ML19210C163

Testimony of Nm Newmark Re Conservatism of Seismic Design Criteria & Seismic Design Provisions for Facility.Biography Encl

ML19210C163
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	10/08/1979
From:	Newmark N ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
To:
Shared Package
ML19210C158	List: ML19210C157 ML19210C160 ML19210C163 ML19210C166
References
NUDOCS 7911130373
Download: ML19210C163 (26)

Text

.

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-523

)

(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, ) October 9, 1979 Units 1 and 2) )

CONSERVATISM OF SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA AND SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR THE SKAGIT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT by NATHAN M. NEWMARK INTRODUCTION This report was prepared to answer certain questions raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding the conser-vatism of the selected earthquake hazard and of the design pro-visions to resist earthquake motions for the SKAGIT Nuclear Power Plant.

My qualifications to discuss these topics are ouclined in Attachment A, entitled Nathan M. Newmark, Biographical Data, 1321 079 4

911130 & 3

e 3 dated 1 August 1978. The bases for my technical comments are included in Attachment B, " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants," by N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, published as Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-0098, prepared in February 1977 to serve as a basis for the review of the adequacy of nuclear power plants that have been in service. There are a number of other papers and reports and books which have been prepared by me which serve as background information. A list of these is contained in At-tachment C, a list of my publications.

This report covers the following topics:

(1) A summary of my experience in dynamic design, includ-ing espacially earthquake resistant design; (2) A brief summary of the principles of dynamic design and design to resist blast, shock and earthquakes; (3) A brief review of the conservatism in the various steps in design procedures for earthquake resistant design; (4) Comments on the balance between strength and ductility or energy absorbing capacity in earthquake resistant design; (5) Hazards selected and adequacy of design procedure for the SKAGIT Nuclear Power Plant; (6) References.

The seismic design ground motion considered in design to resist earthquakes cannot be considered independently of the 1321 080 -

s /

procedures used in the analysis of the structure to be de-signed, the size and weight of the structure, and the quality control of the design and the construction process. It is my conclusion that the design procedures and criteria for the SKAGIT Nuclear Power Plant are in accordance with the current y

state of the art. The seismic design spectra used by the ap-plicant correspond to a maximum ground acceleration of 0.35 g.

These spectra, used in the way that is normally done, and con-sistent with the procedures followed by the NRC, are sufficient to provide a design that, in the event of a major earthquake, is adequate to insure a safe shutdown of the reactor. This assurance is as great as that for any other nuclear power plant in the United States.

1. Experience in Earthquake Resistant Lqsign The procedures and principles that I have developed have been used as the basis for seismic design for nuclear reactor facilities in the United States, and in a number of toreign countries as well. In addition, I have had the major responsi-bility for the development of seismic design criteria for the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, for the proposed gas pipeline of the Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline study in Canada, and for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, among others. The procedures that I have developed for seismic design and review of earth and

_3_

1321 081. '

rock-fill dams and embankments, which were presented in detail in the Rankine Lecture in 1965 at the Institution of Civil Engineers in Great Britain, are used throughout the world for seismic design of dams.

I have been engaged in a number of projects for which I

~

have had the primary responsibility for selecting the design criteria for seismic resistance. These include the following:

(1) Nuclear reactor power plants, including especially the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, California, and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California, both for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These are to date the only nuclear power plants for which safe shutdown earthquake ground motions used to define design spectra are greater than 0.5 g.

(1) Several major dams, including Kremasta Dam in Greece; Portage Mountain Dam on the Peace River in Canada; Mirpur Dike, a part of the Mangla Dam project in Pakistan; and several dams for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the proposed Richard B. Russell Dam in Georgia, the proposed L-one Dan near Riverside, California, and the strengthening of Prado Dam in California. The Mentone Dam is located very close to the San Andreas Fault.

(3) The development of the seismic design criteria for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System in California including espe-cially the tube under San Francisco Bay. A basic maximum

_4_

1321 082 _ -

ground acceleration of 0.6 g, with a large allowance for reduc-tion in response due in inelastic behavior was used in the development of these criteria.

(4) The development of design criteria for a proposed pipeline to carry gas from Prudhoe Bay and the Canadian gas y

fields through northern Alaska and Canada, to southern Cantda, including pump stations and other f acilities.

(5) The Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, covering detailed design of the pipeline itself; terminal facilities, including tanks and loading docks; river crossings; pump stations; communication towers and fa-cilities, etc.; and especially fault motions of as much as 20 ft. in crossings of two major fault systems along the pipe-line. The range of ground motions was from 0.1 g for the seis-mically quieter portions of the pipeline in the north slope, upward to 0.6 g in the regions near the Denali Fault, which is consi~dered to have the same potential of movement and maximum earthquake intensity as the San Andreas Fault, and 0.6 g for ground motion at the terminal near Valdez where majot earth-quakes 5 ave been experienced before. In all cases, there was a reduction in design val 2es for structures consistent with inelastic response.

(6) The Proton-Electron-Positron extension cf the Stanford Linear Accelerator, within one or two miles of the San Andreas 1321 083 ,

e t Fault in California, where a maximum ground acceleration of 0.6 g was used in design with a considerable measure of reduc-tion in response due to inelastic behavior.

(7) A number of important buildings, including the Latino Americana Tower in Mexico City, the Chateau Champlain Hotel in T

Montreal, and a major building project in Vancouver, where pro-vision was made for major earthquake motions consistent with regional seismicity. It is of particular interest to note that the Latino Americana Tower, which was the first major building to be designed in accordance with the most recent knowledge and research results, in the period 1949-1951, was subjected to its design earthquake in 1957 and instruments placed in the build-ing recorded motions at several levels in the structure within 10 percent of those predicted by the meth..ds of analysis developed by me.

(8) Buildings in general in the United States. My efforts have been involved as the principal technical director of a project to develop " Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings," prepared by the Applied Technology Council, and published in June 1978 by that council, the National Science Foundation, and the National Btveau of SLtndards. These provisions are intended to be used throughcut the United States for buildings of all kinds in all parts of the country, with seismic motior.1 ranging from maximum ground 1321 084 ,

accelerations of 0.05 g up to 0.4 g, which was considered in the provisions to be the maximum " effective" ground accelera-tion needed in the design of apartment buildings, schools, and other structures housing large numbers of people. Substantial reductions in design levels are permitted for inelastic action e

in these provisions.

2. Principles of Dynamic Design The seismic design of any structure, whether it be a nuclear power plant, a major dam, a hospital, a school build-ing, an apartment house, or a dwelling, requires that certain decisions be made regarding the intensities of motion to be resisted, and the manner in which the structure performs its function of resisting those motions. Earthquakes are natural phenomena, and the intensity, duration, and the actual occur-rence itself in a region close enough to affect the site, are all governed oy considerations of probability even though we may choose to consider the motions as deterministic in nature.

Similarly, the response of structures designed in a certain way and supported in a certain manner in or on the ground, as well as the strength of the elements of the structure and the quality of the material of which it is composed, are also probabilistic in nature.

1321 085 D

4 It is desirable to recognize at the outset that no absolute upper bound can be selected for all of the design parameters, nor is it desirable to do so. In the first place, the com-pounding of the various factors of safety in such a process would lead to impossible requirements that would preclude the y

building of any structure. Making a structure unduly strong and therefore unduly stiff may make it impossible for the structure to perform its other functions, possibly endangering its capability to resist normal loads. On the other hand, it is possible to select the several design parameters with a rea-sonable degree of conservatism for each of them in such a way that an acceptably small probability of damage will result. In the design procedures now used for nuclear reactors, it is believed that this small probability is indeed vanishingly small when one considers all of the parameters that are in-volved. An overemphasis on any one parameter is not only un-necessary but undesirable as well.

The basic principles of earthquake resistant design have been verified by tests on shake tables and by tests using ex-plosives and/or nuclear weapons, both at levels corresponding to earthgaake motions and at considerably higher levels of ex-citations. Comparisons have been made between test data and analytical results lending credibility that the analytical methods are generally highly conservative because they are 1321 086 ,

based on the assumption of linear elastic behavior. Factors of the order of 1.5 to 2 exist between measured and computed re-sistance, because of the mobilization of inelastic energy ab-sorption in actual cases, neglected in current methods of computation.

e

3. Conservatism in Design Procedures Selection of Hazard This will be addressed by Dr. Bruce Bolt.

Site Amplification and Modification The regional motions that one derives f rom the methods des-cribed in the above must be modified to take account of the geologic and stratigraphic conditions pertaining to the site.

Although there has been a great deal of study and research in-volved in this topic it must be considered still a contro-versial matter. Nevertheless, it is clear from observations that the type of soil or subsoil has a major influence on the motions that are recorded. In general, for accelerations higher than above 0.2 g, the accelerations measured on rock are somewhat higher than those measured on soil in the same earth-quake. Nevertheless the damage caused to structures founded on rock appeared to be less than to structures founded on soil having the same acceleration. In other words, the free field 1321 087

_9_

instrumental acceleration is not a good measure for damage pro-ducing potential.

Actual Versus Effective Earthquake Motions Although peak values of ground motion may be assigned to the various magnitudes of earthquake, especially in the e

vicinity of the surface expression of a fault or at the epi-center, these motions are in general considerably greater than the smaller motions which occur many more times in an earth-quake. Design earthquake response spectra are based on

" effective" values of the acceleration, velocity and displace-ment, which occur several times during the earthquake, rather than isolated peak values of instrumental reading. The effec-tive earthquake hazards that should be used in anchoring design spectra may be as little as one-half the expected isolated peak instrument readings for near earthquakes, ranging up to the recorded values for distant earthquakes.

Design response spectra determined from these parameters can take into account the various energy absorption mechanisms, both in the ground and in the element, including radiation of energy into the ground from the responding system.

In the design of any system to resist seismic excitation, as discussed herein, there are a number of parameters and design considerations that must be taken into account. Among these are the magnitude of the earthquake for which the design 1321 088 is to be made, the distance of the facility from the focus or fault, the parameters governing attenuation of motions with distance from the focus or epicenter , the soil or rock conditions as well as tne general geologic conditions in the vicinity, and the parameters governing the response of the facility or the structure itself. Most, if not all, of these parameters are subject to considerable uncertainty in their value. Because so many of the parameters involved have probabilistic (rather than deterministic) distributions, it is not proper to take each of them with a high degree of conservatism because the resulting combined degree cf con-servatism would then be unreasonable. At the same time it is desirable to have an assured margin of safety in the combined design conditions. Hence, a choice must be made as to the parameters which will be taken with large margins of safety and those which will be taken with more reasonable values closer to the mean or expected values of the parameters.

The relation between magnitude of energ'_ .elease in an earthquake and the maximum ground motion is very complex.

There are some reasons for inferring that the maximum accelera-tions are, for example, nearly the same for all magnitudes of relatively shallow earthquakes for points near the focus or epicenter. However, for larger magnitudes, the values do not drop off so rapidly with distance from the epicenter, and the duration of shaking is longer. Consequently, the statistical b

mean :pected values of ground motions show a relationship increasing with magnitude, although not in a linear manner.

Selection of Design or Response Spectrum Studies of the response spectra for a number of earth-quakes, summarized on a statistical basis, are given in Newmark et al 1973 and Newmark, Blume and Kapur-1973. The latter reference is the basis for NRC Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61. The recommendation was made in that reference that the design be based on a spectrum selected for the median plus one standard deviation level, rather than the median level. The probability distribution for the response spectrum ordinates is also a logarithmic normal one, with a ratio between the stan-dard deviation plus median to the standard deviation value of about 1.5 to 1.6. The design spectrum specified in Regulatory Guide 1.60 is based on linear elastic behavior. Also, the damping levels recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.61 are at the lower level of those that can be considered applicable. Con-sequently, there is an additional f actor of safety that may be as much as another factor of 1.5 to 2 between the design spec-tra actually used or specified, and those that would be consis-tent with realistic value of damping and nonlinear behavior, even in the elastic range.

1321 090

~

Other Conservative Factors in Design Additional f actors enter into currently used seismic design procedures in addition to the energy absorption, damping, inelastic behavior, and the selection of conservative values both of design intensity of motion and design spectrum. Among these other factors two are of great importance. These are the effects of soil-structure or foundation-structure interaction, even for a structure founded on rock, where the motions of the rock are not transmitted without some modification to a large heavy structure supported on it.

The situation is very much different between an instrument mounted on a relatively small and compact support and a large and heavy structure. In the latter case, the high frequency motions are not applied over the whole width of the foundation mat at the same time, and there is a loss of energy in the high frequency range or a lack of response corresponding to the com-puted elastic response spectrum in this range.

These factors make it reasonable to use an acceleration on which to base a response spectrum for design at a value some-what lower than the maximum expected instrument measurement for the same vicinity. This point is discussed in Schnabel and Seed 1973, Ploessel and Slosson 1974, and Page, Boore, Joyner and Coulter 1972. Schnabel and Seed state that:

"Thus, in many cases, the effective acceleration of a rock motion may be about 25 to 30 percent less than 1321 091 above the response spectrum, and has values that are consis-tently 20 to 30 percent higher on the average and as much as 50 to 60 percent higher at the peak values.

It should be noted that the damage associated with ex-tremely close neer field earthquakes, and especially very short y

duration earthquakes, is much less than that associated with more distant and/or longer earthquakes for even the same levels of maximum acceleration. Furthermore, the damage does not ap-pear to be directly a function of the intensity of the elastic response spectrum ordinates for short duration earthquakes.

Hence, earthquakes directly under a site might be considered as producing less severe damage to structures than more distant earthquakes with the same peak acceleration. This point was considered earlier in this section and is referred to spe-cifically by Housner-1970.

This phenomenon also contributes to the fact that higher accelerations are ascribed to the same MM Intensities for near field earthquakes compared with more distant earthquakes, i.e.,

it takes a greater acceleration to cause the same damage for sources close to the site, and also for rock sites as compared with soil sites.

1321 092

4. Damping and Energy Absorption Implications of Damage or Collapse In considering the response of a structure to seismic mo-tions, one must take account of the implications of various levels of damage, short of collapse, cf the structure. Some r

elements of nuc~i '. power plants must remain nearly elastic in order to perform their allocated saf ety f unction. However, in many instances, a purely linear elastic analysis may be unrea-sonably conservative when one considers that, even up to the near yield point range, there are nonlinearities of sufficient amount to reduce required design levels considerably. This is discussed in more detail later.

Damping Energy absorption in the linear range of response of struc-tures to dynamic loading is due primarily to damping. For con-venience in analysis, the damping is generally assumed to be viscous in nature and is so approximated. Damping levels have been determined f rom observation and measurement but show a fairly wide spread. For conservatism, damping values for use in design are generally taken at lower levels than the mean or average estimated values.

Damping is usually considered a proportion or percentage of the critical damping value, which is defined as that damping in 1321 093 a system which would prevent oscillation for an initial distur-bance not continuing through the motion. Levels of damping, as summarized from a variety of sources, are given in Table 1 of Attachment 2. The lower levels of the pair of values given for each item are considered to be nearly lower bounds , and are y

therefore highly conservative; the upper levels are considered to be average or slightly above average values, and probably are the values that should be used in design when moderately conservative estimates are made of the other parameters enter-ing into the design criteria.

Ductility Energy absorption in the inelastic range is commonly handled through use of the so-called " ductility factor". This was defined in Attachment 2 and its effect on response is shown therein also. Ductility levels for use in design are discussed in detail in Newmar k and Rosenblueth 1971 among others.

The ductility factor is the ratio of the maximum useful (or design) displacement of a structure to the " effective" elastic limit displacement, the latter being determined not from the actual resistance-displacement curve but from an equivalent elasto-plastic function. This equivalence requires that the energy absorbed in the structure (or area under the resistance-displacement curve) at the effective elastic limit and at the maximum useful displacement must be the same for the effective 1321 094

~

curve as for the actual relationship at these two displace-ments. For the system shown in Fig. 1 of Attachment 2, the definition of the ductility f actor ,}j, is shown in Fig. 2.

Ductility levels for use in aesign may range from as low as ,

1.0 to 1.'. , or nearly elastic, to more than 5, when a great deal of energy can be absorbed in inelastic deformation, and are summarized in Table 4 of Attachment 2.

It should be kept in mind that ductility and strength are to some extent incompatible. High energy absorbing capacity is generally more important than strength in resisting dynamic loads. Hence, although adequate strength is of prime impor-tance, overconservative provisions of strength m y, and in practical cases often does, impair the energy absorbing capacity of elements and systems.

5. Earthquake Hazard and Adequacy of Design Procedures A value of earthquake ground acceleration of 0.35 g appears to be appropriate for the Skagit project. The reports by the U.S. Geological Survey, including their " Status Review" of 13 September 1979, indicate their general agreement with this value, as quoted from the last paragraph on page 10:

"The USGS reactor site review team agrees with the applicant's proposed use of a bedrock acceleration value of 0.35 g as the Saf e Shutdown Earthquake for use with the Safety Guide 1.60 design spectrum for nuclear power plant design."

l321 095 In addition, the NRC staff issued a geology, seismology, and geotechnical engineering review report, dated October 3, 1979, which also is in agreement with this value and states, as quoted in paragraph 2.5 or. page 2-3:

"The staf f concludes, as a result of our review, that

, the significant earthquakes to be considered are (1) shallow earthquakes associated with possibly active near surface structures similar to the Devils Mountain fault, (2) intraplate earthquakes and (3) the 1872 earthquake of the Pacific Northwest. The highest seismic design basis vibratory ground motion cor-responding to any of these postulated events is con-servatively described by Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra scaled to a reference acceleration of 0.35 g at 33 Hz. The motion is to be input at the free field finished grade.

Although the USGS reports do not agree with the tec-tonic distinction between the areas east and west of the Cascade volcanic chain which the staff supports, the reports agree that 0.35 g used to scale Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra is an adequately conserva-tive seismic design basis for the site."

In 1977, I requested that Dr. W. G. Milne of the Canadian Division of Seismology and Geothermal Studies make a study by use of a statistical procedure he developed to estimate the seismicity at the Skagit site, taking into account all available historical earthquake data. His results, transmitted to me in a personal communication dated 1 September 1977, stated that, for a probability level of 0.005, or a 200 year

, return period, the data indicated a value of maximum ground acceleration of 0.16 g. Taking twice this value as an adequate design level, which has been my usual practice, I find a value 1321 096

of 0.32 g, consistent with the other estimates that have been reported.

Finally t should be noted that even if the free-field peak measured ground acceleration were 0.5 g or even 0.6 g, the ef-fective value on a large foundae T would be of the order of y

0.35 g or less, as discussed in de . 1 in Section III, Design Seismic Loadings, of Attachment 2.

It is clear from this discussion that there are many fac-tors involved in the selection of the design criteria, and that each of them can be selected with various degrees of conserva-tism. To make a selection for each of these parameters with an enveloping value involves an uneconomic and unnecessary com-pounding of conservatism, like compound interest, in the final result.

It is because of the nature of the conservarista of the en-tire design process, along with the current design procedure used by the applicant, that I reach the conclusion that the design ground acceleration level of 0.35 g is completely adequate for the design of the Skagit nuclear power plant and its facilities and components. There is in fact a margin of 1321 097 capability beyond the selected design level that is implicit in the design process in current use and followed by the applicant.

6. 3eferences Ambraseys, N. N. (1974), " Dynamics and Response of Foundation y Materials in Epicentral Regions of Strong Earthquakes," Invited Paper No. 3, Fifth World Conference Earthquake Engineering, Vol. I, Rome.

Ambraseys, N. N. (1975), " Advancements in Engineering Seis-mology in Europe: The Correlation of Intensity with Ground Motions," Bulletin, European Committee Earthquake Engineering, No. 4, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.

Donovan, N. C. (1974), "A Statistical Evaluation of Strong Mo-tion Data," Proceedings Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome.

Housner, G. E. (1970), " Design Spectrum," Chapter 5 in Earth-quake vngineering, edited by R. L. Wiegel, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

E S oc Cliffs, NJ.

Newmar k , N. M. , J. A. Blume and K. K. Kapur (1973), " Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants," Journal Power Div.-

sion, Proceedings ASCE, 99, PO2, pp. 287-303.

Newmark, N. M. et al (1973), Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Er.-

gineering Services, A Study of Vertical and Horizontal Earth-quake Spectra, preparea for Directorate of Licensing, AEC, unaer Contract AT (49-5)-26 67. WASH 1255.

Newmark, N. M. and E. Rosenblueth (1971), Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Page, R. A., D. H. Score, W. B. Joyner, and H. W. Coulter (1972), Ground Motion Values for Use in the Seismic Design of the Tr,ans-Alaska Pipeline System, U.S. Geological Survey Circu-lar Nc. 672.

Ploessel, M. R. and J. E. Slosson (197 ), " Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes Ik.portant Design Criteria," California Geology, pp. 195-199.

1321 098 Schnabel, P. B. and H. B. Seed (1973), " Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States," Bulletin Seis-mological Society of America, 6 3,: 2, pp. 501-516.

Trifunac, M. .D. and A. G. Brady (1975), "On the Correlation of Seismic Intensity Scales with the Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion," Bulletin Seismological Society of America, J: 1, pp. 139-162.

6 y

1321 099 ATTACHMENT A

. I August 1978 NATHAN M. NEWMARK Biographical Data Nathan M. Newmark, Professor of Civil Engineering and in the Center for Advanced Study, Emeritus, at the University of Illinois has been a member of the faculty at the Urbana Campus since 1930. He has been engaged in re sea rch , Instruction and engineering practice in applied mechanics, structural engineering and structural dynamics for his entire career.

He was born on 22 September 1910 in Plainfield, New Jersey. He attended Rutgers University where he received the B.S. degree in Civil Engineering in June 1930. He received the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois in June 1932 and the degree of Ph.D. In Engineering f rom the same institution in June 1934.

In January 1969 Professor Newmark was awarded the 1968 National Medal of Science by President L. B. Johnson. On 21 February 1969 he became the 46th recipient of the Washington Award. In 1979 he will receive the John Fritz Medal, awarded annually since 1902 by the five major engineering societies of the United Sta tes.

In 1955 Rutgers University conferred the honorary degree of Doctor of Science on him. In 1967 he was awarded the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Liege in Belgium.on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the founding of that University, and in 1969 he was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws by the University of Notre Dame. He was honored in 1972 by a degree f rom the National Civil Engineering Laboratory of Lisbon, Portugal, and in 1978 by the honorary degree of Doctor of Science by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

D r. Newmark8 s awards and honors include election to membarship in the National Academy of Sciences in April 1966, election as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1962, and election as a Founding Member of the National Academy of Engineering when it was formed in December 1964 He was a member of the Council and of the Executive Committee of NAE until 1968. In August 1970, Dr. Newmark was made a Fellow of the Argentine Academy of Exact, Natural and Physical Sciences, and in June 1975 he was designated as corresponding academician of the Academy of Engineering of the Mexican Institute of Culture.

His other honors include the Vincent Bendix Award for Engineering Research from the American Society for Engineering Education in June 1961, the Norman Medal of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1958 and the Ernest E. Howard Award of ASCE in the same year. He received also from ASCE the J. James R. Croes Medal in 1945, the Moisselff Award in 1950, and the Theodore von Karman Medal in 1962. In 1950 he received the Wason Medal of' the American Concrete Institute and in 1956 an award f rom the Concrete

?einforcing Steel Institute in recognition of his contributions to the field 1321 100

of reinforced concrete research. In 1965 Dr. Newmark was awarded the Order of Lincoln of Achievement in the field of technology and engineering by the Lincoln Academy of Illinois.

Dr. Newmark was elected to Honorary Membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1966, and to Honorary Membership in the American Concrete Institute in 1967 In 1969 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of the International Association of Earthquake Engineering, and in 1971 an Honorary Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

He is a Fellow of the ASCE, ASME, the Anerican Association for the Advance-ment of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the Insti tution of Civil Engineers of Great Britain.

In May 1958 the 43-story Latino Americana Tower in Mexico City, for which Dr. Newmark was the seismic consultant, was given a special award by the American Institute of Steel Construction because of its successful resistance to the major earthquake of July 1957. A stainless steel plaque was attached to the building indicating the part in its design that was played by D r. Newmark.

Professor Newmark is the author of over 230 papers, articles, monographs and bocks in the fields of structural analysis and design, applied mechanics, numerical methods of stress analysis, and effects of impact, shock, vibration, wave action, blast and earthquakes on structures. He is the co-author of two books on earthquake engineering including 'Vesign of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motion" wl.th J. A.

Blume and Leo Corning, published by the Portland Cement Assoc.iation in Chicago in 1961, and " Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering," with Emilio Rosenblueth, published by Prentice-Hall, Ir.c. in 1971.

Professor Newmark's chapters in books include Chapter 16, " Current Trends in the Seismic Analysis and Design of High Rise Structures," in Earthquake Engineerir.g, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. in 1970; Chapter 4,

" Seismic Analysis," in " Pressure Vessels and Piping: Design and Analysis,"

published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in 1972; and others. Dr. Newmark is editor of a series of texts in Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics for Prentice-Hall, Inc.

In February 1965 Professor Newmark was selected to give the Fifth Rankine Lecture under the auspices of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Great Britain, in London; and in September 1978 he was selected to give the Terzaghi Lecture by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

In June 1968 he was selected as one of the twenty-two engineering educators for the Aeerican Society for Engineering Education Hall of Fame.

1321 101

Dr. Newmark has been active on a number of national committees and boards including: the Commission on Engineering Education, of which he has been a member f rom its inception in 1962 until 1972; the Comnerce Technical Advisory Board of the U. S. Department of Commerce, during 1963-64; the National Science Foundation's Advisory Panel on University Computing Facilities, from 1964-1966; and the National Science Foundation's Advisory Committee for Engineering, from 1966 to 1969.

From 1969 to 1972 Dr. Newmark was Chairman of the Section on Engineering of the National Academy of Sciences, and from 1974 to 1978 he was Chairman of the National Research Council Committee on Natural Hazards.

Since 1977 he has been Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Earthquakes to the U. S. Geological Survey.

In 1976 Dr. Newmark was appointed by the President's Science Advisor as Chairman of an Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and H&zard Mitigation to prepare plans to augment the earthquake-related research programs of the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation. This Advisory Group's report was published in September 1976 and has since served as the basis for earthquake related research by the two agencies.

From 1974 to 1978 Dr. Newmark had the principal technical responsi-bility for the developnent of the Applied Technology Council's Recommended Seismic Design Provisions for Buildings, as Chairman of the Task Group Coordinating Committee, the Steering Committee, and Task Group II on Structural Behavior. These recommendations involved the cooperation of over 80 engineers, seismologists, and building code officials, and were published in July 1978.

During World War II, Dr. Newmark was a consultant to the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Field Service of OSRD. For this service he was awarded the President's Certificate of Merit in 1948.

In March 1971, he was awarded the outstanding Civilian Service Medal by the Department of the Army.

He has been a member of numerous boards and committees, including the Scientific Advisory Board of the U. S. Air Force from 1945-49, the "Gaither Committee" in 1957, and various other groups including boards and panels for the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, the Defense Atomic Support Agency, the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Office of Secretary of Defense, and other agencies.

He has been a consultant to a great many industrial organizations and agencies, and has been associated with studies of the seismic design for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System, and Le Chateau Champlain, a multi-story hotel building for the Canadian Pacific Railways in Montreal.

1321 102

4 Other important consulting work includes his activities since 1970 as principal seismic consultant on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and on the Canadian Gas Arctic Pipeline. Since 1972 he has had an association with the Bechtel Corporation on seismic, structural, and geodynamic problems.

Since about 1960, Dr. Newmark has been a consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on various aspects of the seismic resistance of nuclear reactor facilities. He has been engaged in development of seismic design criteria for buildings in Canada and Mexico, and on nuclear reactor projects in Iran, Is rae l, I ta ly, and France.

He is a registered Professional and Structural Engineer in Illinois, and a registared Civil Engineer in California.

Professor Newmerk8 s career at the University of Illinois included service as a Research Assistant and Research Associate from 1934 to 1937, Assistant Professor to 1943, and Professor of Civil Engineering since 1943.

He served as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering frem 1956 to 1973, and as Chairman of the Digital Computer Laboratory from 1947 to 1957.

In September 1973 Dr. Newmark resigned as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and became Professor of Civil Engineering and Professor in the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He retired and became Professor Emeritus in July 1976.

1321 103