ML19331B500
| ML19331B500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1980 |
| From: | Rothman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331B489 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-598, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008120351 | |
| Download: ML19331B500 (26) | |
Text
.
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B044 j
In the Matter of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.
)
50-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
)
Unit Nos.1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. ROTHMAN Q.
By whom are you employed, and describe the work you do?
A.
I am employed as a seismologist in the Geosciences Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My work includes the technical review and evaluation of the acceptability of proposed and operational nuclear reactor sites with respect to the seismological aspects of the sites. My work includes the use of my expertise in the areas of seismicity, rupture mechanics, l
seismic wave propogation, and seismic instrumentation.
l l
Q.
Would you describe in general tenns the development of your testimony l
I in responding to the Appeal Board's questions.
A.
Yes, my testimony in response to the Appeal Board's questions related to seismic matters was developed in coordination with Dr. Pao-Tsin Kuo l
l 8008120 N \\
l
. _ =
. and under the general supervision of James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering.
Q.
Would you detail your professional qualifications.
A.
A copy of my professional qualifications are attached to this testimony.
A copy of my professional qualifications was previously submitted in this proceeding as an attachment to the " Joint Affidavit of Robert L.
Rothman and Pao-Tsin Kuo" dated May 5,1980. That affidavit was attached to the May 5,1980 "NRC Staff Response to Joint Intervenors' Motion to Reapen" submitted in this proceeding.
I have not previously tastified in this proceeding, however.
Q.
Would you describe the scope of your testimony?
A.
Yes. My testimony is directed specifically toward the seismological aspects of the questions raised by the Atcnic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) in the Appendix to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pcwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598, Slip Op. (June 24,1980).
Q.
Which questions does your testimony address?
A.
My testimony is directed to Appeal Board questions 1, 3, and 7.
r
. Q.
Are there any particular caveats you have with respect to use of the seismic data generated by the Imperial Valley Earthquake of October 15, 1979 (IV-79) with respect to nuclear power plant design.
A.
The Imperial Valley Earthquake occurred on the Imperial Valley Fault which is a part of the San Andreas System. This area is one of high seismicity and an area where earthquakes of this type might be expected to occur. A number of strong motion seismic instruments were located near to the site of the earthquake prior to its occurrence because it was thought that the area was one where such an earthquake might occur.
The large number of seismic recordings at close distance has made this particular earthquake important as a data source, but because of speci-fic geologic conditions within the Imperial Valley the data must be subjected to critical analysis before it is applied.
The particular characteristics at the IV-79 area must be carefully considered before applying the data recorded at IV-79 to the design of nuclear facilities at sites having different characteristics. For example such things as earthquake focal mechanism, seismic wave propa-l gation path characteristics and recording site geology can have a significant effect on the data recorded. Thus, data from IV-79 must be t
used with caution if transferred to the DCNPP site.
In particular the geology at DCNPP is different than that of the Imperial Valley. The l
o Diablo Canyon site is underlain by a relatively thin section of sedi-mentary rock overlying the basement which consists of the Franciscan Forma tion. The Imperial Valley is a sedimentary basin in which over 300 meters of unconsolidated alluvium are underlain by approximately 5.5 kilometers of sedimentary rock.
See also discussion below in response to Appeal Board's question No. 3.
Q.
Appeal Board Question flo. I states:
The October 15, 1979, Imperial Valley Earthquake (IV-79, M, =6.4-6.9) provided an extensive set of f trong motion records in the hear field of a rather severe earthquake.33/ The parties should compare the horizontal peak acceleration values recorded for various instru-ment positions with earlier predictions and compilations of such motion, e.g., those contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) on the Diablo Canyon fluclear Power Plant, Amendment 50, Appendix D LL llB, Figures 2, 3 and 4; and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Circular 795, Figures 4, 24, 47, and 48. Those l
comparisons should (if possible) address whether there is magnitude independence or a saturation effect for ground motion intensity in the near field of earthquakes.34/
33/ Preliminary Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey Stong-Motion Records from the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake by R.L. Porcella and R.B. Mathiesen (October 1979), included in Board flotification, December 17, 1979.
34/ See, for instance, Tr. 8597; 10,105; 5889-90.
A.
In response to question tio.1, I have made comparisons between the
' horizontal peak acceleration values recorded for IV-79 at various irlstrument positions and Figures 4, 24, 47 and 48 of United States Geological Survey (USGS) Circular 795 (Boore et al.,1978).
In
1 1
. Circular 795 the results of the study by Boore et al. of the relation-ships between peak accelerations, distance, earthquake magnitude and recording site characteristics are presented.
In addition, these results are compared with the results of other studies on the same subjects (Schnabel and Seed,1973; Donovan,1973; and Trifunac,1976).
Figures 4, 24, 47 and 48 of Circular 795 contain plots of the predic-tions and compilations developed in these four studies. As a means of comparing these studies with the data obtained from IV-79, the peak horizontal accelerations from the various instrument positions in the Imperial Valley were plotted on Figures 4, 24, 47 and 48 of Circular 795.
The Appeal Board has indicated, in question fio.1, a range of magnitude M values for IV-79 of 6.4-6.9.
The USGS magnitudes for this event are L
M = 6. 6, m = 5.7 and M = 6.9.
At this point it : night be beneficial L
b s
to discuss this variation in magnitude values.
i l
The differences in these magnitudes is caused by the way in which they j
are each calculated, specifically, the periods (frequency) of the waves which are used in each measurement. M is the original Richter magnitude g
which was developed for Southern California earthquakes recorded on Wood-Anderson seismometers (free period 0.8 seconds) at distances of 600 kilometers or less. M and m use signals recorded at teleseismic s
b l
distances (2000 kilometers or greater). The M measures the amplitude s
is a measure of l
of surface waves with periods of 20 seconds and the mb the 1 second body waves. The variations in the magnitude calculations l
o are due in part to the fact that different size earthquakes generate relatively different amounts of energy in these frequency bands.
As a means of presenting the peak horizontal accelerations recorded at the various locations for IV-79 I have plotted Figee 1.
This figure contains the peak horizontal accelerations recorded at ground level plotted as a function of distance. The distances are the nonnal to the surface expression of the Imperial Fault or its projections. The circular points are fran stations in the U.S. owned by either the U.S.
Geological Survey or the California Division of Mines and Geology. The squares represent stations in Mexico owned by the University of California at San Diego and the Universidad flacional Autonana de Mexico.
There is considerable scatter in the data with a range of from 0.22g to 0.81g for stations within 10 kilometers of the fault. The highest peak horizontal acceleration was recorded at Bonds Corner. However, the Bonds Corner high reading may be, to some extent, oue to an anomalous site condition. During a subsequent earthquake, Calexio Valley earth-quake of June 8,1980 (Magnitude 6.2), the Bonds Corner station recorded a high peak horizontal acceleration of 0.14g. This reading was approxi-mately three times larger than any of the other stations in the region at approximately the same epicentral distance (USGS,1980).
Studies of earthquake ground motion parameters (Schnabel and Seed, 1973; Donovan,1973; Trifunac,1976; and Boore et al,1978), have had
. to rely on the extrapolation of far-field data to make predictions for engineer ing estimates in the near field. This has not proved to be completely satisfactory.
For example, when various relationships are compared in the distance range for which there is abundant strong motion instrument data, 30 to 100 kilometers, they are in reasonably good agreement with each other. However, when they are compared at distance of less than 30 kilometers there is considerable divergence among these relationships. This is illustrated by Figure 2a which is a copy of Figure 47 from USGS Circular 795 (Boore et al,1978) and contains the distance-peak horizontal acceleration relationships for a magnitude 6.6 earthquake as developed frmi the above mentioned references. The peak horizontal accelerations from IV-79 (small dets) are also plotted in this figure. The IV-79 data generally fal's below the curves of these studies and especially so at short distances. The IV-79 data tends to support the theory that the peak horizontal acceleration-distance curve flattens out at short distances.
I say tends to support because IV-79 is only one event and I cannot make a definitive statement solely on it.
Figure 2b is a copy of Figure 48 from USGS Circular 795 (Boore et al, 1978).
It contains the distance-peak horizontal acceleration relation-ships for a magnitude 7.6 earthquake as developed from the references and the peak horizontal accelerations from IV-79. The IV-79 data generally falls below the curves.
Figure 2c is a copy of Figure ' fron
. USGS Circular 795 (Boore et al,1978) with the peak horizontal accelera-tions from IV-79 also plotted. The IV-79 data appears to be generally consistent with the plots and there is an indication that at distances of 10 kilometers and less it even falls within the range of the magnitude 5.0-5.7 curves.
Figure 2d is a copy of Fiqure 24 from USGS Circular 795 (Boore et al,1978) with the peak horizontal accelerations from IV-79 plotted on it. The IV-79 data seem to be generally consistent with the Circular 795 data and, in addition, indicate a flattening of the curve at short distances from the fault. This one earthquake has given us data that tends to show that previous predicitons, based on the extrapolations of far-field data, over-estimate the peak accelera-tions to be expected in the near field. As a consequence, use of tne circular 795 figures discussed above to predict peak acceleration at the DCNPP frca a Hosgri earthqueke could also result in an overly conservative value of peak acceleration.
Q.
Have you addressed whether the above described comparisons show that there is magnitude independence or a saturation effect for ground motion intensity in the near field of earthquakes?
(
l A.
Yes.
l Q.
What can you state on this subject?
w
. A.
It has been postulated that peak ground acceleration saturates with litreasing magnitude in the near field. A comprehensive report on this subject is that of Hanks and Johnson (1976). Their conclusion was that the causative processes, in the source region, responsible for generating peak ground accelerations at distances of approximately 10 kilometers c
are independent of magnitude for events of magnitude 4.5 or greater.
They explain this with a theoretical argument predicated on the basis that high-frequency accelerations reflect isolated bursts of rupturing of localized inhomogeneities which are magnitude independent.
Figure 3 is a copy of Hanks and Johnson's figure showing peak accelerations as a function of earthquake magnitude at approximately 10 kilometers. The peak horizontal accelerations of IV-79 for stations less than 11 kilo-j meters has been plotted on the Hanks and Johnson figure. The log of the mean peak horizontal acceleration of IV-79 for stations less than 11 kilometer is 2.6.
This value is in agreement with the Hanks and Johnson plot. The Imperial Valley earthquake is, in effect, one additional data point which adds support to the theory that accelera-tion saturates with magnitude. This means that in the near field the peak ground accelerations for larger earthcaakes (magnitude 4.5 and greater) are probably independent of magnitude.
I l
Q.
Appeal Board Question No. 3 states:
We are told that IV-79 data are not relevant to the Diablo Canyon l
seismic analysis because that plant is a " rock" site, whereas the Imperial Valley data were obtained on soil sites.
(Rothman - Kuo Affidavit at p. 3; Blume Affidavit, Para. 8.) What is the signifi-cance of this difference in view of the conclusion of the authors i
. of USGS Circular 795 (based on an analysis of data provided in that document) that, for comparable earthquake magnitude and distance, there are no significant differences betmen peak horizontal acceler-ations measured on soil or rock? (USGS vircular 795 at pages 1, 17, and 26.) This question should be considered in light of state-ments by applicant's witness Blume to the effect that acceleration, rather than velocity or disp (lacement, is the critical parameter in the design of Diablo Canyon Bldme Affidavit, Para. 9; Testimony j
fol. Tr. 6099, p. 33).
A.
The key to my discussion in answer to question No. 3 is the fact that the specific geologic conditions in the Imperial Valley are significantly different from those at Diablo Canyon and the high peak accelerations recorded at some of the Imperial Valley stations for IV-79 may be directly attributable to the geology.
The Imperial Valley is a sediment filled basin in which approximately 5.5 kilometers of sedimentary rock are overlain by over 300 meters of i
unconsolidated alluvial soil. This basin has a very steep vertical velocity gradient with the P-wave velocity increasing from 1.8 km/sec near the surface to 5.6 km/sec at a depth of approximately 5 kilometers.
l Studies are currently being perfonned to explain the high-frequency l
high peak vertical accelerations recorded at some of the strong motion stations during IV-79. Helmberger and Hadley (1979) and Archuleta (1980) attribute these anomalous readings to the geologic setting of the area and to fault breakout from the basement into the sediments.
There is a considerable range in the peak horizontal accelerations recorded from IV-79, see Figure 5.
Some of these variations may be due to the differences in geology between sites. As noted in the response l
l
. to Appeal Board Question 1 the Bonds Corner station has recorded a l
l higher peak acceleration than other stations at approximately the same distance for another earthquake. Boore et al (1979) have reported consistent differences in the amplitude of signals recorded at El Centro Array Station 6 and Station 7.
These two stations are approxi-l mately two kilometers apart and on opposite sides of the fault. They l
found, in a study of the af tershocks of IV-79, that the S waves near Station 6 were delayed by about 0.5 seconds with respect to Station 7 and the spectral amplitude in the range 2 to 5 Hz was increased by up to a factor of 10.
In a study of a 1977 swam of earthquakes they also found that the peak accelerations at Station 6 were larger than at Station 7.
U.S.G.S. Circular 795 reports that for comparable earthquake magnitude l
and distance, there are no significant differences between peak horizontal accelerations measured on soil or rock. Assuming the same propagation path and other conditions being the same, I agree with Circular 795.
This is a different situation than that addressed by the Rothman-Kuo affidavit, at page 3.
l In the Rothman-Kuo affidavit we should have more clearly emphasized the difference in overall geologic characteristics rather than simply referring to rock and soil distinctions. The point is that the geology at Diablo Canyon is different than that at Imperial Valley. Thus, some of the high accelerations from IV-79 may be due to specific source l
. characteristics, recording site considerations, and propagation path effects. The distribution of peak accelerations in the Imperial Valley frm IV-79 was very cmplex. A generally accepted explanation has not as yet been found for this complexity. However, explanations such as those discussed above based on the particular geologic setting of the Imperial Valley would tend to indicate that the conditions experienced from IV-79 would not be directly applicable at Diablo Canyon.
The fact that IV-79 occurred in sedimentary basin with particular geology, which is different fra the DCNPP site, is significant enough to caution that the data generated by IV-79 must be used with care when applied to another area with different underlying geologic characteristics.
I l
Q.
Appeal Board Question No. 7 states:
Intervenors (Brune Affidavit, p. 5) and the applicant (Frazier Affidavit, para 3) have suggested that the strong motion data obtained from stations along the direction of the Imperial Fault evidence the " focusing" of earthquake motion. Yet, when the acceler-ation data of two such stations, El Centro Array Numbers 6 and 7, are plotted as a function of distance from the fault (e.g., Blume Affidavit, Figures 1 and 2), the horizontal acceleration values fall well below the regression line mean for the 1 km distance.
The vertical acceleration values are also lower than the mean on such a plot.
To the extent possible, the parties should analyze the seismic records for the IV-79 earthquake as they pertain to the focusing phenomenon and relate the results of such analyses to the likeli-hood that, in the event of an earthquake anywhere along the Hosgri l
Fault, focusing might result in amplified seismic motion at Diablo Canyon.
. A.
Focusing is a signal amplitude effect resulting frcra rupture propagation.
Figure 4 is a schematic representation of the focusing phenomena taken from Hugo Benioff's article on the Kern County Earthquake (Benioff, 1955). The focusing effect results from constructive interference of signals whose velocity is close to that of the rupture propagation velocity. The focusing effect probably occurs to some degree in all earthquakes. The strong motion recording cata base which is used by the seismological cormunity to establish the distance-acceleration, acceleration +sagnituce, and other strong seismic notion relaticns undoubtedly contains values which are the result of focusing.
The Pacoima Dam record of the San Fernando Earthquake which played a key roll in the development of the DCiPP design spectra displayed large ground motions. These values were, in part, caused by the focusing phenomenon (Heaton and Helmberger,1979).
We have examined, to the extent possible from available data and studies performed, the peak accelerations and their relationship to the focusing phenomenon. Figure 5 is a map of the secticn of the Imperial Yalley within the U.S.
The epicenter of IV-79 and the U.S. streng motion stations are plotted on it (Brady et al,1980). The rupture of the IV-79 is believed to have initiated at the epicenter (10/15/79) and to have prcpagated to the northwest. The peak hori: ental acceleration recorded at each station is also noted in Figure 5.
There is no obvious indication of focusing in this data. The fault prcpagating to the e
. northwest should cause larger signals in the U.S. than in Mexico if there is a focusing effect present.
Referring to Figure 1, it can be seen that the Mexican stations (squares) fall within the Seneral scatter of the data and there is no obvious indication of focusing affecting the peak horizontal accelerations.
If focusing did occur with IV-79 i
the evidence is hidden within the considerable complexity of this data set. This is not surprising since ground motion at a particular site results from a combination of many factors including, for example, radiation pattern, localized source effects, site effects and focusing.
As indicated above, the analysis and interpretation of all these complex ground motion parameters from IV-79 is not available at the present time.
Q.
Can the results of the analysis for focusing phenomenon of IV-79 be related to the likelihood that, in the event, of an earthquake anywhere along the Hosgri Fault, focusing might result in amplified seismic 1
l motion at Diablo Canyon.
i A.
Since the examination of IV-79 seismic data thus far has not resulted in a clear indication of the focusing phenomenon it is not possible to l
apply data from IV-79 to the Hosgri Fault and focusing at Diablo Canyon.
However, as discussed above it is my opinion that the focusing phenomenon i
is necessarily incorporated in the design spectra for the DCNPP.
i i
. The spectral approach used by the NRC in its review of seismic design is based upon data from a selected population of earthquakes. We believe the data range is sufficient to reflect the effect of focusing.
Thus, the data base underlying the spectra which we use inherently contain the focusing phenomenon.
Q.
Is there an explanation as to why the stations 6 and 7 peak accelera-tions from IV-79 fall below the regression lines in the Blume Affidavit Figures 1 and 2.
A.
As noted by the Appeal Board, if focusing were occurring the accelera-tions at stations 6 and 7 would be expected to be much higher than 2
those predicted by the regression line. However, the fact that the i
peak accelerations for stations 6 and 7 fall below the regression line cannot be used to address the focusing question. Rather, this demon-strates the inappropriateness of linearly extrapolating the regression l
to a distance of 1 kilometer from the fault. This is explained in my response to question No. I where I discuss the acceleration-distance relationships developed with far field data and the inappropriateness of applying them in the near field.
If indeed we had an adequate near field acceleration distance relationship to compare the stations 6 and 7 values to, then I would expect them to be above the line if there 7
were focusing.
- . f_..r..r r s_
Archuleta,
'ilph, J. (19"0) Thr.:e Di.
-icaul '*naling sa :trcn.; "ut ' n J.r 2t a in a layered ::.ediun. r ', i n d Third Quarterly and k.im i Repcrt for FY E0 frc a the t'SCS t o '.c
" *P C.
>ie f,,, go I,1aSc-). cn.an t s.,. o.:
.n....r.c. ter i sti cs of t,,.e '. h t te
. c
.a;,.ce.,E2rthquakes in
, Ir J uit.s i D r.
- ! by * !.c te or,. 11;crnla Depar' ent a.
y, tc...:roia.
- c.
,4 u
a 1c _ ;. v s 'ollei.in 1/1., p.
..3-202.
15 ui
' ~.7 r
e, P;...
'j.
. o..
.a
",.2
. ;.- i.,
J. m uwleta (19/9) cro, 4
'., J. B. r b. kin:r, E.il. St 61.
...o c.
Prelic.ia ry Study of Selected Aftershacks of the 1979 Imperial
'. alley, California carthquake from digital acceleration sad velocity rccordings. Earthquate fotes Eastern Secticn of the Seis:. Soc.
V. 50, "o.
4, p. 49.
o.
' t i i, :, ';illi.o S. J y..r.
h A. Oli.cc III, '.qd 2.:Nrt c
s t..o e r.:
4 4
,'r
- cr p2.5.;.9.. Cir olar
- f.u.. )
..c r i va,t il c. c:.nd c.
2
, ;.u).. :a, id. na j d ;.. m.. : :a s
r.
- . 15. i r.1 ti.e 19i9 ',<.ii.i!
!'.j Ear.h ;uale:
Ce pariton.:iih
~
t ie :s E w t hqua' es.
In "r-;ss.
.4
- 7. F r:g, and P.'.. ::ork (1920) The :mperial Valley Earthquat.c,
'.r 12, ;9/9. Digitization and precessing of acceleregrai.n records
' ' S. ^.r.-File Report 00-703.
o, 7.C. (1973), A Statistical evaluation af strong rotien data loc !.. lino icy 9,1971 San Fern;:.lo e:rth. pike, 5th ;lorldTcnfarer.cc on
. ":;ui 2 Engineering, Rome, it aly. V.1, ; p.1252-1261.
~ '. Is C. 2nd Dconis A..'chn en ( F6).
Sec;hysical Assess :ent et t
c
. n.....r_
s;.
- . _.. + : r, s.., q q ;. y.. o-
- r, G. V.
.od 9. ". '- ' icy t ;979) ;
.te en the high fecquency. riical r
- r ;
' t i. n s. t e r hi i n 11i.
- .w;. 'c i s ' n s. E2rthquake *:otes astern 3
c v,.
..,..is. e.u e..
ct.,i. -._
e e
. i,...
i
. 6), Trc;: ;. :.. y 11;.. u :
tha zelks of stronc atico
.c
.c.d -.oticr.-Jcc..;.ce et, :S.s er carthqu2(e ~2;ni'.Jc,, ; is. d r..!
I c
- d. ac;cding site c d;;;en.. E.5.S.. v. 66 pp. 129-19.
l t
l
i References (Continued) f Schnabel, P.B. and H. B. Seed (1973) Accelerations in-rock for earthquakes in the western United States.
B.S.S.A. v. 63 pp. 501-516.
U.S.G.S. (1980) Calexico Valley Earthquake 08 June 1980 Strong Motion Strong Mo:. ion Information Retrival System, Menlo Park's California.
Data.
i I
e
~.,.. - _ -,..,.
1.0
~
e O
e E
9 e
8 m
a j
e a
i e s S
e e
5 8
e g
e e-ig e
w:d e
.;g
- < 0.1 iu
+
.~
!ie iN
!E I
i I
i
)
1 i
01 l
100 1.0 10 j
0.1 DISTANCE (KM)
FIGURE I PEAK ll0RIZONTAL ACCELERATIONS AS A FUtlCTION OF DISTANCE (BOORE & PORCELLA, 1980)
l MAGNITUDE 6.6 i i iniini i i i s ia.is i ii i.o._
TO s
b
~*
gY *s,' \\
m 2
-E
~.
D.... * 'se g
- .... y,.
4 5 o.1 C
U U
1
- g.g *.
a
(
,\\
~
s' c41 ;
5 b
i f f f fff!!
I f i f ifff!
l 9 f 1
lo too DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS Figure 47. Proposed relations of peak horizon-tal acceleration to distance from slipped f ault for segnitude 6.6 earthquake. Curve labeled S is given by Schnabel and Seed (1973) for rock sites, curve labeled D is given by Donovan (1973) for soil sites, and curves labeled TD and T2 are mean curves given by Trifunac (1976) for soft and hard sites. respectively. Solid lines show 70 percent prediction interval for data set for magnitude class 6.0 6.4 and small structures, from this report.
Figure 2a (Boore et al, 1978)
^'
F e
A & M 4A2 -
]*
MAGNITUDE 7.6 i i i n ii ni i e i s iiin iii TO %,
i.o T 2 ~.D.
tz
.c
. D " s W.y,
z
.z 1
1 O
t.
j g
@ o.i 5.(g\\
U
\\\\g.,\\
y N.% %. :
s 5
N
,\\ -
\\
0.01 5
'd OMI i 10 100 DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS Figure 48. Proposed relations of peak horizon-tal acceleration to distance from slipped f ault for segnitude 7.6 earthquake. Curves labeled S D. TD and T2 are from sources given in figure 47.
Solid lines show 70 percent prediction interval for data set for segnitude class 7.1-7.6 and mall structures, fra this report.
l l
Figure 2b (Boore et al 1978) i i
l
(
l
_~
i i i s s uis i
.. i i i n i, i i,
,, _ 5.0 - S.7 cm E
8 6.0 - 6.4
.l
, 7.1 - 7.6 E
I i
.I K
t-g I'.
M i
I.
g i
er I
i i*
5 0.1 :
=
1 4
1 I *,.
l g
l g
e 1
y 0n1 :
'I OD01 I 10 100 DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS Figure 4 Comparison of 70 percent prediction intervals for peak horizontal acceleration recorded at base of small structure: for meanitude classes 5.0-5.7, 6.0-6.4, 7.1-7.6.
Curves taken from figures 1-3.
Figure 2c (Boore et al, 1978) 1 l
l i
e MAGNITUDE 6 0 - 6.4 Att STRUCTURES i i iiiiin i i i s ii ni i i.
+
1.0 ;
en c
2
~
- e C'
b g.
s g
m 0.1
+
u u
g
.g N
8
' =
3 1
m m_
D-0 001
'I i
10 100 DISTANCE, IN KILOMETERS Figure 24. Peak horizontal acceleration versus distance to slipped fault for magnitude range 6.0 5.4 including data from both large and small structures.
Symbols and curves same as in Figure 23.
l Figure 2d (Boore et al, 1978)
E
~
a s
a Q
a=5 k'bor i
g iv-19 3
3 7:2 kbar
.c ui
.g
--o
'd '
e e
a,,
1',
W*
1~
E 8...
3 m.
32
.E.,
o 9 AnCono u
d a Oroville
~
e impersal Volley t
t l
t t
g 4
5 6
7 g3 J
Mogrutude Fio 1. Peak acalerations at R 310 km as a function of earthquake magnitude. Vertical knes connocung two I
ce more symbols denote multipic observations of the same canhquake.The notauon (2) andmates two comcident data points. The honaontal hoes represset peak eseslerauons at A310km. as predacted by theoreucal coondersuons discussed in the test.
Figure 3 (Hanks and Johnson, 1976) l l
I' L----
I i
)
]
l i
n sae n e.m, b.am. _
=
n
/ _.,e a :-
E I
i
//
s-~
=
/ ///,
e
.L.,.
/ / / / /,
a f
l l l / / / /
^
le iI t
...su.,..***..,'.*-
s g
c:
3 A
\\
j u,i n...,...
.,d
...,,.....a..,.
vg..sv.
......t...
i ruous (
l 1
Figure'4 (Benioff,1955) l l
l i
l l
L
115',4 5'W 115'30'W
^"^
33'15'N NILAND, 10
- SMAT 1, ' Ground s:ation A DSA 1 Ground station SAL TON SEA n' CRA 1 Building ahetotu(nisuct CRA 1 Bndgp 9 DCA 300 Special array
\\
CALIPATRIA i._>,
KILOMET ERS 111 86
\\
_.. __ 0.11
'a u
WESTMCRELAND m
33800'N
,0.22
.S g
Array *04 BRAWLEY 15 0.21 e.U'!"SI'T*
NO.1 S
Lig 9
roest w 0.20 f
.. m cHu1E 0.43 S
ttsi s Acitiiv ss f
[/
e NO.2
[/ BRAWLEY
/
FAULT 0
6NO.3 i
) 56
- NO.4 0.61
@NO.5 i
IMPERIAL 0.52 q0 6 NO.7e 0. 72 HOLTVII I E
$0.g '64 EL CENTR 0.07 e tasitR CITY i
NO.9 a
s X-OS.. _ __. _ = :.4%_W
.i 0
0.40 32_
V NO.10 32':5'N -
0.38e,,40.11 Enc!NTE4 siis/40 O
N 15
- NO.12 0.15
- NO.13 7$, e ans
.'.;si c C AL E xlC0@'0.28_ _U_S A___
MEXICO
- g.,,.n i g
~'_
i;/ir/79
- _ =
j Figure 5 Strong-notion stations in the Interial Valley, California (from I
(8rady et al, 1980)
3 5
i j
i a
A i
1 i
b i
{
ROBERT L. ROTH? Aft i
GEOSCIEtiCES BRAfiCH O!VISI0t10F EttGIt:EERIt1G a
U. S. fUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fGIISSI0ff My name is Robert L. Rothman.
I presently reside at 8409 Stonewall Drive, Vienna, Virginia 22180 and I am employed as a Seismologist in the Geosciences 3 ranch, Division of Engineering, Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D. C. 20555.
e 0
PROFESSI0f!AL QUALIFICATI0t15 1
I received a B.S. degree in Geology from Brooklyn College and M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in Geophysics from the Pennsylvania State University.
I have been employed by the t!RC since October 1979 as a Seismologist in the evaluation of the suitability of nuclear power plant sites. My areas of expertise include seismicity, rupture mechanics, seismic wave propagation
~
and seismic instrumentation.
From 1975 through 1979, I was employed by the U. S. Air Force Technical Applications Center as a seismologist in the nuclear explosion detection program.
I was involved in several projects of this program both as a Technical Project Officer and as a researcher. These projects included the detection of and the discrimination between undergrour.d explosions and earthquakes, magnitude and yield relationship studies, seismic network detection and location capability studies, regional and teleseismic wave propagation studies and projects to operate seismic instrunent j
arrays and automatic data processing and comunications systems.
{
From 1965 through 1970 I was employed as a seismologist by the U. S. Coast and Geogetic Survey.
In this positica I was involved in studies in the areas 1
of engineering seisaology, seismicity and earthquake aftershock sequences. This i
work was performed as part of a program to investigate seismic hazard in the 4
United States.
From 1959 to 1961 and during 1964-1965 I was an Engineering Geologist with the
.lew York State Department of Public Works.
In this position, I conducted geophysical field surveys in support of construction projects such as bridges,
~
[
buildings and high..ays.
~ ;
?
l
?
l i
i d