Trieste", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 6, 299-311,1962 (with A. Marussi).
- 21. "A Seismic Experiment Using Quarry Blasts near Sydney", Australian Journal of Physics, g, 293-300, 1962.
- 22. "Gutenberg's Early PKP Observations", Nature , 196, 122-124, 1962.
- 23. "Inside the Earth", The Etruscan, g , 18-23, 1962.
- 24. " Transient Analysis of Seismic Core Phases", Geofisica Pura e Applicata, 5,2, 41-52,1962 (with M. Landisman, S. Mueller, and M. Ewing).
- 25. " Revised Torsional Eigenperiods from the 1960 Trieste Data",
Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 7_,
510-512, 1963.
- 26. " Geomagnetic Variations with the Periods of Torsional Oscilla-tions of' the Earth", Journal of Geophysical Research, g, 2685-2693, 1963 (with D. Winch and L. Slaucitajs)..
- 27. "Recent Information on the Earth's Interior from Studies of Mantle Waves and Eigenvibrations", Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 5,57-115, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964..
- 28. " Dispersion of Rayleigh Waves across Australia", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 9,21-35, 1964 (with M. Niazi) .
- 29. "The Velocity of Scismic Waves near the Earth's Center",' Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 54, 191-208, 1964.
. 30. " Seismic Air Waves from the Great 1964 Alaskan Earthquake", Nature, 202, 1095-1096, 1964.
- 31. " Computer Location of Local Earthquakes within the Berkeley Seisno-graphic Network", Computers in the Mineral Industries, Ed. by G.A. Parks, Stanford University, 561-576,1964 (with T. Turco tte) .
1321 062
- 32. "The Great Alaskan Earthquake of 1964; A Symposium on Earth Movements", Science, 145, 1207-1216, 1964 (with M.N.
Christensen).
- 33. " Times and A=plitudes of the Phases PKiKP and PKIIKP", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 9_, 223-231. 1964 (with M.E. O'Neill). ,
- 34. " Gradients of Travel-Time Curves from Deep-Focus Earthquakes",
Reviews of Geophysics, 3, 83-98, 1965.
- 35. "T'. al-Time Tables for the Seismic Wave PKP", Nature, 207, 967-969,
'965.
- 36. "The Recent Seismic Pattern in Northern California", Proc. 34th Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California, 33-36, 1965.
- 37. "Dispersive Characteristics of the First Three Rayleigh Modes for a Single Surface Layer", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, f 6,,6 43-67,1966 (with H.M. Mooney) .
- 38. " Instrumental Measurement of Slippage on the Hayward Fault", ibid.,
56, 305-316,1966 (with Walter Marion) .
- 39. "P Wave Residuals as a Function of Azimuth, 1. Observations",
J. Geophysical Research, H , 5977-5985,1966 (with 0. Nuttli) .
- 40. "The FSM Affair at Berkeley", Vestes, 9, 155-163, 1966.
- 41. "The Core of the Earth",-Science Review, No. 21,1-5, University of Melbource Science Students' Society, 1966.
- 42. " Evidence on Crustal Structure in California from the Chase V Explosion and the Chico Earthquake of May 24, 1966", Bulletin of the Seis=ological Society of America, E , 1093-1114, 1967 (with. C. Locnitz) .
- 43. "The Focus of the 1906 California Earthquake", ibid. , 58_, 457-471, 1968.
- 44. " Group Aaalysis of Variance for Earthquake Location and Magnitude",
Nature, 217, 47-48,1968 (with. H. Freedman) . ,
- 45. " Earth Structure and Focal Mechanism: Evidence from the Berkeley Array", Travaux Scientifiques, Fasc. 24, Bur. Cent. Seis.,
65-82,1968 (with T.V. McEv111y) .
- 46. "Esti=ation of PKP travel-Times", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58,, 1305-1324, 1968.
- 47. "Seiscie Waves near 110*: Is Structure in Core or Upper Mantle Responsible?" Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical So ciety , 16,, 475-487,1968 (with M. O 'Neill and A. Qamar) .
1321 063
- 48. " Seismological Evidence on the Tectonics of Central and Northern California and the Mendocino Escarpment", Bulletin of the Seis=ological Society of America, 58,1725-1767,1968 (with C. Lon:nitz and T.V. McEvilly) .
- 49. " Free Oscillations of the Terrestrial Planets", Vistas in Astronomy, 11_,.69-102, Perga=on Press,1969 (with J. Derr) .
- 50. "EarthqAakes and the Structural Features of Northern California",
Mineral Infor=ation Service, 22, 51-53, 1969.
- 51. "P Wave Residuals as a Function of Azi=uth, 2. Undulations of the Mantle Low-Velocity Channel as an Explanation", J. Geophysical Research, 74, 6594-6602, 1969 (with 0. Nuttli).
- 52. "Cocsents on a Paper by C. Wright and K.J. Muirhead, ' Longitudinal Waves from the Novaya Zemlya Nuclear Explosion of October 27, 1966, Recorded at the Warrasunga Seis=ic Array'", J.
Geophysical Research, 74, 6049-6051, 1969.
- 53. " Advanced Numerical Analysis in Seismology", Bulletin of the.
Institute of Mathecatics and Its Applications,,6,, 61-67, 1969.
- 54. Chapter I, " Elastic Waves in the Vicinity of the Earthquake Source,
and Chapter II, "Causes of Earthquakes", in the book " Earthquake Engineering", Ed. by R. Wiegel, Prentice-Hall, 1-45, 1970.
- 55. "PdP and PKiKP Waves and Diffracted PcP Waves" Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 3,367-382,1970.
- 56. "The Use of Co=puters in the Study of the Earth", Chapter in the book " Computers and Their Role in Science", Ed. by A. Taub and S. Fernbach, Gordon and Breach, New York, 543-570, 1970.
- 57. " Diffracted ScS and the Shear Velocity at the Core Boundary",
Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, M, 299-305,1970 (with M. Niazi and M.R. Somerville)..
- 58. "An Upper Bound to the Density Ju=p at the' Boundary of the Earth's Inner Core", Nature, 228,148-150, 1970 (with A. qamarl.,
- 59. " Earthquake Location for Small Networks Using the Generalized Inverse Matrix", Bulletin of the Seis=ological Society of America, 60, 1823-1828, 1970.
- 60. "The Modern Earthquake Observatory", Bild der Wissenschaft, November, 1140-1148, 1970.
- 61. "The San Fernando Valley, California, Earthquake of February 9, 1971: Data on Seismic Hazards", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of A= erica, 61, 501-510, 1971.
1321 064
. . . 62. " Seismicity of Northern and Central California, 1965-1969",
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 61_,
1831-1847, 1971 (w1th R. MilAer).
- 63. " San Fernando Rupture Mechanism and the Pacoima Strong-Motion Record", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 6_2, 1053-1061, 1972.
- 64. " Search for'Seis=le Signals from Gravitational Radiation of Pulsar CP1133", Nature, 240, 140-142, 1972 (with T .S . Mas t ,
J.E. Nelson, J. Saarlo'ss and R.A. Muller) .
- 65. " Structure, Composition, and State of the Core", EOS (American Geophysical Union), R , 175-178, 1972.
- 66. "The Density Distribution near the Base of the Mantle and near the Earth's Center", Phys. Earth and Planetnry Interiors , 5, 301-311, 1972.
- 67. " Observations of Pseudo-Aftershocks from Underground Nuclear Explosions", Phys. Earth.and Planetary Interiors,,5_, 400-402, 1972 (with A. Qa=ar) .
- 68. " Earthquakes and Tectonics in Western Venezuela", Proceedings Upper Mantle Symposium, Buenos Aires, 2, 119-129, J.972 (with G. Fiedler and J.W. Dewey) .
- 69. " Fine Structure of the Earth's Interior", Proceedings Upper Mantle Symposium, Buenos Aires,_2_, 109-117, 1972.
- 70. "A Proposal for the Global Calibration of Group Earthquake Locations",
Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 33,,
249-250, 1973.
- 71. " Duration of Strong Ground Motion", paper 292, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, 1973.
- 72. "The Fine Structure of the Earth's Interior", Scientific American, 24-33, March.1973.
- 73. " Geophysical Inversion and the Earth's Fine Structure", Acta Geo-physica, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1974.
- 74. " Earthquake Studies in the People's Republic of China", EOS, American Geophysical Union, M , 108-117, 1974.
- 75. " Recorded Strong Motion on the Hsinfangkiang Dam, China", Bulletin of the Seis=ological Society of A= erica, 64,1337-1342,1974 (with W.K. Cloud).
- 76. " San Fernando Earthquake, 1972. Magnitudes,Aftershockaandh'ault Dynamics", Chapter 21, Bulletin 196, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975 (with B.S. Gopalakrishnan).
1321 065
- 77. " San Fernando Earthquake, 1972. Earthquake Risk in Relation to Earthquake Characteristics", Chapter 24, Bulletin 196, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975.
- 78. " Maxi =um Entropy Estimates of Earth Torsional Eigenperiods from 1960 Trieste Data", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 40,, 107-114, 1975 (with R. Currie).
- 79. " Resolution Techniques for Density and Heterogeneity in the Earth",
Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 42, 419-435, 1975 (with R. Uhrha=mer).
- 80. "The Study of Earthquake Questions Related to VA Hospital Facilities",
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, p5,, 937-950, 1975 (with R. G. Johnston, J. Lefter and M. A. Sozen).
- 81. " Seismic Instru=entation of Dams", J. Geotech. Eng. Div. , ASCE, Nov. ,
1095-1104, 1975 (with D. E. Hudson).
- 82. "The Present Status of Earthquake Prediction", CRC Critical Reviews in Solid State Sciences, Sept., 125-151, 1975 (with C.-Y. Wang).
- 83. " Catalogue of Earthquakes in Northern California and Adjoining Areas, 1910-1972", Seis=ographic Stations, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (with R. D. Miller).
- 84. " Finite-Elecent Computation of Seismic Anomalies for Bodies of Arbitrary Shape", Geophysics, 41, 145-150, 1976 (with W. D. Smith).
- 85. " Rayleigh's Principle in Finite Ele =ent Calculations of Seismic Wave Response", Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 45,, 647-655, 1976 (with W. D. Smith).
- 86. "Modelling of Complex Structures in the Upper Mantle by Finite Elecent Methods", Tectonophysics, 35, 1-14, 1976. .
- 87. " Abnormal Seiscology", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, fj,,617-623,1976.
- 88. "How are Magnitude, Epicenter, Focal Depth Determined? Degree of Accuracy?
Describe P and S Waves, Etc.", in Engineering Aspects of the Lima, Peru Earthquake of October 3, 1974, EERI, >by 1975, 74-85.
- 89. " Hazards from Earthquakes", Die Naturwissenschaften, 63, 356-363, 1976.
- 90. "Namazu-e Prints of Japanese Earthquake Folklore", Pacific Discovery, 29,, 10-13, 1976.
- 91. " Robert Stoneley - A Me=orial", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66, 1021-1025, 1976.
- 92. " Constancy of P Travel-Ti=es from Nevada Explosions to Oroville Dam Station, 1970-1975", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 6_7,, 27-32, 1977.
1321 066
- 93. " Seismic Design Regionalization Maps for the United States," Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, 1977 (with R.V. Whit =an, N.C. Donovan, S.T. Algermissen and R.L. Sharpe).
- 94. " Generalized Strong Motion Accelerograms Based on Spectral Maximization from Two ;o cizontal Components," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 67,, 863-8,76,1977 (with J. Shoja-Taheri) .
- 95. " Ocean Bottom Seismometry - A New Dimension to Seismology," Bollet. di Geofis. Teor, et Applic., XIX, 75-76, pp. 107-116, Sept-Dec 1977.
- 96. "The Upthrow of Objects in Earthquakes," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 61,1415-1427,1977 (with R. Hansen).
- 97. "Keith Edward Bullen - A Memorial," Bulletin of the Seismological Soufety of America, 67, 553-557, 1977 and Quart. J. Royal Astronomical Society; 13,293-297,1977.
- 98. "The Briones Hills Earthquake Swarm of January 8, 1977, Contra Costa County, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 6_7_,1555-1564,1977 (with J. Stifler and R. Uhrha=mer) .
- 99. Explosions Nucleaires ou Tremblements de Terre," La Researche, No. 82, October, 1977.
~~~
100. "The Seiscographic Stations of the University of California, Berkelef,"
Earthquake Information Bulletin, 9, 4-12, May-June 1977.
101. "The Application of Finite Elements to Wave Problems in Geophysics,"
Computing Methods in Geophysical Mechanics, Applied Mechanics Division, ASME, 25,1-6,1977 (with J. Stifler) .
102. " Summary Value Smoothing of Physical Ti=e Series with Unequal Intervals,"
Journal of Computational Physics, 29,, 357-369, 1978.
103. " Incomplete For=ulations of the Regression of Earthquake Magnitude with Surface Fault Rupture Length," Geology, 6, 233-235, 1978.
104. "The Local ?lagnitude M g of the Kern County Earthquake of July 21, 1952,"
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, (Letter to the
' Editor), 61, 513-515, 1978.
105. " Optimum Station Distribution and Determination of Hypocenters for Small Networks," Office of Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Miscellaneous Paper - U.S. Ar=y Engineer Waterways Experiment Station S-78-9, 1-43, 1978.
106. " Earthquake Hazards," EOS, American Geophysical Union, 59,*946-962, 1978.
107. " Development of Expectancy Maps and Risk Analysis," Jou;nal of Structural Division, A3CE, 104, Proc. Paper 13971, 1179-1192, 1978.
1321 067
108. " Seismicity it the Western United States," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, (in the press), 1979.
109. "The Detection of PKIIKP and Danping in the Inner Core," Annali di Geo-fisica, (in the press) ,1979.
110. " Estimation of Uncertainties in Fundamental Frequencies of Decaying Geophysical Time Series," Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, (in the press),1979 (with D. Brillinger) .
111. "A Probability Nodel for the Estimation of Ragional Fault-Plane Solutions,"
(in the press), 1979 (with D. Brillinger and A. Udias),
112. " Perry Byerly - A Memorial," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 69_, 928-945, 1979.
113. " Fallacies in Current Ground Motion Prediction, Proc. Second International Conference on Microzonation, 2, 617-633, 1978.
1321 068
Books and Monographs
- 1. " Methods in Computational Physics: Seismology: Surface Wavea and Earth Oscillations", 11, co-edited with B. Alder and S. Fernbach, Academic Pres: 1972.
- 2. " Methods in Computational Physics: Seismology: Body Waves and So.urces",
11, co-edited with B. Alder and S. Fernbach, Academic Press, 1972.
- 3. " Methods in Computational Physics: Geophysics", 13,, co-edited with B.
Alder and S. Fernbach, Academic Press, 1973.
- 4. " Cumulative Index 1963-1972", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 63,, No. 6, Part 2, 1973.
- 5. " Geological Hazards", co-authored with Gordon Macdonald, W. Horn and R. Scott, Springer-Verlag, 1975. (Russian translation, 1977, Student Edition, 1977).
- 6. " Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes - The Parted Veil",
W.H. Freeman, 1976.
- 7. " Earthquakes - A Primer", W.H. Freeman, 1978.
- 8. " Theory and Experiment Relevant to Geodynamic Processes", Tectonophysics, 3j5,1-3, co-edited with 0. Anderson, Elsevier,1976.
- 9. " Journal of Computational Physics - Z. Alterman Memorial Volume", co-edited with D. Loew nthal, Academic Press, 29, No. 3, 1978.
- 10. " Methods in Applied Mathematics and Geophysics," co-authored with Beverley Bolt (in preparation) .
- 11. "Inside the Earth: Probing with Earthquakes," Scientific American (in preparation) , 1980.
- 12. " Earthquakes and Volcanoes," Editor, Readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman, 1980.
1321 069 .
Contributions to Reference Books "Eart.hquake" Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
" Earthquakes" Dictionary of A:nerican History, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1976.
1321 070 4
PER B. SCHNABEL AND H. BOL. TON SEED -
5
- 1 Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 63,1973 N O.8 , ,, , , ,, ,,,,,,,,, , ,,
O 8 m -
U O.7 -
~
O.6 -\
~
o' i N N\
~
- 5
," h \ h M=0.5 E
g O.3
\ s M=6.G ---
~
M=5.6 ,
M = 5.2 0.1
- - ~
\ x 0 ' '''' N - '
l 2 3 4 5 6 10 15 20 40 PA LOO Distance from Causative Fault -miles Flo. 5. Average values of maximum acceleratior.3 in rock.
PER B. SCHNABEL AND H. BOLTON SEED Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 6__3,1973 0.9 , , , , , , ,,,,,,,,, , , ,
N
.o N H CD O.6 /
g g I ~
H r /
- N O.7 ' '
, ' j, '/ /, / 's -
'// / i,//t- ;i, j' 's s ~ ~
70.6 ;,,
" ~
' \
g ,/ / / ,- , / ,. s
=
la i %
O.5 ,. , f s Probable upper bound -
y /: , ! , f!' , s 5 ! 'l O.4 -
i l, j ' ,, ,
'/ /- f M: 7.6 N s
$ o,3 ,
,'/ 'y ', -
// /, ,
,/ .
7 i
\
O.2
///'//'jl s
, ; ; ,17 ,
, , <j;, ,
! N
/
,' / .' . i
, ' / '/j,/,,/
9,. Q,l3!
's N
' M =5.2 i q -
l
', _ ,j O ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ~ < ' '
I 2 3 4 5 6 10 15 20 40 60 10 0 Distance from Cousative Fault - miles Flo. 6. Ranges of maximum accelerations in rock. ;
FIGURE 2
. . . i . . . i i i e i i i e i i i g i g i l
Frorn " Strong Motion Accelerograrns of the Af ter shocks" by T. R.Toppozado et al.
i.r) Oroville, Calif ornia Ear thoucke . (13.3)
I August 1975, Calif. Div. of M'mes Special Report 24,1975.
O.5 -
en e
@ . ( 4.7)
E 4
c.
. Oo.8 )
. ( lo.8 )
( 9.4 ) . . ( 8.1)
. ( 8.5 )
.( 11.3 ) . ( 8.8 )
( 5.3,) ( ,9.2) ,( 4,3 )
. . ( 12.4 )
( 8.4) .
(2.7) .( 13.6 )
(11 2 ) .( 11.2 ) ( 12. 3 ) . . ( 12. 8 ) (i4.6 ) .
( 7.3,) *( 11.7 ) { ,g)
( 12.4)
' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' '
O I ' ' ' ' I 3.0 4.0 5.0 Richter Magnit u d e ( Mt)
Peak accelerations recorded for Oroville af tershocks of M L >_3.0. Numbers in parentheses are hypocentral distances in kilometers.
1321 073
I O.0 i i ... ......... ...
v
" M =7.5 N M =7.25 N O
@ O. 7 M
M =7.O-M = 6.5
\ N N
O.6 -
M = 6.0 c 05 I
O.4 -~
M =5.5
<t
\
j" E
b N N 'N -
O~2 N N DD -A O~ I O
l 2 3 4 5 6 10 15 20 40 60 10 0 Distance from Causative Fault - miles Average values of maximum accelerations in rock.
interpolated from Schnabel and Seed curves.
FIGURE 4 *
- i sooo , , i i i i i i i i
}
A 4000 - '
l l
3000 -
1 J
2000 -
...:.d
.w. n
.:[N*,
'000 ==-- Grovity (g) ~
900 LO5 ..* M" *!*'/ . : .: 9 oco - :g 1 700 - %y 4*j..f'fo 1
~
eoo - ; ki"p.p- -
300 -
n gg
- [*
..mp WW
. . M^ - m i
,4Co - ; [.17~
. W r.)(o ;
,.3 ..
~
- ,2.1 ..
o 300 -
$s .E.. . .[ i 2
. . . ' I. 4 l
- ~
U 2oo 7*7::i' i
. 2 0.2 g .,f:-;&
4, l z
~
, :,$' 7/..s !
g .
~! ti; !
Q .i fi.7s ,
x g%.,::
= >-
~
w Ioo O.tg . '3?i: ' .
- ,o L W
eo L [.N
/ J
- jn,xr;:: J, S 70 - i" d
eo ((,
..,.,.:.. l
- W re - ' ~
5o -
. : P ,~n 0.03g l, 7i ~.Ys-
]
- O -
, ;j;t p. . ..
. A., n@
30 ~
. ~ 4. ,e * *
]
. /: :- ,
',n"difk./.
- .. ' ' l u
~
O.02g . r hZf FOUNDATION CONDITION f
' 8elow average, sod material i:' or man.made fill l l
~
Average foundation Io (49 -'i
, R.Oig e conaitions 1 7
Aeove average. firm eedrock
] t
'l [r I t i I f I g l l 1 n sr :z z 2: zr nr :r r n MOOtFIEO-vERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE (I)
Figure I.-- Accelerofion vs. Intensity From " Seismic and Geologic Siting Considerations for Nuclear Facilities" by H. W. Coulter, H. H. Waldron, and J. F. Devine, Proc. World Conf.
Earthquake Engr., 5th, Rcme, Italy, 2410-2419, 1973.
1321 075
FIGURE 5 8000 I i i i i
, fl / _
- - - - - - Neumann-Trifunac-Brody ,/ /
/ -
EF l
/ /
- / / -
4 Bolt /
x . /
, /
5 . /
0 /
E
/ / x z - x/
9 x !x !
/ -
W x x /*
x . /
w / / xx v ./ x o x /
4
[xx x /
2 .
g
( 10 0 -
[ -
~
x 9 -
./x
/
x xx x
/ -
2 -
i / -
a / /
2 -
x/x xx -
E y -
./ /
/
x x l
' 7
/
/ p
/
xx -
. /
./ /
1 -
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
gg i i i i i i i IV V VI Vil Vill IX X XI MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE Regression lines and data crosses for present study.
From " Fallacies in Current Ground Motion Prediction" by S. A. Bolt, Proc. Second International Conference on Microzonation, -2, 617-633, 1978.
1321 076 -
FIGURE 6
.,- . i f,n.nw. .
7-kcGE ~. ~oY>g N . A. X*?
. .mr.
- .w
.. .sciI, NdW<.f*7.y. Ms J I.t- . g;li,k . h.".g( ly"
'. ' ]. . vggg, ig ll jl !liWq c i;4, , 4 ll 7*fi2 3. + ~ ci I
l ,a
\ 5fi
\ l I ,
- 2. ,
Q VII-VIII g j j %. g '*psh l
\
\
l
-l tD ,f , e 3 VI-v1!
g -l 4' l lA,f&. ; . ' t- ),.. /
' .,,7
\
\ ,
il 1; 1
,!nimog,,j.9'f.'R GDha"4 ., _ -.h,,o . g vi San Ands as\ .'6 ; i (i Gjll!!, ('435, llllll l Fault \ .j: j ; .. gy 4
\
\
M. N!0l )@![:-ENy ?! f3 a Kaom,ceo Qs
^^
hl _
"?-
Dune Sand i
.h, 3 >. ...-a&t:.t.+;@. i:. : .
.n .
9*'
. ,-ew d--a. % h g: -
W. ^""""=: dici*i 't li b'r ="d My $ $#i n o.' ' T~E .A Qm W!ibi D[$~;,- .E, 'jyf Starine Terrace, fnable sand Q;,cQ' 3fyW ., %
c ~
and clay
?t'.b:~t.+'.,,.'.. ,
^
Pu
%?* T' ".** :,.* , . .Y , . ,' Ntanne sedimentary rock; sand,
.:.; : N ' j :.*y, 3..='.4.r-lt?
.r .+c
- f,ig;y
, silt and clay
" ' ' ~ ' s ' !".*Jf *
/ *f,,.,* * ',' "J'.p ,,, .,h
, .. ,;j Franciscan Assemblage; sandstone, y go -
f
- ,._."".g . ...;3 shale, chert, conglomerate; some
' .,, xgn{
47 .6., -
gjr metamorphic and volcanic rock
- +
,;,q. : . ,,
- , .I lilildh I.'Itrabasic intmsive rocks
" ub
' .* ,:,:',[,: .f * [;*:.
. ::. . . , :.=,.h. s ,::: , i ^
. M:::A.::: .:.::*t; ?! f 3 b Liom,,,n (a) Isoseismal lines on the San Francisco pe sinsula (based on the Atodified Mercalli scale) drawn by H. O. Wood after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
(b) A generalized geological map of San Francisco peninsula. Note the ccrrelation between the geology and the intensity.
From " Earthquakes - A Primer", by B. A. Bolt (W. H. Freeman, 1978).
1321 077
ACCELERATION (g) ACCELERATION (g)
N o M s o;m A N o M a M 6 0a . ,
a
, . . 'e ,
n . at n-Y A,=
.:m E
= - + -
n1
- =- .= E-
"" p m -
M=E- : * -
7 p *
'M* -
, t j7 ;/
7g g >
- ._ 1 5 -
5 - o -
a'
- i>:=-
g .
C E .
- E d
r RV
= r m m s .
47 5 -
l >
e J $
E5 Sa s -
g;.
7 ,
s -
3 -
B -
,(5 8 -
3 N -
7- Rl -
q%' ms p 2 .
l $ Dd m
- . z.E
~~
. %., m A .*g
(* es M- $. WM$z O
1321 078