ML19319D707
| ML19319D707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River, 05000303  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1967 |
| From: | Linehan D FLORIDA POWER CORP., WESTON GEOPHYSICAL CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D706 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003240700 | |
| Download: ML19319D707 (23) | |
Text
..
O
!O PART I SEISMICITY ANALYSIS Weston Geophysical Research, Inc.
'O 0154 0
8003240700
O INTRODUCTION A seismicity stu'dy of the Crystal River,' Florida nuclear power ~
plant site of Florida Power Corporation was undertaken by Weston Geo-physical Research, Inc. at the request of Gilbert Associates, Inc. The site of the nuclear power plant is located about five miles northwest of Crystal River, Florida in extreme northwestern Citrus County, about one to two miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. It is the purpose of this seismicity study to advise the engineer of the maximum earthquake which could affect the nuclear power plant site.
This evaluation is performed by studying the epicentral distribution of earthquakes in the southeastern United States, their focal depth, their intensity or magnitude if it is available, and their attenuation characteristics.
In addition to this, it is necessary to look at the tectonics of the area as im-plied by geological mapping to determine whether or not the earthquake epi-centers are associated with any known faults, especially in the area under consideration.
In the determination of epicentral locations and earthquake intensities,
)
a very thorough literature search must be made in addition to the examination by a staff seismologist of available seismograms from those earthquakes which have or might have affected the site.
GENERAL SEISMICITY The State of Florida is one of those areas of the United States which O
l 0155 i
l
O is considered seismically inactive. In some 300 years of history, only eight earthquakes of Intensity IV (Modified Mercalli) or greater have had their epicenters located within the State of Florida (see Figure I and Appendix I). The earthquake of January 12, 1879, was sufficiently strong to be felt over a large area and to produce some slight damage. The maxi-mum intensity of this earthquake is listed as VI Modified Mercalli. One of the other earthquakes was of Intensity V, and the remaining six were of Intensity IV.
The closest area to the Crystal River site which has displayed seismic activity is Charleston, South Carolina, 330 miles to the north-east of the site. The Charleston, South Carolina carthquake of 1886 is probably the strongest earthquake which has affected the northern and h
central regions of Florida. Another area of minor seismic activity is asso-ciated with the southern Appalachians which are located some 300 to 400 miles north to northwest of Crystal River (see Figure 2); the earthquakes in this region have had no affect on the Crystal River site. The only other area of seismic activity is the Greater Antilles Islands of the West Indies, located 500 miles or more to the south and southeast of Crystal River. There is no evidence that the earthquakes of this area have had any affect on Crystal River.
SEISMICITY OF THE SITE AREA The two strongest earthquakes to have affected the site area in north 0
Oj56 4
w O
central Florida are the. northern Florida earthquake of January 12, 1879., and.
-the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of.1886, both mentioned above.-
The January 12, 1879, earthquake, although not very strong, was the largest to occur in Florida and the closest earthquake to the site. The epi-center of this earthquake as located by the United States Coast and Geodetic 0
Survey was at latitude 29.5 N and longitude 82.00W, or about 50 miles north-east of the Crystal River site. It is probable that the epicentral location is east of the published location, since the only damage reported occurred at Daytona and St. Augustine, 40 miles east of the assigned epicentral location.
The earthquake was felt over a 25,000 square mile area of northern and central Florida and southeastern Georgia. The maximum Intensity VI (Modified Mercalli) is based on reports from Daytona and St. Augustine, where doors and windows rattled, articles were thrown from shelves, and plaster shaken down. A thor-ough literature investigation concerning this carthquake has not produced any additional information to that already published by Campbell (1), Eppley (2),
and Rockwood (3).
The Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of August 31,1886, is assigned an epicentral Intensity X. This quake, felt over a two million square mile area of the eastern United States, was approximately 330 miles from the Crystal River site. Dutton (4), in his study of this earthquake, has prepared an isoseismal map based upon a large collection of observations.
This map was prepared using the Rossi-Forel Intensity Scale. An intensity 0Is1
O of slightly less than VI (Rossi-Forel) is shown for the Crystal River site, which is equivalent to an Intensity V on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (5). Slight damage (Modified Mercalli Intensity VI) was confined to extreme northern Florida. No reports of this earthquake in the Crystal River area are available. However, many reports from surrounding communities in north central Florida have been collected and are included as Appendix II.
An evaluation based on these reports would indicate an intensity no higher than V (Modified Mercalli) for the north central Florida area. The report of this earthquake contained in the Ocala Banner of September 3,1886, in-dicated an Intensity IV to V Modified Mercalli in tne Ocala area, 25 miles east-northeast of Crystal River.
O EARTHOUAKE INTENSITY ATTENUATION An attenuation curve of earthquake intensity with distance was con-structed for the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Flains of eastern United States, based on two earthquakes in the Charleston, South Carolina area and one earthquake in tho Louisiana area. The attenuation curves for t hese t hree earthquakes are very sirr.ilar and indicate a rather slow attenuation of earth-quake intensity with distance (see Figure 3), when compared with other areas of the United States. This appears to be peculiar to the deep Cre-taceous, sediment areas of the Coastal Plain regions. Altnough it is perhaps somewhat conservative for the region of Florida under consideration because O
N 57 t
of the shallow bedrock conditions, it appears to fit the data for the greatest' portion of the path'alon'g which the ear'thquake will travel and, therefore, should be very close to the actual attenuation.
Based on this attenuation data, the Florida earthquake of 1879 which has been assigned an epicentral intensity of VI would have produced an in-tensity no higher than IV (Modified Mercalli) at the Crystal River nuclear power plant site. Based on the same attenuation curve, the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886 would have had an intensity no higher than V at the Crystal River site.
TSUNAMIS Only one tsunami, or seismic sea wave, has ever been noted along the Gulf coast of the United States. This wave, caused by the Puerto Rican earthquake of October 11, 1918, was very small as recorded on the tide gauge at Galveston, Texas.
Another type of water disturbance called a seiche was produced by the Alaskan earthquake of March 27, 1964. A seiche is a standing wave set up on the surface of an enclosed body of water such as a lake, pond, or in a partially enclosed body of water such as harbors or channels and possibly as lateral oscillations in rivers and canals. Seiches are cauaed by winds, currents, tides, and earthquakes. A seiche in a harbor may oe originated by the arrival of a t unami or the earthquake motion itself. Seiches along the Gulf coast from the Alaskan earthquake caused waves up to six feet in 0159 t
1
O height in southern Louisiana and along the Texas coast as far west as Beaumont, and although effects were noticed as far cast as Pensacola they were very slight here. There is no record of a tsunami or seismic sea wave ever having affected the Crystal River area.
The maximum ampiitudes of a tsunami appear to be governed by the angle of the dip of the ocean floor away from land. The lower the angle of dip, the less chance of a damaging tsunami. The slope of the ocean floor from Crystal River towards the Gulf of Mexico is very gradual (see Figure 1).
The 100 fathom contour line, at its nearest point, is 140 miles southwest of the site.
Since any tsunami approaching Crystal River will undoubtedly lose its energy over the long Continental Shelf, the probability of a damaging tsunami at the Crystal River site is highly doubtful and is far outweighed by the threat of rising water from hurricanes.
CONCLUSIONS No carthquake is known to have occurred within 50 miles of the Crystal River site. The maximum intensity observed in the vicinity of the site was middle Intensity V (Modified Mercalli), resulting from the Charles-ton, South Carolina earthquake of 1886. Based upon the relationship between earthquake intensity and ground acceleration given in Nuclear Reactors and Earthauakes_ TID-7024, United States Atomic Energy Commission, and snown in Figure 4, the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake would have resulted O
O160
" i d
L.
~"
in a gr'ound acceleration of approximately.025g at the s'itb. A ~ design value of.05g, or double the estirnate' acceleration 'from the history of d
the site, would be conservative.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the pursuance of this research, many people were very helpful, and we wish to express our thanks for the assistance and information furnished by the following people:
Rev. Louis J. Eisele, S.J., Spring Hill Observatory, Spring Hill College, Alabama.
Prof. Charles F. Mercer, Retired, University of South Carolina.
Mr. Carl Stepp, Geophysical Research Branch, United States Coast and Geo'detic Survey.
Prof. H. W. Straley, III, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Dr. Robert O. Vernon, Director, Florida Geological Survey.
Mr. Carl Von Hake, Seismology Branch, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.
We wouldalso like to thank the personnel of the following libraries for their assistance in this research:
Hayden Burnes Library, City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida.
Library of Florida History, University of horida, Gainesville, Florida.
Tampa Public Library, Tampa, T. A...
b l
h
REFERENCE:
1)
Campbell, R. B., " Earthquakes in Florida," Proceedincs of the Florida Academy of Sciences, Vol. 6, No.1.
2)
Eppley, R. A., " Stronger Earthquakes of the United States (Ex-clusive of California and Western Nevada)," Earthouake History of the United States, Part I, Washington: Government Printing O ffice, 1963.
3)
Rockwood, C. G., Jr., " Notices of Recent Earthquakes, "
American Tournal of Science and Arts Third Series, Vol. 19, 1880.
4)
Dutton, Capt. Clarence E., "The Charleston Earthquake of August 31, 1886," United States Geoloolcal Survey, Ninth Annual Report, 1887-1888.
5)
Neumann, P. and H. O. Wood, " Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931," Bulletin of the Seismolocical Society of America, Vol. 21, No. 4, 19 31.
I i
i l
v.
1*
O
O D
- o R
86*
84*
82*
80*
\\
~
g
/
PENSACOLA ORIDA TALLAHASSE 500 MILES OCT 31,1900 Y
' % ACKSONVILLE J
k k
3 0* -
p io.
/
\\oSt AUGUSTINE
\\
5 e NOV. 43.1935 E
\\
j g4 JAN 12,187 EI oD TONA BE ACH O
oOCALA O
2p 50 100 150 MILES SITE 20 3
SCALE
\\_
o ORLANh WATER DEPTHS IN FATHOMS 100 FATHOMS 17 8
\\
8 28*
2 8* --
s
\\
26 o TAMPA
/
{
T PETERSBURG 86*
i 23
\\
COMPILATION OF E ARTHQUAKES IN FLORIDA
. NOV 8,1948 m WESTON GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, INC.
\\
, JULY I41930 N I
e AN 19,1942 WRE 8 e DEC 22,194512 i
l
' M1 AMI D~
~~~~
D 84*
82*
80*
i h
i
~
vv._
vu u,
oc-00*
(c" (6"
CHARLOTTt CM A T TANOOGA
[
\\-
c
.JAN I,1913 3ZI,-3ZII
- 34" 4
JAN. 27-28,1905 IZII N
Ii LW81A I
i ATLANTA K
k N SOUTH CAROLINA y8, 76
<, g DIRMINGHAM OC T 18,'1916 3ZII
\\
\\
JUNE 12,1912 3ZII 00 MILES OCT 22,1886 3ZII ) CHARLESTON ALABAMA GEORGIA l
\\
\\
32' o'
32' O
50 100 MILES S AVAN N AH 200 MILES N
SCALE LEGEND Bb ~
INTENSITY 32 ond 3ZI m
\\
~ 100 MILES *
$ INTENSITY 3ZII or GRE ATER AS NOTED s
TALLAHASSEE 30,
\\ -30*
FLORIDA COMPILATION OF EARTHQUAKES SITE INTENSITY 3E OR GREATER j
f SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES TAMPA 28' 28 WESTON GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, INC.
wv i
88*
86*
84*
/
FIGURE 2 26 j
26*
o MIAMI O
O 82*
80*
~n G
G G
t
1000 j.Jl,' l - _... h. '._ '_
.. l.i.-...
. - + _.
. q-.. :.. e..
m.
LLl
-l..
j
....._.i i
I I I 1
o i,
j (v) 4 {
i,,
i g
lt i ia p
i 2.
,..i 4.;.,
i L,1 i : -
EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY ATTENUATION -
a,-
. i. c..g on W h
- tl
- i
! 4 1i!-
_ /. ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTAL PLAINS.__
n-u t +ni 11 1 lt!E t u...
ti I
,,,a i
4 SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES u..i.m.
....l.i.;b-h Ju 4 i
. i 1
m i,
n-m i t- :
55N5$
$b.'$ N-Hl l
l I
i 4M.
_4. -4 a.*,.
..I
.I.+,
l.
4
.4..
6
..f...i L
9
+
l
.I
.L..L s64
-o_,e--,-
.+.
g
.,.p.
9
..4
..,1,.
-e w...
4.
.1.,..,._p,
_u....
i
.t._.._
u4..
A +-- s_
4 _4.-
,,i 4.
+._._..
.p-...,.,.
.l 9_,.
.~,-,-
+,....
6..-.
..t-.--
- -.g..
q-. i
- -4. n,_ - 9.. 4 -.
..,.e-
..l
-+-+-.t-+-.
. I
+--
-t
,. -... p
,,9
_4
.+. a _t.
4-..
.._..4-.
4 -._ i l,
7...
-s_.l.-.-y, g
l..+-$-+.-
-9.,
-4_
J.
--_.3_._-
_ p4
,_4 p._
i.
i _.. -, -b.a 4.
l h
._!'_. '.._.',E P
-H r- +-H-l - -H-H-r-H J---
- T "'T "'~.7 7
~ ^ * * *
- * ~ ~ ~ * ' '
T M' '.. '
- ]
~
*~7 'I u
L_.
q
!+
+
-M m,,
i w
.l_.,..._1..
...L _J
_..f
,,J
.+ s
-.4.
..+. 4 - e,..
4..
u.
1-..
.3.s--....
4_
. -, +
._..H.4_ + r
. 4
+-
i
_2
... +
. +.
4 9_.. 4.t4.
4_
4m-
_ p r-v 4-
...~
I
..-+4._,.
., -. _..4-.-
..4_-.+-
4...-
- 4..
-A. 6 4
.+
4.6
... _ +.
q.s
+ 4.-4
- + _. _ +.
_ -. _ -.. -y. L _1 L
- e...
+ _,,.
-,_.94._..
-.4
+4-r-y (,.n.
... s.-.,j..a g
+
4
- - + -
+- -. - +
f.....
1
_. _4.
. _._4
..4
..._ r_
. g 9 4_
.. 4_ L4 y _ a. J.
~% f-..
.t-u.-._
4..+
1 g
9.j
.p.
f-..7
, -t 1-i-I-.
y l
l;,
--4 p+-
-.4
_-,..6 4.4 p.-
_+ 7 p -
i a
. 9-p 4-
,5 4_..
m.4 4 4 j
g T-+-*-
4 -~-
r r/
-I"-
- -t-*!- t-
- - + -
-*-+-+t L
+m -._
r.7 +---.-++y r.-
. --[
g t+t i
n M- - - ~ ". -
i r- - -
w i
- 4. u
, i.
r-w
,i __. _.t_
i i,ii o
i 1
4
.i 7
+Hv;_. "'!,
O(/ {y l
l' i l' 1 M -- H H/t-
.!,l 4
3,i f.
f:
fr
/
e, r ii.
i
!- t
/
-/i f
/. - t e
i :,t 3
t iF s
. -. i i
g 3
>>>iH<
ii:f.i,pi++
g,
mi r/.i
/
i it _/i !
i t
,,i !
is, t. e g
/ i i
- /
i
, i,3
,,i i
t) ef f2
/i! )
4 m-F-
/
[
t !;i
.t t
t
..1
/
'y
/. i t
/ :
Mi!
i
,e r+
i m
m w
- p t
/i
./i.r l/ i wn
' ar n
/i
- / l
/_
. /i > M M 3
im i
N.
M 4
z a.
I Ms.
?/ l ~/i i 1/i
- /
/!
g, i I/i !/;fi'"_;.tdi?
n u
v4 u-Mi=rM4
-! z k [ i ' 2f.. k [/.L ; I A /.
- 5 m ff ' F-13Ei EM L i ?
E-i@i 1EEE + ME ~
. Af /. : A A /:
a _n.nu.u : c.-
- ~ :rg_t : c.: n....._r.
p ; +L}Q / ::' g
. 3 a ri.
'-
- IR / : *
- n. /.T
.:ni-t:
- In r! r
..r
.=-1 3. _.-.:.:._;, '
T:- '
,U.
f.ntnii
+
? /p:*:-
n=. 6 u :.'1/ :a _q'.. u t
.t-n_ - - -._. _::h n
- - m '
a r - b.n--- - ;n : _-_._{
1_ i_:- -!!r.T.." I/.-tf-
- .* t f T. Et l " L
/
- -t-4 -*-
- ~. 7..::1_T *
- M--7._- :
p I_..-._,.,.f._,_...7
-9
.._ I......,-.1.
1,._...._.
__,._._1.._-
.. l
_. ~
y - -
._r_._
..+y.-
. i e
a
,.y_..+.f
_..4_4__._-..
n
._ J
....L
..4.._
.-.-..I 9
4
.w. _4_,-..-.......
- 4
,. J
.,......-4,
p_ _
... +..
....[
a,.
.s
. -w w,..
m s
m
.t.
4-
.4 4
i.. _. _
- k. 4,.
- 1
'.,_..,._._m__p
. ! -. p _,..
.._. w
).._~..
i.-._+
_,_._.-4-_._._..
l
._-.y a
a-7-
-. + _ -
e, p M3
... r-V 3 N l g._.
q -.i ay e a g a.., p._
..._7__
-_i.
l 4
_a.
~..
,..a.
/ a_
../ ~ 4
- 4..g.
p
_l
_q _[__1.-
.,-__7 d,.
--h, ; __
4 a.a._4
.p..
- 7. ;-.
p-H._
-.p
- 5. f. e w.4
_ A.d
/.i 9-..J.
, L. _..
4 L4 e.
4
._, q.
,i 4 i i
.~
4
.. m p
y..-.-
.._4.-
s
[... -
s.
I.
. i 4
., a i
.w i __
+.
4, 9..
i
[3
._4.-4 t _.
g 6-..
i
.4
,9..
t,V
..-4-,.
5 4..
4
- ..- _{ ;,
i H _)
.; i.
f..-.,p-
...i 1 l4M 4...
... _...4..
/.'n
.I
._1 L
.i
. A H g. _ -.(f.g_. t i p ;7.p. H.r d.c. J-*l to + 5 - t -- g 1 r I II "JZHI 3ZII 3I I II III II I onRE 3 l lNTENSITY (MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE) l
GROUND ACCELERATION AND INTENSITY SCALES * (, O . [.l ):
- UOOrflCD%ERCALLIINT:C7Y xxEun wxasm u w.x m
9 coLI i ca. : I ed
- l
! Detecta one by eensstore on Irnstrumeds. s enc 0> z rhe,noen too ar,oy oy on-a fen by a fe.v persons at oerenced observu smewy resr especially on upper -2 kvobe conditions floorsg dekcare auspenced Y b -3 ~ g felF by o low peop60 of rest, reGorded by several seis. C Fe*t natscoobty orames, but mortphe not alwess recogenM cs a guseM standing outos rock shghrij,' E fen by severalpeopae of vibration loke possing truck. rG res4: errang enough for the 7 duretson or directnan to be G foi s40<rs by many, osmjoors e ocoredobne J7 fen by several peop6e in & o twwg ofrught sure cuoten; 4kt.cs,enndows,6;</s O.Mbeds anotion; disturkonce of onchy stes rock not:ce b!. a/ movabee obrects, cracking of 11oors. V feR tr/ most poc4k; same V felt generally by everyone; trockage of dishes, %wd po deturbonces of furnsture, puteg disturbance of NA ringing of soone bellnu obje cts. 'M fort by all; marry froghtened TG Genecalowohenong of those (CD Q ] O grad run oardoors; bllong I asle op, ringung of bells, swinging chondellers, storfled people jaos'er and clwnneys; domoge run outdoors. small. co M Overthrow of movable cb}*Ctso 3 Everybody runs outdoorg ? klof pkwg Hnging d bells
- d<inoge to buildirns vorles, or- -k
- gf ##'
peuting m qpolley of corrstruc-W "A*# OY O'b* 2 Fx ofct m ;cracha m wola of kaMings-3 Peel wc!:s thrtevn out of komes;bilof walls,ononwrunts, 200
- crimneys; sand and enud fedeq K wt or rotot deermetson of g,,,,,,,,,,,q,, g;, pg,$,4_
-:co, sameb a ngs. Z Ovuongs offsd off foundo* tions, cracked, thrown out of ~M ~ pt.ones gevend croched;undee. -wcR ..ruinsi 1 Great dsaster>strom, hures, pA ppos brohn dinnerkonce c n,m'o p-o tootfells, A&sdslident etc X W onourry ed kome -C s n,erwes destcy 4 sround e ouc*e4 roas bene mis *.Jss, M ,1t kaw str. aves roman smnera \\ tri3)es destrvye<ly flacures ior -g @ = s%w4 hes tac
- ear j
hmosidaid roska lent. 3 2 w op.tweiwouss.enon j
- M ground surfacerlines cis aht ew,evel o.sro, % abj.cs
.. age inconta so into cir: -G3DO ~ Nuclear Reactors & Earthquakes TID-7024, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information, August 1963, p.13. . Notes on Rossi-Forel Intensity Scale Intensity IV: " Cracking of floors" has also been translated as " creaking of ceilings" or " creaking of floors. " (Davison, 1921). Intensity VII: " Panic with great damage to buildings " should read " panic without damage to buildings. " (Da vis on, 1921). 0166 ww. Figure 4 N
X O v BIBLIOGRAPHY Campbell, R. B., " Earthquakes in Florida," Proceedings of the Florida Academy of Sciences, Vol. 6 ; No.1,19 43, p.1 -4. Davis, T. F., History of Tacksonville, Florida, Gainesville: University of Florida Press,1964. Davison, Charles, "On Scales of Seismic Intensity and on the Construction and Use of Isoseismal Lines," Bulletin of the Seismotocical Society of Am erica. Vol. 11, No. 2, June 1921, p. 9 5 -12 9. Dutton, Capt. Clarence E., "The Charleston Earthquake of August 31, 1886," United States Geolocical Survey, Ninth Annual Report, 1887-1888, p. 2 09-528. Eppley, R. A., " Stronger Earthquakes of the United States (Exclusive of California and Western Nevada)," Earthquake History of the United States, Part I, Washington: Government Printing Office,1963. Fuller, M. L., "The New Madrid Earthquake," United States Geolocical Survey Bulletin 494. United States Government Printing Office,1912. Gutenberg, B. and C. F. Richter, " Earthquake Magnitude, Intensity, Energy, and Acceleration," Bulletin of the Seismolocical Society of America. Vol. 46, No. 2,19 56, p.105-145. Gutenberg, B., " Tsunamis and Earthquakes," Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America, Vol. 29, No. 4,1939, p. 517-526. Heck, N. J., " List of Seismic Sea Waves," Bulletin of the Seismolocical Society of America, Vol. 37, No. 4,1947, p. 269-286. McKay, D. B., Pioneer Florida, Tampa: Southern Publishing Company, Vol. 3, 19 59, p.108. Neumann, F. and H. O. Wood, " Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.of 1931," Bulletin of the Seismotocical Society of America, Vol. 21, No. 4,1931, p. 277-283. Ocala (Florida) Banner. September 3,1886. ~ 0167
O Ocale (Florida) Star Banner, March 29, 1964. Reid, H. F., Earthquake Data Published in American Yearbook,1910 through 1917. Reid, H. P., Unpublished records including card index and newspaper clippings, on file at the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Wa shington, D. C. Richtar, Charles, Elementar'v Seismoloov, San Francisco:. W. H. Freeman Company, 1958. Rockwood, C. G., Jr., " Notices of Recent Earthquakes, " America-hc. al of Science and Arts Third Series, Vols. 3,4,5,6,7,9 2, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 1872 through 1887. Stewart, J. W., " Earthquake History of Georgia, " Georcia Mineral News-let ter Vol. 11, No. 4, 19 5 8, p. 12 7 -12 8. Sunland (Tampa, Florida) Tribune, January 18, 1879. Taber, Stephen, " Seismic Activity in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Near g Charleston, South Carolina," Bulletin of the Seismolocical Society of America, Vol. 4,1914, p.108-160. Tampa (Florida) Mornino Tribune, September 30, 1952. Tampa (Florida).'reibune, March 28, 1964. United States Atomic Energy Commission,.31 vision of Technical Information, Nuclear Reactors and Earthcuakes. TID-7024, Washington: August 1963. United States Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Preliminary Report, Prince William Sound, Alaskan Earthquakes, March - April 1964, Washington: Government Printing Office,1964. United States Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Quarterly Seismolocical Report, 1925-1927. United States Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Tsunami, ,. Washington:. Government Printing Office, b65. O 0168
O. United States Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey,- United States Earthquakes 1940-1965, Washington: Government Printinc O ffice.' United States Weather Bureau, " United States Seismological Reports," Monthly Weather Review. October 1914 to June 1924, Washington: Govern-ment Printing Office. Wood, H. O., "A Note on the Charleston Earthquake," Bulletin of the Seismotocical Society of America, Vol. 35, No. 2,1945, p. 49-56. O 1 O Oi69
g .O APPENDIX I I .O O 0170 ,,,.y,_ v, ,-www-w,e,,-,-,,,-,- v r ,--v-..ym,,w,m-,-,,
"h . (V EARTHQUAKES IN FLORIDA . 0 Felt over a 25,000 square mile area, 1879 Jan. 12 ..29.5 N 82MV. extending from a line joining Tallahassee, Florida and Savannah, Georgia on the north to a line joining Tampa Bay and Daytona, Florida on the south. Maxi-mum intensity estimated at VI based upon reports from Daytona and St. Augustine, where doors and windows rattled, articles were thrown from shelves, and plaster shaken down. (Eppley,1963; Stewart,1958; Tamna Mornino Tribune, September 30, 1952; Rockwood,1880) 1900 Oct. 31 3 0.40N 81.70W. Local shock felt with intensity V at Jacksonville, Florida. (Eppley, 19 63). Campbell (1943) reports that T. Frederick Davis, Jacksonville historian who was with the Weather Bureau there at the time, thought that the shock had occurred at Lake City. 1930 July 14 A light to moderate shock of approximately intensity IV was observed at LaBelle, Everglades, Fort Myers, and () Marco Island. (Campbell,1943; Tampa Morninc Tribune, September 30, 1952) 1935 Nov. 13 Two shocks felt in the vicinity of St. Augustine and Palatka. Intensity estimated at IV, as some sleepers were awakened and dishes rattled. (Campbell,1943; Tampa Mornino Tribune, September 30, 1952; United Sta, w Earthquakes,1935) 1942 Jan. 19 A series of light shocks were felt throughout an area of southern Florida bounded on the north by Delray Beach, Moore Haven, and Fort Myers and on the south by Ever-glades and Miami. The maximum intensity of this series of shocks was no higher than IV. (Campbell,1943; Tampa Mornino Tribune, September 30, 1952) 1945 Dec. 22 Newspapers reported a slight shock in Miami Beach and Hollywood, Florida. Quake was recorded on the seismo-graph at Spring Hill College, Mobile, Alabama. (United States Earthquakes.1945) OV 0171 l l
1948 Nov. 8 Doors and windows rattled and sounds were heard at Captiva, Florida. (United States Earthquakes, g 1948) 1952 Nov. 18 A slight earthquake of intensity IV was felt by many persons at Quincy, Florida, where windows and dishes rattled. (United States Earthquakes,1952) O @p. 9 8 9
y._, O I l l l APPENDIX II O o173 O
(3 LI EARTHQUAKE OBSERVATIONS IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA FROM THE CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA EARTHQUAKE OF AUGUST 31, 188 6~ Locality Descriction Cedar Keys, A slight trembling, increasing until it became regular Levy County and houses and other objects swayed with clock-like regularity; standing cars moved.to and fro, and wc.ll ornaments fell; many made dizzy and sick; swayinc; felt one and one-quarter minutes, followed by trembling similar to beginning, for twelve and one-quarter minutes. (W. W. Thomas, sergeant Signal Corps U.S.A.) " Heavy and distinct shock. " (Signal Service observer) Special, Aug. 31, 9pm - Heavy and distinct shocks ,o being felt; houses and earth trembling violently and V standing cars moving; people excited. (Florida Times-Union, September 1,1886) Daytona, Low rumbling; artesian or flowing wells greatly Volusia County agitated; duration, about thirty seconds. (Halifax Journal, Daytona)
- DeLand, People thoroughly frightened; two distinct tremors, Volusia County lasting five minutes, accompanied by rushing noise in the air as of strong gale, but without the effects of a storm; buildings shook and trembled, doors and windows rattled, and inmates rushed to the street; no sink-holes formed.
(Florida Times-Union, September 9,1886) ) Eus tis, Soilsandy. Sitting in chair, which seemed to be j Orange County .:arefully lifted as by motion of wave swell; hanging lamp swung three inches from center; bird-cage swung. (T. Wallace) 0174 o ,/
O Gainesville, Felt throughout the city; many alarmed, and those Alachua County in bed thought it burglars; brick buildings very per-ceptibly rocked and swayed; frames, especially the smaller ones, shook and jarred very much, as if suddenly pried up by lever; joists and rafters shaking and cracking. A " prominent citizen" jumped from bed, seized gun, and ran out to see who was upsetting his house. Mr. Bell says two distinct shocks; court-house groaned arid shook, lamps swayed E to W, and clock stopped at his house in East Gaines-ville; next door to us fowls shaken off roost. Country colored people said "large hole" had fallen in near them. (Florida Times-Union) Gulf Hammock, Two distinct shocks; houses shook, windows rattled, Levy County and swinging lamps oscillated like pendulums. (Florida Times-Union, September 5,1886) Higley, First, N to S; second, E to W: total duration, thirty Orange County to forty seconds; peculiar condition of atmosphere; strong undulation felt; floor, table, and furniture had corresponding motion; lamp on center of table nearly toppled over; three distinct shocks; a few cracks in walls of some houses; timbers settled an inch or two in others. (W. Page) Lake Helen, Several shocks; distinctly felt and noticed by every Volusia County one in Volusia County; two new houses plastered at the same time, same plasterer, two rods apart, one uninjured, much plastering shaken from other; low rumbling, intensity according to location. (B. H. Wright) Leesburgh, Slight shock; many frightened, and some young men Sumter County thought they had " fit" or " vertigo"; physician ran downstairs, fearing brick (building) would fall. (Florida Times-Union, September 5,1886)
- ,.. v.-
G ..%g t
Minneola, Many rocked out of bed; no damage except-Sumter County loosening of two joints of smoke-stack. (Florida Times-Union) New Smyrna, Clocks on mainland facing E or W did not stop, Volusia County those N or S did. (J. Y. Detwyler)
- Orlando, Chandeliers swayed and rattled; broke up a Orange County meeting; stampede at another.
(Ficrida Times-Union) Buildings rocked; no noise; citizens excited. (J. T. Berks, superintendent of schools)
- Sanford, Noise as of rushing wind; chandeliers and other Orange County suspended objects swung.
(H. Pennywith, sergeant Signal Corps - Signal Service observer) Both very heavy; windows and fixtures rattled, and i everything vibrated perceptibly. \\ (C. F. Sweeney, Western Union Telegraph operator) Noise as of a rushing wind. (Signal Service observer) Spring Garden, Heavy subterranean rumbling; heaviest at a store, Volusia County where canned goods fell from shelves and swinging lamps swung enough to put lights out; twenty yards from store ground caved in ten feet, in circle thirty feet in diameter, leaving cracks around it twelve inches wide, from ten to fifty feet long. (Florida Times-Union, September 2,1886)
- Suwannee, Duration one min 4te or more; rumbling; blinds trembled, Suwannee County -
building shook violently; generally felt. l (Florida Times-Union, September 3,1886) l O 0176
l 9l Zellwood, Preceded by rumbling and accorapanied by louder Orange County rumbling; windows rattled; house swayed NE to SW, as agreed by all; all nauseated; decidedly undulatory. (R. G. Robinson, real-estate agent) REFERENCE Dutton, Capt. Clarence E., "The Charleston Earthquake of August 31, 1886," U. S. Geolocical Survev. Ninth Annual Report, 1887-1888, p. 416-423. O s N sD s O
O PART II RESPONSE SPECTRA l Dr. C. Allin Cornell O l l 0178 O soos ago 702
QgEC,HyE, Seismicity Analysis, Part.I of this report, describes the reasoninc; leading to the selection of 0.059 as the maximum ground acceleration to be used as a basis for design. The potentially critical sources include c. large earthquake in the Charleston, South Carolina region and moderate earthquakes in Florida itself. In this part of the report the complete design response spectra corresponding to the maximum ground acceleration resulting from these potential sources will be established. RESPONSE SPECTRA A number of factors are known to affect the shape of response spectra, v including earthquake magnitude and duration, epicentral distance and focal depth, the intervening material through which the seismic waves propagate, and geological conditions local to the site. Past data and empirical rr.ethods provide the only reliable information to date for estimating spectral shapes. MODERATE DISTANCE EARTHOUAKES The shapes of the spectra which might be caused by moderate earth-quakes at moderate distances have been estimated here: 1) by adjusting the " average" strong motion spectra for moderate distances computed by Housner (Ref. II-1); 2) by applying a method developed by Esteva and Rosenbieth (Ref. II-2: to appe'ar in Earthquake Encineerino, N. M. Newmark and " Am n-blueth, Prentice Hall). Q v v Ot'9
O In the first case published spectral values, which are suitable for a maximum ground acceleration of 0.33g, were simply divided by 0.33 /0.05g. Where necessary, interpolated values were determined 9 graphically. The spectral acceleration results for 5% damping are shown in Figure 1, Curve A. For the second method, a Richter magnitude was chosen such that at a focal distance of 50 miles the maximum acceleration predicted by the authors' Equation 8a would be 0.05g. This magnitude was 6.3. In this case, almost the same magnitude is obtained if the design earthquake is thosen such that the maximum ground velocity at the site corresponds to an intensity (according to Neumann's relationship between the two, Ref. II-3) e of VI. Reference II-l indicates that this intensity is associated with a maxi-mum ground acceleration of the design value of 0.05g. The method of Esteva and Rosenblueth yields the spectral acceleration results for 5% damping shown in Figure 1, Curve B. Two points about this method should be noted. First, the empirical scaling constants in the at '. hors' equations are based on Southern California data. There is reason to believe (see Figure 3, Part I) that attenuation of seismic waves with increase in epicentral distance is somewhat slower in the eastern portion of the United States where thick Cretaceous deposits occur. There is not sufficient data to correct the con- - stants for this region. This factor has been minimized, however, by using.
- O
O - the authors' constants both to determine the~ magnitude-(6.3) required to ^#' ~ cause a maximum ground acceleration of 0.05g 50 miles distant, and','in' turn, to estimate the maximum ground acceleration (0.05g), maximum ground J velocity (2.5 in./sec.), maximum ground displacement (2.5 in.), and " equivalent" duration (26 seconds). The first number is 0.05g, by design, as mentioned. The slower attenuation constants of the east, if they wccc known, would suggest that a smaller magnitude would be needed to cause the same maximum acceleration (0.05g) at 50 miles. But, given that mcgni-tude, all constants would probably be altered proportionately such that there would result relatively little difference in the values of the four ground motion parameters. (The maximum acceleration would again, of course, be s 0.05g by design.) Second, the method of Esteva and Rosenblueth is least dependable in the region of primary interest in reactor design, namely where period and damping are both relatively small. For values of period less than 2ntimes the ratio of maximum ground velocity to maximum ground acceleration (here (2n)(2.5 in./sec.)/(0.05g)(386.4 in./sec.2/g) = 0.82 sec.), the authors (II-2) replace their analytically based results by a frankly empirical parabolic fit'of spectral acceleration to period. Even this curve is found inadequate (unconservative) for small (less than about 5%) damping values. Nonetheless, their method is useful in the intermediate period range where the " average" spectra may be unconservative, owing to the relatively Ovg 018i
O short epicentral distances of the records upon which they are based. The Esteva-Rosenblueth results are seen (Fig.1) to be larger than the " average" spectra for periods in excess of 0.3 seconds. It is not anticipated that the fundamental period of many structural components will lie in this rangc. FAR AND CLOSE EARTHOUAKES Based on Figure 3, Part I, an epicentral intensity of at leas XI is necessary at 330 miles to cause an intensity of VI (maximum ground accel-eration of 0.05g, Ref. II-1, pg.13). The spectra predicted from such an earthquake by the method of Esteva and Rosenblueth was not founc to exceed the spectral values determined for moderate quakes for any but large periods. Very close, shallow earthquakes which might give rise to scceleration spectra with higher values in the range of small T (less 0.3 seconds' are not considered to be critical (Part I). LOCAL GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Local geological conditions at the site are such (Part I) that they would probably have less influence on the spectra, in particular less mag-nification of values for longer periods, than the " average" local conditions upon which both spectrum estimation methods above are based. By their very nature, historical seismicity studies (such as Part I) are also related to average local conditions. The design intensity or acceleration is thus also connected with average conditions. The-motions at this site should be less than those i 0182
4 at an average site. Since corrections for local conditions are not well ? understood (especially for strong motions), since the signif: cent modi-fications would probably be only in the range of longer periods, and since it is probably conservative to do so, the average condition spectrc wP.1 be left unaltered. DESIGN SPECTRA The design spectra shown in Figures 2 and 3 are the envelopes of the spectra obtained for moderate earthquakes at moderate distances by the two methods described above. The very low period (less than 0.2 seconcs) range of the Esteva-Rosenblueth curves were not used even if they were _( larger than the " average" spectra since the form of the empirical curve used is not appropriate in this region (see Figure 1). For lower damping values a smooth transition curve between the two curves was used. -Detailed ver-sions of the average spectra for low periods appear in Reference II-1. These values should be normalized by a factor 0.05/0.33. APPLICATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA The design response spectra in Figures 2 and 3 represent the estimated spectra coinciding with established maximum ground acceleration level of 0.0Sg.. Type I structures or equipment whose failure might cause a nuc'.er.: incident should be designed such that stresses remain equal to or less than t i the normally specified working stresses (with no increase for short-term load- . t3 1 ,l' 0183 l
O ings). The response spectra for vertical ground accelerations should be taken as two-thirds those indicated by Figures 2 and 3. Observed response spectra show unpredictable fluctuations about average values such as those represented by the above spectra. In addition, consideration should be given to structural behavior under even more extreme conditions than those established above. The design should be checked to insure that no failure that would cause injury or prevent safe shutdown if it were subjected to ground motions represented by response spectra with twice the ordinates of those in Figures 2 and 3. Structures whose failure could cause no nuclear incident should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the 1957 Uniform Building Code. A Zone 1 coefficient should be used; it is anticipated that wind loadings will prove more critical in most situations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Dr. R. V. Whitman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology has participated with the Consultant in a review of this study. O
l O REFERENCES-II-1) United States Atomic Energy' Commission, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, TID-7024, Washington, D. C.,1963 4 II-2) Esteva, L. and E. Rosenblueth, "Espectro.s de Temblores a / Distancias Moderadas y Grandes", Boletin de la Sociedad / / Mexicana de Incenteria Sismica, Vol. II, No.1, Pg.1, March 1964. 1 III-3) Neumann, F., "A Broad Formula for Estimating Earthquake Forces on Oscillators, " Proc. Second World Earthauake Encineerino Conference, Tokyo,1960. O 1 1 0 0185 .~,
O -Estevo - Rosenblueth Predicted Spectrum (CURVE B) ~ O.1 z s'/ o a- /' Average" Observed Spectrum (CURVE A) y O O ,e g _s s' @ 0.05 !3 w O O O.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 UNDAMPED PERIOD ( S e c.) METHOD COMPARISON, MODERATE DISTANCE EARTHQUAKE -.i. :. FIGURE 1 e 018 6
l l O.3 O.25 Vclucs of Pa. cent cf ~ Critical Oc...;i..g zo 0.2 \\ 0 % w rj
- 0. I 5 0.5 %
.O e N i v. i 2% w 0.I c-7 5% 7% Io% 0.05 g w go y, O O O.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I.O UNDAMPED PERIOD (S e c.) DESIGN ACCELERATION SPECTRA l O 0187 FIGURE 2 l
pO % I \\ \\\\ \\i\\ \\\\ \\ \\ V/X/ IX VN A / ! / / i O.5 % s A 8 /[! i% \\ N l\\ 'k NNNN X/F'X' V X Y'? e N X \\ \\\\xNNV//'Y/'V !/'D /X 'y, p2 /. s ' N N NNN Q@(/NXk.//x IX NX # N N N NXM vNX V 24 ?/ I 7 s/ N /d 5 % s N N N NNX AXV4 /! 't / - I/ 't /;/ X J \\ \\ \\ /XMM'X\\ V/ \\ f x / d V/ 10 % N N oW A7xX's'fA /4 /'V xN 'N A' /XXIXN2Kx NI AM 2o s / i h M s'\\x^X'n M.WhI'W s 3 s NN>c(//'r ' ' '<' Awv%wA/y/rs/ o sN)R$XX//N/ N[ X/M X BX///'l/1 'N/ = JO(XX # / 'k# \\A / NVI'N s j %X-4/' 's)/N/ i' 'xg (Y ^ /X. .N XNN / /\\ / N in X NtX 'LNi / 1^ a I N/N RW / 'A / ^" Il /X /Ni YN'tWi i 2 '* /X /\\ X 'i NYNN/s / M)^ ' Vs ' /fx X 'h 'kN I s g '7 o 4 / /x ^ VxNNN ////V/'/ o N /LM 5 2 / /N X N'N'A' YX Xo'% 's'K i ' /w / _J ~ /x mi e, xN e w /i x x x /x / !/ \\ N c 2 / i Yi 1 i X% 1 Ai N S '4 / y N f/ v ' X\\ y 'N yNoi \\ FN N ' 5 / /#/,' d ' xX'NXN /'to % M l' I N i / ///F NX*>Rs x'<Jo %N ink lK ! N M'. YlX^>Mc3 / NiN '2 A IX N /N1 ' NXN I N'i' r// /// .IA /IN/l - X NN't I 'i ! ////[/ / / l / ' 40 I ' 'N Y'X.'N'N'N'N'N!Ix N'x l'N '///// / / I j .02 .03 .04.05.06.07.08.09.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7.8.91.0 g\\h UNDAMPED PERIOD (Sec.)
RESPONSE
SPECTRUM FOR DESIGN FIGURE 3}}