ML19341C732
| ML19341C732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1981 |
| From: | WESTON GEOPHYSICAL CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341C724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103040034 | |
| Download: ML19341C732 (79) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - - - B l 4[j ,i! Weston Geophysical l conecauios I February 26, 1981 B Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Ja/kson, Michigan 49201 Attention: Dr. Thiru R. Thiruvengadam Gentlemen: In accordance with your Purchase Order No. 37957-Q, we I submit our final report on the seismic hazard analysis for Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2. This is a formal presentation of our findings. Sincerely, WESTON GEOP:1YSICAL CORPORATION g 2 3 PC-Edward N. Levine for Richard J. Ilolt B B B B B
@/030 4 0 03 y Post Office Box 530. Westboro, Massachusetts 01581. (617) 366-9191
l l l i E E i i SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA E MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 and 2 l PART III j SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS i prepared for i CONSUMERS t JWSR COMPANY } February, 1981
- B E p$@t ,
'Lifrl E
Weston Geoolysical -- N - _____-_____________
l B l TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE l LIST OF TABLES ii i LIST OF FIGURES iii l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 l 2.0 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY AND 2 TECTONIC PROVINCE MODELS 2.1 Michigan Basin - Cincinnati Arch Structure Tectonic Model 4 2.2 Central Province with Seismic Activity Constrained at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York Tectonic Structures 6 2.3 Central Province with Unconstrained Activity at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York 7 3.0 RECURRENCE FREQUENCY AND MAXIMUM B MAGNITUDES 7 4.0 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION 5 MODEL 13 5.0 SEISPIC HAZARD AT THE MIDLAND SITE 18 6.0 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD RESULTS 21 7.0 PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOTION AND E RESPONSE SPECTRA 24 REFERE NCES TABLES FIGURES CATALOG OF EARTHQUAKES T OR THE MICHIGAN BASIN CATALOG OF EARTHQUAKES FOR THE CINCINNATI ARCH STRUCTURE E E E g __
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 1 Earthquake Occurrences in the Cincinnati Arch Structure 2 Seismicity Characteristics of Tectonic Province Model 1 3 Seismicity Characteristics of Tectonic Province Model 2 l 4 Seismicity Characteristics of Tectonic Province Model 3 5 Annual Exceedence Probabilities of Modified Mercalli Intensity at the Midland Site (Model 1) 6 Annual Exceedence Probabilities of Modified Mercalli Intensity at the Midland Site (Model 2) I 7 Annual Exceedence Probabilities of Modified Mercalli Intensity at the Midland Site (Model 3) 8 Best Estimate of Annual Exceedence I Probabilities of Modified Mercalli Intensity at the Midland Site 9 Probabilistic Response Spectra Values I B I I I I ii g _e_
i LIST OF FIGURES 'E lW Figure No. Title l ! 1 Seismicity of the Central and Eastern U.S. and adjacent Canada I ! 2 Tectonic Model 1 - Michigan Basin - Cincinnati Arch Structure l 3 Tectonic Model 2 - Central Province - Anna, Ohio and Attica, N. Y. Tectonic Structures 1 ! 4 Tectonic Model 3 - Central Province - ' ! Anna, Ohio and Attiva, N. Y. Activity Not Constrained to Structures 5 Tectonic Model 1 - Earthquake i Recurrence Frequency per 10,000 sq. km. } jg 6 .ectonic Model 2 - Earthquake !E Recurrence Frequency per 10,000 sq. km. I ! 7 Tectonic Model 3 - Earthquake i Recurrence Frequency per 10,000 sq. km. ! 8 Comparison of Local Seismicity lg Recurrence Rates For Alternate Tectonic l im Models i ! 9 Northeast U.S. Medified Mercalli i Intensity Attenuation i 10 Comparision of Northeastern U.S. and j S. Illinois (Nov. 9, 1968; 5.5 mb) j Intensity Attenuation 1 !g 11 Annual Exceedence Probability of jg Modified Misrcalli Intensity-Tectonic Model 1 12 Annual Exceedence Probability of ! Modified Mercalli Intensity-Tectonic j Model 2 i 13 Annual Exceedence Probability of l Modified Mercalli Intensity-Tectonic !g Model 3 lM i j iii 0 l Wes:on Geophysical 4
B 14 Comparison of Annual Exceedence Probabilities for Alternate Tectonic B Models 15 Best Estimate Annual Exceedence I Probability at the Midland Site 16 Modified Mercalli Intensity vs. Ground Acceleration Correlations i 17 Modified Mercalli Intensity vs. Ground Velocity Correlations l 18 Annual Exceedence Probability of Sustained Ground Acceleration (3 cycles) B 19 Annual Exceedence Probability of i Sustained Ground Velocity (3 cycles) 20 Median Probabilistic Response Spectra l 1 B l B 1 I 1 B l 5 L l I l B l 1 I l iv I 1 wesion c>emnys,coi l l _ _ _ _
) j
1.0 INTRODUCTION
B , Probabilistic seismic ground mo* ion levels and corresponding probabilistic response spectra were determined l for the site of the Midland Nuclear Plar.t Units 1 and ?. The seismic hazard assessment was perfctmed using the computer cc 3e of McGuire (1976) which incorporates the theoretical considerations outlined by Cornell (1968). Required inpu' into the seismic hazard code includes the definition of a seismotectonic model including the source geometry, earthquake recurrence frequency, the largest event magnitude, and also a ground motion attenuation model, which specifies the expected value of a ground motion parameter at a distance plus a measure of the uncertainty about this value. The definition of these various inputs for the low seismic l intranlate area of the Midland site is considerably more difficult than for tectonically active regions such as the Western United States (WUS), especially California, where strong motion data are available and correlations of earthquakes with faults are more confidently made. In the Central United States (CUS) and particularly for the immediate site region, the current lack of similarly detailed seismologic information, especially in the form of geologic / seismic I correlations, precludes the single confident definition of a i seismicity model. This uncertainty is especially reflected in E I l 5 i Weston Geophysical
) B i l assigning the largest magnitude to be considered in the local site region. From one perspective, one could assume that ) events as large as 6.0 m b can occur anywhere in a low-sei: ic or aseismic intraplate environment. This aasumption therefore l would place a significant earthquake in proxiaity with the site. In actuality, the "at site" seismic event can be several orders of magnitudes smaller, dependent on the type and extent 1 of local geologic structure. Although the tectonic nature of the local geology is not precisely known, it is evident that the region has experienced only extremely mild deformation l since the early Paleozoic. Several alternate but defensible seismicity models are therefore considered in the computation i of the seismic hazard at the Midland site to account for the B uncertainty in the tectonic regime. Since strong motion data for the site area are l non-existent, ground motion relations need to be developed using data observed in other regions combined with the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) attenuation representative of the CUS. It is noted that correlations of peak ground acceleration (PG A) and peak ground velocity (PGV) vary significantly from study to study; therefore, several of the correlations will be used to develop PG, 'rals at the site. l 2.0 IIISTORICAL SEISMICITY Iuh 'ZCTONIC PROVINCE MODELS l The historical earthquake < p centers for the Central and Eastern United States and adjacent Canada are plotted in l Figure 1. l l wesion Cemnysco,
l l 3-l For the purpose of this seismic hazard analysis, the I seismicity data in Figure 1 was interpreted into three alternate tectonic models, by using available geologic and l geophysical constraints. As previously stated, alternate models were considered, since information necessary to permit the determination of the actual seismo-tectonic condition is currently lacking. l The three tectonin models analyzed in this study include the following:
- 1. Michigan Basin - Cincinnati Arch Structure Tectonic Model;
- 2. Central Stable Region Tectonic Model with Constrained Activity at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York, Seismo-tectonic Structures;
- 3. Central Stable Region Tectonic Model with Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York, Activity Unconstrained to Structures.
The impact of varying the tectonic model is to raise or lower the earthquake recurrence frequency and the size of the maximum event that is postulated to occur at the site and in adjacent zones, hence af fecting the probabilistic seismic ground motion levels. Besides evaluating the effects of the near site activity, the seismic hazard associated with well-documented distant sources of earthquake activity is determined. These distant sources include the New Madrid, Mo. region described in detail l __ce l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
B k I by Nuttli (1979), (1974), and Nuttli and Herrmann (1978), and the Western Quebec Seismic Zone discussed by Basham, et al., (1979). The seismicity characteristics of the distant sources, all of which are more than 500 km. from the Midland site, remain the same for all three alternate tectonic models since their impact is small in relation to that of the near site seismicity. The specific seismicity characteristics and the probabilistic seismic ground motion effects at the Midland site are described in the following sections. 2.1 Michigan Basin - Cincinnati Arch Structure Tectonic Model The Michigan Basin - Cincinnati Arch Structure Model is shown in Figure 2. This model is similar to the zonation of Nuttli and Brill (1980). As seen in the figure, the Arch Structure actually consists of three arches; the Cincinnati Arch, the Findlay Arch, and the Kankakee Arch. The Michigan Basin is situated just north of the Cincinnati Arch and between the bifurcated limbs of the other arches. Further information on the geologic structure of the Cincinnati Arch and the Michigan Basin is provided in Section 2.5 of the Midland FSAR. The Midland site is located at the interior of the Michigan Basin Province. Earthquakes associated with the Michigan Basin and the Arch Structure, respectively, are presented in catalogs at the end of this report. The maximum events in the Michigan Basin I g __
B I province include two occurrences of intensity VI; on February 4, 1883, and on August 9, 1947. The effects of these events, both of which are located more than 180 km from the Midland site, are described in the Midland FSAR. The significant activity related to the Cincinnati Arch includes the Anna, Ohio earthquakes (MMI=VII, 1875, 1930, 1931, 1937; and MMI=VII-VIII, 1937). It is noted that Nuttli and Brill, (1980) have assigned a magnitude 5.0 m b to the March 9, 1937, intensity VII-VIII earthquake. Magnitudes smaller than 5.0 m re given to tae remaining Anna, Ohio events. b The recent, July 27, 1980 Kentucky Earthquake, located near Sharpsburg, and preliminarily assigned a magnitude of 5.2 m b (U.S.G.S. PDE No. 30-80) and a maximum epicentral intensity of VII, is also related to the Cincinnati Arch Structure in this tectonic model. Other activity of significance associated with the limbs of the Arch Structure include the May 26, 1909, intensity VII event, located in Northern Illinois on the Kankakee Arch, and I the March 9, 1943, intensity V event, located near Cleveland, Ohio, in proximity to the Findlay and Waverly Arches. The remaining seismogenic zones in this model include the New Madrid and the St. Francois-Wabash Valley areas and the Western Quebec Seismic Zone. Finally, the historical activity located west of the west flank of the Appalachian Mountains and east of 95 West Longitude, and not associated with the previously discussed tectonic areas was used to define the residual seismicit' cf the Central and Eastern Stable regions. I -' ~ '~
5 l l The description of the specific seismicity characteristics i o f this tectonic model follows the discussion of the general i features of the remaining two tectonic models, i 2.2 Central Province with Seismic Activity Constrained 'E at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York Tectonic Structures , l The Central Stable Region with embedded seismotectonic i structures is shown in Figure 3. The following assumptions are l 1 - 1 l3 mi.de in the definition of this tectonic model. First, the g i activity in the vicinity of Anna, Ohio is correlated with and a constrained to local geologic structure. Thompson, et al., l l a (1976) and D. McGuire (1975) have described three normal faults j in the subsurface near Anna, Ohio. These faults, named the 1 l Ann a-Ch arapa ig n , the Logan-liarding, and the Auglaize f aults are l mapped on the basis of subsurface geological and geophysical data. Mauk (1978) has correlated seismic activity with these ! faults. ' The second assumption is that the activity at Attica, New 1 l York is correlated with and constrained to the Clarendon-Linden ) ) ! geologic structures described by Fakundiny (1978), Isachsen and McKendree (1977), and Van Tyne (1975). Recent microactivity and the historiual seismicity including an intensity VIII in I 1929 is spacially correlated to the Clarendon-Linden structure ! (Fletcher and Sykes, 1977; Herrmann, 1978). lE The remainder of this tectonic model includes the f ar-field New Madrid and Western Quebec Seismic Zones. The Michigan f Basin and Cincinnati Arch Structure, however, are eliminated. Weston Geophysical 1
F L _7 . The site, therefore, is located in the Central Stable Region, - which, seismically is defined by the residual activity not L associated with any of the seismic zones. Within the context { of this zonation, the maximum activity associated with the Central Province is the occurrence of several events of l intensity VII and magnitude near 5.0 m These include the b. July 27, 1980 Sharpsburg, Kentucky earthquake and the May 26, 1909 Illinois-Wisconsin border event. i 2.3 Central Province witn Unconstrained Activity at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York The third tectonic model is the Central Province which includes the activity at Anna, Ohio and Attica, New York as geologically uncorrelated seismicity. This model is shown in I Figure 4. As with the previous model, the site is located in the Central Stable region. However, in this model the seismicity of the Central Region is increased due to the incorporation of the Anna and Attica activity. Finally, as in the previous case, the Michigan Basin and the Arch Structure are eliminated, and as in the previous two models, the far-field sources of New Madrid and the Western Quebec Seismic Zone are included. 3.0 RECURRENCE FREQUENCY AND MAXIMUM MAGNITUDES Necessary input parameters into the seismic hazard computation are the earthquake recurrence frequency and maximum I possible earthquake for the various seismogenic so ces. The I g __
recurrence statistics are determined from the earthquake catalog for a 7iven region in the following procedure. First, it is noted that the earthquake data base quantifies l events according to maximum epicentral intensity, an observed effect, and by magnitude, which defines the size of the source, I or the energy content of the earthquake. Instrumental magnitude determinations are available only for certain events 1 occurring in the past 50 years, whereas magnitude estimates are available for all significant historical events through the use of empirical relations of maximum intensity, or intensity I distribution vs. magnitude (Nuttli, Bollinger and Griffiths, 1979). l For this analysis, all entries in the earthquake catalog that have maximum intensity information only were converted to mb m gnitudes using equation (1) (Nuttli and Herrmann, { 1978). E l mb = 0.5 x Imax + 1.75 (1) B l l Next, a table is constructed that lists the total number of events in a size category observed in 20 year increments from l the present date back to the earliest date of the earthquake catalog. Table 1 shows a temporal sort of the earthquake catalog for the Cincinnati Arch structure. Inspection of this table suggests an incomplete reporting of low-magnitude events prior to about 100 years ago, likely due to a low population l E l t weston Geophyscal
_9-l 4 density in earlier years. This observation, regarding catalog incompleteness was used in the determination of recurrence I statistics for the alternate tectonic models. In general, only j activity observed in the most recent decades was used to j i compute mean annual rates for small events and slightly longer f intervals were used for larger events that generally are perceived over greater distances, and hence are more likely to i , ! be observed at some population center. Finally, the total , I j catalog length was used to define recurrence rates for the 1 l largest events in the catalog. For cases where the maximum i L j event has only one occurrence in the total length of catalog, the annual recurrence is assumed to be the reciprocal of the catalog length. This value, however, is not given equal weight .E j in fitting recurrence models. Events with multiple o % arrences during the assumed complete portions of the historic record are more reliable and therefore, are given more weight in establishing the recurrence models, t j Recurrence statistics computed for all seismic zones in the three alternate tectonic models are listed in Tables 2 through l
- 4. This information is presented as the annual number of earthquakes greater than or equal to 3.5 m ccurring in the b
listed area of the seismic zone. The relation of small to l ; i large events is given by the 6- value, which is the slope of }
- the recurrence model. It is noted tha t the 8 - value is equal i
to in 10 x (the Gutenberg and Richter b- value) of the standard (Log N = a - bmb ) relationship. !E ( Weston Geophysical
I l The recurrence rates for a normalized area of 10,000 km 2 wero computed for the purpose of comparing the relative seismicity of the zones incorporated into the three tectonic models. Figures 5 through 7 are plots of the normaliized recurrence frequencies for tectonic Models 1 through 3, respectively. The final specification of the seismogenic condition is the maximum earthquake considered in each zone. In theory, the size of the maximum magnitude in any localized region of the world is related to the mechanical properties of the local rock materials in the crust and upper mantle and also to the configuration and amplitude of the local stress environment. Within such a fre mwork, the maximum magnitude possible .in a local region can range from the largest documented event, above magnitude 8.0 M s to essentially no macro-activity, should the local region be devoid of the necessary geologic and stress conditions to produce seismicity. From seismological observation spanning the past several decades, the most g obable locations for extremely large earthquakes are the currently active plate b undaries, where more than 99% of the total seismic energy is being released over less than 10% of the sut f ace area of the earth's crust. The problem, then, is to assign a value to the maximum possible event for regions, such as the Midland site area, located at the interior of lithospheric plates. This is not precisely done, due to the limited information on the state of regional and local stress l Weston Geophysical l I
B 11 - l and on the geologic structure at mid-crustal depths (5-25 km) at which the recent activity is occurring. I Maximum magnitudes are therefore assigned on the basis of I the available near surface geologic information, subsurface geophysical data, and also on the size of the historical events observed to date. In the " Surface Paulting" section (2.5.3) of the Midland FSAR, it is stated that "no faults have been mapped or inferred within 70 km of the site". Also it is stated in the FSAR that "the Michigan Basin area has been only mildly deformed since the beginning of PaleoNoic time, and continues to be a quiet region in relation to the other adjacent areas in the Central region." This information is utilized to make judgements about the maximum event that is considered as contributing to the seismic hazard at the site. The maximum magnitudes assigned to each zone for each tectonic model are listed in Tables 3 through 5. For tectonic Models 1 and 2, the maximum magnitude at the site is assumed to be 5.3 mb and for Model 3, the maximum magnitude at the site is specified to be 6.0 m This value is an extremel; conservative estimate considering the geologic stability of the interior of the Michigan Basin as evidenced by the infrequent, low-level seismic activity. The assigned maximum magnitude for each tectonic model is significantly larger than the maximum event observed In the Michigan Basin; the August 10, 1947 event, MMI = VI, mb = 4.7, estimated from the total perceptible area. It is further noted that this 1947 g ___
~ event and the other MMI VI event of 1883 are located near the southern margin of the Basin at 180 to 190 km from the site. The maximum activity occurring nearer to the site includes two l MMI = IV events (1918, 1967) located approximately 90 - 100 km from the site. No activity is cataloged within 90 km of the l site, further supporting the conservative estimate of magnitude l 5.3 to 6.0 mb occurring "at the site". Maximum magnitudes for the other seismic areas include l 6.0 m b f r the Arch structure. The maximum historical event is in the range of 5.0 - 5.3 m ssociated with the Anna b Ear thquo e of March 9, 1937 and the Kentucky event of July 27, 1980. The maximum magnitudes for the New Madrid region include l a 7.5 m b in the central portion delineated by frequent microcarthquake activity (Nuttli, 1979), and a 6.5 m l b f r the outer, more diffuse region of seismicity entitled the St. l Francois-Wabash Valley source zone. The maximum historical activity includes the 1811-1812 New Madrid series, l mb = 7 .1 - 7 . 3 for the central region, and the November 1968 Southern Illinois event, m b= 3.5 located in the St. Francois-Wabash region. Finally, the maximum event selected for the Western Quebec Seismic Zone is a 6.5 m b' compared to the largest historical event, the magnitude l 6.0 m b Timiskaming earthquake of 1935. The maximum magnitudes, just described, are represented in Figures 5 through 7 as the truncation points on the recurrence l models. B l Weston Geophys: Col
4 I i One important 'llustration is shown in Figure 8, which is a lE comparison cf the "at site" seismicity associated with the i three alternate tectonic models. This figure illustrates that the Michigan Basin model (Model 1) results in the lowest , seismicity at the Midland site. The two Central Province 17:terpre tations (Models 2 and 3) produce higher seismicity at I the site, with Model 3 being the most conservative assessment. Besides these specifications of recurrence frequency and maximum magnitudes (Figures 5 through 8), the ground-motion attenuation characteristics need to be defined for the l computation of seismic hazard. The ground-motion attenuation t ! model is discussed in the next section. I 1 4.0 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION MODEL j The slower attenuation of Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) I in the central and eastern United States (CUS, EUS) in relation j to the western Unites States (WUS) is well documented by the 1 significantly larger perceptible areas in the former regions i j for similar magnitude earthquakes occurring in all the i f regions. Nuttli (1973), Everenden (1975), among others, conclude that the large perceptible areas in the CUS and EUS f result from a slower rate of absorption of surface wave energy in these regions due to the more rigid material properties of the crustal and upper mantle rocks. l i I l lIl s Weston Geophysical
I This observed attenuation difference and the current lack of any significant strong motion recordings in the CUS and EUS necessitates that ground motion in these regions be estimated in a complex manner by combining two or more empirical relations. The first of these relations defines the intensity attenuation in the study region (CUS) , and the others include correlations between intensity and the ground motion parameters of peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), etc. These intensity vs. ground motion parameter correlations are typically developed using strong motion data recorded in more seismic regions of the world, such as the WUS, and in particular, California. S~veral approaches are available for the definition of the MMI attenuation characteristics and these can be grouped into l two gene'. 1 methods. The first method involves the interpretation of isoseismal maps (Gupta and Nuttli, 1976; Howell and Schultz, 1975). The second is a direct statistical interpretation of the basic " felt report" data which typically is used in the preparation of isoseismal maps. The second method used by Bollinger (1977) is preferred since it provides a good estimate of the probability distribution of intensity at a distance, whereas the isoseismal interpretation does not give similarly detailed information. A generalized MMI attenuation model, developed through regression analysis performed on more than one thousand felt reports for four Nartheastern U.S. (NEUS) earthquakes, is used g ___
l 15 - l in the seismic hazard analysis of the Midland site. This l attenuation model is equation 2, below, and is shown in Figure 9. The earthquakes used in the computation of l Equation (2) include: the Cornwall-Massena (5.8m b' I o
= VIII, Sept. 5, 1944), the Ossipee, N.H. (5.4mb '
I I = VII, Dec. 20, 24, 1940), the Quebec-Maine Border I g (4.8m b' I o = VI, June 15, 1973), and the S.E. Rhode Island (3.5m b' I o =V, Mar. 11, 1976) earthquakes (Klimkiewicz, 1980). l I(R) = 2.53 + 1.20mb - .0027(R) - 1.84 Log (R) (2) c I ( R) = 1.0 MMI units The validity of applying this NEUS attenuation model in the CUS was checked against the attenuation characteristics of several specific events located in the central region. First, regression analysis was performed on the approximately 900 felt report observations for the Nov. 9, 1968 southern Illinois earthquake (5. 5m The intensity observations b' I o = VII). used in the analysis are taken from Coffman and Cloud (1970). Two alternate methods were used to interpret these data, due to the manner of presentation of the lower intensities, which is to group the intensities I through IV into one undifferentiated category I - IV. The first method is ta compute an attenuation model subsequent to assigning an intensity IV to all of the I - IV reports. The second method is to fit a regression model I g _ _ _
l 1 5 l l l to the data af ter the I-IV reports are randomly distributed, with respect to distance, into I's, II's, III's, and IV's. Neither of these interpretations is considered to be totally acceptable, since clearly not all of the I - IV are IV's as assumed in method 1, and the I - IV are not randomly distributed over distance, as assumed in method 2, but should show a distance dependence. These two cases, however, do bound the actual attenuation of the southern Illinois event. The models for the southern Illinois event develeped by the two alternate methods are compared in Figure 10 to the NEUS attenuation model for a magnitude 5.5mb e rthquake. This figure illustrates a close agreement in the attenuation characteristics at magnitude 5.5mb between the NEUS and the CUS. As a further check, equation (2) is compared with the estimated attenuation of larger CUS earthquakes, namely, the 1811 - 1812 New Madrid events. These events are cataloged as magnitude 7.1 - 7.3 m b with perceptible areas on the order of 5,000,000 km 2 (Nuttli and Brill, 1980). Assuming a circular area, the radius of perception is 1262 km. For this radial distance and for magnitude 7.1 - 7.3 m b, equati n (2) yields a best estimate intensity of II, and an intensity of III at one standard deviation. These intensity values correspond to the low-level limit of perception, as defined on the MMI scale. This favorable comparison provides further verification that equation (2) is appropriate for applice'. ion to the CUS. E
.3 _e_
l l l The specification of MMI at a site provides illustrative but at the same time only qualitative information for l engineering purposes. The more useful ground motion specifications of PGA, PGV, etc., eventually need to be l inferred from the MMI values by applying an intensity vs. ground motion parameter relation (e.g. , Tr ifunac and Brady, 1975); Mcguire, 1977; Murphy and O'Brien, 1978). The application of such conversion relationships can be made either prior to or subsequent to the computation of the seismic hazard. For the present analysis, the seismic hazard at the Midland site is computed in terms of the probability of l exceeding MMI, instead of exceedence of ground motion (i.e. PGA, PGV) for the following several reasons. I First, problems exist in all of the published intensity vs. ground motion parameter relations, especially due to the f act that intensities at a particuiar accelerograph installation are difficult to determine and hence are not precisely known. Second, the large scatter in the conversion relations likely results from the inability to accurately determine the local intensity at the accelerograph. Third, the available conversion relations yield significantly different results and there exists no un?quivocal basis for choosing one relation over the o ther s, implying that all should perhaps be incorporated. Fourth, more confidence is given to the MMI attenuation model alone, that to any combination of the MMI relation with the available intensity vs. ground motion g __
B l 1 I correlations. Finally, performing the analysis without ; prior conversion to ground motion parameters retains the intensity l value at a given annual exceedence probability. This value, j computed once for each alternate tectonic model, can then be used as the basis for application of the various conversion l relations. Also, the probabilistic MMI values can be interpreted within the context of the type and extent of damages documented in the study region (CUS) at those particular MMI values. Also, the same probabilistic MMI values can be examined from the standpoint of the documented damage reports (at those assigned intensitian) for the more seismic regions where the conversion relations are developed, in order to assess if non-uniform intensity evaluation between the regions may constitute a source of error in the ground mation specification. 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARD AT THE MIDLAND SITE Annual probabilities of exceeding MM1 at the Midland site, based on the three alternate tectonic models and the attenuation model, equation (2), are presented in this section. These results are presented in a format that includes the hazard contribution at the site from the individual seismic zones, as well as the cumulative total hazard from all the zones. This format permits the determination of the distance from the site of the predominant source of seismic hazard, thereby providing a basis for estimation of the duration and frequency content of the seismic ground motion. I Weston Geophysical
l l I , The seismic hazard at the Midland site resulting from tectonic Model I, the Michigan Basin-Cincinnati Arch structure, is shown as annual exceedence probability curves in Figure 11. The probability values are also listed in Table 5. The following generalizations are made for Model 1. ;
- 1. At higher annual probabilities and lower MMI values, both the local event in the Michigan Basin, and the more distant event in the Cincinnati Arch structure contribute approximately equally to the total hazard at the site.
- 2. At lower annual probabilities and higher MMI values the local event is the predominant source of hazard.
3 The distant sources including the New Madrid, the St. Francois-Wabash, and the Weste::n Quebec Seismic Zone have a small contributioe to the total seisraic hazard due to their large distance from the site.
- 4. The annual exceedence probability of MMI = VII is 6.4 x 10-5, and of MMI = VIII i s 4 .1 6 These intensity values correspond to "no damage" for masonry A construction as defined by Richter (1953, p. 136). Masonry A is defined as " Good workmanship, mortar and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.; designed to resist lateral forces.
I I _ _ _
I i l The results for tectonic Model 2 are plotted in Figure 12 and listed in Table 6. The seismic hazard associated with this I model is summarized as the following:
- 1. The predominant contribution to the total seismic hazard is the local event of the central Province occuring near the site.
- 2. The activity at the Anna Structure contributes a small percentage of the total seismic hazard for higher intensities (VI-VII MMI) .
- 3. The more distant sources including Attica, Niagara Penninsula, New Madrid, and the Western Quebec Seismic Zone have a minimal contribution.
The annual exceedence probabilities of I 4. MMI = VII is 1.3 x 10-4 and of MMI = VIII is 8.1 x 10 -6 . These annual probabilities are about a factor of 2 larger than the previous model at intensities VII and VIII. Finally the results for Model 3 are shown in Figure 13 and Table 7. The following observations are made with respect to this model.
- 1. The local earthquake constitutes nearly the total seismic hazard at the site.
- 2. The annual exceedence probabilities of MMI = VII is 3 x 10~4 , of g MMI = vz11 is 2.e x 10- , ame of I
Weston Geophysicci
1 , i MMI = IX is 1.7 x 10-6 . These probabilities n l factors of 2 to 7 times larger, at intensities VII and VIII, than those for the previous two models. l 6.0 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD RESULTS l The cumulative hazard results for the three alternate tectonic models are shown in Figure 14. Each of the alternate tectonic models conservatively assumes the occurrence of an ear thquake at the site, and therefore the probabilistic seismic l hazard at the higher intensities can be associated witn the occurrence of the upper bound event, for example a 5.3 m b ff Models 1 and 2 and a 6.0 m b f r Model 3. Although, analytically, high intensities can be computed for the assigned maximum magnitudes (5.3 m b, 6.0 m ) due to b the probability distribution of intensity as specified by the attenuation model (Equation 2), limits are imposed on the maximum allowable intensity. For example, the mean estimated intensity at 10 km for a 5.3 mb earthquake is VII. At one standard deviation (S.D.) above the mean, the intensity is VIII, and at 2 S.D. the intensity is IX. Although a finite probability is given to an intensity of IX in the computer code, the occurrence of this intensity for a magnitude 5.3 event is not supported by observation and therefore is assigned a zero credibility. Furthermore, the occurrence of an intensity VIII for a small magnitude event of 5.3 ut b' al though conceivable, would most likely be restricted to I g __
i l l l l l extremely poor construction on similarly poor foundation material. These are not characteristic of the Midland site, therefore the occurrence of an intensity VIII is given a very l low credibility of 5% for Models 1 and 2. For Model 3, which assigns a magnitude of 6.0 m b to the Central Province, the mean estimate intensity is just below VIII, the 1 S.D. intensity is near IX, and the 2 S.D. intensity is X. Using similar arguments about the size of the energy source and also the structure and foundation characteristics, 5% credibility is given to the occurrence of and intensity IX l l at Midland and zero credibility is given o an intensity X or l greater. Some further constraints can be placed on the MMI seismic hazard results. Due to the geologic stability of the Michigan Basin, and the very infreq..ent seismicity, and also the absence of any local seismicit; near the site, other valid assumptions about the size of the maximum magnitude are made. First, the maximum magnitude for the Michigan Basin, in Model 1, is reduced to 5.0 m b. The resalting cumulative probability curve is shown as the dotted curve in Figure 14. This assumption only slightly reduces the previous results of Model 1. The second assumption is that the region within 100 km of the site is aseismic with respect to events larger than 3.5 m b. For this care the seismic hazard at the Midland site is controlled by tt .: ictivity in the Arch Structure, which is shown by the dashed curve in Figure ll, and by the values I g __
f B in Table 5. It is noted that for this case, intensities above VII at the site are not given any credibility, since the i maximum magnitude of 6.0 m b is 1 cated at distances of nearly l l 200 km. j From the above discussion, it is reiterated that the seismic hazard at the Midland site remains below an intensity
'fIII at all exceedence probabilities for all models, except for evtremely low probabilities in Model 3, where a 5% credibility is given to the occurrence of intensity IX.
"hese intensities, again, reflect no damage to Masonry A structure (Richter, 1954). This statement is verified by the documented types and extent of damages for the most important CUS and EUS earthquakes, including the recent Kentucky earthquake, the Anna, Ohio, and Attic, N. Y. events, the Cornwall-Massena Earthquake and also the S. Illinois event of November 1968. All of these are catalogued as intensity VII or VIII events. The damages incurred during these evente are entirely restricced to poorer or older construction and to soft alluvium foundation conditions. No documentation can be found where engineered structures, especially seismical'y designed structures (Masonry A) are dcmaged at these intensity levels of VII and VIII.
Although these arguments relate to structural performance and specifically to the absence of structural damage at these intensities, there exist other arguments that indicate that the nuclear power plant has a different range of natural weston Geopnwcol
r i frequencies than do the common structures for which the current intensity information pertains. For example, the nuclear plant contains, high natural frequency components, such as electrical equipment, piping elements, etc., not encountered in ordinary cons tr uc tio n. The analysis of these higher frequency components requires the specification of the ground motion characteristics correlated to the probabilistic intensity values, which is discussed ir the next section. 7.0 PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOT ON AND RESPONSE SPECTRA The seismic hazard results shown in Tables 5 through 7 are combined using a weighted average to produce a best estimate of the annual excedence probabilities of Modified Mercalli Intensity at the Midland site. The following weights were assigned to the three alternate tectonic models. The preferred model, Model 1, which is similar to that used in the Midland 1
& 2 FSAR, is assigned a weight of 0.5. The remaining models, 2 and 3, are weighted at 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. The further constraints on the highest credible intensities, associated with the maximum upper bound earthquakes for the 3 models, are also incorporated into computation of the best estimate probability curve. These constraints, described in the previous section, include a 5% credibility for the occurrence of an intensity VIII for Models 1 and 2, and a 5% credibility for an int asity IX for Model 3. Also, zero credibility is assigned t an intensity IX or greater for Models 1 and 2, and I
g ___
B l l to an intensity X or greater for Model 3. Tahle 8 lists the comilative annual probabilities and the weighted best estimate seismic hazard values for the Midland site. These values are l also plotted in Figure 15. As an approximation, the seismic hazard is summarized as the following annual exceedence probabilities: MMI Annual Probability VI .001 VII .0001 VIII .00001 I Several options are available to relate the above probabilisitic intensities to ground motion parameters and response spectra. One option is to correlate the MMI values to PGA or PGV using standard empirical relationships. Another option is to relate the maximum level of sustained acceleration or velocity to the intensity. This option is used since the predominant source of seismic hazard is identified as the occurrence of a nearby, moderate-size earthquake. The observed strong motion data for such events demonstrate the possibility of single high amplitude peak motions at high frequency. These ground motion values, however, result in minimal structural effects due to the short duration and lower energy associated with moderz.te size events. A more useful representation of the ground motion level responsible for the observed intensity is the motion sustained over several cycles. The sustained acceleration and vr:locity levels for three cycles of motion as I Weston Geoonysical
developed by Nuttli (1979) are therefore used to determine the probabilistic ground motion levels. Probabilistic response spectra are subsequently determined using the NUREG/CR-0098 amplification factors (Newmark and Hall, 1978). The sustained ground acceleration and ground velocity levels for three cycles of motion (Nuttli, 1979) are compared to several other relationships of peak acceleration and velocity including Trifunac and Prady (1975), McGuire (1977) for both medium and soft sites, and Murphy and O'Brien (1977). l The format of the presentation is to plot vertical bars starting at the 50th percentile and terminating at the 84th percentile ground motions determined in these studies. With the exception of the Trifunac and Brady (1975) study, who use arithmetic averages, the statistical ground motion levels were computed using a logarithmic-normal distribution. Nuttli (1979) does not provide relationships for his sustained acceleration or velocity vs. MMI data. For this study, simple linear regression models were fit to the Nuttli (1979) data to determine the relationships of sustained motion to intensity. Equations (3) and (4) are the relationships of sustained acceleration (As ) and sustained velocity (Vs) to Modified Mercalli site intensity. Log As= 0.326 + .214 Igg ( 0LO9 As = 0.32) (3) Log Vs = -1.210 + .289 Igg ( LO9 Vs = 0.36) (4 ) B B -, ~ ,-
I f _ y' . I The 50th and 84th percentile models (equations (3) and (4)) are shown in Figures 16 and 17. It is noted that for an accurate comparison of the sustained ground motion models with the data bars shown in Figures 16 and 17, the bars should be translated such that all are aligned at the appropriate intensity value on the abscissa. Having done so, the observation is that the sustained motions are smaller than peak motions at the same intensity. Nuttli (1979) proposes ratios of peak to sustained acceleration of 1.4, and peak to sustained velocity of 1.75. The probabilistic MMI values are converted to sustained acceleration and velocity, 50th and 84th percentile, values using equations 3 and 4. The resulting annual exceedence probability curves are shown in Figures 18 and 19. The final procedure is the computation of response spectra from the ground motion values. The amplification factors developed by Newmark and Hall (1978) in NUREG/CR-0098 are used to develop the probabilistic response spectra shapes. Equations (5) and (6) predict the spectral acceleration and the spectral velocity values for 5% of critical damping. SA (9nz ) = a x 2.12 (a= factor of 1.28) (5) PSRV (lH z . ) = v x 1.65 (0= factor of 1.39) (6) where SA is median maximum spectral acceleration specified at c trequency of 9 Hz. (cm/sec/sec) PSRV is the median maximum pseudo-velocity specified at lower frequenciis, (i.e. 1 Hz.) (cm/sec) g __
a is ground acceleraLion (cm/sec/sec) v is ground velocity (cm/sec) i B Substitution of equation (3) into equation (5) yields equation (7 ) ; a relationship of Intensity to spectral acceleration at 9 liz. Similarly, substitution of equation (6) into equation (4 ) results in equation (8); a rela'ionship of intensity to spectral velocity at 1 liz. For example, re-writing (3); As = 10 326 x 10 214IMb (o A = f actor of 2) Substituting (5) for As; SA(9ty) = 2.12 (10 326 x 10 214 Igg)
= 4.49 x 10 214 Igg ( =
f ador of 2) (c SA = factor of 1.3) E Combining the individual standard errors using the SRSS rule; SA (9112 ) = 4.49 x 10 214IMM (o= f actor of 2.4 ) (7 ) Similarly, the combination of (6) and (4) yields (8); PSRV(Iriz,) = 0.102 x 10 289IMM (o= f actor of 2.6) (8) B Equations (3), (7), and (8) provide response spectral values at 50th and 84th percentiles for the probabilistic intensities plotted in Figure 15. The probabilistic response spectral values are listed in Table 9. g . , _,,m i - - -
l I l Finally, the median probabilistic responce spectra are plotted in Figure 20. These curves represent the spectral I levels having a 50 percent chance of being exceeded at the i listed probability levels of 10-3 to 10-5 . The 84th percentile reponse spectra curves are increased by f actors of
, 2.4 to 2.6 over the curves shown in Figure 20.
B I I B I I I I I B B I I -s'e - - -
B REFERENCES Basham, P.W., D. H. Weichert, and M. J. Berry, 1979, " Regional Assessment of Seismic Risk in Eastern Canada", Bulletin of the seismologial Society of America, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 1567-1602. Bollinger, G. A., 1977, "Re-Interpretation of the Intensity ( data for the 1886 Charleston, S. C., Earthquake", U.S. Geological Survey, Prof. Paper 1028, pp, 17-32. Coffman, J. L. and W. K. Cloud, 1970, United States Earthquakes, 1976, U.S. Department of Commerce /NOAA, Environmental Science Services Administration. l Cornell, C. A., 1968, " Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis", Bulletin of the seismological Society of America, Vol. 58, B No. 5, pp. 1583-1606. i Everenden, J. F., 1975, " Seismic Intensities, ' Size' of Earthquakes and Related Parameters", Bulletin of tb_e_ i Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65, No. 5, I PP. 1287-1313. Fakundiny, R. H., 1978, "Clarendon-Linden Fault System of l Western New York: Longest and Oldest Active Fault in Eastern United States", Geological Society of America B Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 10, No. 2. l Fletcher, J. B. and L. R. Sykes, 1977, " Earthquakes Related to Hydraulic Mining and Natural Seismic Activity in Western B New York State", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 82, l No. 26, pp. 3767-3780. Gupta, I. and O. W. Nuttli, 1976, " Spatial Attenuation of l Intensities for Central U. S . Ea r thquakes" , Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 66, No. 3 , pp . 7 4 3 -7 51. Herrmann, R. B., 1978, " A Seismologial Study of Two Attica, New York Earthquakes", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 641-652. Howell, B. F., Jr. and Schultz, T. R., 1975, " Attenuation of Modified Mercalli Intensity with Distance from the Epicenter", Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer ica , Vol . 6 5, No . 3, pp. 651-665. l Isachsen, Y. W. and W. McKendree, 1977, " Preliminary Brittle Structures Map of New York, and Generalized Map of Recorded Joint Systems in New York", New York State Geological Survey Map and Chart Series No. 31. 1 B l l - _ - - - - - - - - -
l l K1imkiewicz, G. C., 1980, " Ground Motion Attenuation Models for the Northeast", abstract, Seismological Society of America Eastern Section, 52nd Annual meeting, Oct. 27-30, 1980. ) Mauk, F. J., 1978, " Geophysical Investigations of the Anna, Ohio Earthquake Zone", Annual Progress Report, B prepared f or the U.S.N. R.C. by the Department of Geology 1GM UR /b3 McGuire, Donn, 1975, " Geophysical Survey of the Anna, Ohio Area", Masters thesis, Bowling Green State University, text only. McGu i r e , R. K., 1976, " FORTRAN Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis", United States Geologic Survey, Open File Report 76-67. McGu ire R. K., (1977), "The Use of Intensity Data in Seismic-Hazard Analysis", Proc., 6th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng. , New Delhi, Jan. , Vol. 2, pp. 353-358. Murphy J. R. and L. J. O'Brien, 1977, "The Correlation of Peak B Ground Acceleration Amplitude With Seismic Intensity and Other Physical Parameter s", Seismelogical Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 877-915. Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall, 1978, " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants", B NUREG/CR-0098, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuttli, O. W., 1973, "The Mississippi Valley Earthquakes of I 1811 and 1812: Intensities, Ground Motion and Magnitudes", Seismological Society of American Bulletin, Vol. 63, pp. 227-248. Nuttli, O. W. 1974, " Magnitude-Recurrence Relation for Central Mississippi Valley Earthquakes", Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp, 1189-1207. Nuttli, O. W. 1979, " State-of-the Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 16-The Relation of I Sustained Maximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude", United Str ees Aray Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, Report 16. B B g __
l Nuttli, O. W., G. A. Bollinger and D. W. Griffiths, 1979, B "On Relation Between Modified Mercalli Intensity and Body-Wave Magnitude", Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 69, pp. 893-909. B Nuttli, O. W. and K. G. Brill, Jr., 1980, " Earthquake Source Zones in th Central United States Determined from Historical Seismicity", prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (preprint). l g Nu ttli, Otto W. , and Robert B. Herrman, 1978, " State-of-g the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 12 - Credible Earthquakes for the Central United States", U.S. Army Engi~'er Waterways Experiment Station Miscellanicus Paper S 'J-1, Report 12. Richter, C. F., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Thompson, S. N.,J. H. Peck, A. R. Patterson,and D. E. Willis, 1976, " Faulting and Seismicity in the Anna, Ohio Region", Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 8, No. 6. Trifunac, M. D., and A. G. Brady, 1975, "On the Correlation of I Seismic Intensity Scales with the Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motion", Bulletin, Seismological Society of America, Vo l . 6 5, No . 1, pp . 139-162. Van Tyne, A. M., 1975, " Subsurface Investigations of the Clarendon-Linden Structures", New York State Museum and Science Service Open File Report, 12, pp., 2 maps of 8. I I I I I I I l Weston Geophysical _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
r 4 r B L F l I n TABLES c E [ l 5 2 WCSIOn G90PhV5'CCI
W E E W E E E'M E E E E E E E E'E E E~ TABLE 1 EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCES IN THE CINCINNATI ARCH STRUCTURE mb - magnitude TIME PERIOD 3.0-3.4 3.5-3.9 4.0-4.4 4.5-4.9 5.0-5.4 5.5-5.9 1780 - 1799 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 - 1819 0 0 0 1 0 0 1820 - 1839 1 2 2 0 0 0 1840 - 1849 1 5 1 0 0 0 1860 - 1879 3 2 1 0 1 0 1880 - 1899 6 4 1 1 0 0 1900 - 1919 4 5 2 1 1 0 1920 - 1939 19 11 6 1 3 1 1940 - 1959 7 9 4 0 0 0 1960 - 1980 4 2 1 0 1 0 40/100yr. 40/140yr. 18/160yr. 4/200 6/200 1/200 Mean Annual Rate .40 .286 .113 .02 .03 .005 Cumulative Rate /Yr .854 .454 .168 .055 .035 .005 2 8
?
e
?
8 Q
TABLE 2 SEISMICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF TECTONIC PROVINCE MODEL 1 AREA BETA-VALUEl ANNUAL RATE mb-max. PROVINCE km2 _ 3.5 mb Michigan Basin 212,000 2.30 0.087 5.3 Cincinnati, Findlay, Kankakee Arch Structure 242,000 2.30 0.891 6.0 New Madrid 10,000 2.19 1.758 7.5 St. Francois-Wabars h Valley 106,000 2.07 1.062 6.5 Western Quebec Seismic Zone 140,000 2.12 0.724 6.5 1 Beta-value = In 10. x (Gutenberg and Richter b-value) i i i e a e
?
N Q
TABLE 3 *2 SEISMICITY CtIARACTERISTICS OF TECTONIC PROVINCE MODEL 2 AREA BETA-VALUEl ANNUAL RATE mb-max. PROVINCE km2 _ 3.5 mb Anna, Ohio Tectonic Structure 10,600 1.98 0.460 6.0 Attica, N. Y. Te tonic Structure 5,500 1.80 0.098 6.0 Niagara Peninsula 11,500 2.30 0.131 5.3 Central Province Background 2 10,000 2.72 0.011 5.3 New Madrid 10,000 2.19 1.758 7.5 St. Francois-Wabash Valley 106,000 2.07 1.062 6.5 Western Quebec Seismic Zone 140,000 2.12 0.724 6.5 1 Beta-Value = In 10. x (Gutenberg & Richter b-value) 2 Background Recurrence rate is per 10,000 km2 l
?
., sa 8 5 0
TABLE 4 SEISMICITY CHARACTERISTICS OF TECTONIC PROVINCE MODEL 3 1 AREA BETA-VALUEl ANNUAL RATE mb-max. PROVINCE km2 _ 3.5 mb Central Province l Background 2 10,000 2.42 0.016 6.0 i New Madrid 10,000 2.19 1.758 7.5 St. Francois-Wabash Valley 106,000 2.07 1.062 6.5
; Western Quebec
- Seismic Zone 140,000 2.12 0.724 6.5 1 Beta-Value = In 10. x (Gutenberg & Richter b-value) i Background Recurrence rate is per 10,000 km2 2
i i i i i t so 0 i $ i B l 4 i 8-i i
W W WW WWWM MMMMMMMMMMM , TABLE 5 ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITIES OF MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY AT THE MIDLAND SITE (MODEL 1) PROVINCE III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Michigan Basin 3.324E-2 1.23E-2 3.07E-3 5.21E-4 5.88E-5 4.09E-6 1.41E-7 -- Arch Structure 5.23E-2 1.33E-2 2.03E-3 1.65E-4 5.45E-6 --- --- -- New Madrid 4.44E-3 6.02E-4 5.64E-5 2.41E-6 --- --- --- -- St. Francois-Wabash Valley 5.73E-3 6.64E-4 4 .17 E- 5 5.50E-7 --- --- --- -- Western Quebec Seismic Zone 5.86E-3 7.04E-4 4.76E-5 5.96E-7 --- --- --- -- , Cumulative 1.02E-1 2.76E-2 5.25E-3 6.90E-4 6.43E-5 4.09E-6 1.41E-7 -- 4 E 8 1 a 0 3 l 1o Q. I
e TABLE 6 ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITIES OF MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSIT.' AT THE MIDLAND SITE (MODEL 2) PROVINCE II1 IV V VI VII VIII IX X Anna, Ohio Structure 4.60E-2 1.24E-2 1.93E-3 1.51E-4 3.08E-6 --- --- -- Attica, N. Y. Structure 4.25E-3 7.75E-4 7.12E-5 2.33E-6 --- --- --- -- Niagara Peninsula 5.62E-3 9.19E-4 5.88E-5 --- --- --- --- -- Central Prov. Background 4.55E-2 2.05E-2 5.89E-3 1.07E-3 1.23E-4 8.llE-6 2.54E-7 -- New Madrid 4.44E-3 6.02E-4 5.64E-5 2.41E-6 --- --- --- -- St. Francois-Wabash Valley 5.73E-3 6.04E-4 4 .17 E-5 5.50E-7 --- --- --- -- Western Quebec Seismic Zone 5.86E-3 7.04E-4 4.76E-5 5.96E-7 --- --- --- -- Cumul a tive 1.17E-1 3.66E-2 8.09E-3 1.23E-3 1.26E-4 8.llE-6 2.54E-7 -- 5 a O l 9 l 1 1 l o_
TABLE 7 ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITIES OF MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY AT THE MIDLAND SITE (MODEL 3) PROVI NCE III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Central Prov. Background 6.81E-2 3.21E-2 9.96E-3 2.08E-3 2.97E-4 2.85E-5 1.69E-6 4.88E-8 New Madrid 4.44E-3 6.02E-4 5.64E-5 2.41E-6 --- --- --- --- St. Francois-
?? abash Valley 5.73E-3 6.64E-4 4 .17 E - 5 5.50E-7 --- --- --- ---
Western QucSec Seismic Zone 5.86E-3 7.04E-4 4.76E-5 5.96E-7 --- --- --- --- Cumulative 8.41E-2 3.41E-2 1.01E-2 2.08E-3 2.97E-4 2.85E-5 1.69E-6 4.88E-8 l l l
?
8 a e
?
8 0
l l l l TABLE 8 l BEST ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITIES OF MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY AT THE MIDLAND SITE MODEL WEIGHT IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1 0.5 2.76E-2 5.25E-3 6.90E-4 6.43E-5 4.09E-6 1.41E-7 - ( .05) * (0)* 2 0.3 3.66E-2 8.09E-3 1.23E-3 1.26E-4 8.llE-6 2.54E-7 - ( .05) * (0)* 3 0.2 3.41E-2 1.01E-2 2.08E-3 2.97E-4 2.85E-5 1.69E-6 4.88E-8 ( .05) * (0)
- Best Estimate 3.16E-2 7.07E-3 1.13E-3 1.29E-4 5.92E-6 1.69E-8 -
- Credibilities assigned to the occurrence of higher intensities for the 3 tectonic models.
- I 8
R e 2 8 O_
5EEEEEE E E E E 1 TABLE 9 Probabilistic Response Spectra Values PGA (33Hz) SA (9Hz) PSRV (lHz) Annual (g) (g) cm/sec Probability MMI .50 .84 .50 .84 .50 .84 10-3 6.1 .044 .091 .093 .222 5.9 15.4 10-4 7.1 .071 .149 .151 .364 11.5 29.9 10-5 7.9 .106 .221 .225 .539 19.6 50.9 i 5 8 5 O_
E l B l g ro: 1 E A TH5'.O E CATACG FCE TK h!CHIGAN BAGIN E MIDLf.f ' PLA.iT - UNII5 1 AND 2 l Dr.?E Or:IGIN Ef'ICEh!ER INTEtOI1Y t' AGNI T ULE DIETANCE B tear n Rc Hrnn L st ': 1 L en.u L') en Sale :nb rL To Site (ha) 1576 127 00 41.090 84.050 FELI 197.5 1971 227 0 42.3/0 83.170 FELT 1 c,9.1 1877 817 1650 42.300 83.300 - V 170.4 1091 420 00 41. M 0 85. 30 IV 261.5 1833 2 4 10 0 42.390 S5. %0 VI 183.J IE 3' 1031 00 41.C30 86.270 FELT 250.0 12?? 1011 10 42.08; 86.520 IC 250.Y 190t 422 00 43.050 9/.'i20 FELT 299.c 1905 424 00 43.050 87.920 FELI 297.6 l '10 e 519 020 42.950 65.680 FELT 135.9
;?19 22' OO 42.850 34.100 IV 89.3 1922 316 930 4 2. 9 5 '.* E 2 . 4 7'.- III le?.0 1930 112 00 42.600 83.400 III 137.'2 1733 313 1610 42.400 03.200 IV 3.8 2.4 165.0 1947 010 147 42.000 5t.M0 V1 4.9 191.9 1956 716 2130 43.620 87.75v IV 277.1 19 S /! b ;- 0 43.c00 E/.700 JV 273.1 196 ' ;2 530 C.730 '. 540 -
19 103.9 19:': 12 3 00 -11.370 05.09 FELi 260.6 1m , m._ 19 __
M B i Ph 1 l L ARTEi'JM.; CA T ALO:. F2f- THE CINC1r4GII (4.CH STRU;TUF L l B r*IDLA R PLor.I - UNIis 1 At4D 2 l Dr.TE C t. l E ' '. EPICEt4T G INTEN5ITY nA0:4ITUIE DISTANCE B Year deDs hrnri Lct (tO u;na(W ) tth Sccle c. b ML To Sitetym) I 1904 820 2010 42.000 87.800 - VI 338.6 1023 530 00 42.!00 91.000 - 111 2?6.4 1827 7 6 10 0 37.130 84.500 IV 502.0 1322 3 ? 1530 30.580 83.750 - V S64.e 1828 310 50 38.500 83.750 - V 564.6 1836 70 00 41.500 91.700 IV 317.5 1045 00 00 41.070 94.150 - III 286.0 185v 10 1 00 41.500 91.700 IV 319.- 1854 213 00 37.170 E3.753 - IV 720.0 10i' 213 11 0 37.170 E3.753 - IV 720.6 1654 22S 00 37.600 W.500 - V $71.8 1054 36 00 30.200 65.200 IV 607.6 B 1552 410 1130 41.670 31.250 IV 332.0 1667 220 00 32.100 64.500 V 616.3 1 E i'i 4 7 13 v 42.70u W.800 III 3v2.2 1873 U3 31< 37.750 34.250 - IV 432./ 1875 61'd /43 40.200 84.000 VJ1 3 J . t 1C76 6? Ou 40.400 84.200 - IV 360.0 1077 123 21 0 30.800 93.500 III 542.5 107' c3 00 37.490 24.$70 III 6 3 . 6 E
-) /
I l l .. ., f....HJL s i E AM , :' L'. . N! ALU FE f Hi Cir..' t'l.Ai! A.v oliwC TUsE hi i t /.r t' i'i.iM - Uti!E 1 AND 2 I l I DAiE ORIGIN fest McL3 h t t'r. Ei ICEN l ETt Lct(h) Lcr:Im hh scale IN !Eh51 T) h/o.ITUDi mb t.L DISTANCE To Cite (k.m) IG1 330 30 39.17C 93.670 III 500.0 1892 .? 9 19 0 40.40:' 34.200 V 360,0 l l l 1S54 331 13 0 3 9 . 5 " '. C 4 . 75 ') 1I 455.6 l 1334 919 l'i14 4 0. 7 0 <. G4.100 VI 327., 18L4 1223 23 0 40.390 84.170 III 362.0 130$ 3 1 15 0 39.000 EE.500 - IV 525.7 1Bt' 90 v0 40.400 24.220 III 360.8 I 1292 00 00 40.370 84.170 IV 262.0 18is 31L 70 40.330 E 1.17'. IV 3 69. ;' 19 9.~ e6 730 17.150 94.33i III 654.9 IEi2 626 53Q 37.70t 34.300 Ill 6 6 0. t.
. . ; 10/ 00 41.t00 21. . v0 11 31..S l'c ?9 221/0 41.920 97.620 FELi 332.3 1013 29 $30 41.?20 C7.c20 FELT 335.3 Iti? 1012 00 42.570 07.930 FELT 310.1 It"-i 1112 1. 0 37.332 C'3.000 l 4;1.5 1702 310 $ 0 39.iOO b.209 -
IV 422.9 l y 0.? JI? 1130 37.90-) 30.2c0 - IV 422.) 1702 1 . 1930 3V.700 .~ 5 . 2 0 " - II 422.9 1903 1 1 2345 39,100 6 .200 - III 422.7 g __
I PAv 3 I EM:!HwJ/ LE CAT /CC. FOR IHi CINCItJ: Mil f4RCJ STRUCTURL f1H L A.C F LN - UNIi3 1 AND 2 I DATE 0.HIGIN ren tDDI d rrio Lituu LurMW) tm Scale EPICENTER INTEN3ITr breti!TULE ab NL DISTANCE To Site Mi) B 1YC6 420 1730 41.500 21.750 III 31c. 8 1901 423 61.' 40.700 03.600 V 332.5 1906 56 655 39.500 B5.800 - IV 47/.2 1709 526 1412 42.50) 89.000 VII 401.8 1907 1023 20 39.070 84.480 Fell 530.8 1911 729 00 41.820 0 7. : /. - V 330.3 191 1 2 le:1 41.50) P 3. 50') VI 418.0 1912 Y25 00 42.270 07.120 - I '> 420.3 1914 00 00 40.40) 84.220 III 360.8 1914 10 7 21 0 43.000 ?i.360 IV 414.6 171'. 531 '245 43.030 89.350 II 412.2 19 5 3 3 16 0 42.050 67.60C - III 32/ 3 I?25 32/ 41 39.5C0 33.900 V 461.3 1925 44 00 39.100 64.500 3.0 505.3 1725 10 0 00 40.390 94.170 III 362,0 1024 1023 742 41.530 23.550 111 232.4 1 0.~' .' '" . ^. s' 1' n. 0 , .** . v' ', n. - - - m . e. m_ ,i I o.
~~, ..a I 1927 217 430 -0.750
- 82.50:) IV 354,3
,, w.
.r-
,-. ~i,
, a0 4 a. . ,, .< 0 p..
,.we. ,2 1
-3.,
i
. 'L. ? 9 2. 0 41.500 62.300 9 303.0 I
B 1 B l f'A0E 4 \ E Ar !H9UA.' E CAT ALC., FCf. THE CINCINNATI Afcil STfiUCTUPE M;DLAivJ PLANT - Uti 73 1 AND 2 t DATE O!.10Iti EP: CENTER INTEil51T f nt.3NI TUDE DISit.4CE I (ea r n1 h*M i Let'.to Lens (u) M r' Ccale n.b ML Tc Site u.1) 1920 1027 00 40.420 8 ; .0' 0 111 358.0 1727 30 ?6 C.330 04.100 V 363.1 1720 216 1217 42.930 90.520 III 310.8 1930 625 2145 40.500 84.00C IV 350.5 I 1 1930 627 723 40.500 84.000 IV 350.5 1930 711 015 40.700 G3.200 IV 33?.7 1930 720 00 40.390 E4.170 VI 362.0 1910 929 211t, 40.300 64.2Ws III 371.9
!??. 730 20.v 40.30) 84.JCC VII 371. ?
R 1930 920 2250 40.200 C4.20) II 371.7 1970 10 0 00 40.390 51.170 - IV 362.0
- 1. . . ,,
. .. . .- :., ~ ,.
w) . : 1c b, .,..,:.. r 1.r .v .>. u 4 . 4 1 31 41 015 C.42C e4.0R III 359.1 1931 610 830 41.220 84.040 V 259.5
!?31 920 22 5 40.570 84.219 VII 346.3 *
'931 10 9 1420 40.400 E4.200 !II 360.9 1931 1012 2112 43.070 8?.390 11! 415.5 19?? 22? 220 40.300 Si.200 IV 371.9
.'Q'
. (3 C
. ." Q.
17 .
. " .O. 7 N. .
s 7 7 . .'- (> ,>' < +7 i.. a 16..1 7 I !?32 12 ? 555 42.900 0?.200 I .8 404.5 I g __
PA3E 5 E AF.TH]UR E CA','LCG Fei, THE CItCIrst1ATI ACCM 3TFi'CTURI MI;LAN:. FL aT - UN!!3 1 AND 2 St TE un!5IM EPICENTEn INTErGITY NAGNITUIC DI S T Af'CE l e a r Mc.b !ir nt, L a t ( tt ) L ns(L) t'n Scale ab r!L To Site (Fm) 1936 131 1930 41.200 9: . 20') IV 28o.5 1726 131 20 0 41.200 83.:00 II 206.5 19L 10 3 163') 37.3:0 84.430 III 430.0 l I l'i35 12:6 !!! 3?.100 94.510 III 505.4 l 1936 1:26 25 39.100 84 510 III 505.4 1937 3 1447 40.500 S4 340 VII 347.7 I l'3) 33 930 40.700 S4.000 V 323.4 1937 33 755 40.70C 04.000 III 322.o l 1937 39 545 40.470 94 230 - VIII 353.0 l 192/ 423 1715 40.700 04 000 II: 223.4 IE 427 17 0 40.700 S4.000 III 320.4 l l 1737 52175 40.700 84.000 IV 32?.4 lj 7 1017 C5 37.100 E .510 III 505.4 l l 1933 212 527 41.600 97.000 V 314.0 l
!?37 310 11 0 40.400 04.000 II 361.6 1727 310 13 3 40.430 34.053 -
IV ?.0 358.0 l l 173? 612 3;t 40.300 04.00" IV 3.6 372.7 l 1737 7 9 1250 40.300 84 00J II 372.7 l 19 C 616 430 40.?00 E '. 30) IU 346.6 5 ./40 729 930 40.700 '?: . 3 h III 340.6 E
~~~
I PAGE 6 i E4.Th004rE CATALOG FOR fHE CINCIt E TI AR2H STRUcit%: .I n!f LM: FL ANT - Uti1T51 AND 2 DATE ORIGItt EPICEt,TER INTEtGITY t',^ 9 , I TUI E LISTANCE I r er r Sh lithr. LLitN) Lora t u ) NM Scale mt ML Tc S:teG m' 19'0 Gis 1035 40.700 C2.300 III 346.6 194') Bit 33C 40.930 E2.2E0 III 344.b 17 Ci 3i 425 41.1'O 91.33; V 331.6 1944 31! 00 42.%C 88.3CD IV 3.4 373.5 1944 1113 .152 40.400 84.430 III 360.8 E .ci, li t / .i , 1c
. --e c w 1 C,c., e u n. . . v w/ 1 o. 3ss,.cs 1
1? 5a 2127 43.000 37.9.9) - V 301.0 I 4 ,, , c/s ..o nes 4 ,
,i.6'o o_ _'s . '_ -.' C' 'i Ii. .sv . s
^ ^r lh0 420 00 37.500 84.20' IV 427.4
.s ~ ,is. , - / .,
.. . s. ., . .z .. c. n,.4,-
u . 1u .i. .ns . :., E 1gr7
. --s 6a1.q j# ,e e. , 41. fs/. ,(3 ce.erq sq s . j g;
,).
v.3 19 u 1231 00 3/ 300 8 3. 2N IV /10.9 R liS5 526 12 9 41.330 -1.400 - V 350.2 1915 629 111 41.330 91. 4 C .1 IV 4.3 350.2 1750 1'7113 40.40.- 84.223 V 355.3 1955 1013 00 42.920 97.570 IV 200.5 l'r 5 7 129 1125 42.720 31.120 3.2 4.2 2-4.0 s 1957 722 13 2 39.740 53.[4' Ill 545.4
.?59 2o 00 43.^^? 01.0' ..i 2/6.0 lid. 22 Elf 41.200 22.4.u I.' 4.3 201.C E
t l I l F t,02 7 I I E/4.'HOUM.E C ATAL'.G FDT TFE cit' cit <ATI (T." iJST RUC TUf:2 MI!Ll-!D PL,4i UtilI 5 1 /E 2 IwTE 01:! G!i; EPICENTLR IN!EtE:TY h t. IITUDE DIST/.NCE f ea r thia E r hn Lat(ta Lenslu) Ma E c .21 e mb ML To Siteo t) 1971 219 2311 3/.100 E3.200 3.0 733.0 l'i 74 65 Old 38.600 04.800 VI 3.c 562.1 1974 927 226 41.240 8.'.369 . . 276.4 1974 1125 2134 40.30. d4.403 II 2.4 371.9 1975 S12 140 39.760 54.190 II 431.7 l I 197: 119 6:0 36.523 83.C25 Vi 4.0 752.2 1976 2 2 2'.14 41.9!0 92.670 3.4 229.2 1 1 B j O 7 *? 4 7// [j7
.4/
.U, Aw6 ,}
4^ ]#*
** V . i V /
ij4 O'..f.i..'". C 9 j.9 - f "s .?f/.J9.- i i 1999 '".7 1953 23.174, 6.3.907 VII f.] 608.7 I I I B B B g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
, ,.: m1_1 1e 1m _. m
E i P i h W FIGURES Weston Geophysical
A
/
/
* /
/
t4*4 , l
- y. =
j / I . . . . wj 7 . I t- 92* i
' wy l
t I / '#/ s of? g.
}
/ -
/ 'N ~.. ;- . . : _ -
f / ,/i;.> $
** i
'/ / /
; , f , / e LM %..
a l ,/
/
i
,', '/ ,,
,/- - ,
i O r
;;s, 1 : "- /
Surenc\.. x t Q'~5
\ // / K- :
,M / ,.r--
- w
,/ f'--
( ,: ,,f . _ f a-- ,, l , s' / > .-. ,- N 7 4,, j ~ -
/ j - , . _f e , ,' - . ~ . , '
s y-
,- e
+
J' x_ ~ ,,
, ,-n -
t-
'y MAsrscra l
,- +
s
.,~-
* /
,/
~
h% U7\ I 1
/
.,7 y'/ 3 ,, -- +
' l.r . j ^,,%'O
\
l , l 1
; ej i -- N, 3 ss
/ - '/ .'1 r i m /l <* r . 2 s <
r ! t { (f. / e," 'N,,_ I 1 i ., :99 6:G ROCS
' , .^ ri .
i
/'
s /, ,e '
/ ., PotNT -
'I I j< ~^ Y ;
4 ,
' .L * $.CN!rN j / - y/
+ ' s T
* / ,t. /
/ s I' ) {
. i l i
* \
~ ,
l ,1 / .
)
\ l+ 1 l
; e;,,
~~L_~ > ~ .
i t .
/
[, 5 t
*I { &, * +J l
(( j j j
,o
; ~~m '
; .js vOLAND
, /
i
\ 3' y7 s
) -f v , ,;
73 '4 4
\
j ! i v.:~ w s y l -. 4
< \ \
~ \
n
\1
- i. s ac. +
3 t ' --+\ s ;
\
I l
, 'l. \
\ .
~.-....e ~\ w; _.
/
/
; w44 5 / PAUSAyES
\
g * ( i \ , 1
**X l + *
+
f \ *
.N/ '
\ . J" ' Q-~.----..... t
) s y
y,
)
=
, ^~~'n
, y
- i \
- s j L
s ,
'%. \ ) 'N s
f \x ; . e- _. / ; N l t i \ \
* * ~ . .h ' --- ~.. . \ I- .
f " *
- y s
+\
f rt t ir m s x l ~,,,,
.I g
3s ..
, ( ~ t.
. . x; ,I e
+ +
% y g .
- e
\ N s
(*
- K. x l
s, ) { ; } W; . s
.s
'M' 5 5 %R' . . .. '
s g/- ,
, ) s. *-
I> \ q. =, . . ( e ? \
. m. ,
n.J
- w s
e ** ,
'.UV f *
* \
(. * *
**/ , * )
+ \
e , 4, *e .- sg -* es I ** .*
, , +s,
, $ [ ,h w
/
i N **
\ *
. J r U+
d .. s
'fN-o 1 r cs ruc w r
+
- l ,
-(
*r
( i I s, ' , yi g
.xs A,x s
. 'x L ., _
. > 2n.' . , *, )* ,
, ~ .
-s. t
> ~ ._ ~~. ' -.~~_.. . r %.,eQ *s ,e,5 ,t , *
- s , ,
- . ] _ ~ ~~ ~~ ' v ~. _ _ _ , _ _ ,
- aaAAs$d5 ** $ \*e ( *[ 'h- ~
,-~.~s._..
g
, .j .~m . .
TENsessEr . [ - r*-,*. g* s. e .- s% S 5 . + . Y. l
'_ e
, s.
- s .
. \ *
- e'
.s
.. .*. N . w ,t -
q- .
- w. v . q- \- . ,.e. fe y .e . i
,'4 4; j .. .
t' _ s x . . . 't .
.I \
- s~ =
~ ,
s
., . .\ . . ..
o . * .
.= . . . . s *.- ../ .
N s k . . . e .o r , . =
, \ ,
~ e' . e s
x s E, <
.=
a
.. s * .. ./ ;
di , . N _J - a .. s
- x. ..N ,,
= +
' . s
.e.'.....
- s d e Ww g
.* g-p.s= .3, qc N .
rv x 4
- 7. . ,, . e. e t ~>
e x s , s s
, is s s
e .,
.~- , . .e <
w s. n ... o I
.m . \. r -
. ;- l g s ..
\ .g'. \
s *
.. (
=.
\, .g
. . .] .
a' -
,\ +, < W. . _ +
s
\ s ,, s s A '
- .s l w s._(* x z .
,, . .y 4 . . . .
g.., ,1- i .? *
.i.. .
- s. 3
)
^I s
, ! ! -q. *
\
\ ..
t
.rA .* .;
\ \ . '; . *Ew.,
v a g.g ;7 ~
, N R'. 'f? ,. ,9- \ .\
- o
'\ . \, . .
;ny / .
, . i -_i f . a i i 4 :"e ...__) e* . *
' .* '.J = ,s
\ j _ .s , , . ..
t . i e
/ I C M wo \ .
. .. V.
n .r , . , l
+- .
x
.- -i -
\ .:,i ,
I u.
..}
,i
.. . . ,.;. e yt / ,1 -. - -
c j . . . o, ., ?*
/
, _~~; .%..
1 nrA v "=
=.
+
I C _ _, / ,~ , 1 i , .
?- ,
I, , ' / l _ _ - - - - ~+^
.*l
- , 7 , ,
- ' cy. , -/ ~ T e . - -
t . .
.in: *i./ e, . ;
t ./ ,. L---/- -+ __.---
,, ,1. ..
+e
. . ~. 8._1ry
*. e, / s .-
4 L .t ,,
,9 .s i .. -
- s. ,-
- / er .
.s
. . . , ' . , , e.3 ' + '. .
3 ! , j , ,
. % r
. . v. 's.~ .m ,
's_
~
l * ,* *
/ ggss m.as a .e / 4 g
r-
.y
.s*\ ,
- 4. D ,p'.sY' f
- s
-/ - /
,/ . .
i o,,s - , l
. L .
1 cmo \l - 7 1 * ~. / . 9 l *
. 3- , J. '
. ,> ft l
, \* ~ ,,. a g r*
EARTHQUAKES
# . - 1 1r .:, M AG'41 T ULL INTt NSIT Y
/ -
g u. _ , -- ,s
..,../ , ,
.7, j g , g ; . gq v,
-,)'. / , ,-
j s . s' . w n a s,cr >p> .~ \ ,/ pg_3,0 s ._ u, n ly y
;W
- ,) ,..
6- t
...,"t
/- ., .
w,, . . vi o j. _ m~ . ., ; =9 4/, 9
, 43 47 , p x
. h ~J . 'f cr' 4 S -5 '
/; * (',
* * ,1 a Vill r$ *\/ '~~~y
' T
,- / ' ,
) u
- k- r' Tiv / .
... ., ,/ A
'7 D 5,5-62 4
[. . .) IX
*f* wm v:n:u p ~ ( ' *.N -
, 2+
h-k , -j , [ * ~ij h 6 T -G 7 (
- s ( ,
, -, 7, *,> ., f ,.
s s
. ...... */
v .; c' e
,y .a
' X
- n. .e.,*
.e
, . .'t
,-N , .
=
e %i . J . g _ _ac. ,, . c,
, g...p .. , ,-
s._
- ex . /
. , y , c G s.: ss j-l* ~ ,
. .C s I ylt
._,..._.__._.sL-
.. # --' ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ . - - 4 WE SEISV: CIT) NMD CN C AT A A AL A%E AO CF JAN 1979
. t.
w-d INCU_ ICES :Ut Y 2 /, GHO
. . - 1'- vo m cae.,u
~
, , , , r ENTucky E mTHOUAkt pero-ed tv ATS T 'N GEG-_MSK AL CCTU l
a
Z
"~'I'"*"--'*-'-~'
\
\
.,-P ?
+ -& _
y _g._3_ __ _; -. 0 5 #
< '**** .5 _ A -
l . h '. t-- .
. . ~f ; \ ,c ,3 ,c z o s e ,'
.,....'.e--"*',_,..***""
.. .+. -4 - t. :
i 2... .._.. _ _..;. .. . ;. ._. .;:yt..\ C U n G AN
. v- --
......_...--t-.. + --~ i f:
4 - q -._.;_._,-~. CdNTNAL - BASIN
~ ~
P..R. D. vi NCE
-; -. .. ..:- .-; -- ,...-. . ~ '. -
r .- f .... . ..._. . .;. ...;_. , M w .. _.__......
. g i T s' . ..,..--*"
c ; r-~ ....-..: . J ... .. ... . ATTICA
. a -.. i q..~ . . . - .
- __3STROCTURE: . - , '
- r "*'" !
y t
.4.......
h (
= --e-
. 4... - .. ..:..
) f -; / \
4.. ..,;.. ,.. q. ... f 2
-{-
a-
= . .
.g 2
\ ..+. . .
w- . . . . - i.-.-.
.t.....
ST. F' RANC0lS 4 3
..~.. ,$y..A...s ASH iVAL1,.E} . {
\
..3.....~7. t -- . -
i -- , g . , . . . -
/
O 4 .N i' ..
%'a
- 2. ga /Nfl-
-e ga da
, n'-
Q w d a. d' **,*. sia " 7; 14 5 2 t.cstNDE o O 141CHIGA O ~ g J V n O., FIGURE 2
M T M~M . M c . r i. q _j _p ..._ .. g _. p _.; - .. . --
._ . .'\
^
y t -i. .y_l :_ '
- 4. . _;._ i T
s -i -+ -- WESTER? EBEd
-l i x
. iSELSM1
_j 2-- _ _
;. -- 9,3.0$f_ .,,. r r-+~_....,.
- g. _ .; ;_ .p ,.
e..- . - . . , . . _..-.,. . . . . -
-+...._ :! CENTRAL a .-
_j._ j g .p_ .. PROVINCE. . . . - - r~~ g
"-~ ,
-+...~.;. t.-
0 NIAGARA' e , 3_ .;. .., g . PENINSULA
]-}TTLCA-
.r - - -t .
c; - A g-u~....._..........;. y qqpiiCTURE. _..._;._......e_.. ----+- _ . . .. . . . - -
+
... q. ..; .
.j... .. . ;
..~..:..... .
;--.. - +.- - - . . -
g . ANNA
. 7.- .. ;.. . 4. ..._.; .. .., STRUCTURE
...+...
= * .........- .O r
o
. . e. ..
si~ (RANCO)S -
;._.. ,WAB A..s...g VALLEY F - r. '
z "-" . hva O e ta gg. 5, g; da yg*a f;
- d d- * "," c-a 75'a 7(w o
3 0 t.cc t TSE m TECT0t41C M0 BEL 0 0 CEt0RALPROVIIj A tA, OH10 3
< AND ATTICA, N-
- CTONIC STRUCTURES Q -
O 3
*=
~...
+~t )
. .i ~ . - + . '
*.-.?~~-+*.
-- .. -+ ~.#..__:
l ~ ~. ; .-
~.~~..T~'
l
- 2 l ' -+----;.- -. . .i .. . -.- +-~~~
~ . .;
~
i . -. - . WESTERN QUEBEC
'i'~~-!~ ~.? _.:~~~~'. '
SEISMlC ZONE~' l --- 4 ; . . ; ._. _ - - r
~~ -i - ..l.~ . CENTRAL
. . t ~ - + .;. . ;.. '. P R O V I N C E z '
T"~~?--~-. ;-{ : ..-.-- i-- -+~~
e ~ :i' ~~.- : *
, ,: ' ~ - ~ ~ -
7~.-.~
~.-~~-:
j -.
.p .--
u . . . . . 1 O ' '-
- 4. :
3 *
*~.'..,,,,-
g .
-f -I a ,4. ""*' - .~. 4 - b~~~ e.---.. .S.I T E '
c .z
- 7. .
- 4. .
.,,...;. . . . . . - + - - . - ,
3 O!
'~--:-.,,,,?--.+.
- --~+.~..;. .
--+. .~.+
; ~ ._ '
...~.,...-.
.._.4._...._- ,
- 4 ~ .- . 4 -. .~.2.~
, ~ , .- ~ + . . ...
4.. ... 4 .._._...... . . . . . c
; t~.~ :.. . ... .~.. ' ~ ~~ -+ ~ .. . l. . ,,
,,,,,,~~~-------~...,
...~.......... . . _ . . . . - - - -
?
..-p.,
.+....~4 . . . _ . .
ST. FR ANCol5 - t
; ~.- . . . . .
..P'~-
.-!....~. W- A..B.~,A.S H VA L L! E
~...j.....,,,,,_ .
i
. t,~. -~i .- . . . . . . , ,...t. , ..
g/ n.
"" o u% s u, NE:
." n n* d six. Sca sf, 3;.a 73*x m "."
5 TECTONIC MODEL 3 f g tm T& CENTRAL PROVINCE - ANNA, OdIO i 3 AND ATTICA, N.Y. NOT CONSTRAlhED D 2 TO STRUCTURES !
<us s FIGURE 4
-l 10 i, i i i i i i i i i _
l
~ ~
l l
-2 l 10 _
e,
~ "s g *p# '4 S
e4 l l o o - ?p 4 _
~
'e 4 %,
10-3 -
'9-, *C To' - $ : o 02 Y :
h & P 'o 'ce - z - t
~
j $ ~ g - I - l _ E I 10-4 - 3 2 l - l g b _ j _ l 10-5 iiI I I i i i i i i i j 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 m b - MAGNITUDE TECTONIC MODEL 1 EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE FREQUENCY PER 10,000 SQ.KM. l FIGURE 5 l wesim oc e s vs,ca i _ -- _ ----------------
l IO i , , , , , - _ , i i , i
+, -
v, - E : "$.o : C -
&+,
-2 I 10 _
M +g l - 9 -
~
B "a - 5 : l 8 4" l @ *s s +# l g l10-3 -
~ 4 % %, -
l N k. $ ~ i g : '+0 : J - s,&p 'e _ 8 o l s 5 l "o l 4
%,+0 #
&+ ~
go-4 _ d 6 I 3 2 l -
^
l l i f I t I t i i 10-5 t i i i 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 m b - MAGNITUDE sus TECTONIC MODEL 2 ( EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE FREQUENCY PER 10,000 SQ.KM. } FIGURE 6 g =sen omms ca L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 i i i , , i i i i , , B : :
-2 l 10 _ _
e - _ l - - g n - E 3 *
*e&
( o O #e$ O. - e% 4 - o l N '6# 5 e#e m 10-3 -
$o,o o $y :
w -
*eg ,+4 -
l m -
~
Yo Q - a - p e
~
l $ +(
~
g - B z 4 ) B l 10'4 - l l - i i I L t t t t i e i t 10-5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 l m b - MAGNITUDE t TECT0hlC MODEL 3 1 EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE FREQUENCY PER 10,000 SQ.KM. } FIGURE 7 weston Geephysical
l E l 10 i , , , , , , , , , , , B - _
-2 MODEL 2 MODE' 3 (CENTR AL PROVINCE WITH 10 : (CENTR AL ATTICA & ANNA ACTIVITY -
PROV IN CE - NOT CONSTRAINED TO Z [ ANN A, ATTICA STRUCTURES) - _ STRUCTURES) _ l N - _ 3 x _ - 8 l l O, E 9 6 10~3 - MODEL1 _
$ (MICHIG AN BASIN) :
m - s _ B $ - g - E E - 10~4 -
~
E - l t I I i i i t i i i i i 10-5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 m o- MAGNITUDE COMPARISON OF LOCAL SEISMICITY RECURRENCE RATES FOR ALTERNATE TECTONIC MODELS FIGURE 8 Weston Geophysical
1 11 I - U I T N O E 9 A R E U l U. f G i u "I I F 0 J I 0 f4A . j j l t l l l l 0 1 5
.Y i
.i u b.
L I S I l 1 A N E I j l ir I T R L Gi L A j l f C R E M i I . i j l
)
R ( l l l 0 0 1 l G 1 O l L l ) i 4 l M 8 K (
; l I
E j l C N R gm 7
- A T
j 6 3 2 l S 6 m 0 I 3 0 D S m sm 3 0 b l 0 i 3- m - l 1 g l 0 2 l
; l l
[
+
l l 3 l 5 . l 2
)
=
i i R i ( l . X X I l I I l v v V l l i g I I i l X V l
>- gZwHZ _ J_ J. $ W 2 @ - b$
. l' T,53 o3f,<_8
B B B B
I I I i i i e ii i i i i iiii s
Vil - N N B \ N.E.U.S. (EQ. 2, mb = 5.5) N\ B @VI - O z N I h k's O V -
\sg N SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (METHOD I )
l g SOUTHERN ILLINOIS ('N METHOD N 2) h B u. o e gy
- \ ~~~_
N
~
B \ N 111 - N B \ N gi 10 1 i I i I i i ii i i i t ib 10 0 1000 DISTANCE ( KM.) E B LOMPARISON OF N0KlHEA51tkN U.S. AND S. ILLIk0lb Ua. (Nov 9, 1968; 5.5mt)) INTEh511Y ATILNUATION I ' FIGURE 10 Weston Geophysical
E l l 10 , i i i i i i i i i i i _ l _ s 10' -
~
2 l - \\ TOTAL
~ \\ [
I
\\ -
~
ARCH \\ _ STRUCTURE y \ gE y -
\\ \ MICH'GAN BASIN
$ \
l 8Io.3 a.
\ :
\ -
g : \ \ : l ? -
\
5 -
\ \
\ -
\
I NEW MADRID AND
\
\
\
\ -
- WESTERN QUEBEC -
SEISMIC ZONE \ I \ 10 4 -
\ \ -
l : \ k :
\
I
\ -
\ \ -
I -
\ \
10 -0 IV V
'\\ ' ' ' ' '
VI Vil Vill IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY B ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBAblLITY OF M00. MERCALLI INTENSITY TECTONIC MODEL 1 FIGURE 11 Weston Geophysical
I 1 l
~
io' -- i i i , i i i i i i i i _ g : : 1 N I
\
l
\ -
I ,e-2 _ N x - l E e% %
% Y<
E I _
\
\ _
I$m va %p* N a I e a io-3 : - j,y 5
\
\
~
~
3 c
- s '*o :
v, s
%A
~
% 1
\a,s I
- io4 : $, %g I 2 H o
_ F 2 l _ M 3 ,,.s , , , , , , , , , , , , IV V VI Vil Vill IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY OF MOD. MERCALLI INTENSITY TECTONIC MODEL 2 FIGURE 12 weston Geopnysicai
-l IO i i i i i i i i i i i i _
~
g - E N
\ TOTAL
~
CENTRAL \ B -2 PROVINCE l l 10 _
- I 6
l - l c - 3 h10-3 m _ l a - Ig z _
~
f <t ~ g _ \ _ l NEW MADRID AND WESTERN QUEBEC l 10-4 - SEISMIC ZONE Z I g - g _ t g ,0.S , , i , , , , , , , , i IV V VI Vil Vill IX l MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY B ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY [ OF MOD. MERCALLI INTENSITY TECTONIC MODEL 3 ) FIGURE 13 g wesen c,ewnv sca L
E l
-1 10 , , , , , , , i i i i i _
l : : l l l \
\ -
\
I -2
\
g 10 _ _
\ _
\ _
g _ I _
\ _
> \
}E
~
\ MODEL 3 -
\
MODEL 2 lgelo,3 :
~
MODELI
] _
\ _
B <$ _ MODELI g - z _ EXCEPT mb (max.) _ 4 REDUCED TO 5.0 \ FOR MICHIGAN BASIN g - B AND 5.75 FOR _ ARCH STRUCTURE \ _ I 10 4 - 3 \ E l -
\ _
l
~
\ ~
I _
\ _
l
\ -
\
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 10 IV V VI Vil Vill IX MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY I COMPARISON OF ANNUAL EXCEEDANCE PROBASILITIES FOR ALTERNATE TECTONIC MODELS FIGURE 14 weston c..-oonoca.
E 1 j io-2 _ I 4 m O M N h 6 M 10 - m > I 6 6 h e t- - _ c=o! E O
~ ~
l CE I Q.d_,10 _ B3 - W m 10-5 - h 6 I m W h B 10-6 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' IV V VI Vil Vill IX MODIFIED MERCALLI liiiENSITY BEST ESTIMATE ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITY AT I THE MIDLAND SITE FIGURE 15 Weston Geophy9 col
r F ! I I l 4 I I I i i i I L - _ r - _ M f _ '/ _ I
^
u / g ) Eq. 3 l < _ _ g 5 . j p r f T MM / 2 0 T
$ _/
'j 100 -
/N _
1 w - MM
/ -
T
.84 7 '
h O N NUTTLI (1979) - T N SUSTAINED 3 CYCLE
~
/ T TRIFUNAC CBRADY(1975) _
l M PEAK I - y p IM)O 2 MI MCGUIRE (1977) PEAK MEDIUM SITES
~
M2 MCGUlRE (1977)
.50 PEAK SOFT SITES N
l MO MURPHY C.O'BRIEN(1977) PEAK i i i i i i e i i i i i J V V VII Vill MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY \ I l MODIFIED FERCALLI INTENSITY I l VS. GROUND ACCELERATION CORRELATIONS FIGURE 16 l 1 w es e n c,e w nys,c oi
E I 10 0 i ; i i i i i i i l _ l _ M )Eq.4 l
/
1
/
{ 3
<4 2
l [ M g a ' f' o j M : I
'T N -
) 8 o
~
y 7 2 ~ N NUTTLI (1979) } _
, SUSTAINED 3 CYCLE _
.84 "
T TRIFUN AC E. BR ADY(1975) T y PEAK
- 7:N .
/
} 2 MI MC GUIRE (1977) PEAK MEDIUM SITES M2 MCGUIRE (1977) y PEAK SOFT SITES -
/I
.50 l N l i i i i i i i Vil i i i i i
} V VI Vill MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY r B MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY l VS. GROUND VELOCITY CORRELATIONS l FIGURE 17 g weston oeonnys,cai l - - - - _ - - - _ - - - -
i l 5 i 1 10-2 _
~
j _ E E - [ 10 ~ g -
=! _
x - t m 0 l , n. w o l z wto-4 o w _ _ w _ C x - - 3 w _ _ _I ._ y _ o Ez z 10-5 _
~
.50 .84 E -
I l 1 80-6
.I .2 .3 (g) i SUSTAINED GROUND ACCELER ATION (3 CYCLES) 4 ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITY OF SUSTAINED ACCELERATION I
FIGURE 18 Weston Geophysical 1
10-2 _ , g - 6 i 10-3 -
\ _
E ! E _J _
~
~
La i E 10-4 - W 5 d - I Q Ld
.J
~
E
<t -
.50 .84 10 -5 E
E _ E _ E - I t I i t t t t i i i 10-6 i i 5 10 15 20 25 30 (cm/sec ) SUSTAINED GROUND VELOCITY (3 CYCLES) E ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITY E OF SUSTAINED VELOCITY FIGURE 19 Weston Geophysical
E E p "?g+,g ? % ,
^ ^ ^
g
;l/ \/ hx / '~" 'N f E
\ 10-3 Ei / '
\
I E f}/: [ 'x/ E . E .,
's N E ![y/ N/ N/ N I
I -
. . . , . . . , . . . . . . . N. . . .
PERIOD (SEC) ANNUAL EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITIES E "i!W 5M!P FIGURE 20 Weston Geophysical}}