ML19309H505

Review of Seismic Design Criteria for Site, Prepared for GE

ML19309H505
Person / Time
Site:	Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png
Issue date:	04/30/1980
From:	ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS CO., INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML19309H504	List: ML19309H503 ML19309H505 ML19309H506 ML19309H507 ML19309H509 ML19309H511 ML19309H512
References
EDAC-117-254.03, NUDOCS 8005130417
Download: ML19309H505 (50)

Text

_

80051304I7 EDAC-ll7-254.03 O

REVIEW OF SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE GETR SITE 1

)

l l

prepared for GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Vallecitos, California 30 April 1980 m - _ m _r m__.

3 v'o n" !! A C. CN "M [

OFF!CI AL ' '

,l

., ne rica pueuc - ce u m..e, 3

a::m ce;: m s

EDAC RE2=="

ENGINEERING DFCISION ANALYSIS COMPANY, INC.

480 CAllFORNIA AVE., SUITE 301 BURNITZSTRASSE 34 PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94306 6 FRANKFURT 70. W. GERMANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..............................

1 BACKGROUND...............................

1 NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS.....................

2 Seismological Assessment...............

3 Comparison of Spectra........................

3 STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKES..............

4 Imperial Valley -- Industrial Facilities..............

5 Imperial Valley -- Governmental and Commercial Buildings......

5 Imperial Valley -- Highway Structures................

6 Coyote Lake Earthquake.......................

6 San Fernando Earthquake.......................

7 Other Earthquakes..........................

7 EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION SIZE ON DESIGN SPECTRUM......

8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................

10 REFERENCES APPENDICES

- ~m - ~~ m

(

OFFICIAL E:'/.L

)

=

A -- COMPARISON OF SPECTRA l

h w1NM C, CAT'mO f;OTARY PUOUC - CAU;CRTA B -- BOLT EARTHQUAKE CRITERIA

( ' 's-'

w w m,. r e s m 9 sl y,,y, ccm y,

w(

r

.,p. m-m---

EDAC

REVIEW OF SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE GETR SITE INTRODUCTION This report presents a review of the seismic design criteria proposed and used for the evaluation of the GETR Reactor Building, an assessment of near-field earthquake effects including studies of structural damage (or lack thereof) resulting from such earthquakes, the results of analyses to determine ground wave transit time effects, and resulting conclusions and recommendations. A review of background history of the GETR seismic design criteria is given, followed by a presentation of the results of an assessment of near-field earthquake effects. The studies reported on herein were made in response to questions and comments raised by NRC staff and its consultants.

BACKGROUND The Calaveras is the postulated source of the largest acceleration the GETR site might experience.

GE (Ref. 1) proposed a site criteria of 0.56g effective ground acceleration resulting from a maximum earthquake on the Calaveras fault. An independent review by Dr. Charles F. Richter dated December 9, 1977 (Ref. 2) recommended a maximum magnitude design earthquake of M7.5 on the Calaveras fault with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.79 and a mean effective acceleration for engineering

~

design purposes of 0.5g for the maximum design earthquake motions at the site. Magnituae values stated in the NRC "GETR Safety Evaluation Report

~

Input" (September 27, 1979) are consistent with these values.

Dr. Richter further noted, in information prepared for the November 14, 1979 ACRS GETR Subcommittee meeting (Ref. 3), the following.

~~

c~-__

s v m m c.cy -,f OFFICIAL E i

/

.l hDIAR/ PUCUO - CAU. OpNtA

.s. a m.m m ft O9 My cgm 3, e gi 1 **M %

h=

n - ~ x m n v y,.

2 Evaluation of the capability of the Calaveras fault has now to consider the earthquake of August 6, 1979, in the Gilroy-Hollister part of the fault, with magnitude near 5.7.

This is an iditional instance like those known from the past, all of which h been limited in extent. The earliest of these, that of 18C as reported from near the present site of Livermore. Other earthquakes have affected the vicinities of Walnut Creek and of Danville; perhaps the Mare Island earthquake of 1898 should be included.

This evidence appears to document the Calaveras fault as habitually active only in relatively short segments, not in an extended fault rupture -- which would, in our judgment, support magnitude of 7 rather than of 7-1/2.

Thus, the selected effective ground acceleration (EGA) for design and analysis ranged from 0.5 to 0.56g.

The USNRC Order to Show Cause dated 24 October 1977 stated that " ground motions in excess of 0.75g should be considered possible at the GETR site."

In order to show that the GETR is safe and does not pose a risk to the public, to eliminate any concern regarding the level of conservatism associated with the analysis, and to expedite NRC review, General Electric Company performed additional reanalyses of the structures and systems important to safety, using revised earthquake criteria (Ref. 4) which complied with the intent of the Order to Show Cause, although GE and its consultants felt the revised criteria were overly conservative. The revised criteria were 0.8g ground acceleration anchored to USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra shapes and with two-thirds of the horizontal value for vertical motion. -

NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS The near-field effects and their relationship to magnitude, including data from the Imperial Valley (October 15,1979) and Coyote Lake (August 6,1979) earthquakes have been studied and assessed to determine whether the original criteria used in the seismic analyses is conservative.

In assessing the potential motions and structural seismic y"= ~ ~m~=<.n O! F!CI AL 5 ~, <,

r

(\\ VIMNIA C CAP

)

fj0'.MY PUCbC - Chi

^.,7 * 'd

/ l.h tM-) *s Cru 3 C-o e y'

'

• Ctc ~

i

/

e3 n (* *> e

~

n e v ws., ; _ _

3 criteria for near-field earthquakes, proximity to the site, site soil conditions, and the generally observed degree of structure response to near-field motions were considered.

A seismological assessment by Dr. Robert Kovach (Ref. 5) and a comparison of envelopes of Imperial Valley and Coyote Lake spectra with the GETR criterion spectrum are discussed.

Then structure response to near-field earthquakes including structural damage incurred (or lack thereof) and reviews of the Imperial Valley, Coyote Lake, San Fernando, and other earthquakes is presentud.

Seismological Assessment A seismological assessment by Kovach (Ref. 5) recommends an instrumental horizontal ground acceleration of 0.65g at the site for an ML*72 earthquake on the Calaveras. Kovach's study considered all applicable near-field recorded data. His study also considered the Verona fault and determined that an instrumental horizontal ground acceleration of 0.49 is appropriate for the Verona.

Kovach also studied the near-field vertical records from twelve earthquakes. Af ter assessing the Imperial Valley 1979 earthquake records and correlating them with M7.0 and larger earthquakes, he recommended a value of 0.429 for vertical acceleration as being appropriate for ground motion induced at the GETR site by an event on the Calaveras. This value of 0.429 is consistent with project criteria of using two-thirds of the horizontal for vertical motion.

Canparison of Spectra

~

As a fui ther study of near-field effects, a comparison of spectra developed from records for the Imperial Valley and Coyote Lake earthquakes was made ( Appendix A) to determine their relative shapes and to see if there were near-field effects not covered by the GETR criterion spectrum. An envelope of the spectra from ten records from the Imperial Valley and an envelope of five spectra from the Coyote Lake earthquakes

}wa~~mems..

f, A OFFICIAL E' iL

$ V!TWIA C. CAT d, 3

/,

m

):

y rmARY Pueuc - c;ure

(

^! wn cc,,

Q.#3,

.o ry m m nm. m.

ame- --tmm e % w y

4 were compared L:th the GETR criterion spectrum for 5 percent damping.

The shape of the GETR spectrum for horizontal motions essentially envelopes the near-field spectra, see Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5, Appendix A.

The GETR spectrum is slightly exceeded by an insignificant amount in the period range around 0.2 and 0.6 sec in Figure 2.

The exceedance around 3 to 4 sec. is beyond the range of periods of the structure and its safety-related systems, and thus would not affect the response of the

~

structure.

The GETR spectrum for vertical motions is also conservative and exceeds all of the Coyote Lake spectra and the Imperial Valley spectra for frequencies above about 8 Hz (Figures 3 and 6, Appendix A).

The vertical frequency of the Reactor Building is 3.6 Hz; hence, there would be little effect on vertical response if such motion frequencies were to occur.

The response in the higher frequencies (e.g., Fig. 3, Appendix A) above 8 Hz would have minimal effect on the GETR Reactor Building and its safety-related systems.

STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKES The relation of structure response to near-field earthquakes can best be assessed by reviewing the performance of structures exposed to high intensity instrumental near-field ground motions.

Instrumental peak ground acceleration (PGA) is sometimes used as the basis for constructing a design spectrum. However, as discussed below, there is extensive evidence that this is not realistic when dealing with near-field earthquakes. Observations from a large number of near-field earthquakes indicates there is poor correlation between PGA and structure damage.

The amount of damage to structures is significantly less than would be predicted using a response spectrum anchored to the instrumental peak accelerations.

Newmark (Ref. 6) also notes that for near-field earthquakes, the peak acceleration value is not a reasonable basis upon which to anchor the design spectrum. He Dased his Juagment on the spectra for near-field p<-~o~FICIAL E AI,

[

nm.

.m r

s r ? -m3 e car, R EM e

j naum puwe - cuore-4 y., %/

... ro m.g e gI,.n s

9 er-

+ve, v-

~ ~ m - r yp.,.

L

5 earthquakes for which records were available and from the lack of damage consistent with the near-field peak measurements in those near-field earthquak es.

Newmark referred to the Pacoima Dam record, the Parkfield record, the Ancona records, and the Melendy Ranch record. The recent records from the Imperial Valley October 15, 1979 and Coyote Lake August 6,1979 earthquakes also bear out this judgment, see examples in the following text.

Newmark further notes that damage levels for earthquakes that occur at distances over about 40 km appear to be more consistent with the calculated response spectra based on instrumental values when inelastic behavior of the structure is taken into account.

Imperial Valley -- Industrial Facilities As evidence of the lack of correlation of near-field instrumental peak accelerations with damage, the EERI report (Ref. 7) on the Imperial Valley earthquake notes there was minor damage to industrial facilities and, except for one collapsed tank, moderate damage to elevated water tanks. The El-Centro Steam plant was designed for 0.2.

No significant 9

structural damage or reduction of structural integrity occurred.

Instruments 0.85 km away from the plant recorded peak horizontal accelerations exceeding 0.5g and vertical accelerations of 0.93.

9 Imperial Valley -- Governmental and Commercial Buildings There was limited damage to these types of structures. The major building damage occurred to the Imperial County Services Building, where four concrete columns at one end of the building f ailed (shortened about 12 inches, but the building did not collapse) largely due to excessive overturning forces and inadequate confinement of the vertical reinforcing steel. The building was subjected to ground motions in excess of 0.3g (the code static design factor was less than 0.1g).

It is of interest that the County Courthouse (circa 1940) across the street from the Services Building incurred no structural damage and only limited plaster cracking.

l,e~

%ww u,

j /%

OFFICIAL F"AL

)

2 1 g Vmt: M C. Caco' mo 4 t i NOTAR( PUSUC - cay: gpNg i

/

Uy CO bl. c i3

• g

" - ~

-==.- - _ _ _,yp

6 Reference 7 (pages 126-134) shows the commercial structures on Main Street, El Centro, to be mostly one or two story masonry, concrete or light steel construction. These structures incurred limited structural damage. Most of the damage was from fallen parapets, cracked window glass, and cracked plaster or finishes. Their design seismic resistance is quite nominal (the design basis was probably less than 0.lg) yet they suffered relatively minor structural damage from the earthquake and its aftershocks (Ref. 7).

Imperial Valley -- Highway Structures There are fifteen state highway bridges in the Imperial Valley; only one suffered damage sufficient to be closed to traffic (Ref. 8). Of the remainder, a few exhibited some minor cracking of concrete and settlement of approach fills. The New River bridge in Brawley, which was built in 1963, exhibited backfill settlement and some structural damage from the initial shock; the left bridge was closed to traffic. Three aftershocks of MS.0 to 5.8 with epicenters within 6 km of the bridge induced additional settlement of backfills and damage to abutments and supporting piles such that the right bridge was also closed to traffic.

It is of interest that there are nine bridges within about 20 km of the main shock epicenter. They are located from 0.2 miles to about 4 miles from the fault. Four of the nine suffered minor structural damage (concrete cracks and/or shearing of some welds) and settlement of backfills. Five bridges on Interstate 8 (which crosses the Imperial f ault) had no structural damage although they are located from 0.2 to 3 miles from the fault.

Instruments at the Meloland Road overcrossing (0.2 miles from the fault) recorded a peak free field horizontal acceleration

~

of 0.329 and a peak vertical acceleration of 0.23, and 0.529 maximum 9

horizontal acceleration on the bridge. Considering the high recorded peak accelerations, the structural damage was slight.

Coyote Lake Earthquako Accelerations exceeding 0.4g were recorded.

Buildings and structures in the surrounding area were probably subjected to peak ground accelerations

,h 3r$$$UY,7 m a mw c ce's.g~m, t:Oinar pud. c a w

"?cr:q e,+q * ?

- c,.

'F e

m

%..m,u

7 less than this value. There was very minor damage, generally only architectural or non-structural building components (Ref. 9).

San Fernando Earthquake Damage to industrial structures was also relatively light in the San Fernando earthquake (Ref.10). Most of the major damage to dams and large industrial structures resulted from ground movement such as settlement or lurching. Damage to highway overcrossing structures was generally due to excessive relative displacement of different elements.

For example, abutments moved apart and the bridge spans dropped. The static seismic design factor for most of these structures was from 0.03 to 0.10g.

The damage to the Sylmar Converter Station was mostly to equipment and was generally due to inadequate anchorage or lack of design for seismic motions. The caretaker's cottage at Pacoima Dam, which was less than one-half mile from the recording station, suffered practically no damage.

Its brick chimney remained standing.

There was no damage to the dam; the instrument which recorded a peak of 1.29 was located near one abutment of the dam.

Other Earthquakes Housner (Ref.11) and Cloud (Ref.12) note the small damage occurring from the Parkfield earthquake.

Lander (Ref.13) describes the relatively light damage in the Melendy Ranch earthquake.

In summary, with the occurrence of the Imperial Valley and Coyote Lake earthquakes, a large number of earthquake records have been obtained for near-fiela earthquakes, as shown in Table 1.

In each of these earthquakes, the damage to buildings near the fault was substantially less than would have been predicted by using the recorded acceleration levels or response spectra calculated fran these records.

It is evident from the above that it is not realistic to use instrumental peak accelerations from near-field earthquakes to predict structure response x-m mcn-e OF FIC.l AL.

f ;/I: 1h "9NIA C. CA*

EM

- u=,7 r.om Nec - c' 4

.m g. m

..r w w

_y-~-

-,-we. - - ww -

8 and/or potential damage. Of particular interest, in the Imperial Valley earthquake, is the singular lack of reported damage which could be attributed to vertical accelerations despite the high vertical accelerations recorded.

~

EFFECTS OF FOUNDATION SIZE ON DESIGN SPECTRUM A number of investigators have observed that structures with large foundations subjected to vibratory motions from near-field earthquakes have lesser response to earthquake motions than do smaller structures, and the response is smaller than free-field instrumental records would indicate. Rational explanations for this type of behavior have been given by Yamahara in 1970 (Ref.14), Ambraseys (Ref.15), Scanlan (Ref. 16), Wolfe (Ref. 17), and Iguchi (Ref. 18).

Each of these references present relationships between average acceleration over a foundation as a function of the ground motion wave length.

Newmark (Ref. 6) developed an improved method of evaluating the earthquake effects on response of a large building by using average accelerations calculated from the ground motion record. His method involves taking a time average of passage of time of the acceleration record and then ca'iculating the response spectrum from the averaged acceleration record. The value of transit time, tau, is determined by dividing the " effective" width or square root of the area of the foundation by the wave velocity, which is generally considerably less than the shear wave velocity of the foundation material. The resulting effect is a filtering of the high frequencies and reduction in response for these frequencies.

The Newmark technique was used in additional studies related to GETR to determine the average accelerations and resulting response spectra for ti.!e histories matching NRC RG 1.60 spectra shapes, a near-field earthquake time history developed by Professor Bruce Bolt, and "close in" acceleration records from the Imperial Valley earthquake. Shear wave velocities at the GETR site range from 500 fps for high strains (such as

~+wu., n f

OFFICIAL F

% f,jp} \\,w n J

r-c.-

, we r c6 a. c.

p, m m.w..

9 those occurrir.g with earthquake intensities of 0.5g or greater) to 750 fps for lower strains (such as those occurring during a moderate earthquake). The Reactor Building is slightly elliptical in shape (70 f t by 72 ft); the square root of the area is about 63 ft.

Hence, tau values of 0.13 sec (Vs = 500 fps) and 0.08 sec (Vs = 750 fps) were used in the analyses.

The resulting spectra are shown in Figures 1 through 9.

Figure 1 shows the GETR criterion spectrum (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 shape) for 5 percent damping; the reduction in response ranges from about 10 percent for frequencies in the 2 Hz range to 50 percent or more at higher frequencies. Similar results are shown in Figure 2 for the Bolt Quake.

The Bolt Quake is an acceleration time history developed to represent a near-field earthquake with magnitude between 6-3/4 and 7-1/4.

This time history contains near-field effects including " fling." A brief description of the Bolt Quake is included in Appendix B.

The results of the transit time analyses of Imperial Valley horizontal acceleration records for Stations 4, 6, and 7 are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

These stations were selected because they straddle the fault rupture; Station 4 is 7 km and Stations 6 and 7 are about 1 km from the fault. The transit time reduction effect for Station 4 for tau = 0.13 sec ranges from about 3 percent for frequencies in the 2 Hz range to over 20 percent at higher frequencies. The reduction effects for Stations 6 and 7 (Fig. 4 and 5) are similar.

The reduction effects due to transit time for the vertical acceleration spectra are presented in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 for Station 4, 5, 7, and the USGS aifferential array.

(The data on the USGS tape of instrumental recordings for the vertical motion at Station 6 was not usable.)

The tau reduction effects for vertical motion are generally larger in magnitude than those for the horizontal motions and range from about 10 percent reduction for frequencies in the 2.5 Pz range to 65 to 70 percent at 10 Hz or higher frequencies. These reduction effects are in the general ww -~~ -

j OFFICIAL F~ ".'

y ;g?gg y) mm v ~, c cw ~ ~ v,

/.

fiOTA0 f IC C 0 Wei Lmmwm., _

m s

,m,m..

mmw n

10 range of interest for vertical response of the Reactor Building and safety-related equipment. These reductions of the response effects of the high frequencies are similar to those found by Newmark, Figures 10 and 11, which are reproduced from Reference 6.

~

The above additional studies were made to determine the effects of foundation size and ground wave transit time for near-field earthquake records.

It was found there would be substantial reductions for higher frequencies in the response spectra for such motions. These reductions range up to more than 50 percent. Based on these findings it is evident, considering the size of the GETR Reactor Building foundation and the properties of the underlying foundation medium, that higher frequency motions would be largely filtered and hence the response of the structure and its safety-related systems to such motions would be less than calculated in the structural analyses previously reported (Ref. 4).

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The previous text has presented the results of studies made regarding the effects of near-field earthquakes on structure response and damage (or lack thereof).

These studies included:

1.

Seismological assessment by Kovach (Ref. 5).

2.

Comparison of GETR response spectrum with envelopes of spectra for near-fielJ Imperial Valley and Coyote Lake earthquake records.

3.

Detailed review of observed and reported structural damage incurred during a large number of near-field earthquakes.

4.

The reduction effects of ground wave transit time considering size of structure foundation and properties of underlying foundation medium.

y=w

-.n.

.,w Off!JAL e,

,s j '

6 % ' 'm~,,,(

cy,,

1 NOTurpUBUC 2 C/ w : a n f u ~ ~) ~ ~,, m.\\ CO.L..,

i LA ?D

~:

11 The findings of the above and other studies referenced in the text were:

1.

The study by EDAC (Ref.1) recommended an effective ground acceleration of 0.56.

9 2.

The evaluation by Richter (Ref. 2) recommended 0.7g instrumental peak acceleration with a maximum acceleration for design of 0.5.

9 3.

The assessment by Kovach (Ref. 5) recommended instrumental peak accelerations for the GETR site of 0.65g horizontal and 0.42g vertical for an event on the Calaveras and 0.4g horizontal for an event on the Verona. The vertical should be two-thirds of the horizon tal.

4.

Comparison of envelope spectra of Imperial Valley and Coyote Lake earthquake near-field records show that the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum shape adequately covers the near-field motion frequencies of interest to GETR Reactor Building response.

5.

Review of structural damage incurred during a large number of near-field earthquakes shows that structure response (damage) in the near-field is much less than would be predicted using instrumental peak ground accelerations and conventional analytical techniques.

6.

A study of the response reduction effects of ground wave transit time across the Reactor Building foundation demonstrates that the structure response to near-field motions are significantly reduced.

Such raductions help explain the small amount of damage which has occurred to structures exposed to near-field motions.

during several earthquakes.

y "wt ;* J f0 S^ g Q' h l

E2'f PUCUC. CAU c p -

l q

's

g g g,

O, r,,,,

l

~. _'

12 7.

The GETR Reactor Building has been analyzed for several values of effective ground acceleration (EGA) anchored to the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra shape. These EGA values have ranged from 0.3g to 0.8g with vertical motion equal to two-thirds of the horizontal.

Af ter carefully considering the above findings and other pertinent data, and based on extensive experience with the design, analysis and response of structures to earthquake motions, the following recommendations are presen ted:

1.

An effective ground acceleration (EGA) value of 0.69 anchored to Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra (Figure 12) should be used for vibratory motion induced at the site by an event on the Calaveras fault. This EGA value is consistent with the recommendations of References 1, 2, 3, and 5 and with the probable maximum magnitude earthquake on the Calaveras. Free field instrumental peak accelerations (isolated high frequency spikes) may exceed this EGA value but would have little or no effect on structure response. The effects of these near-field instrumental high frequency accelerations would be filtered and reduced by the ground wave travel time across the Reactor Building foundation.

2.

An effective ground acceleration of 0.49 anchored to Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra should be usea for vibratory motion induced at the site by an event on the Verona fault.

3.

For vertical motions a value equal to two-thirds of the horizontal acceleration should be used and anchored to Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra.

In conclusion, the analyses of the GETR Reactor Building have been based on criteria exceeding those determined from the studies reported herein.

Therefore, it is evident for the GETR Reactor Building that the concrete fi"^ " Nee %wy r'3 OFFICIAL "

o

{"iJ?hVm,MMCC'm m

=mue. cc," ?

DEC

\\

WJ.CD*. CCL:: +,

/

f = =C-M7 coc:.n. crpn

[

m ~ ~ m n.;,ao a

.(

13 core structure necessary for safe shutdown will remain intact and the safety-related systems housed therein will remain operational during and following a maximum event en the Calaveras or Verona faults.

REFERENCES 1.

Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., " Evaluation of General Electric Test Reactor for Operating, Environmental, and Postulated Accident Conditions, Criteria and Bases Summary for Structures, Piping Systems, and Components," prepared for General Electric Company, San Jose, California, EDAC 117.08, June 1976.

2.

Richter, Charles, F., " Potential Earthquakes on the Calaveras Fault," Lindvall, Richter & Associates Report, 9 December 1977.

3.

Richter, Charles F., " Notes on Site Seismology, Relative to GETR,"

Lindval, Richter & Associates Report, November 9,1979.

4.

Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., " Seismic Analysis of Reactor Building, General Electric Test Reactor, Phase II," prepared for General Electric Company (GETR), Pleasanton, California, EDAC-117-217.03, 1 June 1978.

5.

Kovach, Robert L., "A Seismological Assessment of the Probable Expectation of Strong Ground Motion at the GETR Site," report to Engineering Decision Analysis Company for General Electric Company, April 28, 1980.

6.

Newmark, N. M., "A Rationale for Development of Design Spectra for Diablo Canyon Reactor Facility," a report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 3 September 1976.

7.

" Reconnaissance Report -- Imperial Valley California, Earthquake, October 15, 1979," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, February 1980.

8.

" Seismic Report -- Post Earthquake Investigation Team, Imperial Valley Earthquake of October 15, 1979," Report by Office of Structures Design, California Department of Transportation.

9.

"1979 Coyote Lake (Gilroy) Earthquake," Newsletter, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, September 1979.

10. John A. Blume & Associates, " Damage Survey San Fernando Earthquake of Feburary 9,1971," report prepared for Division of Reactor Standards, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, JABE-DRS-01, March 1971.

11.

G. W. Housner, " Earthquake Research Needs for Nuclear Power Plants,"

Journal Power Division, Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 97, 1971, pp. 77-91.

7 l

~ y Ewgg i

DAC s

),

.m m..

<Wm.

~

14 12.

W. K. Cloud, " Intensity Map and Structural Damage, Parkfield, California, Earthquake of June 27, 1966," Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 57, No. 6, 1967, pp. 1161-1178.

13.

J. F. Lander, eaitor, Seismological Notes, January-February 1972, Bulletin Seismological Society of America, Vol. 62, No. 5,1972, pp. 1360-1362. Lander, J. F. editor, Seismological Notes, September-October 1973.

14.

H. Yamahara, " Ground Motions During Earthquakes and the Input Loss of Earthquake Power to an Excitation of Buildings, Soils and Foundations," Vol. No. 2, 1979, pp. 145-161, Tokyo.

15.

N. Ambraseys, " Characteristics of Strong Ground Motion in the Near Field of Small Magnitude Earthquakes," Invited Lecture, Fifth Conference European Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, September 1975.

16.

R. H. Scanlan, " Seismic Wave Effects on Soil-Structure Interaction,"

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4,1976, pp. 379-388.

17.

J. P. Wolf, " Seismic Response Due to Traveling Shear Wave Including Soil-Structure Interaction With Base-Mat Uplift," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5,1977, p. 337-363.

18.

M. Iguchi, " Input Earthquake Motion to Structure and Response Analysis with Consideration of Size," Proceedings Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 1970, pp. 231-238.

19.

R. Console, F. Peronaci, A. Sonaglia, "Relazione Sui Fenomeni Sismica Del'anconitano (1972)," Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 26, Supplement 1973, Rome.

20.

" San Fernando, California Earthquake of February 9, 1971," U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1973.

I Y-r & <> w m g n

omcmL sru t, ~mm c cwa w-i NG TARY PU8a;. C AWC t.": A S

(- Y-.

A1 AVDA CO;;nir 7

g

)

nY CDO. tyf tts ??n R ' ' t {

"7"* ~ Nvmwex, ;,. -,

EA

iS TABLE 1 NEAR-FIELD PEAX EARTHQUAKE RECORDS Horizontal Record Date Peak Acceleration Reference Pacoima Dam, CA 2/9/71 1.2g 20 Parkfield, CA 6/27/66 0.59 11, 12 Ancona, Italy 6/72 0.6g 19 Melendy Ranch, CA 9/4/72 0.79 13 Imperial Valley, CA 10/15/79 0.8g 7

Coyote Lake, CA 8/6/79 0.429 9

pum m w,.

OFF!CIAL F' /1L j, o, p

/,

! "h) V!R^.i: DA C CV^

'7-

/-

- f OTARY putu. C/1'>a%T

?. t w,

r~,

[{

I i t :c--

c':7 es :n" 9

~. m %,,,

1. -w

s l\\

3000 2700 l

2400 7=0 7

2100 Z9 V-j 1800

".J

(

E!"g is00 _l

\\

o y, - ~..,

5 f ' " 0 08 4

sr 1200

- 3

,ta w

~V

' N S

it S

goo s

~

i, r<

(

!37 T = 0.13

] 2 O' U O

(

kjJ

/z

\\

600 gm4 Ei 0 0 $ "5 f d U Un h I.

' o

<k 300

n-l.. O n y,,, (>

y'n. n t* -

a

...c

[ -? 5 d 0

l yj '

O 4

8 12 16 20 24 28 32

so F H EQUENCY, ilE RTZ FIGURE 1 GETR CRITERlON RESPONSE SPECTRUM g

5 PERCENT DAMPING -IlORIZONTAL I

3000

[

2700 2400 2100 2

O

[ r=0 1800 f

T s.-... j e "j 1500 g

A e

c o

W v j' 7 o

a j;

i-i, f

1200 i

%S'

(

l5 k.$

E' f ' ' 0 00 t

\\

h@u $ l 000 [ '"8 L 2 5,-0 f B Po, s V $] b ~ x jiI* ?! f ? "' r = 0.13 300 ? ' ' i; l

-:.j/

>J D ~ --W 0 10 30 t FREQUENCY HERTZ f FIGURE 2 BOLT QUAKE RESPONSE SPECTRUM M S PERCENT DAMPING - HORIZONTAL

N E f C 8 3 H 8 =H Tm C m 3 "y 2 N O ) m o m c l A m N M o l y N c w w 2 c m .OH = >Z 4-

• OO mN

>E h,- 3 ~ i m Z 2:: 5 mc O O O O )U '. DCo M 4 :7 m 3~ nr i o ) i m COO ~ n <ZZ l \\ M m>m l mE r@> r w o \\. )NC L-4. C AH y n r Z yz m S \\ N 2_On dI

• >m l

'H E ~ ~ Gm M g o C 5 8 8 8 8 5 o ~ e e a m ees/mc NOITARELECCA L ARTCEPS i ,.g--- - _ -; m_ - ~ 03dIDV7 i:m/T ,d, '%, g Af jiC: . ~ 1 r. >j( NciVcx d^.siis - > w:IV. O'3V i..;;C l g

s a.

i E 'rr=~ >or - N ~-.:-.:...~u su v a.p.n ;;; u ', s ~~-e.c l

R 2 D R 5 o w I Q. H m a w 2 m N z N-O 4 c. e m o W V e e i i ~ N 4 o c: -CH e g<Oz /. -O C CD D o e i z w z c-w w C3 O O l = Ow-0 & c; i aw w y ) 8 i Oaa o a 3 <z z f' w r a ums / "8< <~ H k >no ys = a z 1 <z w I e 390 f1 m Ldz 13L l I i- ~ c 9 8 8 8 8 9 2 e e e n m 345/W3 g NOl1VW 37300V 1VW103dS vm... wmn.,, OFFICIA h vem:u c. L g, , v c;x m~ { / j NOT/AY PUCL:C C/ ' 0;' A ( ( 3, t,',I 6 ALAuCM Cc; J.~ i ?* c0 .r, ev,tr.s ?'"? a j

m. ~

~m wn

t ll\\ 1 2 3 M U 8 R 7 TC E P H S T E U 4 S M 2 N I O Z P A SE "0 R 32 0 2 0 L* _N Z 7 T 9 A R 1 T El 5, N i 1 O Y Z R I 6 C 1 N E R E BDO 0 U O Al i = Q T E ClO-7 2 R Of G F 8 2 ,N N 0 YOI 1 ~ ET P 0 A = LSM A e S3 T LUA V AHD 1 V ,GT 0 8 L N j AN = E 7 I O C RI ET R PAEP 6 l MTS5 I / 4 a 4 E R 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 o G 0 0 0 0 0 I 5 2 9 6 3 F 1 1 ke$ z9F j " "!o j 4 f g g i ,p; flj l" k 5 E,- gI h$ . S h. S n n N g-j y, i iC7 D- .] 4t ';4 :., y, ? 5li. 0 7;.. ' f,? ]A ,l j

1500 1200 o 7=0 000 n'k \\ l 3 "i NE I W j" -. - ~, f f 600 / 3 " f' '.. L ' O \\ '/ S -J' \\_ r = 0.08 N ) E k V ,, jj O 300 q ---u }

1. D E$ 5l T = 0.13 A$8A0D)f

$ 53 N31 O S." ' f -i E,,. 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 ] [b FREQUENCY, HERTZ FIGURE 4b IMPERI AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 15,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM STATION G,ilUSTON ROAD 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG - HORIZONTAL-140* AZlMUTil )

1500 1200 -j 9 F 900 1 m d.. h r=0 o 8s2 < E _a " 600 r = OP8 4 r w~, cr / n 0 0,(t v.; i a -1 [ r = 0.13 I 's. W ( ) - ~ < ( ) 7 3 13.' 300 3. ?? 2 0, a n tj n,5 L' <

' G 2 oe

, IP 5 I' 5 [ l O _i f:? { ' 0 4 8 12 1G 20 24 28 32 i%n.y j, ' r FREQUENCY, HERTZ >a %,.- u-FIGURE Sa IMPERI AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 15,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM g STATION 7, IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 5 PERCENT DAMPING -IlORIZONTAL-230" AZIMUTH I

1500 1200 2 9 U m 900 Tid i NE j

) I"c g " 600 j

a s j +.!..; F y ., 'f( j l i r=0 v/ r g I A )e S33 ( r = 0.08 tin E00 L )4 jj g [h' Q.f -~ ~~ 300 { tj I' 50 5 f /r ~ 0.13 ,a F M- / :: n. n -' Gk SN M .a c: e], \\ a: ~ :.

S ; '

O 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 j j () g V F HEQUENCY, llEHTZ i FIGURE 513 IMPERI AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 16,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM M STATION 7, IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG -IlORIZONTAL-140 AZIMUTH I

3000l 2700 2400 2100 29 F-y 1800 "i us "u O E 1500 p s,. 4Eu a gO 4 y i, g 1200 ,A %.;..,l { d _~- a e_. R5 C. }4 q. C]Oh s.o 4 900

. <.

m.7

- m: r=0 bI m (f[hn, hk o..o n>,$ f f-7 = 0 08 300 ')N,ff,.,i3 l

O o

^ t 4. 3 3 ' ;d r = 0.13 -r ~ ~ ~ "_y 50 h 0 N~""'9 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 F REQUENCY, HER TZ FIGURE G IMPERI AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 15,1979 RESPONSE SPECTRUM STATION 4,2005 ANDERSON ROAD I 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG - VERTICAL

3000 2700 2400 2100 8 Iy 1800 m f m ' *u 8 5 1500 %~. - ~., I $b -r=0 s k .1 e) 'l _ / \\, \\ _gp s 3, z r! O 17 ls El , /- r - 0 08 {. Y .n )&I Q 48f,} % 5 c'y ~ ax r = 0.13 3 .,6 g O O 4 8 12 IG 20 24 28 32 .v m FREQUENCY,llERTZ FIGURE 7 IMPE RI AL VALLEY, OCTOBE R 15,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM g STATION 5,2801 JAMES ROAD 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG - VERTICAL

3000 2700 2400 2100 z9 Fy 1800 "i0" /\\ i{ ^ N I Y_ [T = 0 3 ]f es, s 'V (/ m 1200 j m / d? $l k \\ 'j $ ' b N h.-lf y i,; y -) h l-l 600 lj ].5 30 / r = 0.08 -tQ',,. 3(X) / - s sjn. n r( 'i -;~:" r = 0.13 2

1. d'I O

JU 0 4 8 12 IG 20 24 28 32 ~ ~ ' ^ ' F R EQUENCY, ilEH TZ FIGURE 8 IMPE RI AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 15,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM N STATION 7, IMPERI AL VALLEY COLLEGE I 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG - VERTICAL

3000 2700 2400 I 2l00 g 9 9 1800 m uj

• r=0 un
• u o 5 1500 4 E

_, u 4 1200 m o \\ e, j 900 q ~ 1v M 32 3 <;; f r = 0.08 2 600 2 $1! O f Y6s -w

• ~1 y hkh 3 $'

3 ' k S q - 5 0 5; f.' j k r ='0.13 N )2n . n t~ 3p? Qh t 0 ' d e <: ;, 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

>* <l fy, -

F REQUE NCY, ilE RTZ ,a I FIGURE D IMPFm AL VALLEY, OCTOBER 15,1979, RESPONSE SPECTRUM DIFFERENTIAL ARRAY, DOGWOOD ROAD j l' 5 PERCENT DAMPlNG, VERTICAL

s2 s 9/ / \\ / \\ / / \\ / f h~y' N / f p% o \\ /\\ \\ '4 \\ / \\ - ox ,Y / \\ /\\ / \\ / ~ \\/ d \\ / o \\ / / \\/ s f i g\\}/ 4A /'e, X /^gS '^ \\ /\\ / k\\ \\ / \\ / \\ / \\ o N / 5 \\ // \\ /\\ / \\ / \\ / \\\\'\\\\ \\ /\\ /

s

. ;- ) q, h'd o\\v-Q7y^v^ U \\ / \\, / o> \\ \\ q'v x:: ~ jE 5 \\ / 9 / \\ /\\ [ \\ \\ / O Q / \\ i f \\ \\ /,\\ / \\ / \\ / \\ /\\ / \\ / \\ \\ / N 3 d02 005 0.1 Q2 05 1 2 5 10 20 50 10 0 Frequency, cps PACOIMA DAM RESPONSE SPCCTRUM 9 FEB 1971, Sl6 E, M 2 PERCENT DAMPING, r = 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16 sec. FIGURE 10 REPRODUCED FROM REFERENCE 6

A _f y / ('>(>('k,g' /)('Vf X'VM / / 20 o/ / f \\ / no ,A.. / -- bl --l V / '\\} h/ \\ l hi 's / N / / ' \\,/ \\ b / ---/- / -J o'/ k s / i fw X>wA v'A/x/ 4 [; M'N / 'o,[309\\,' r O ' \\p!' 'N e' x ~q yd \\'-,'% l ,4

- - sy, - \\/

/ y fs i]@, / ' N, / '\\. o,/ 'N / '. / N \\r db\\/ '\\ \\' N./ o / s,) / qb,s .n e; ./ r = 0.12 s/ 1.x

n e

e x v ..,e n >._ s .s / ...j. o.is'g[. x / f .\\ fb, 's / 4-- l- )f; 4, or 'j / x, /' '.A 'y y f / s ,e 1, / x / / \\ /\\/ 'x / / x / ~~ \\ g, f s 002 0 05 0.1 02 05 1 2 5 10 20 SC 10 0 200 M Frequency, cps I ANCONA, ROCCA 6-14-72 GMT-NORTH r = 0,002,0.04,0.06,0.08,0.12,0.16 SPECTRUM COMPUTED USING 5.0 PERCENT CRITICAL DAMPING FIGURE 11 REPRODUCED FROM REFERENCE 6

T *e,P + ost

c. s? t +

} 9 H4m W 30 O J. 4 6 J I 4 - p,j { g 4., 2$ o

1. q 9o k m

2.0 E :: b ' h p \\ bvN f N / e;;. V co r! / \\ o - A1 / g N il n *nF% / g., [? n >..) 1.0 /- - h y 1:, / v: ',Q,, 0.609 / ,1 / a [j \\ ~ 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 0 PE RIOD, sec M FIGURE 12 RECOMMENDED llORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM FOR GETR - 5 PERCENT DAMPING l

I 1 f l APPENDIX A I l 1 I l i 1 I i i I CF i'; C! AL ' b Vin '":! T C. C? ^ '~'> ] NOTARY FUEttC - Cl-L ~': \\ ! II'I CO' ~.

• DECS. '..

COMPARISON OF SPECTRA: 15 0CTOBER 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE 6 AUGUST 1979 C0Y0TE LAKE EARTHQUAKE versus GETR CRITERIA SPECTRA l prepared for GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Pleasanton, California w,. - OFFICI AL.' 26 March 1980 d i" m c. cc ~ 'S r w m Neu:-ca m c' cc l Revisea 28 April 1980 r.. n,.. ~ i...

c.,,

- ~

• w.^ ;N =,

g I ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY,INC. 480 CALIFORNIA AVE.,5,UITE 301 BURNITZSTRASSE 34 PALO ALTO, CALIF. 94306 6 FRANKFURT 70, W. GERMANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 1 Basis for Comparisons -- 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake Table 2 Basis for Comparisons - 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake Earthquake Figure 1 Comparison of Spectra, 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake Direction: Along the Fault Damping: 5 percent Figure 2 Comparison of Spectra,15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake Direction: Transverse to Fault Damping: 5 percent Figure 3 Comparison of Spectra,15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake Direction: Up Damping: 5 percent Figure 4 Comparison of Spectra, 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake Earthquake Direction: Along the Fault Damping: 5 percent Figure 5 Comparison of Spectra, 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake Earthquake Direction: Transverse to Fault Damping: 5 percent Figure 6 Comparison of Spectra, 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake Earthquake Direction: Up Damping: 5 percent Figure 7 Strong-Motion Stations in the Imperial Valley, California Figure 8 Location Map of Instrumentation Arrays and Close-In Stations to Epicenter of the Coyote Lake Earthquake a-___. OFF'CI AL S" AL h trv":% C ChW '10

• o; =. < ruwc - c;

,,.,' ; E 2 CC'; i e a m.g ~ -w, .m.

TABLE 1 BASIS FOR COMPARISONS -- 15 0CTOBER 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Station Along Fault Transverse Up 5% Damping 5% Damping 5% Damping

1. 5028 El Centro Sta. 7 X

X X

2. 942 El Centro Sta. 6 X

X - (1)

3. 5054 Bonds Corner X

X X

4. 958 El Centro Sta. 8

) j'

5. 952 El Centro Sta. 5 X

X X f

6. 5165 El Centro Differential Array X

X X ~' ( a 7

7. 955 El Centro Sta. 4 X

X X 2 o ,jg

8. 5060 Brawley Airport X

X X ,g}

9. 5055 Holtville X

X X g c-10, 412 El Centro Sta. 10 X X X y ' j j.

11. 5053 Calexico Fire Station X

X X y Notes "X" Denotes record included (1) Vertical spectra are not included because this record is anomalous. The recorder is near the iiI intersection of the Brawley-Imperial fault wedge where rupture direction shif ted to a more vertical direction. I

TABLE 2 BASIS FOR COMPARISONS -- 6 AUGUST 1979 C0Y0TE LAKE EARTHQUAKE Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Station Along Fault Transverse Up 5% Damping 5% Damping 5% Damping Gilroy Array 1 X X X Gilroy Array 2 X X X '^ Gilroy Array 3 X X X -,,y Gilroy Array 4 X X X ..is sK Gilroy Array 6 X X X

/

c [ "I 9 :g Jijet p ;e. ? ! d 0 8 t ' ; p n S i( '4-6- ,Jn pr

O O aq,n l '.

), i~ p f.

3. -

Note N x cenotes record includeo

o 9 s s /j'/ / /// / /V,V/ / / f,I,I',/ I/ / $~ / p. s:7p///,///)/) /.. / / / / / p W: / /f / /// //f,/ /:///

/ /

9 / / / / // w Envelope spectrum / / A Criterion spectrum // Yh h //h 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) ct ong h ul Damping: 5 percent ,' v -,:$f ds- " " ~ ;; c;; r unac

~. _ m a g;:f,-

l

9 4 s 'l/ l/ l//l/ / /l I/,/,,l///,/,j//j,// / /,// / l / / l {/ / / / l / / / / V,/I I '/' 4 v /9/ /'/9 / 9/

• f/

',/9//'/7 / e /A /,// /,// /,// /, / / // $?/ zl,xpt/// / 4// 3/ / / 77 / /l / / / e Envelope spectrum / / 7 / A Criterion spectrum / / /9/ / v',v /' /'// f / / / 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) Dr t n r e F t Damping: 5 percent OF FICldI, 5 ' i' j ; r Ebe ic ^ "d:5$2 ^ ' 1 EM

@9' o' v f'/l/ V /'Y/ l/ /l// / ,/ If /f,/l J~ I h/ /l / / l/ ^ / / 7 ,/,/ / / / //,/// /,/ / / /' /o ,/ /y/// /// // /-// W,'/ E /hN / e' f/ / /'/ ' / / ~ / / / / ///'\\ / ////pf'///$'! h//' f /,,,;l/// / / "o ' / //,(/// // / / M Envelope spectrum / A Criterion spectrum j j / 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) ~ FIGURE 3 Comparison of Spectra 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake Direction: Up Damping: 5 percent Note: Spectrum from Staticn 6 is not inclucec, see footnote Taole 1. o5EEi ETi,~ r / ' ' k Vmn!NIA C. CND "'1 L::,;(. armar - ) r.:

c.,

O 4 g v 'j' / / ' / l/ l/' 'l/ / / ll//l////,// /' / ,/,// // / / -/ / / // W,/b, /f 4 / /l / / QN / / / ,/ / //// ,/ Il/ /',I p/',//pW/ l' , / f s// / //< e / f/ / // / / // /,- / / / - / W Envelope spectrum / / A Criterion spectrum /// / / / / / 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) 1 n 1 teF t Damping: 5 percent h, 'mm =! '.,, OFFICIAL Off_255$UE:-jlEnac l

g 1

e D' N N /V'/ }/ l /7V/ / I/! f //,!//$~ 7 I I ,/,/ / // ,/ /6 /%/ / / / // // \\ / / , / l / /y </ / /- I,'}' 'k f /;, - - c /- / / //' / / /' // // // / // / ><F-//,/ //;/ '/ / // / // ) Wx / /W, A'/ ,/ h ,/'/ z/// y / / / / # Envelope spectrum / j/ 77 A Criterion spectrum /! /!/ / V 1 ,/ V V / k 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) gus 99 te L'ke Earthquake s"p@i" s !"r"' *t r;;; k viprWPA C. CVS~'?D tmar ~: f - g h: k l .A

u.,

=r." ' ':n

o 9 s s //lll / ll,/l/ / I/ f / / ,//,// // / / ///j,/ / / / / / / / D f / / /'///f//%/ '/ /,/5// /// 'e / / / l//Ed//;49,/ @ Envelope spectrum 7 [ A Criterion spectrum / / /, / 0.1 1.0 10.0 Period (sec) ugu 9 oo Lake Earthquake Damping: 5 percent h hh bhkICIhb.u[ l 0 5 3 % 'c( C E ; ; 1 L_ _Ladiggy Em

115845 w 115:30"N [-- EXPLANATION 32n 5'Ni ; N! LAND )' e SMAT1 Grcund station N c .l A CSA-1 Gr:Und stati:n .j S.-tL TON SE.-i .~. m CR A.1 Bc;! din; Y CRA 1 .End;e o # M i =truct + OCA 200 S; ecia! array s 0 10 l i CAllPATRIA N KILOMETERS i

w 111

= N - / -E o c. WESTMORELAN \\ -- ~ yn - \\ um \\, (a D@ BRAWLEY Array e sa t NO.1 o o,y :;i:simcN y7;g; g oa::c*uTE 6,3 g 3 m

2:

c h/ h Test F ACt.lTY e NO.2 /' FAULT [ . )/ BRAWLEY m , yg,3 ..{g] l .au. n $U$IN,' e N0'4 j O IMPERIAL NO.5 NO.5 '$ S II h Ng m..s NO.7 HOLTVILLE j O hj " r 6 EL CENTRO ', p3

jy o

a f jNo.g

1. vi(:0..5

?. ,[ m O -' c NO.10 i f 22:45 N- . w.ll e=1:ms= 8 5 15/.t0 a gi e NO.12 i e -/ 5:.:5 NO.13 6 e c:.i: I 'A I CALEXIC0g ,_U_SA____ - C*- ~~~ MExlCO ~ __ , 3., ;:

1: rij FIGURE 7.

STRONG-t'0TIOri STATIONS Ifi THE IMPERIAL VALLEY, CALIFCRNIA

Reference:

" Preliminary Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey Steng-Motion Recorcs from the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthqua<e," Open-File Report 79-1654, U.S. Geological Survey, October 1979. EDAC

I i i HALLS VALLEY EI?L AN ATION e ACCELER0 GRAPH STATION av i. FAULT ZONE ', ?* 'd,', 0 20 KW i i i MORGAN HILLq C0Y0TE LAKE EPICENTER s (0/0TE ME' AUGUST 6,1970 h *$e 6 GILR0Y ,,e m& 3T'00'h sa ms usaroa 1 2 3 GILROY ARRAY //,, 'G; 10 I / 15 6 '.'/,,, '-9 0ERF A SS,]/. HOLLISTER ' 'T ,f S AN JUAN BAUTISTA '/,/p,p,dy,5AG0 if,

- f.

<Q* ' ]U UN c c 0Y b;

I 52

/ BEAR VALLEY ARRAY z / '*NfI' I SAuMAS v V' ' :3 12 5 'l ,e e s%e ~ e2 gF 5ALINAS

1. 4;4 11 wJ 9

e 4,' l4 w+'- .( g 10 #o i 6.,',,,, i ,,3g, q 121' 30' W 121' 00'

• FIGURE 8.

LOCATION MAP OF INSTRUMENTATION ARRAYS AND CLOSE-IN STATIONS TO EPICENTER OF THE, C0YOTE LAKE EARTHCUAKE Ref eren ce: " Comp:lation of Strong-Motion Recorcs frca the August 5,1979 Coyote Lake Earthquake," Preliminary Report 25, Open-File Report 79-285, U.S. Geological Survey, October 1979. I 1

APPENDIX B i ) i l 1 i s 4 Q[ ['[C[ A[s - '1', y ; 'E IC C - i ,V "' CO,,, s ,-as ,.y ggn e '7i'35 I,Na .YW v.

BOLT EARTHQUAKE CRITERIA Earthquake ground motions (horizontal component) were constructed that satisfied simultaneously a number of criteria. 1. A peak ground acceleration at frequencies less than 10 Hz of about 0.7. 9 2. A peak ground velocity of about 100 cm/sec. 3. A peak displacement associated with the seismic waves (i.e., not " static" displacements such as landslides) of about 50 cms. 4. A bracketed duration of acceleration above 0.5g at frequencies less than 10 Hz of 20 to 30 secs. 5. An interval between the P and S wave onsets of about 5 secs, correspinding to a focal distance of 25 kms. 6. A longer period pulse following the S wave arrival that models the " fling" of the fault rebound as the rupture goes by the site. 7. A pseudo-velocity spectrum (2 percent damping) that resembles in shape and level similar spectra obtained by combining seismic ground motions from many sources (Housner and Jennings,1964). These criteria represent a magnitude 6-3/4 to 7-1/4 earthquake produced by rupture of the Hayward Fault. The values in 1, 2, 3, and 4 above are extrapolations from available strong motion records obtained for the largest earthquakes elsewhere (M S 7.2) nearest to their fault sources. The Pacoima strong motion in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is one of the components of this assessment, with allowance for the different mechanisms involved (thrust faulting in 1971 compared to strike-slip on the Hayward Fault) and the effect of topography. ,,[ ' , ' ~r/ ~ clRO ,w:- nrA w .I~ . l'Ol

2 The acceleration, velocity, and displacement records were built up by first drawing general envelopes with the required shape, amplitudes, and duration. Then 20 term Fourier series were used to represent the wave motion within these envelopes. The coefficients of the sine and cosine terms were varied in order to obtain allowable spectra for frequencies from 8 to 0.5 Hz and phase relations that modelled the P and S onsets, o the fling pulse, and the decaying coda. Finally, additional higher frequency motion was superimposed to produce a more realistic "looking" accelerogram (i.e., one with a more continuous energy distribution through all frequencies of concern). From the suite of records thus obtained, the records reproduced in Figure 1 were selected as meeting the criteria 1 to 7. It should be mentioned that, as is well-known, the high frequency peak of acceleration can be changed by 10 per cent or so without significantly changing the spectral curves or the overall energy. REFERENCES 1. Bolt, B. A. " San Fernando Rupture Mechanism and the Pacoima Strong Motion Record," BSSA, g,1053-iO61,1972. 2. Bolt, B. A. " Fallacies in Current Ground Motion Prediction," Proc. Second Intern:.tional Conference on Microzonation," 2, 617-633, 1978. ~ 3. Housner, G. W. and P. C. Jennings, " Generation of Artificial Earthquakes," J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 3,3806,1964. 4. Lawson, A. C., " California State Earthquake Commission Report," Carnegie Institution of Washington,1908. 5. Smith, W. D., "The Application of Finite Element Analysis to Body Wave Propagation Problems," Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 42, 747-768, 1975. 9 e w,s m. e _a u s e x: 4 -n OFFICIAL E J, . M V r,tM/\\ C.CA^* 1RO [ ~ 'l tw!f.RY PU E U *,

• C AU.- N \\

n J.CC i CC i r e, p m e.+ ~ 1 .... ~. -

o 1 sa O f tr2 0 f Y P u c M em f ~ o E ] = M Y H d .~- Y l f os-e u \\ e ~ \\ n 5 P b 6 i W L E i

==R-o c u I w J N c u f I' 5 M' N = 2: C u wm a ), W $E ~ C " G y 1 C d ~o~ EC p N 1 ~3E-

• a cc y

3 <=::= uu w w 5 G

r. O n

_-3 m. Td ~g E5 -k

1. ~

"6 3 c w c ~% c% 3 L

==A x cr,

c

M ~ i ,. s C:2 g X =o O A o o e o o e o o e o e o o o e o e e o o e e o e o e o e = = e o e a o e a s a us 1ssus EII#33I#U3 inlu13vidSIC A1!33134 as:1vs312:Jv sw ao.nAss / g3 OFFICIAL ft:E ' /.'fia.? 5h V!E.iNI A C. CA ".'D{ h0T/,RY PUEUC - CAUTOR A h .) l) <./ At AN.EC N CC': 2 / l f9f conm. C' rltM MM ?, ^^l f ~$

• 4

, :-- m-wm=.vu -}}