ML20009A816
| ML20009A816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1981 |
| From: | Ehlig P, Heath E, Shawn Smith SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8107140276 | |
| Download: ML20009A816 (350) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - . . _ _ NCC:J.AR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN
~.
l f fc ATOMIC AND SAFETY LICENSING BOA D / o h M# 8
%c9 In d e Ma N cf:
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361, OL ET AL., ) and 50-236, OL (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING ) STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 ) CATI: June 22, 1981, ff. pAczg: A7 San Diego, California APPLICANTS' DIRECT TESTIMONY ON TR s ia L CONTENTION NO. 4 A DD .' p oc/bCC $ $l H
- 5. tn://ska/cPE I/ /06) erg /4:
/). M e}1b msi%
Al.DERSON REPORT 1XG f". \' O 4 C O Virgi.-ia Ave . , S . 'd . '4arr.i..g cr. , 2. C. 20004 Ta ' .e:hene : (200' 554-2245 8107140276 910622 PDR ADOCK 05000236 T PDR
1 TESTIMONY OF DR. FERRY L. EHLIG (~) (/ 2 Q. Would you please state your name? 3 A. Dr. Perry L. Ehlig, o) (_ 4 Q. By whom are you presently employed? 5 A. I am a professor of geology at California State 6 University at Los Angeles. 7 Q. In what manner are you associated with the 8 Applicants in this proceeding? 9 A. Over the past four years I have been retained by the 10 Applicants as a 1onsulting geologist. I have 11 conducted several geologic studies of the area 12 around San Cnofre involved with local stratigraphy; 13 regional and local structure and tectonics. Q. Would you please describe your formal training in ({) 14 15 geology? 16 A. I received a 3.A. and Ph.D in geology from the 17 University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in 18 1952 and 1958, respectively. 19 Q. What professional positions have you had in the area 20 of geology? 21 A. I have been a consulting engineering geologist since 22 1954 to private consulting firms, the U.S. Army 23 Corps of Engineers, Southern California Edison, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and a member of Los Angeles
) 24 25 County Engineering Geology and Soils Review and 26 Appeals Board.
1 Q. Have you been associated with any educational () 2 institutions? 3 A. Yes, I was a teaching assistant in geology at UCLA () 4 in 1953-1954, a field geology instructor in 1956 and 5 1958 at UCLA and at. Louisiana State University in 6 1957, and I have been a professor in geology at 7 California State University at Los Angeles since 8 1956. 9 Q. Do you hold any professional registrations in the 10 State of California or any other state? 11 A. Yes, I am a Registered Geologist, No. 1692, and a 12 Certified Engineering Geologist, No. 533, in the 13 State of California. (])14 Q. What are your pertinent professional or 15 organizational memberships? 16 A. I am a member of the American Association for the 17 Advancement of Science; American Association of 18 Petroleum Geologists; Association of Engineering 19 Geologists; Geological Society of America; 20 Mineralogical Society of America; Sigma Xi; Society 21 of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists; and 22 National Association of Geology Teachers. 23 Q. Have you written or published articles in the field of geology?
)24 25 A. Yes, I have authored or co-authored numerous papers 26 and reports dealing with applied igneous and 2
1 metamorphic petrology, structural geology and () 2 engineering geology. A list of published reports is 3 appended hereto.
,- x t) s 4 Q. Have you presented expert opinion or testimony?
5 A. Yes. I presented expert opinion to the Advisory 6 Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS") in this 7 proceeding. In addition, I presented expert opinion 8 / before the Riverside, California Superior Court 9 about 1970. This testimony dealt with the volume of 10 hard rock likely to have been present in an area 11 requiring blasting. 12 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this 13 proceeding? (])14 A. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether 15 based on the geologic characteristics of the OZD, 16 including its length, assignment of M 7 as the 17 maximum magnitude earthquake for the OZD renders the 18 seismic design basis inadequate. The purpose of my 19 testimony is to establish the regional geologic , 20 setting and the evolution of the relevant geologic l 21 structures and stratigraphy in the San Onofre region. 22 Q. Have you investigated or studied the geologic 23 evolution of the San Onofre region including the OZD? 3, ygg, (u)q 24 25 777 26 /// p 3
1 Q. Would you describe'the basic geologic evolution of () 2 the San Onofre region up to the time of development 3 of the OZD? (]) 4 A. My studies indicate the geologic evolution of the 5 San Onofre region began about 200 million years 6 ("m.y.") ago when the western edge of the 7 continental crust terminated near the eastern margin 8 of the present Peninsular Ranges and sedimentary 9 strata of Triassic and Jurassic age, referred to as 10 the Bedford Canyon Formation near SONGS, were 11 accreted against it, presumably as a result of 12 eastward subduction of oceanic crust (Hamilton, 13 Warren, " Mesozoic Tectonics of the United States" and Criscione and others, "The Age of Sedimentation / { } 14 15 Diageneis for the Bedford Canyon Formation and the 16 Santa Monica Formation in Southern California: A 17 Rb/Sr evaluation," Mesozoic Paleograohy of the 18 Western United States: Pacific Section, So. Economic 19 Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Coast 20 Paleogeograchv Symposium 2, Ecwell, D.G. and 21 McDougall, K.A., eds., pp. 385-396 (1978).) 22 Volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks were emplaced on 23 top of the accretionary wedge along the western side 24 of the Peninsular Ranges during the Late Jurassic 25 and Early Cretaceous (Gastil, Morgan, G. J. and 26 Krummenacher, " Tectonic History of Peninsular O 4
1 California and Adjacent Mexico", in The Geotectonic ( 2 Development of California, 284-305 (Ernst, W.G. ed. 3 1981); Gastil and others, " Reconnaissance Geology of () 4 the State of Baja California." Geological Society of 5 America, Mem. 140, (1975).) Batholithic rocks 6 intruded the accretionary wedge during the 7 Cretaceous. The initial batholiths were emplaced 8 across the western half of the Peninsular Ranges 9 starting about 120 m.y. ago. The locus of magmatism 10 was nearly static until about 105 m.y. ago when it 11 began migrating eastward and eventually passed east 12 of the Peninsular Ranges 85-90 m.y. ago (Silver and 13 others, "Some Petrological and Geological
~ Observations of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith Near
(])14 15 the International Border of the U.S.A. and Mexico," 16 in Mesozoic Crystalline Rocks Peninsular Ranges 17 Batholith and Pegmatites Point Sal Cphiolite: 18 Depart. of Geological Sciences San Diego State 19 University, Abbott, P.L. and Todd, V.R., eds., 20 pp. 83-110, (1979).) Batholithic emplacement was 21 accompanied by uplift and erosion, but, by Late 22 Cretaceous, subsidence along the western margin of 23 the Peninsular Ranges permitted the sea to 24 transgress eastward to form a rugged shoreline near 25 the western margin of the batholithic intrusions 26 (Figure PLE-A, " Block Diagram of Peninsular Ranges 5
1 During Cretacous"). As seen today, the eastern O 2 limit of Upper Cretaceous marine strata forms a 3 relatively straight line from the Santa Ana () 4 Mountains at the northwest corner of the Peninsular 5 Ranges to the Vizcaino Peninsula in Baja, 6 California. Gastil and others (supra at 47) refer 7 to this as the Santillan and Barrera line (Figure 8 PLE-B, " Location of Santillan and Barrera Hinge 9 Line"). The line was originally thought of as the 10 eastern edge of a geosynclinal basin analogous to 11 the Great Valley of California but in terms of 12 modern nomenclature we would refer to it as a 13 forearc basin. The Santillan and Barrera line is a ()14 tectonic hinge line separating the thick, buoyant, 15 dominantly batholithic continental crust to the east 16 from the westward-thinning, accretionary wedge which 17 adjoins oceanic crust to the west. Downwarping to 18 the west of this line was probably controlled i l 19 primarily by isostatic adjustments and proceeded 20 gradually through time, probably in response to 21 loading by sediments eroded from the continent to 22 the east of the line. 23 During the period 90-20 m.y. ago, from the Late Cretaceous through the Early Miocene, the {])24 25 position and configuration of the coastline varied ( slightly, probably as a result of fluctuations in ! ( ) 26 l 6
1 relative sea level and minor crustal warping. A U2 During the Eocene approximately 40 m.y. ago the 3 coast transgressed landward across the Santillan and ()4 Barrera line but most of the time it was on the 5 seaward aide of the line. During the Early Miocene 6 (about 20 m.y. ago) the shoreline was immediately 7 west of SONGS and trended north-northwesterly across 8 the present Capistrano Embayment as shown 9 diagramatically in Figure PLE-C, " Location of 10 Coastline During Early Miocene About 20 m.y. Ago" 11 (see Campbell, R.H. and Yerkes, R.F. " Cenozoic 12 Evolution of the Los Angeles Basin Area - Relation 13 to Plate Tectonics": Pacific Section of American Association of Petroleum Geologists and (]) 14 15 Petrologists: Misc. Pub. 24, pp. 541-558, (1976).) 16 At that time the Vaqueros Fo*mation was deposited 17 under shallow marine conditions on the seaward side 18 of the shoreline while the continental Sespe 19 Formation was d.eposited on the landward side. 20 At the beginning of the Middle Miocene (about 21 16 m.y. ago) conditions changed radically along the 22 southern California coast and adjacent offshore l 23 borderland. The change may have been brought on by l cs, 24 passage of the East Pacific Rise beneath this part i U 25 of the continental margin or by divergent transform l 26 faulting postdating the overriding of the rise. O ~s i l l 7
1 The major changes included: 1) the sudden () 2 appearance of Catalina Schist.at the surface in the
~3 area o ffshore from the present coast with local l 4
(]) shedding of schist debris in a north 9rly to easterly 5 direction to form the onshore occurrences of the San 6 onofre Breccia; 2) widespread volcanism including 7 volcanic intrustions within and to the north of the 8 San Joaquin Hills; and 3) crustal extension and 9 fragmentation causing the initial opening of the Los 10 Angeles Basin (Figure PLE-D, "Paleogeography in 11 Middle Miocene About 15 m.y. Ago"; (see Stuart, C.J. 12 " Middle Miocene Paleogeography of Coastal Southern 13 California and the California Borderland -- Evidence from Schist-bearing Sedimentary Rocks", in Cenozoic ()14 15 paleogeography of the Western United States, Pacific 16 Section, SEPM, pp. 29-44, (Armentrout, Cole and 17 Terbist, eds., 1979) and the development of 18 northwest-trending ridges and basins in the Southern 19 California continental Borderland. PLE-E, "Known 20 Distribution of San onofre Breccia and Probable 21 Northeastern Limits of Catalina Schist Basement" j 22 shows the distribution of San onofre Breccia which 23 consists of Catalina Schist debris and the probable
- landward limit of schist bedrock. The juxtapositien
(:)24 25 of the schist against Peninsular Range basement is 26 significant because the two formed in very different l i D) l l - r 8
1 environments. The juxtaposition is important ' ( 2 because the two formed in very different 3 environments and were probably brought together by O4 1aterat fautting. = reas the Peninsu1ar Ranges 5 basement formed in a shallow contin 2ntal environment 6 by emplacement of batholithic magma believed to be 7 derived from a subduction 7.one undergoing partial 8 melting at a depth of 17.5 to 175 km below the 9 surface, the Catalina Schist experienced low 10 temperature, high pressure metamorphism 11 characteristic of a subduction zone at a depth of 30 12 to 40 km (Platt. J.P., "The Petrology, Structure, 13 and Geologic History of the Catalina Schist Terrane, Southern Terrain, Southern California"; in 112 (])14 15 Univer. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci., (1976)). The 16 limited available data indicates the schist was 17 metamorphosed synchronous with emplacement of 18 batholithic rocks (Platt, J.P., Stuart, C.J., Suppe, 19 J. and Armstrong, R.L., " Potassium Argon Dating of 20 Franciscan Metamorphic Rocke: 272 American Journal 21 of Science, 217-233, (1972)). 22 In the area offshore from SONGS the contact 23 between the two terranes is likely to lie along the 24 OZD but the presence of a thick sedimentary cover , ! 25 inhibits verification. The greatest known thickness l 26 of San Onofre Breccia is exposed on San Onofre 9 ! _ . _ . ~ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_____._-._ _,.. _ _ , _ _ _ ____ ___ ----
1 Mountain east of SONGS where it was deposited on a () 2 piedmont alluvial fan (Figure PLE-F, " Idealized 3 Block Diagram, Deposition of the San Onofre (') 4 Breccia"). Details of its depositional environment 5 in the SONGS area are described by me in " Miocene 6 Stratigraphy and Depositions, Environments of the 7 San Onofre Area and Their Tectonic Significance" (in 8 Stuart, C.J., A Guidebook to Miocene Lithofacies and 9 Decositional Environments, Coastal Southern 10 California and_Northwesrern Baja California, pp. 11 43-51, (1979)) and by Stuart, C.J., in " Middle 12 Miocene Paleography of Coastal Southern California 13 and the California Borderland - Evidence from (])14 Schist-Bearing Sedimentary Rocks", (in genozoic 15 Paloegeograohy of the Western United States, Pacific 16 Section, SEPM, pp. 29-44 (Armentrout, Cole anu 17 Terbest, eds., (1979)). 18 volcanism was wide spread within southern 19 California during the Middle Miocene but in the 20 region around SONGS it occurred mainly within and to 21 the north of the San Joaquin Hills. Here, the ! 22 volcanic rocks occur as flows and pyroclastic debris 23 interbedded with the Tcpanga Formation and as 24 intrusions along faults (Vedder and others, l {g 25 " Geologic Map and Cross Section of the San Joaquin l l 26 Hills - San Juan Capistrano area, California; U.S. 10
i 1 Geological Survey Open - File Maps 75-552, (1975)). 2 A southward plunging domal uplift developed in the 3 San Joaquin Hills and the area to the north ()4 simultaneous with emplacement of volcanic rocks. 5 McCulloh has mapped a steep-gradient positive 6 gravity anomaly over this area. (McCulloh, T.H., 7 " Gravity Variations and the Geology of the Los 8 Angeles Basin of California," U.S. Geological Survey 9 Research, Professional Paper 400-B, p. B-325, 10 (1960)). Although McCullch suggested the anomaly 11 might be caused by a gabbro intrusion in the 12 underlying basement, it appears more likely that the 13 area is underlain by a shallow laccolith of Middle Miocene age. Q 14 15 A microfaunal analysis of the Topanga 16 Formation in the northwestern San Joaquin Hills 17 indicates water depths increased from about 250 m 18 (800 ft.) at the start of the Middle Miocene 19 (16 m.y. ago) to about 1800 m (5900 ft.) in late 20 Middle Miocene (about 14.5 m.y. ago) as de* ermined 21 by Ingle (Ingle, J.C., " Biostratigraphy and 1 22 Palececology of Early Miocene through Early 23 Pleistocene Benthonic and Planktonic Foraminifera, San Joaquin Hills - Newport Bay - Dana Point Area,
) 24 25 Orange County, California," in Stuart, C.J., sucra, 26 pp. 53-78, (1979).) (Figure PLE-G " Bonita Canyon -
l 11
~
1 Paleobathymetry Correlation"). This reflects the () 2 initial opening of the Los Angeles Basin. As 2 subsidence progressed throughout the area and a () 4 silled basin with oxygen-deficient bottom water 5 developed, sedimentation changed to the laminated 6 diatomaceous shale of the Monterey Formation and the 7 paleobathymetry changed as shown in Figure PLE-H 8 " Newport Bay - Paleobathymetry Correlation". Along 9 the coast southeast of SONGS, shale in the Monterey 10 Formation interfingers with massive sandstone 11 deposited as small submarine fans. This reflects 12 the presence of a relatively steep submarine slope 13 along the western margin of the Peninsular Range
/~S 14 perhaps controlled isostatically by a thinner crust V
15 west of the OZD. 16 Q. Subsequent to the Middle Miocene period, described 17 above, were there any significant changes in 18 geologic structure or stratigraphy? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would you describe those changes? 21 A. During the Late Miocene, (approximately 10 m.y. ago) 22 the Cristianitos fault began to move in association 23 with subsidence in the Capistrano Embayment as 24 described by me in "The Late Cenozoic Evolution of 25 the Capistrano Embayment" (Geologie Guide of San 1 26 Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and Adjacent i () 1 12
l l 1 Regions of Southern California, Pacific Sections I () 2 AAPG, SEPM, and SEG, Fife, D.L., ed., pp. 38-47, 3 (1979)). The surface trace of the Cristianitos (]) 4 fault is subparallel to the Santillan and Barrera 5 line and lies at an average distance of about 6 6 miles (10 km) west of it. As interpreted here, the 7 Cristianitos fault is a westward-facing listric, 8 normal fault which passes downward into a 9 beuding-plane fault within the lower part of the 10 post-batholithic Cretaceous strata or underlying 11 Santiago Peak Volcanics which contain interfingered 12 marine shale. Structural factors controlling the 13 Cristianitos fault would be the westward dip of the ( deep strata and the eastward pinchout of clay-rich V) 14 15 strata which might serve as surfaces of low shear 16 strength during gravity gliding. The dip of the 17 strata would be essentially perpendicular to the 18 Santillan and Barrera line and the dips would be 19 steeper at the base of the sedimentary sequence than 20 near the top because of progressive westward tilting 21 through time. 22 Movement on the Cristianitos fault started 23 when the area was below sea level and is marked by a 24 change in sedimentation from the dominantly O 25 laminated diatomaceous strata of the Monterey 26 Formation to the poorly bedded mudstone, siltstone A V 13
l l 1 and sandstone of the Capistrano Formation. Beds 2 within the two formations are concordant and are 3 gradational in lithology within the interior of the ( 4 embayment but are discordant and change abruptly l 5 from shale to sandstone adjacent to the Cristianitos ! 6 fault. During deposition of the Capistrano l 7 Formation, two large submarine fans had their heads 8 along the base of a west-facing submarine scarp 9 along the Cristianitos fault. One is in the 10 northeastern part of the Capistrano Embayment and is 11 represented by massive sandstone of the Oso Member 12 of the Capistrano Formation. Here, conglomeratic 13 sandstone of the Oso Member rests upon a scoured (]) 14 surface cut on slightly upturned beds of Monterey 15 shale. The sand of the Oso Member was probably fed 16 into the area by the ancestral Trabucc Creek which 17 probably drained a large area some 50 km northeast 18 of SONGS, in the Perris region. The second 19 submarine fan had its head along the Cristianitos [ 20 fault in the area between SONGS and San Mateo Creek 21 and, although its massive sandstone is referred to 22 as the San Mateo Formation, it interfingers with and 23 is part of the Capistrano Formation. The coarsest part of the fan-head deposits is restricted to a {])24 25 small area between San Onefre and San Mateo Creeks. l This suggests that the fan was fed by a submarine i On26 14
1 canyon cut into the fault scarp along the () 2 Cristianitos, probably by the ancestral San Mateo 3 Creek which may have drained a large area extanding () 4 some 50 km northeast of SONGS in the Perris region 5 during the Late Miocene. 6 Simultaneous with the development of the 7 Capistrano Embayment, the Los Angeles Basin deepened 8 rapidly in the vicinity of Newport Bay on the west 9 side of a submarine ridge which occupied the present 10 position of the San Joaquin Hills. Faunal analyses 11 by Ingle (suora) indicate water depths were at least 12 3,000 m (9840 ft.) in the Newport Bay area during 13 the Late Miocene (PLE-H). At the same time water depths were a maximum of 2,500m (8,200 ft.) in the (])14 15 Dana Point-Capistrano area at the mouth of the 16 Capistrano Embayment (Figure PLE-I, "Capistrano-17 Dana Point-Paleobathymetry Correlation"). The 18 paleogeography for this period is shown in Figure 19 PLE-J, " Paleography of Capistrano Embayment Area 20 About 8 m.y. Ago". The arrangement of the Doheny 21 and San Mateo submarine fans indicates a relatively 22 steep south-facing submarine slope existed at the 23 mouth of the Capistrano Embayment with a deep ocean basin to the south.
)24 25 ///
26 /// 15
1 l ! Would you please discuss the development of the 1 Q. ({) 2 Cristianitos fault in *Le context of the regional 3 geology? A. ({} 4 Movement on the Cristianitos fault and extension 5 within the Capistrano Embayment is also probably the 6 result of gravity gliding in a westward direction 7 into the Los Angeles Basin. That the Cristianitos 8 fault is a west-facing normal fault can readily be 9 seen in the coastal exposure southerst of SONGS. 10 Here, the fault dips 57 degrees west with 11 slickensides oriented down the dip. The west side 12 is down and reverse drag on the downthrown side 13 indicates a flattening of the fault plane with depth (Ehlig, P.L., "Geotechnical Studies Northern San
)14 15 Diego County, October, 1977, Consultants Report to 16 Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas 17 and Electric Company," (1977)). (Figure PLE-K, 18 " Reverse Drag Features at the Cristianitos Fault".)
19 Similar features exist along the fault within the
- 20 Capistrano Embayment. For example, cross section 21 C-B by West (West, J.C., " Generalized Sub-Surface 22 Geological and Geophysical Study, Capistrano Area, 23 Orange County, California"
- Consultants Report to 24 Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas O 25 and Electric Company, (1975)) Figure PLE-L, ("A 26 Portion of a Geologic Section Across the Capisrrano O
16
1 Area") shows reverse drag on the down side (west) of () 2 the fault. Figure PLE-L indicates bedding has a 3 regional dip of about 15 degrees west along the base O4 or the cree oeou= to ta t or the cri ti nito-5 fault thus providing a structure suitable for 6 westward sliding. Although Figure PLE-L indicates 7 gentle dips along the base of the Cretaceous beneath 8 the Capistrano Embayment, structural control is 9 restricted to the upper half of the sedimentary 10 sequence. The base of the Cretaceous sediments is 11 likely to continue to dip westward beneath the - 12 Capistrano Embayment as a result of westward 13 thickening and the addition of older strata at the base of the sequence in the seaward direction from (])14 15 the Santillan and Barrera line. The base of the 16 Cretaceous may also dip westward beneath the San 17 Joaquin Hills structural high if the domal uplifting , 18 of the high was the result of a Middle Miocene 19 laccolithic intrusion as appears likely. 20 The Cristianitos fault is likely to flatten 21 with Jepuh and become a bedd.tng plane fault near the 22 base of the Cretaceous sediments. Movement on the 23 Cristianitos fault sas probably caused by gravity 24 gliding of the hanging wall block and was the result 25 of inadequate latrral support within the Los Angeles 26 Basin where the ocean floor was very deep and where 17
1 the westward continuation of the Middle Miocene and () 2 older rocks of the Peninsular Ranges had been 3 removed by crustal extension and/or strike-slip O4 e=uttias-5 It shculd be noted that Los Angeles Basin had 6 a different configuration during the Late Miocene 7 and Early Pliocene than at present. A deep trough 8 extended southward across the present coast to the 9 west of the San Joaquin Hills structural high 10 whereas a northwest-trending structural high was 11 subsequently developed along the landward slide of 12 the coast to the west of the San Joaquin Hills. 13 This is shown by the fact that Upper Miocene strata exposed above sea level on the west side of San ()14 15 Joaquin Hills were, according to Ingle, suora, 16 deposited at an ocean depth of about 10,000 feet 17 (3,000 m) whereas strata of the same age and 18 probably deposited at about the same depth are 19 presently 20,000 fes below sea level within the 20 deepest part of the modern Los Angeles Basin. 21 Vertical relief between the Capistrano Embayment and 22 the Los Angelea Basin probably provided the driving 23 force for the gravitational gliding. A contributing 24 factor may have been loss of lateral support by O 25 deep-seated extension beneath the Los Angeles Basin, 26 /// O 18
1 Q. Would you describe the amount of movement that is () 2 evident along the Cristianitos? 3 A. The displacement along the Cristianitos fault is (]) 4 greatest near the center of the Capistrano Embayment 5 where West (suora) indicates the top of the 6 Cretaceous strata have a stratigraphic separation of 7 about 3500 feet with the west side down and 8 decreases both to the north and to the south. 9 At the south end of the embayment near SONGS 10 the Monterey Formation has a dip separation of about 11 600 feet across the Cristianitos fault as seen in 12 Figure PLE-M, " Geologic Cross Section Between 13 Onshore Borings". Displacement appears to die out completely several thousand feet offshore from SONGS. { ) 14 15 Q. Are there other instances in the vicinity of San 16 Onofre where faults were formed as a result of 17 gravity gliding during the same time period? 18 A. Yes. The San Joaquin Hills to the west of the 19 Capistrano Embayment contain several westward-facing 20 normal faults which were active at the same time as 21 the Cristianitos fault. A good example is the 22 Pelican Hill fault shown in Figure PLE-N, 23 " Cross-Section Showing Pelican Hill Fault", by f, 24 Vedder and others (Vedder, J.G., et al., V 25 *
" Preliminary Report of the Continental Borderland of 26 Southern California," United States Geol. Survey, O
19
l 1 Misc. Field Studies, Map MF-624, (1974)). The () 2 diagnostic features are: (1) the west side of the 3 fault is down; (2) the fault surface dips westward () 4 and the dip of the fault surface flattens with 5 depth, and (3) there is reverse drag along the down 6 thrown side of the fault. In essence, the fault 7 functioned as the base of a large landslide with the 1 8 overlying strata sliding westward toward the Los 9 Angeles Basin. 10 Q. Is there a structural relationship between the 11 Cristianitos Fault and the OZD? 12 A. No. The Cristianitos fault dies out in the near 13 shore area before reaching the OZD. A likely mechanical reason for its dying out is because of a (])14 1S change in the physiographic and geologic structure 16 which existed in the vicinity of the present coast 17 during the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene. In the 18 inland area to the east of the Cristianitos, exposed 19 bedrock consists mainly of Eocene and Cretaceous 20 strata striking nearly parallel to the fault and 21 dipping gently in a westerly to scuthwesterly 22 direction. To the east of the fault near the coast 23 the San onofre Breccia forms the principal exposed 24 bedrock. It strikes in northwesterly to westerly 25 directions and dips seaward at angles typically 26 ranging betwen 35 and 45 degrees along the south 20
i l i 1 flank of the San Onofre Mountains (Ehlig, supra). () 2 If a similar change in structure is present at depth 3 to the west of the surface trace of the Cristianitos (]) 4 fault, it would tend to prevent gravity gliding 5 toward the Los Angeles Basin in the area south of 6 the present coast and the steep dip would tend to 7 cause the Cretaceous beds to be buttressed in the 8 offshore area. An alternate or complimentary 9 possibility is that the downwarping of the coastal 10 area southeast of the Cristianitos fault tended to 11 reduce the gravitational driving force along the 12 southern edge of the gravity glide block thereby 13 causing displacement to die out in the offshore area. Q. Have you reviewed the earthquake potential of the [}14 15 OZD? 16 A. Yes. I have reviewed it from the standpoint of what 17 I consider to be the maximum earthquake likely to 18 occur along it based on its features, geologic 19 strain rate, and regional tectonic setting. 20 g. One of the issues is whether M s 7 is an appropriate 21 maximum magnitude for earthquakes on the OZD. Do 22 you believe Ms 7 is adequate? 23 A. Yes, I do for the following reasons:
- 1. The absence of extensive and/or throughgoing
()2425 fault ruptures in near-surface strata along much of 26 the OZD is typical of faulting associated with 21
1 earthquakes of less than about Ms 7. For larger () 2 earthquakes the high rate and large amount of ground 3 displacement during such an earthquake would favor () 4 propagation of faults to the surface and would also 5 favor extensive secondary faulting and lurching near 6 the surface. For example, there is a lack of 7 near-surface faulting in the vicinity of Dominguez 8 Hi"1 near the center of the NIZD. If Ms 7 or 9 greater earthquakes had occurred in this area, I 10 would expect extensive evidence of near-surface 11 faulting. 12 2. As I interpret the regional tectonic setting, 13 north-south compression and right lateral drag alcng the Big Bend in the San Andreas fault is causing { } 14 15 widespread deformation within the upper crust to the 16 west of the San Andreas. Displacement along the OZD 17 is only one aspect of this deformation. Folding, 18 broad arching, and other faulting is also occurring 19 over a wide area. Because of this and the 20 variability of rock types and geologic structures 21 along the OZD, I would expect variations in the 22 orientation and intensity of the stress field along 23 the OZD. Because its strain rate is only about 0.5 =m per year, only a relatively small segment of ( ) 24 25 the OZD is likely to have shearing stress at or near 26 the elastic limit at any given time. Consequently, j 22
1 I would expect strain release by localized (]) 2 earthquakes of less than Ms 7-3 Q, Are you familiar with present-day theories of what []'; 4 is commonly called wrench tectonics? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Would you please describe your understanding of 7 wrench tectonics theory? 8 A. The current theories of wrench tectonics are 9 described by Wilcox, Harding and Seely in " Basic 10 Wrench Tectonics", 57 American Assoc. Petroleum 11 Geologists Bull., p. 74-96 (1973). They attempt to 12 relate certain types and patterns of shallow folding 13 and faulting to horizontal shearing strain within the underlying crystalline crust. Their
) 14 15 interpretations are based on the deformation 16 produced in clay models by moving tin sheets beneath 17 a clay cake. Different styles of deformation are 18 achieved by varying the sense and amount of 1
19 strike-slip movement and by combining divergent or 20 convergent motion with strike-slip motion. 21 The basic concepts of wrench tectonics have 22 been known for several decades in association with 23 studies of strike-slip faults but wrench terminology 24 has become popular only recently, particularly among O 25 petroleum ge logists. An understanding of the 26 terminology is essential in order to comprehend the () i 23
i 1 strengths and weaknesses of the concepts. Some of () 2 the most important terms used by Wilcox and others, 3 supra, are: 4 (]) Wrenching - the process of deforming near 5 surface rocks by horizontal shearing strain along a 6 steeply inclined zone or fault within the underlying 7 basement. 8 Wrench fault - a high-angle strike-slip fault 9 of great linear extent which involves basement 10 deformation. 11 Wrench zone - a swath of terrane deformed by 12 wrenching prior to and concurrently with strike-slip 13 along the throughgoing wrench fault. The principal strength of the concepts and a
)14 15 signif; cant reason for the present day interest in 16 them is that they may permit the identification of 17 :ones of deformation along which petroleum-bearing l
18 structures may occur in a systematic pattern. The l 19 principal weakness of the concepts is that, aside 20 from establishing a sense of shear, they do not deal 21 with the nature, origin and causes of the deepseated 22 basement deformation. 23
~
Among the most controversial aspects of wrench 24 fault tectonics is the theory proposed by J. D. O 25 Moody and M. J. Hill (Moody, J. D. and Hill, M. J., 26 " Wrench-fault tectonics", 67 Geol. Soc. America O 24
1 Bull., p. 1207-1246 (1956)). According to their () 2 theory, the earth has been broken into major blocks 3 bounded by first-order conjugate wrench faults (]') 4 formed by north-south (equator to pole) crustal 5 compression. The major blocks were then broken into 6 progressively smaller blocks by second-order and 7 third-order conjugate wrench faults caused by 8 reorientation of the stress field within blocks. 9 other types of deformation including thrust faults, 10 compressional folds ad drag folds are associated 11 with the wrench faults. Their theory assumes (1) 12 that crustal blocks are mechanically homogeneous 13 with conjugate wrench faults forming at an angle of 30 degrees to the axis of compression and (2) that []}14 15 the local stress field has a constant orientation 16 through time except for changes brought about by 17 progressive development of higher order wrench 18 faults. The weaknesses of this theory are discussed 19 by Badgley (Structural and Tectonic Principles, 20 p. 261-272 (1965)). The major weaknesses include: 21 (1) The basic premise of north-south global 22 compression is incompatible with modern knowledge of 23 plate tectonics. 24 (2) Local stress fields change orientation O 25 through time due to interactions between crustal 26 plates. As a result, faults and folds formed during O 25
1 one stage in the tectonic evolution of a region may 2 be inactive during a later stage when other types of 3 deformation may be taking place along new 4 orientations. 5 (3) Most of the earth's crust is 6 inhomogeneous with new ruptures tending to follow 7 surfaces of weakness. Thue the geometry of the 8 faulting is influenced by the fabric of the crust 9 and not just the orientation of the stress field. 10 Also, the assumed orientation of wrench faults at 30 11 degrees to the axis of compression requires crustal 12 rocks to have a constant angle of internal friction 13 of 30 degrees. Measured values are variable. (])14 (4) The theory of Moody and Hill requires 15 wrench faults to form as a result of horizontal 16 compression in a system of non-rotational 17 pure-shear. Wrench faults associated with plate 18 houndaries, such as those in California, tend to 19 form by simple-shear and may be associated with 20 rotational and dilational motion. 21 Thus, although wrench tectonic concepts and 22 models may be used to identify wrench renes 23 underlain by deepseated strike-slip faults, the concepts are of little value when interpreting
)24 25 regional tectonic history.
26 /// 26
1 I 1 Q. Would you discuss how the OZD fits into the wrench (3 s_/ 2 tectonic system? 3 A. Assuming the OZD marks the boundary between the ()4 Peninsular Range basement and the Catalina Schist, 5 the OZD originated about 15 or 16 m.y. years ago i 6 during the Middle Miocene. As indicated in my 1 7 earlier testimony, the difference between the two 8 basement terranes seems to require them to have 9 formed at a considerable distance from each other 10 and to have been brought together by faulting. 11 Based on our knowledge of regional geology and plate 12 tectonic reconstructions by Tanya Atwater 13 (" Implications of Plate Tectonics for the Cenocoic Tectonic Evolution of Western North America", 81 (]) 14 15 Geol. Soc. America Bull. 3513-3536 (1970)), the OZD 16 was probably part of a system of right-lateral 17 faults which formed the Pacific-North American plate 18 boundary within the California Continental 19 Borderland during Middle Miocene. Thus, the OZD 20 probably originated as a wrench fault. However, the 21 San Andreas fault and its branches constitute the 22 present plate boundary. Assuming the OZD is active, 23 it is probably responding to the effects of crustal 24 compression along the Big Bend in the San Andreas 25 fault or to drag along the plate boundary. In 26 either case, Quaternary deformation along the OZD is 27
1 a secondary effect of interaction between the 2 Pacific and North American crustal plates and the 3 theory of wrench-faulting is not applicable. lhI 4 Q. Given your understanding of wrench tectonics do you 5 see any basis for relating the onshore Cristianitos 6 fault with the OZD? 7 A. No not at present, however, an indirect relationship 8 may have existed when the Cristianitos was active 4 9 to 10 m.y. ago insofar as there may have been an 10 inter-relationship between the OZD and faults 11 involved in the opening of the Los Angeles Basin. 12 However, as previously described by me, the 13 Cristianitos fault is a westward dipping normal g 14 fault which developed as a recult of the hanging 15 wall block undergoing gravity gliding toward a deep 16 submarine depression located in the vicinity of the 17 present Los Angeles Basin. The submarine depression 18 was formed by east-west crustal extension caused by 19 -divergent motion between the Pacific and North 20 American crustal plates. The Los Angeles Basin 21 stopped opening during the Pliocene about the same 22 time that the Gulf of California began to open and 23 the San Andreas fault began to take up most of the 24 Pacific North American interplate motion in southern 25 California. The Los Angeles Basin has subsequently 26 filled with sediment and is currently experiencing 28
l 1 l i 1 crustal shortening in a northeast and southwest l O 2 direction. In the vicinity of the Capistrano 3 Embayment shortening is causing upwarping near the ( 4 coast and downwarping within the inland area as 5 shown in Figure PLE-0, " Location of Axes of 6 Quaternary Upwarping and Downwarping". Under 7 existing conditions the Cristianitos fault is 8 buttressed and cannot move. Consequently movement 9 on the OZD would not cause movement on the 10 Cristianitos fault. 11 Q. Have you investigated the onshore area between the 12 Rose Canyon fault and the northern extent of the 13 Vallecitos fault? ()14 A. Yes. I have reviewed the literature, examined 15 aerial photographs, and have'made a limited geologic 16 reconnaissance of the area. 17 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether there is an 18 association between those faults in that location? 19 A. My opinion is that there is no apparent association 20 between the Rose Canyon fault and the Vallecitos 21 fault. The northern end of the Vallecitos fault 22 either dies out or is overlapped by Eocene 23 conglomerate as reported by Gastil, Kies and Melius, (" Active and potentially active faults: San Diego (])24 25 County and northermost Baja California", in l l l 26 Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego region: San l 29 l l
1 Diego Assoc. of Geologists and Geol. Soc. America, 2 Field Trip Guidebook, Ab' do tt , P.L., and Elliott, 3 W.J., eds., pp. 47-60 (1979)). I have examined () 4 aerial photographs of the 30 km interval between the 5 most northerly mapped position of the Vallecitos 6 fault and the U.S. border and find no lineament or 7 other feature suggestive of a through-going fault 8 along the projected trend of the Vallecitos fault as 9 mapped in Plate 1-A by Gastil, Phillips and Allison 10 in their book, " Reconnaissance Geology of the State 11 of Baja California", Geological Society of America, 12 Memoir 140, 1975. In a few places 13 northeast-trending features, such as the margin of a
~
(])14 batholithic intrusion, extend across the projected 15 trend of the Vallecitos fault without visible offset. 16 Gastil, Kies and Melius, supra, discuss 17 evidence for the "Tijuana lineament" which might be 18 used to infer the presence of a concealed fault l 19 along the Tijuana Valley subparallel to, but 20 northeast of, the Vallecitos fault. All of the 21 evidence is equivocal and may result from causes 22 other than a hypothesized fault along the Tijuana 23 Valley. An examination of aerial photographs 24 reveals no northwest trending feature where the 25 hypothetical fault would have to pass through 26 exposed basement terrane southeast of Rodriquez 30
1 Reservoir. This suggests the Tijuana lineament is 2 not a fault-controlled feature. 3 Q. Have you investigated the area between the southern () 4 extent of the Vallecitos fault and the San Miguel 5 fault? 6 A. Yes. I have reviewed geologic literature, examined 7 aerial photographs, and made a field reconnaissance 8 of selected parts of the area. 9 Q. In your opinion is there an association between 10 those two faults in that location? 11 A. There is no apparent relationship between the 12 Vallecitos fault and the San Miguel fault. The two 13 faults have subparallel trends but remain about 7 km (])14 apart at their closest approach, Figure PLE-P. ("A 15 Portion of A Geologic Map of Northern Baj a 16 California" [ reference: Gastil, Phillips, and 17 Allison, supra].) Although neither fault appears to 18 have a maximum displacement of more than a few 1 l 19 Lundred meters, the Vallecitos fault appears to have 20 little or no displacement along it opposite to where 21 the San Miguel fault dies out north of Valle San 22 Rafael. The Vallecitos fault appears to be an old inactive fault with no evidence of cutting anything
,) 24 younger than Mesozoic basement rocks as has also 25 been pointed out by Gastil, Kies and Melius, supra.
26 /// 31
1 My investigation indicates that the San Miguel 2 fault terminates near the northwest corner of Valle 3 San Rafael. The fault trends northwestward into () 4 this area as seen in aerial photographs and on 5 Figure PLE-P. The fault is within schist terrane S bounded on the northeast and southwest by 7 elliptically-shaped granitic intrusions. Several 8 northward-trending, steeply-inclined Mesozoic dikes 9 are present within the schist terrane. One dike was 10 traced for 8 km in the field. The overlapping 11 arrangement of the dikes precludes the existance of 12 northwest-trending strike-slip faults of significant 13 displacement within the area between the two granitic intrusions. The granitic intrusion to the ({} 14 15 southwest contains northeast-trending joints and 16 minor faults along with other structural features 17 which indicate no northwest-trending faults extend 18 across the granitic intrusion's 10 km width. 19 ThegraniticintrusiontothenortheastofthI 20 terminous of the San Miguel fault lacks 21 northwest-trending features suggestive of faults 22 except in the northeastern part where the linear 23 arrangement of erosional features marks the location 24 of the Vallecitos fault as mapped by Gastil, 25 Phillips and Allison (supra). Their map (supra, 26 1975, Plate 1-A) shows a 3 km right-separation of 32
1 the intrusion's northern margin where it is cut by () 2 the Vallecitos fault. In order to verify the 3 displacement, I traversed along more than 10 km of () 4 the fault in this area. Although the mapped trace 5 of the fault is well marked by canyons and other 6 topographic features, geologic contacts appear to 7 extend across the trace without detectible offset. 8 Along the north side of the intrusion in the area 9 shown as schist in Figure PLE-P, the area is 10 underlain by granitic rocks, including numerous 11 dikes. On the east side of the intrusion, granitic 12 dikes interspersed with gabbro appear-to extend 13 without interruption across the mapped trace of the fault. A strong linear color contrast visible on []}14 15 aerial photographs of this area marks the contact 16 where old deeply weathered alluvial deposits abut 17 against bedrock along the former margin of a 18 steep-sided valley. Thus, on the basis of my l 19 observations, the Vallecitos fault lacks significant l 20 displacement in this area. 21 In summary, my findings based on 22 photointerpretation and field observations not only 23 indicate that there is no relationship between the 24 Vallecitos and San Miguel faults but also indicate 25 an absence of significant strike-slip faults 26 crossing this part of Baja California. 33
1 DR. PERRY L. EHLIG 2 RESEARCH - PUBLICATIONS 3 4 Ehlig, Perry L., 1959, Relationship of Pelona Schist and 5 Vincent Thrust in the San Gabriel Mountains, California 6 (abst): Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 70, p. 1717. 7 Ehlig, Perry L. 1962, Epidote group minerals in the Pelona 8 Schist, Southern California (abst): Geol. Soc. America 9 Bull., Spec. Paper 68, p. 170. 10 Ehlig, Perry L., 1965, Geology of the Pre-Cenozoic basement 11 terrane bordering the Soledad Basin: American Assoc. of 12 Petrol. Geologists Pacific Coast section field trip 13 guide to the Soledad Basin, Los Angeles County, ()14 California, p. 7-11 (plus insert map). 15 Ehlig, Perry L., 1968, Displacement along the San Gabriel 16 Fault, San Gabriel Mountains, Southern California 17 (abst): Geol. Soc. America, Spec. Paper 101, p. 60. 18 Ehlig, Perry L., 1968, Causes of distribution of Pelona, Rand 19 and Orocopia schists: Proceedings of Conference on l 20 Geologic Problems of San Andreas fault system: Stanford i 21 University, p. 294-306. 22 Ehlig, Perry L., 1971, Orf. gin of the San Gabriel Mountains as i 23 a Transverse Range (abst): Geol. Soc. ~ America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 3, 115-116. {])24 p. 25 Ehlig, Perry L. and Ehlert, Keith W., 1972, Offset of Miocene 26 Mint Canyon formation from volcanic source along the San O 34 1
1 Andreas fault, Southern California (abst): Geol. Soc. 2 America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 4, no. 3, p. 154'. 3 Ehlig, Perry L., 1973, History, seismicity and engineering () 4 geology of the San Gabriel fault: Geology, Seismicity 5 and Environmental Impact: Special Publication of the 6 Association of Engineering Geologists, p. 247-252. 7 Ehlig, Perry L., 1975, Geologic framework of the San Gabriel 8 Mountains: California Div. of Mines and Geology, Bull. 9 196, p. 7-18. 10 Ehlig, Perry L., Ehlert, K. W., and Crowe, B. M., 1975, 11 offset of the upper Miocene Caliente and Mint Canyon 12 Formations along the San Gabriel and San Andreas 13 faults: Guidebook to San Andreas Fault in Southern (])14 California: Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Special 15 Report 119, p. 83-92. 16 Ehlig, Perry L., Davis, T. E., and Conrad, R. L., 1975, 17 Tectonic implications of the cooling age of the Pelona 18 Schist (abst.): Geol. Soc. America Bull., Abstracts 19 with Programs, v. 7, p. 314. 20 Ehlig, Perry L., and Crowell, J. C., 1975, Field trip guide 21 to the San Andreas fault in southern California: 22 Guidebook to San Andreas Fault in Southern California: 23 Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Special Report 118, p. 24 253-272. 25 Ehlig, Perry L, 1975, Basement rocks of the San Gabriel 26 Mountains, south of the San Andreas fault, southern 35
= _ _
1 California: Guidebook to San Anc reas Fault in Southern () 2 California: Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Special 3 Report 118, p. 177-186. ({) 4 Ehlig, Perry L., and Joseph, S. E., 1977, Polka dot granite 5 and correlation of La Panza quartz monzonite with 6 Cretaceous batholithic rocks north of Salton Trough, in 7 Howell, D. G., and others, eds., Cretaceous Geology of 8 the California Coast Ranges West of the San Andreas 9 Fault: Pacific Section, Soc. Econ, Paleontologists and 10 Mineralogists, Pacific Coast Paleogeography Field Guide 11 2, p. 91-96. 12 Ehlig, Perry L., 1978, Pelona Schist and associated rocks in 13 the upper Santa Ana River Drainage, in Flint, A. E., and others, Geologic Guidebook to the Santa Ana River Basin, (])14 15 Southern California: South Coast Geological Society, 16 51-53. 17 Ehlig, Perry L., 1978, Origin of bedding schistosity and 18 b-lineation in Pelona Schist (abst), Geol. Soc. America, 19 Abstracts with Programs, v. 10, p. 395. 20 Ehlig, Perry L., and Ehlert, K. W., 1978, Engineering geology 21 of a Pleistocene landslide in Palos Verdes, in Lamar, D. 22 L., Geologic Guide and Engineering Geology Case 23 Histories, Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Assoc. 24 Engineering Geologists, First Annual California Section O 25 Conference, p. 159-166. 26 /// O 36
r 1 Ehlig, Ferry L.,'1979, The late Cenozoic evolution of the j 2 Capistrano Embayment, in Fife, D. L., ed., Geologic 3 Guide of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and l A) (, 4 Adjacent Regions of Southern California: Pacific 5 Section, American Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Guide 6 Book 46, p. A-38-46. 7 Ehlig, Ferry L., 1979, Miocene stratigraphy and depositional 8 environments of the San Onofre area and their tectonic 9 significance: in Stuart, C. J., ed., A Guidebook to 10 Miocene Lithofacies and Depositional Environments, 11 Coastal Southern California and Northwestern Baja 12 California: Pacific Section, Soc. Econ. Paleontologists 13 and Mineralogists, p. 43-51. (])14 Ehlig, Perry L., 1980, Probable Pliocene age of high level 15 marine terraces, San Onofre Mt., southern California 16 (abst): Geol. Soc. America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 17 12, p. 105. 18 Ehlig, Perry L., 1981, Role of groundwater in the mechanics 19 of the Abalone Cove landslide, Palcs Verdes Hills, 20 southern California (abst): Geol. Soc. America, 21 Abstracts with Programs, v. 13, p. 54. 22 Ehlig, Perry L., 1981, Origin and tectonic history of the 23 basement terrane of the San Gabriel Mountains, Central 24 Transverse Ranges, in Ernst, W. G., ed., The Geotectonic 25 Development of Caifornia: Prentice - Hall, p. 253-283. () 37 - _ . _ _ _ . - - . - _ _ ~. - . - - -
O O O O O . OVERRIDING PLATE
\
CRETACEOUS SIICRELINE SUBDUCTED PLATE SEA LEVEL SYSSAL PLAIN
~
$e ,,,h, *
.'"'i.,,,,
y j):P .***\ 4t>r
., ='**" (
f %e <, i
- . :. .==&2:
,g (. .f , T~hs qj '
.' s '9
' ~
-s 'N / ;__ %
/ ,
q .. l[.s+
\.
^
M:N34
.'$: 7
/ h '0. > -
,. \, .N. ,-.
.M, ,M g: -(',.*' :'.
, /
~
'% ' \ ) ~
\ ' N ,. /. ., *
/
,\ ' [s< . SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA
-. BAT!!OLITil t.
.s. , .,x. ,!
g\ _ y
. . .. 4 PARTIAL MELTING BLOCK DIAGRAM O ' PENINSULAR RANGES DURING' IDEAL 1 ZED BLOCK DIAGRAM CRLTACEOUS (VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED)
CliETACEOUS TIME FIGURE PLE-A
Z b
~
M 4
@ , "~ q f.
J-r~ ' w m [ i m 3
.P
& / ~0.g= 0 <
?
c
/
r16 ~ 5 ir, 0 a .
/
/
L9 ,
\
J G' 5 f gbsG a8 / "
/ 55
/ b /
/ s')
3 s' f' -
- )Q% / c x
/ / t_iNE ,*yn w-
,/
9
$g b ,-
r f A?
^ bs@*Q%> v &0 lO )
n ( u T J ~s#
~1\ &r& J
x {" I ~%_d
/
x,#
/
)
mOk
==5 g
m us-3 5 Ess
= c~=
=s" a
a e sm ec o 29<x e
~ x A y
=<
O s= < M m 8
~
!aa x=
o ao m > H 2 se u m,$$$ 2 es m4 h E~ 55ac O &m
<~
I l Z$d-go s G dsE9 E $$u b 2085
~ ~ - - - . _ . . . _ . _ _ '*vw,,, &*w,
20 MILLION YEARS by 0 MAR /NE '. NONMAR/NE VAQUEROS . SESPE 1 Fm t- - Fm ' o g . L-
/
l N SHALL OW !'
/
SNELF
. : .' // /
. :: EL
- TORO ?! . '---
'...,$."*.*, .. *. -2, i
.... . A.
NEWPMT' s BEACH **+ r.
'Nt o o %
%' i
. ?
$p:
* /
/'
DANA PC/NT .
*. , y_
4 s t..-
'Q. . SONGS
~//, . . e o % ,. ' ..., _
LOCATION OF COASTLINE DURING EARLY MIOCENE, ABOUT 20 M.Y. AGO FIGURE PLE-C
15 MIL LION YEARS b.p. N O< . L3 o ceosm gg \ja3, EXTENSION S 5Y f .. ( BONITA 'S c4NYON LOWER MONTEREY ygp CP h\L4>h)h % 5EA \t;. f
\ UPPER \%
l0S A EL NEWPQRT a irr TOMNGA f BASIN BEAL H sue,aa y fu Q' ~
^
DEEP SHALLOW - SEA >
^ ^
O .
/ gWh%'TSR% 4 \ -
DANA ev N PC/NT s % Tg o 4 SCH/ST
/ r,<&A f% %
MOUNTAINS ON $ o / o PALEOGEOGRAPHY IN MIDDLE MIOCENE ABOUT 15 M.Y. AGO Figure PLE-D
1
~
,$<= ~
h
\
N A
'r 4
- h.
+ . ~
I
,' sh
-l ,
A :; { A t i.l. \.
.I ,
]g n -
O 7- .: i j.:. .
- 1 .
?\
h SAN ONOFRE BRECCIA LOCALITIES j.) a d PROBABLE NORTHEASTERN LIMIT OF KNOWN DISTRIBUTION OF SAN ONOFRE BRECCIA d
- CATAllNA SCHIST BASEMENT AND PROBABLE NORTIIEASTERN LIMITS OF p # ~~
!i)
CATALINA SCIIIST BASEMENT ;:.) -
~H \
EO l
<U I
%W D%
<O H
M O 0 c 0 Mk 0O OZ N c -4 JO i
+ 9 m C 'O 4
O f) C
+4 P
td G W CQ U C4 A Ct. 0 C k 4 O HM d G c to e4 w 0 CQ c m E o o O Cd % m O O 4: O c CJ m c O Ed 0
'M' ?
- CQ c c W W Cd OE H
A l O O CQ O o O
\ %'-I J . 5'. ' - O O O c c Q 54 m W c CG Z
- 4 w O NO
'i.. i o O s sH
\ -
' ~
- 4 U O c
O Ab
<H Wm
\ ,'
't,\ e m
c c w O
.c m
oO H c. M
\ s./ '! ..'
t y a I.
\, ,
i
. . - o
'.. c m W r4
\ ,'
- r. '
.= y g
.' . m 0 t 4 0 t/)
s O (c ' '"s - c c t 4 C
* - -4 i *? ,
a u - = - I g c U f -, ,, . .- t *
.i . ,* %
\ a o, e- -- y j'
. - H
\- -, p-'s, '/9 , ,' '
O O f(.Q.'r.'R' hh
, x
.9'[. W ., gm
\ !:'..') ,.
! M W $ j 'h \T4%\
ll w s
. gr q N n,1 .
, fj' y,y lg a
- s. Q
- s. \
. ', T .
i _i f. a
.,o Ow O
e8 O
^
e//tl. ', ./ ,'y:'!/,f,;. //
//// j, i
w~ N Em HH
/ :/ ! r
* /
,- , :. <O O ,'- .
'.. ./ ,.
~
ne
-e
WESTERN SAN JOAQUIN HILLS BONITA CANYON SECTION ESTIMATED STAGE PALEO8ATHYMETRY Og stmts renumon O S00 1000 3300 m
- p ,,
s E o V : S
+ l o g - 15 m.y.b.p. '
9 I t w !" ' 8 5
' I w
d*$ e5I s ee
- O U 1 i
8 y a E (after Ingle,1979) s BONITA CANYON-PALEOBATHYMETRY D CORRELATION l U FIGURE PLE-G
NEWPORT BAY
?ECTION ESTIM ATED emes g,7 mar
- PALEOBATHYMETRY wenns l
h s=
- T **** "
O g9 4 ij a O
, gg - 2 m.y.b.p.
0Yf
!! +
t i ,, g ---
- h m.y.b.p.
I o I dL o b Id carimara O = 8o I 9 l 3 I t 5 - 10 m.y.b.p.4 a I i g i* "" y l 5 2 '1 ease 5 "" 1 E* i
- 1h m.y.b.p. l 1
m (after Ingle,1979) O l O . hdWPORT BAY-PALEOBATHYMETRY CORRELATION , FIGURE PLE-H
9 O CAPISTR ANO-DANA POINT Q SECTION SERits r0RuATieN ESTIMAT ED
- Tast PALEOBATHYMETRY
$ WETERS i;i = o *" 'o* *
$*d \
O bo l 323 /
; 4 4 - 2 m.y.
\
o fT SEAWARD PROGRACATION OF 3 PLIOCENE SLOPE SE0tutNTS W Z b m.7e w e1 N 5 3 2 4
.I a b !
u 5e
'o a
O 'l $r i :m Z W k z5 i PROGRADATION OF CAPISTR ANO u O b" CCEP-SEA FAN AND CHANNEL SYSTEu 2 f ' = ! W <r ! t " - - 10 m.y. 2 = t i j C, CLOSE0-8A31N PMASE 5# l
- EE i S=
O (after Ingle,1979) O CAPISTRANO-DANA POINT PALEOBATHYM4TRY CORRELATION FIGURE PLE-I
8 bf!LL/CN YEARS b.p. O ~ q. N J l ly '
?k..
l Y j q*
/ / SUBMARINE l / '%.
I dranl lg/ / h:r N ,/ / -
% %s
,\ k l k.
DEEP j ~1, BAS /N f I'\ /: hl-l \ oso \%. N: l f#N/ % o / k'.'
\ / d / \
l o i I l 2 [ \ g NEWPORTI Q BEACH j y[ Q CAPISTRANO
$ BAS /N DEEP
/\ m SL IDIN \I -A MIA \
l ( Y DANA I/ Y l \ PO/NT/ Doutwh %~ w
\
x %'
/
L}\\/ /, SAN M, ATE 0 f SU8 MARINE (I
) J( gjg 0 ,$oQ$3 DEEP BASIN \
o R PALEOGEOGRAPHY OF CAPISTRANO EMBAYMENT AREA ABOUT 8 M.Y. AGO FIGURE PLE-J
O O O O O 1 REVERSE DRAG FEAIURES AT THE CRISilANITOS FAULT LOOKING NORTH 15 0'- -150'
~ ~
Oln Otm s Tsm .j h -# Gh ~
/
J o,_ O b_ _ __ __ _ . _ _ __ .. . . _. g.
/
//
~ ~
CRISTIANITOS FAULT
/
SCALE: 1"= 100' REVERSE DRAG FEATURES AT TIIE CRISTIANITOS FAULT FIGURE PLE-K
~.
8
. . . . . .... w...
~~ ~
__ an . *, r .. /g- a.g .- I
- d. .__
at - -- l ; e
.a e**
l .
\
... ,l -
4 l l ' l
/ ((
. - '. / y ,-
l w- a
/ . _ . . .
I .
/ t' _,
I
'3 ~* _**
1 ,. . I
-'s - ' h ' ~ g
~$p l s \ ., ?9 '
./ ame e
r -% -+/ - - . e mm I
*p"Q . ' f, .
.=, = ,
. . e
.} - - -
1 = . _= = . . . . .
* *'"'~ -p$: - ._._
l f
- a. f, E-T. ..T. ---
. .~ ~. =.
~~.;ggr_.= :p
'l,
.. a m ._
- j. . t. , f=:.~.-f= _- n.-...-. .
.- s,.z. v
. .:.= :-
, ' g. ,# 5 . -
~""""
's f -g ..
5 7.// ./5.Q . , .
~~~
T. Y. .
~~
,s A 4.-- .-.-, .
A PORTION OF A GEOLOGIC SECTION ACROSS THE CAPISTRANO AREA FROM WEST, 1975 Figure PLE-L
,. r I
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _s . . _ . - - _ . -- . . . -..
r v3
. . w.
t #
. w .. .., .n e. e a. . . ..,.. y.,
4 .,.,.... g..... .g. . ,- .
- e. - * ....-.;
~ ~ ..
,, = , .
l , -- i .. e 'g~. %. f ~ '.t. . _.. I *e f f. = *~
-j ; ' 'l .- +- :
l 3
' ** l t
. , , s ,I ,/ ((.. -.-
? .% ..
h ~. l
~
J :. '
#.. ' " * " * *
- p 'k l **
.A ...' .
',,. 3 .
f mll -y i f . *1 . * :r. *- , f i d
, l } .,. y.* . -
4 I 9
.I 1 .
l l l -- e\ Ifl A j 1 . f.y d -
- l p y l a. .
s ; y
*E
.- [ . w N -
m ... ~ i l
.N .
e l > [ k . l , f I , p
- j
. s. . . - , 4 y!! , l [ p g l k I i [ ll
~~
- )
I j 4{I ys 1 I /.- ' I h i i I
- ./
wt I t k l i i i ! l !' l I l 4 l t t,) l i
-y,~,,,~- ..w.w-,,,,w-- n-., -e,---y,wwm.y.,--w,--m,w,-wee,.ew.,, , - , - ,
m N E uw C E O '2 - - . W s - = J. somC "E=
- u
".u '. r W
T E h'1.;* tss oe L O U. ..n m B NG S E ON M O G II - e TR E m CO L
- EB P
= = S
=
3" E E
" SR R SO U OI I G
P RS I CN F O
- C I
G O
. e. - d. = *}
L O E
. /
,j..
G
.\;.
~_ .E e n A ~A-s e s
e
*2 3
o. e
/
s t . T . O C t
- S S .
/
- S .
O a C C a 6
/
O L O E 6
/
g
,\ - S
-<~
M O 2 w
, ."e
~ =-
n e w y.l
I Q O O O O - C 8"**~ PELlLAN HILL FAULT ZONE 77 32,33 0* 7, ces y, it Ten I" * *
\"3 Tm 88 T t,I
- i Omi
\
Tm
,giPp & ~'~4'
~~ t D. e 4%e.g? % ~ 2-*E- y b i g
mni.
%\% ,)'
- y-l y,5% s.ss s e, saa tavaL - 4vy ~ T+~ -- p % ---
Ks l
/ /
ffj/M..ypi / \ "VNs- T ' 11, <tb
/ ,,,/ ,,vp
- s .. n t>
== st.
, g-.
,/
-[ Tab x '/ To sooo'- '7",.g. c%, I /
, f j
gi:W / }
/ / S. -
A.'n.
* & <- (
s *- Son Onette .. / tyte breeele '.' 'l e..- M j ,; L /
- 2 5 Sen Onofre Ttt? } _ [g. Til?
type breesle % '/ I i?,e ~ 4;-
/ Td
/Tse? 5
; - n..
e Mo '- [ '\ Klh CROSS-SECTION Sl!OWING PELICAN llILL FAUI/P FIGURE PLE-N
4 O + [7 #*c, O g,4lF h - f-q i
% ,l ,
fl#+/j
, 9.c' ' / AilYW
- 9 ' / O C yC i.
l , q
~ %. . h N JOAqu/N )
% .. p H/LLS I
s y% 7 O ,g ,ogi 9,;% BEACH ^T s h 7 f,! Q\ g.
~{
- y. T $
* ;,r . ,T A% r IW. ;)
-t; %
c 77 - C:, lfi -4 f
$[V5W db ,
DANA PK 'ij.i _ { gj. ' ATO O 'Ygeees . O O 'k. 1 LOCATION OF AXES OF QUATERNARY UPWARPING AND DOWNWARPING
i f R '.
- m ... .x f >
' & [
u 4r. Q' . t,.c. l ,
..< 3l ./
l . l ..
'y - . : . . .. ,
Q ,
$ v lfh ?.
~~~' ~
- x. ?'f L*b? N:......... M. .L..:: '"5% &l.m n"sK a . yy ..
/v %I
/.,y. v.,
c.. y,... a w .
* ,\3 :pi \\ c h /.
' ; , o. ( s s
x s w.... .' a .. Ga e. o- V (u + 5 x ss ss m 's Nr s . . vo .e'
%. r:
gs. v o ,f x.. y : 4.:1 , 7a_
...~ ... . .
N s m m...... , ; s
.r.s .
T 4.;s.0.g..~...=.m.O'&e,rs:.c j a.n'k..y <,:. / 4<4<n / -
&\ -
"s ' '
.cu ? . > i m .v .
., .68"! a% % . 'O\slttu%m#;."h. t'
. .& v7 p J i ..a C.s -74 .V;,4 s
.q \ \ ue %.s ,x G hs.+
s 1 -
- 1. a o{; - i :t' 6 -
.'e.~ ~ w;. ,5, . as
'* . / ,\ \ *\ ,;\
)\gI.
; ../
s-
't 9 ' ,,g
.1 a,N ....
.. ,1 \\:,: \, :
i'
, . , ' (.Og 's +- ?.,, .4 I .,
H
.)y d,' v y-g',
', \ \}'
'N '
x ** _s ?"4 I lll Q'
. . a. e<'gw:- p i */ ... r p% .y :~
,s,..
y' -
- s. # y - -
, . 3. s :
. . %x, . . ~~..> :. . . i
- n. -
v, a .,=a., .s:w
.k.. J e ~ ,)f
.av
)
t ,s.;
.[
. sc m
.~.
.i r.
x-e s. -
- m. s. .n...
.)
,r ., . ., .N .
s s c. . . c . . .. , , s.x
, g.
'I O'
\
~\. \ \
?QA;'1.p-(h,c[.i4 '
*\\\
m l ,
\.,,%\ 1n k',s ,'? *- .
p w % y , w ' s. .:g;
, s w
'q t .
l k; ! n e.
~/
Y 'e f f h f, f h ; e s 1. b' [ 'Q,%," i ? $, m4; 4 ' ' Y 1 w ~,.y:y. c,,, . w: e~ Q. . c== /
,..a x g g$re
,& [ ,.
w; . N N
*% .,A.
- *'s c + j ./' e s
1 , f'. / x~.,~,,,,_ c.% s t
. ' ' . N ,,
.. i
- w. . .
%. =.f,s, 9 1' ,; .
~ %- . *l% s
, ,x
.[ O * -. s\ \ '
a.. .; . qm., l.\M.s.x.y 1 9 y, '
*b gg*%gs.
I
=\n. ,,7 s,t ,g '
.& 5e _ . (=_ . effsg... ..' t . _ ..
... f ,,
., s
,O A PORTION OF A GEOLOGIC MAP OF NORTHERN BAJA j FROM GASTIL, 1975, PLATE 1-A Figure PLE-P
1 TESTIMONY OF EDWARD G. HEATH () 2 Q. Would you please state your name? 3 A. Edward G. Heath (])4 Q. By whom are you presently employed? 5 A. I am a geologiet employed by Woodward Clyde Consultants 6 ("WCC"). I am currently a Project Manager and Senior 7 Project Geologist with WCC in their Orange /Los Angeles 8 facility. 9 Q. In what minner are you associated with the Applicants in 10 this pre.ceeding? 11 A. I an responsible for all WCC geologic studies related to 12 the development of a maximum magnitude for the 13 hypothesized offshore Zone of Deformation.("OZD"). Would you please describe your formal education? [}14 Q. 15 A. I received my Master of Arts degree in Geology from the 16 Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California in 1954 17 and my Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geology from Pomona 18 College, Claremont, California in 1952. 19 Q. What professional positions ha 3 you had in the area of 20 Geology? 21 A. I have 27 years of experience in geology with major 22 emphasis in the last 13 years on engineering and seismic 23 geology. I have been with WCC since 1973. 24 From 1968 to 1973 I was with F. Beach Leighton and O 25 Associates, consulting geologists, in LaHabra, 26 California as a project geologist and Vice President. I
1 was a research geologist with the Shell Development Co. () 2 in Houston, Texas from 1966 to 1968 and was the Chief 3 Geologist with the Hydrocarbon Mining group of the Shell 4 (]) 011 Co. in Los Angeles from 1965 to 1966. Prior to that 5 I was a Production Geologist with the Shell Oil Co. in 6 Los Angeles from 1954 to 1966. 7 Q. Have you been associated with any educational 8 institutions? 9 A. I have taught field geology at Whittier College and made 10 presentations in seismic geology to several meetings of 11 the Geologic Society of America and other professional , 12 societies. 13 Q. Do you hold any professional reg:.strations in the S. tate of California or any other state? ()14 15 A. I am a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Registered 16 Geologist in the State of California. I am a certified 17 Petroleum Geologist in the American Association of 18 Petroleum Geologists. I am also currently serving as a 19 Reviewer for the Professional ethics review Committe of 20 the Board of Registration of Geologists and 21 Geophysicists for the State of California. 22 Q. What are your pertinent professional or organizational 23 memberships? 24 A. I have membership in the following professional O 25 organizations: 26 /// O . 2
1 A,terican Association of Petroleum Geologists () 2 Association of Engineering Geologists 3 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute O4 ceotoeic society or ^=eric 5 South Coast Geological Society 6 Q. Have you written or published articles in the field of 7 geology? 8 A. I have published several papers in the field of 9 geology. Those related to seismic geology are listed as 10 follows: 11 " Evidence of Faulting Along a Projection of the San 12 Andreas Fault, south of the Salton Sea," in Geology 13 and Mineral Wealth of the California Desert, South 14 Coast Geological Society, 1980. { 15 " Slip Rates Along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, 16 Los Angeles, California," Geological Society of 17 American Cordilleran Section, Abstracts with 18 Programs, San Jose, California, Vol. 11, No. 3, 19 February 1979, with P. Guptill, R. Sugiura, G. 20 Linkletter, and G. Hawkins. 21 "A Geological-Geophysical Approach Toward Re-22 Analysis of Existing Dam Foundations," Association 23 of Engineering Geologists, Program Abstracts, 1978 24 Annual Meeting, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 1978, with O 25 D. D. Pieratti and D. E. Jensen. 26 /// O 3
1 " Subsurface Investigation of Ground Rupturing () 2 During San Fernando Earthquake," San Fernando, 3 California, Earthquake of February 9, 1971, (]) 4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 5 1973, with F. Beach Leighton. 6 "What Land-Use Planners Need from Geologists," 3 7 Gelogy, seismicily and Environmental Impact, 8 special Publication of Association of Engineering 9 Geologists, October 1975, with R. Henderson and F. 10 Beach Leigh'on. 11 " Geology Along the Whittier Fault, Santa Ana Canyon, 12 California," M.A. Thesis, Claremont Graduate 13 School, 1954.
" Surface Faulting along the Newport Inglewood Zone of
{)14 15 Deformation," (in press), with P. D. Guptill. 16 Q. Have you presented expert opinions or testimony? 17 A. Yes, I presented expert opinion to the ACRS in this 18 proceeding as well as in that for the Vidal Nuclear 19 Generating Station. I have also made presentations as
- 20 an expert at public hearings for seismic safety elements l
21 in the southern California area for the Cities of 22 Glendora, San Dimas, Pomona and Long Beach. 23 Q. on which projects have you been retained as an expert consultant in seismic geology? ()2425 A. In addition to these projects listed in response 10 26 above, I have managed or been the principal engineering O 4
l
, 1 geologist in several other seismic element studies in O
s/ 2 southern California, including the County of Los Angeles 3 and cities of Inglewood, Culver City, and Yorba Linda. () 4 I was also retained by the County of Los Angeles in the 5 post earthquake evaluations of the siting of a new 6 hospital at the Olive View site. I have been retained 7 ay the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the 8 seismic safety re-analysis of several existing dams in 9 southern California and by the Corps of Engineers :o 10 evaluate the active fault and earthquake hazard 11 potential to Prado Dam on the Santa Ana River. 12 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? 13 A. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether based on the geologic and seismic characteristics of the OZD, [])14 15 including its length, assignment of M s 7 as the maximum 16 magnitude earthquake for the OZD renders the seismic 17 design basis for SONGS 2 & 3 inadequate to protect the 18 public health and safety. My testimony will address the 19 assignment of the maximum magnitude earthquake for the 20 OZD. 21 Q. Would you please state your conclusions as to the 22 appropriate value to be assigned for the maximum 23 magnitude earthquake for the OZD? gs 24 A. In my opinion, M 6-1/2 is a reasonable maximum s 25 earthquake magnitude consistent with the geologic and 26 seismologic features of the NIZD. Because the NIZD is () i ( l
1 considered to conservatively represent the earthquake ([) 2 potential of the OZD, transferring M s 6-1/2 to the OZD 3 provides a degree of consertatism for the maximum (]) 4 magnitude estimate for the OZD opposite the site. Based 5 on incorporation of additional conservatism through 6 evaluation of ranges in the slip rate data and review of 7 other elements for assessing the degree of fault 8 activity of the OZD, the most conservative maximum 9 magnitude is M s 7. A larger earthquake is inconsistent 10 with the geologic and seismologic features of the OZD. 11 Q. Would you please describe the methodologies considered 12 and applied in reaching your conclusions? 13 A. Several methodologies were considered in evaluating the maximum earthquake applicable to the OZD. My specific
)14 15 approach uses both a qualitative and quantitative 16 comparison of features, such as maximum historic 17 earthquake, fault rupture length, total displacement, 18 degree of deformation, and long-term slip rate on faults 19 as a means of differentiating and ranking faults and 20 evaluating the earthquake potential of the OZD. I also 21 evaluated rupture-length versus magnitude, and
! 22 displacement-per-event versus magnitude relation? hips, 23 however, use of either of those methodologies alone is 24 not appropriate based upon the uncertainties in the data O 25 base available for the OZD. My degree-of-fault-activity 26 approach is neither independent of, nor is it meant to O 6
1 replace other methods of estimating maximum magnitude. (]) 2 The approach extends existing knowledge and provides a 3 viable supplement to other methods. The 4 []}
- degree-of-fault-activity methodology is presented in 5 Exhibit EGH-1; "NRC Staff Question 361.38 and Parts (a),
6 (b), and (d) of Response". 7 The method for estimating earthquake magnitude is 8 based on comparing the degree of fault activity on the 9 OZD with that of similar faults in the southern 10 California region and in similar tectonic environments 11 around the world. By correlating the levels of activity 12 with the maximum earthquakes associated with those 13 faults an estimate can be made of the maximum earthquake 14 that may be associated with the OZD. The degree-of-15 activity approach considers: relative behavior of 16 faults, particularly in terms of strain relecse or long 17 term slip rates; the size, periodicity, and energy 4 18 release of seismic events; the mechanical and 19 compositional properties of the faults; and the tectonic 20 setting. This approach for a specific fault considers 21 evidence of fault behavior in the following steps: 22 1) the tectonic setting and style of the fault is 23 defined; 24 2) fault activity parameters are compiled for those ( ) 25 faults of interest within the tectonic province. 26 The fault activity factors most accessible and O l l l 7 I l
1 germane to characterize the differences in degree () 2 of fault activity include: slip rate, recurrence 3 for large slip events, slip per event and fault 4 (]) rupture length; 5 3) the degree-of-activity parameters compiled above
. 6 are compared so that the fault of interest is 7 ranked relative to other faults. The degree of 8 activity as measured by the long term, or geologic, 9 slip rate is then compared to the maximum historic 10 earthquakes that have occurred on these faults.
11 From this context, a maximum magnitude limit can be 12 estimated for each fault. 13 Techniques such as using fault-length versus 14 magnitude or amount-of-surface-displacement versus O(~x 15 magnitude incorporate only one or two aspects of fault 16 behavior. Such singular approaches fail to describe the 17 complexities of f ault behavior; for example, such 18 characteristics as those reflecting the degree of 19 activity are not considered (EGH-1). The 20 degree-of-fault-activity methodology incorporates these l 21 characteristics and compares those of the OZD to other i l l 22 faults within the same or similar tectonic environments. 23 The NIZD has been selected as a model to represent i 24 the style of faulting for the entire OZD because the
- O) 25 l
greatest amount of information regarding fault behavior 26 along the OZD is available from the NIZD. The tectonics S
1 of the OZD as defined by the evidence of structural () 2 style along its length is representative of the 3 wrench-style tectonics as defined by Wilcox and others () 4 (Wilcox, R.E,, Harding, T.P. and Seely, D.R., " Basic 5 Wrench Tectonics", 57 American Association of Petroleum 6 Geologists Bulletin, no. 1, 74-96 (1973)) and Harding 7 (Harding, T.P., " Newport-Inglewood Trend, California, An 8 Example of Wrenching Style of Deformation," 57 9 American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 10 No. 1, 97-116 (1973)). The magnitude of the folding and 11 faulting and the historical seimicity on the NIZD are 12 greater than on the other portions of the OZD suggesting 13 that the NIZD has the greatest seismic potential of the three portions, and that it serves as a conservative (])14 15 model to characterize the earthquake potential of the 16 OZD (Exhibit EGH-2, " Report of the Evaluation of Maximum 17 Earthquake and site Ground Motion Parameters As.sociated 18 with the Offshore Zone of Deformation San onofre Nuclear 19 Generating Station, June 1979, Appendix A, "ectonic 20 Setting of the Offshore Zone of Deformation"). l 21 Q. You have stated that the first step in your assessment
- 12 of maximum magnitude is an examination of the tectonic 23 setting and style of the fault in question. Would you 24 describe the tectonic setting and style ei the OZD?
7-t V 25 A. Yes. The major faults of southern California are set 26 forth in Figure EGH-A, " Map of Major Faults in Southern O 9
1 California." Southern California is dominated by the (]) 2 San Andreas fault system, which is the major boundary 3 between the Pacific and North American plates. This (]) 4 system, consisting of the large northwest-trending, 5 right-lateral San Andreas and San d'acinto fault zones, 6 is paralleled to the west by other smallgr right-slip 7 fault zones such as the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone, 8 the OZD and the San Clemente fault. 9 Although all these fault zones show evidence of 10 predominant right slip, the faults westward from the San 11 Angreas fault zone show a general decrease in (1) amount 12 of total displacement, (2) continuity of su; face trace, 13 and (3) amount of seismic activity. 14 A detailed discussion of this fault system is 15 presented in EGH-2 and concludes that by far the 16 greatest amount of post middle Miocene regional 17 displacement has occured along the San Andreas-San 18 Jacinto fault zone and that the faults to the west are 19 characterized by less historical seismicity, smaller 20 total displacements and lower geologic slip rates. 21 The OZD consists of three tectonic elements 1) 22 Newport-Inglewood zone of deformation (NIZD), 2) South 23 Coast Offshore zone of deformation (SCOZD), and 3) Rose 24 Canyon fault zone (RCFZ); Figure EGH-B, " Location Map O 25 Hypothesized OZD". The three elements extend from the 26 Santa Monica Mountains southward to offshore of the 10 (
1 Mexican-American international border, a distance of () 2 approximately 200 km. The OZD passes by the SONGS site 3 about 8 kilometers (5 miles) to the west. Several 4 geologic features are common to each of,the segments of (]) 5 the OZD These features include north to 6 northwest-trending en echelon fault segments, aligned 7 and en echelon drag fold anticlines, and numerous 8 smaller second-order faults intersecting the r.; mary 9 faults, all suggestive of predominant wrench faulting 10 (Harding, suora). However, there appears to be a 11 progressive change in the amount and style of faulting 12 between the elements. Starting at the north, the NIZD 13 is characterized by discontinuous faults and folds that have evidence of right-lateral displacement of [ } 14 15 post-middle Miocene basin sediments. The SCOZD to the 16 south displays a pattern >f similar wrench fault 17 tectonism; however, it lacks direct evidence for the 18 amount of lateral or vertical displacement. The RCFZ, 19 .at the south end of the OZD, displaya evidence for bcth 20 strike-slip and normal faulting but lacks conclusive 21 evidence of the amount of either type of displacement. 22 Prior investigators of the RCFZ suggest highly differing 23 interpretations, ranging from mostly strike-slip 24 faulting to mostly dip-slip faulting. Locally, folding 25 in the western block of the RCFZ has produced an 26 apparent reversal of faulting style, such as at O 11
1 Mt. Soledad where the western block has been raised, and () 2 at Mission Bay where the western block has been dropped. 3 Of the three fault elements, the NIZD is best ; 4 documented and has the most complete geologic data base (]) 5 because it has been extensively explored and studied by 6 oil companies, as discussed in EGH-2. The NIZD consists 7 of: a series of short, discontinuous, 8 northwest-trending en echelon, right-lateral faults; a : 9 northwest-trending series of relatively shallow drag 10 fold anticlines; and numerous short subsidiary normal 11 sud reverse, faults. This tectonic style is 12 representative of right-lateral, wrenen faulting; Figure 13 EGH-C, " Structure Along the NIZD". (cf. Harding, cupra). The most recent period of deformation along the [)14 15 NIZD appears to have begun contemporaneous with the 16 deposition of uppermost Miocene marine sediments and has 17 continued at more or less the same rate up to the
- 18 present time. Several geologic observations support 19 continued deformation since Miocene: (1) the Miocene 20 units are displaced laterally a greater distance than 21 are the overlying younger units, as discussed in Exhibit 22 EGH-3, " Report of the Evaluation of Maximum Earthquake 23 and Site Ground Motion Parameters Associated with the 24 offshore Zone of Defermation, San Onofre Nuclear O 25 Generating Station, June 1979, Appendix B, Estimates of i
l 26 Displacement Along the Newport-Inglewood Zone of (} 12
1 Deformation Based on E-log Correlations" and Exhibit (]) 2 EGH-4, "NRC Staff Question 361.61 and Response"; 3 (2) these Miocene units also show more structural relief 4 on the major anticlinal structures than do the younger []} 5 units, which indicates evidence of structure growth 6 during deposition; and (3) the time-displacement plots 7 discussed in EGH-2 and EGH-4, suggest that intermittent 8 horizontal displacement has produced a relatively 9 consistent average slip rate since late Miocene. 10 The tectonic structure of the South Coast offshore 11 Zone of Deformation (SCOZD) was evaluated through 12 exanination of offshore geophysical reflection profiles; 13 Exhibit EGH-5, " Report of the Evaluation of Maximum 14 Earthquake and Site Ground Motion Parameters Associated 15 with the Offshore Zone of Deformation San Onofre Nuclear 16 Generating Station June 1979, Appendix D, South Coast 17 Offshore Zone of Deformation Geophysical Data". This 18 interpretation by Western Geophysical depicts the 19 apparent tectonic deformation of two deeply buried h 20 reflecting horizons, and shows the SCOZD to consist of a 21 cone of branching and discontinuous faults trending 22 south to southeast about 8 kilometers (5 miles) seaward 23 of the SONGS site; Figure EGH-D " Horizon B Contour". 24 Local northwest- to west-trending anticlinal folds in O 25 the shallower horizons are also associated with this 26 cone and, together with the faults, appear to reflect a ( 13
1 tectonic style similar to that of the NIZD, but of a () 2 lower level of deformation. l 3 The RCFZ consists of a zone of northwest and 4 (]) north-striking faults both offshore north of La Jolla 5 and south of Coronado, and onshore in San Diego be: ween 6 La Jolla and Coronado. The RCFZ is believed to die out 7 toward the south in the vicinity of the international 8 border west of Imperial Beach (Figure EGH-E, " Southern 9 RCFZ", from Kennedy, M.P. and Welday, E.E. " Recency and 10 Character of Faulting Offshore Metropolitan San Diego, 11 California", California Division of Mines and Geology 12 Map Sheet 40 (1980)). 13 The onshore segment in the vicinity of Rose Canyon has been interpretec as having evidence of right-lateral ()14 15 displacement (Kennedy, M.P. " Geology of the San Diego 16 Metropolitan Area, California California Division of 17 Mines and Geology Bulletin 200 (Part A) (1975); Moore 18 and Kennedy, M.P. "Quarternary Faults at San Diego Bay, 19 California, 3 U.S. Geological Survev Journal of 20 Research, 589-595 (1975)). Folding is evident along the 21 western block, which has produced both normal and 22 reverse fault relationships across the RCFZ (EGH-2). A 23 strike-slip style of deformation with:n the RCFZ has 24 been suggested on the basis of the postulated displaced O 25 stratigraphic units and other features such as 26 slickensides that have been observed on individual O 14
. . - - , - . , ,_.,_.--w., _
, - _ , , - - - - - , , _ , . . , _ , , , , , , , _ _._,m , ,,___,_,_-e 4e e r -'---'i- - - - - -e--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -e-w+ v
1 faults within the zone. Measurements of displacements ([) 2 are difficult to corroborate and those reported in the 3 literature are at best speculative. (Exhibit EGH-6, ({} 4 "NRC Staff Question 361.44 and part K of Response"). 5 Although the available data provide no unique . 6 geologic line that can be used as a piercing point for 7 the precise determination of net slip along the RCFZ, S evaluation of geologic evidence indicates tht some 9 dip-slip displacements exist and an indeterminate but 10 - small amount of strike-slip is probable in the San Diego 11 area. Threet (Threet, R.L., " Rose Canyon Fault: An 12 Alternative Interpretation" in Earthcuakes and other 13 Perils, San Diego Region (Abott, P.L. and Elliot, W.J., 14 eds.). p.61-71 (1979)) discusses the published estimates 15 of strike-slip displacement focussing on the fundamental 16 problems of interpretations and he provides alternative 17 interpretations to those of Kennedy and Moore (e.g. 18 Moore and Kennedy, supra (1975); Kennedy, Tan, Chapman, 19 and Chase " Character and Recency of Faulting in San 20 Diego Metropolitan Area, California," California 21 Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123 (1975); 22 and Kennedy, supra (1975)). The data pertaining to the 23 published displacements are discussed in EGH-6. 24 Recently acquired evidence of faulting in San Diego is O 25 presented in Artim and Streiff, " Trenching the Rose 26 Canyon Fault Zone San Diego, California", Final O 15
Y l l 1 Technical Report U.S. Geological Survey Contract No. () 2 14-08-0001-19118 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 3 Program (1981). () 4 The southern terminous of the RCFZ, occurs as a 5 series of sub parallel en echelon fault traces south and 6 west of Coronado. The main traces as defined by Kennedy 7 and Welday, suora, are the Spanish Bight, Coronado and 8 Silver Strand Faults. These are north-south striking 9 faults that become less continuous and tend to die out 10 southward from Coronado before reaching the 11 international border. 12 Q. You hr.ve stated that the NIZD conser' tively represents 13 the earthquake potential of the OZD. On what basis do you reach that conclusion? l j (])14 15 A. The NIZD is a representative model of the 03D because of 16 the similarities in structural style among the three 17 elements of the OZD, and because of the extensive and 18 high-quality data available regarding the style and 19 amount of the deformation along the NIZD. The available 20 surface and subsurface geologic data allow a higher 21 degree of accuracy in assessing the amount and rate of 22 faulting and folding for the purpose of estimating the 23 maximum earthquake to be assigned to the OZD. Of the 24 three elements of the OZD, the NIZD has by far the 25 highest levels of both historical and recorded seismic 26 activity. It has produced two damaging earthquakes, one 16 l
- - - , - _ _ . , . . _ - _ - _ _ . - . - . - . _ - . . _ - . _ . . . - . - - - - - - - . - - - ...-- -~---
1 in Inglewood in 1920, having an estimated magnitude of () 2 4.9, and the other in Long Beach in 1933, having a 3 recorded magnitude of 6.3. The NIZD is considered to be (]) 4 a conservative model for the other segments because (1) 5 it has a higher level of historical seismicity; (2) it 6 has the most prominent surficial anticlines and short 7 but prominent fault scarps; (3) it is coincident with a 8 Mesozoic basement rock discontinuity not known to exist 9 beneath the SCOZD or tne RCFZ; and (4) it is closer to 10 the area of high stress at the interaction between the 11 San Andreas fault system and the Transverse Range than 12 are the other segments of the OZD to the south. 13 Q. You state that the next step in your evaluation is to examine in a qualitative and quantitative manner, the ( } 14 15 geologic parameters of strike-slip faults. Would you 16 de ,cribe the comparisons you made for the OZD? 17 A. Comparison of faults covers a broad range of possible 18 systems for differentiating faults. Among systems for l 19 comparing faults are: 1) the relative importance of a l l 20 fault in its structural-tectonic setting, 2) relative i l 21 rates of deformation, 3) fault lengths, 4) seismicity, 22 5) relative geomorphic expression of the faults and 6) 23 degree of segmentation. s 24 one of the quantitative methods for comparing 25 faults is by geologic slip-rate; this method is 26 particularly useful because it describes quantitatively 17
1 the relative degree of activity of faults in their () 2 present tectonic setting, and it incorporates properties 3 of the mechanics and behavior of faults, including () 4 stress accumulation, strain release in earthquakes, and 5 recurrence intervals of earthquakes. Because geclogic 6 slip rates reflect average fault displacements during a 7 relatively long time interval, the behavior of faults in 8 the past can be evaluated and can provide a basis for 9 projection of fault behavior into the future. 10 A table comparing fault parameters of the San 11 Andreas, San Jacinto, and Whittier-Elsinore faults, and 12 the hypothesized OZD is presented in Figure EGH-F 13 " Southern California Strike - Slip Fault Zones Characteristics and Ranking Criteria". More detailed (])14 15 information on the hypothesized OZD from north to south 16 is summarized in Figure EGH-G, " Comparison of Zone , 17 Characteristics North to South Along the Hypothesized 18 offshre Zone of Deformation. 19 The general conclusions that can be drawn from 20 comparing degree-of-activity parameters presented in 21 EGH-F and ECH-G are: 1) the major plate motions between 22 the North American and Pacific Plates is occurring along 23 the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones and has 24 continued to do so for at least the past 5 million 25 years; 2) this is particularly well demonstrated by 26 comparing total displacement across the faults and the l l 18 l l
a 1 long term geologic slip rates of the faults; and 3) () 2 'there is a consistent decrease in essenti:11y all of the 3 measurable parameters westward from the major plate (]) 4 boundary faults to the OZD suggesting that the OZD is a 5 less significant fault with a much lower level of earth 6 quake potential than the more activie faults along the 7
- plate boundary.
8 Q. Would you describe precisely how you used the foregoing 9 degree of activity approach to assign a maximum 10 magnitude for the OZD? 11 A. As stated earlier the cegree-of-fault-activity method is 12 a broadbased multiparameter method of considering 13 various geologic and seismologic characteristic in comparing and ranking of faults. This approach leads to { } 14 15 a generalized categorization of faults and their 16 earthquake potential. 17 In addition to this qualitative analysis several 18 other methods were considered in making a quantitative 19 catimate of the maximum earthquake applicable to the 20 OZD. These methods include analysis of maximum historic 21 earthquakes, fault rupture-length versus magnitude 22 relationships, displacement versus magnitude 23 relationships, and long term or geologic slip rate on a 24 fault versus the maximum historic earthquake. O 25 If we review the historical seismicity of the OZD 26 and other strike-slip faults in southern California the O 19
1 following conclusions can be made: 1) seismicity is () 2 lower along the OZD than for other major stike-slip 3 fault zones in southern California; 2) the major () 4 interplate motion is occurring on the San Andreas and 5 San Jacinto faults and to a lesser degree on the faults 6 to the west; 3) the maximum historical earthquake on the 7 oZD is the 1933 Long Beach event--M 6.3; 4) the 8 estimated maximum magnitude for the zone could be 9 expected to be somewhat greater than the h.storical 10 M s 6.3 but less than that for the more active zones such 11 as Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas; and 5) the 12 subsurface rupture length of the _?33 earthquake, based 13 on aftershock data was 30 km, this approaches the maximum measured fault segment length for the NIZD and (])14 15 thus the M 3 6.3 event may be close to the maximum for 16 this zone. 17 The rupture length and displacement-per-everit 18 methods of estimating earthquake magnitudes involves the 19 use of empirical relationships between length of strface 20 rupture or amount of surface displacement per event and ( l 21 magnitude. Commonly, the consieration of fault length 22 is used by selecting the half-fault length as a maximum 23 potential rupture length. This method is commonly app 12ed in the absence of other data and sometimes even l 7-)24
%i i 25 to the exclusion of other data. From empirical data 26 (Slemmons, D.B., " State-of-the-Art for Assessing l
20 i L -
1 Earthquake Hazards in the United States, Report 6: () 2 Faults and Earthquake Magnitude", U.S. Army Corps of 3 Engineers, Miscellaneous Paper 5-73-1 (1977)) we can see () 4 that style of faulting and tectonic setting directly 5 affect the relationship between magnitude and length of 6 rupture and the amount of surface displacement. We also 7 know that strike-slip faults do not necessarily rupture 8 their half lengths (" Safety Evaluation Report Related to 9 the Operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 10 Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, 11 (NUREG-0712)." Appendix E, p.1-28 (1981)). For 12 example, the San Jacinto fault generally is not believed 13 to rupture half of its length, but rather segment (])14 lengths that are '.ess than 30 percent the total fault 15 length. With this in mind, if we look at the rupture 16 length versus magnitude methed for the OZD we find that 17 the lengths of the various segments provide limits on 18 the maximum magnitude that could be expected from the 19 zone. Total segment lengths for faults in the younger 20 geologic formations (upper Miocene and Pliocene), as l 21 defined in the subsurface by drilling and geophysical 22 exploration along the OZD, are presented in EGH-F and i 23 EGH-G. The longest segments of each of the elements of i n 24 the OZD range = em 27 to 48 km and if you assume full ! U l 25 rupture length and obtain an estimate of maximum 26 /// l (2) 21
1 magnitude from Slemmon's, supra, relationships you get I (]) 2 magnitude ranges from M s 6.6 to Ms 6.9. 3 Nowhere along the OZD is there good evidence of the 4 amount of surface displacement that has occurred from ({} 5 single major past earthquakes. Evidence of possible 6 surface displacement during the 1933 Long Beach 7 earthquake has recently been uncovered. This data 8 showed apparent offsets in the surficial units, however, 9 it provides no actual horizontal or vertical 10 displacemert measurements. (Guptill, P. D. and Heath, 11 E. G., " Surface Faulting Along the Newport-Inglewood 12 Zone of Deformation",(in press)). Therefore we cannot 13 directly apply the displacement per event versus (~3 14 magnitude methodology to the OZD. However, we can (_/ 15 estimate how much surface displacement might be expected 16 for hypothetical earthquakes of various sized large 17 events and then test the likelihood that such 18 displacements could have occurred on the OZD. Based on 19 the relationships of Slemmons, supra, a magnitude 6 1/2 20 earthquake could produce up to 1 meter of lateral 21 surface rupture, EGH-1. This appears feasible for the 22 zone. Similarly a magnitude 7 earthquake could produce 23 up to 1.7 meters of dispicement. Such displacement also 24 appear feasible but should be readily visible in the O 25 geologic record, and geologists have not reported 26 evidence of such observed displacements. A hypothetical O 21
1 earthquake of magnitude 7 1/2 could produce up to 3.2 () 2 meters of surface displacement in,a single-event, but 3 surface displacements of this amount are not supported (]) 4 by geological evidence and are certainly not 5 characteristic of the OZD. 6 In order to assess the degree of activity of the 7 various faults in terms of geologic slip rate a 8 literature search was conducted to estimate the 9 displacements with time and thus geologic slip rates of 10 the NIZD, other strike-slip faults in southern 11 California, and other strike-slip faults from similar 12 tectonic settings around the world. Available data of 13 fault displacements and slip-rate estimates were compiled and are presented in Exhibit EGH-7, "NRC Staff ({} 14 15 Question 361.45 and part (e) of Response". However, 16 because the literature on the NIZD provided a wide range 17 of poorly constrained estimates, it was necessary to 18 evaluate long-term geologic slip rates by interpreting 19 subsurface geologic data. Hill applied a technique 20 utilizng oil well electric legs, which record the 21 lithologisic facies relationships of layered geologic 22 units, to estimate the total fault displacement that has ! 23 occurred since these units were deposited. (Hill, M .'L . , . 24 "rectonics of Faulting in Southern California" in 25 Geology of Southern California: California Division of f 26 Mines and Geology Bulletin 170, (Jahns, R.H. ed) p. 5-13 O 23
1 (1954); and Hill, M.L., " Newport-Inglewood Zone and O 2 Mesozoic Subduction California," 82 Geological Society s_/ 3 of America Bulletin 2957-2962 (1971)) This process was () 4 applied in three areas along the NIZD to estimate the 5 geologic slip rates from displacements recorded in upper 6 Miocene and Pliocene rocks, see Figure EGH-H, 7 " Horizontal Geologic Slip Rate, Seal Beach and 8 Huntington Beach, Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation" 9 and Figure EGH-I, Horizontal Geologic Slip Rate, Long 10 Beach, Newport-Inglewood Zone of Deformation". All of 11 the slip-rate data for faults considered in this 12 analysis were compiled and aresented in EGH-7. 13 The data for slip rates were selected specifica]1y for strike-slip faults in southern California and for {])14 15 strike-slip faults in other similar tectonic 16 environments. Selection of faults was carefully limited 17 to California-style strike-slip faults because 18 fundamental differences in fault behavior appear to 19 exist between this group of faults and normal dip-slip 20 faults, reverse faults and other strike-slip faults 21 (e.g. Japan) of different tectonic environments. These 22 differences are discussed i.. Exhibit EGH-8, "NRC Staff , 23 Question 361.47 and Response". Because slip rate is perhaps the most quantitative ()24 25 measure of the degree of activity of a fault a plot of l 26 slip rate versus maximum historical magnitude was b 24
l 1 constructed as a method to compare those measures of () 2 fault behavtor. This was done by plotting the geologic 3 slip-rate from Tables 361.45-2 and 361.45-3 of EGH-7 O4 aeainse the maenitudes of the lareest historical . 5 earthquakes on these faults in a semi-log format of 6 slip-rate versus maximum magnitude; see Figure EGH-J, 7 " Empirical Plot, Geologic-Slip Rate Versus Historical 8 Magnitude for Strike-Slip Faults" (from Figure 361.45-1 9 in EGH-7). The pattern of historic earthquake data 10 presented in EGH-J indicates a trend of increasing 11 maximum earthquakes with increasing geologic slip rates. 12 In order to evalutate the slip-rate relatiership, a 13 line can be drawn bounding these empirical observations as shown in Figure ECH-K, " Historical Earthquake Limit, ( ) 14 1 15 Geologic Slip Rate Versus Historical Magnitude For 16 Strike-Slip Faults", (from Figure 361.45-3 in EGH-7). 17 This line suggests that there is a consistent limit to 18 the size of an earthquake associated with the geologic 19 slip rate of these strike-slip faults. This assumes 20 that some of the strike-slip faults in the world h. ave 21 had maximum or close-to-maximum earthquakes and that 22 when these maximum data points are enveloped, they form 23 a inaximum Historic Earthquake Limit 'HEL) related to 24 slip rate. O 25 Several procedures can be used to assess the 26 conservatism and the significance of this observational r b 25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b
1 limit. One' method is to consider the ranges of slip O> k- 2 rate and magnitude data obtained from' published and 3 unpublished sources. The data presented in Tables () 4 361.45-2 and 361.45-3 of EGH-7 provide for this 5 assessment of uncertainty in the data interpretation. 6 To account for possible uncertainty in earthquake 7 magnitude values, a magnitude range is assigned to each 8 earthquake. The earliset surface wave magnitude 9 estimates were considered to be dependable to one 10 quarter of a unit (Richter, C.F., Elementary Seismology, 11 p. 347 (1958)). Modern estimates, based on a larger and 12 better distributed set of stations, are dependable to 13 one tenth of a unit at a confidence level of 95% (e.g., (]) 14 Shimazaki D. and Somerville, P, " Static and Dynamic 15 Parameters of the Izu-oshima, Japan Earthquake of 16 January 14,1978", 69 Seist.nlogical Society of America 17 Bulletin, 1343-1378 (1979)). The Applicants, therefore, 18 conclude that a value of two tenths of a unit plus or 19 minus is a conservative estimate of the uncertainty 20 associated with surface wave magnitude estimates. 21 To account for variations in slip rate the ranges 22 of data were evaluated and have been included in Figure 23 EGH-L, " Data Range Analysis, Geologic Slip Rate Versus em 24 Historical Magnitude For Strike-slip Faults", (from O 25 Figure 361.45-2 in EGH-7). The variations shown 26 represent the widest reasonable ranges of data as l I 26
1 discussed in available literature. These ranges of slip r~T i (_/ 2 rates can be used in conjunction with the magnitude 3 ranges to establish a Maximum Earthquake Limit line () 4 (MEL), see Figure EGH-M, " Maximum Earthquake Limit, L Geologic Slip Rate Versus Historical Magnitude For 6 Strike-slip Faults", (from Figure 361.45-4, in EGH-7). 7 The MEL is drawn to envelope the lowest slip-rate ranges 8 and the maximum-magnitude ranges of all the data 9 points. The most conservative use of the line is to 10 estimate a ma:<imum earthquake by reading the MEL value 11 based on the maximum slip-rate value provided for each 12 fault. We believe that the MEL line represents an outer 13 bound for maximum magnitude that should not be exceeded (^)14 by future carthquakes on these faults. This line does v 15 not mean that cach of these faults is capable of the MEL 16 " ' earthquake, but only that this line should not be 17 exceeded by future earthquakes. 18 This relationship was used to estimate the maximum 19 magnitude earthquake on the NIZD, On the basis of the 20 most conservative interpretation of the MEL line, the 21 maximum magnitude for the NIZD associated with the 22 highest slip rate of 0.68 mm/ year results in Ms 7.0. A 23 comparison between magnitudes predicted for numerous
- 24 strike-slip faults using the slip-rate methodology and 25 magnitudes based on the rupture length-magnitude 26 methodology is provided in EGH-1, Section 361.38(b).
O)
\_
i 27
1 The comparison shows that the results of the half fault 2 length rupture approach is consistent with the results 3 predicted from the Historical Earthquake Limit (HEL) and O4 the a.xi- sarthquae umit <xzt). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 O 24 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 25 O 28
N. ,
., \
\
E O i
- I O 'D-q' 4 s. &
'. / ',
[\ g$ \\ '*..Y O t
'g 4/ '.
.N - .NT
; i:0 k 4 's 2 -
**s ID ;k .
's E
[ (,cf l0 > C mN\,
'\,
N., l 's
% N. ' .
'N -
$ X X . _. ',
l s N N ~' '- L,@ N N '%."'s+ 'g.N.
'N
. 'x_.y* s s N s, I
/ P3ymondp . ,,,, ...- ,,
\ m
\, 'x, \, ':::g3 %hgy'y
, ~% -~~'
'\,' '\,, dNs.,.,~'*:#f%;\%
N ,\k ,
\%gt,o,
N',' ,
N,N
. 'f .3 "Shk,k' d\%
N,N 2 g ,
%_.y'
's, , 'N ' J' -* ~ ,,,_. . . . .-
" ~ ~
- o, i
_{. 's , ' g?,+ '.,~,\_ (k.
,r L
\s. s ,, j
\,
- sy.
'\ s \ ,\,% MEXICO Sente I ', -
'k-
-{-s.
sa , g4-o 50 100 Miles 1
'i 4,'.
\ h
/"
o 50 10 0 150 Kms O <Moet<i e <<om Aii a et i ' ass: c iitomi oea rtm at o<
- t r ae o"re*> '954 : "- rv 'SSo: "tii 'S'S)-
MAP OF MAJOR FAULTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SONGS 2 & 3 FIGURE EGH-A
O i i k y O NEWPORT INGLEWOOD s- ZONE OF DeFORuAriON J s
.\
A
$. Y e ' s.
9 't O %
% O s
\. %
i. 5 SOUTH COAST OFFSilORE O / ZONE OF DEFORMATION
$ 5 O %
- o SAN ONOFRE y , SITE f
i O
)
, O Y g m m i O
% :D f.
SCALE E O 10 MILES
~ ~ ~ >
-4 f(j
) ROSE CANYON I FAULT ZONE O 10 KILOMETERS "" 'l EEEECE3 O {
O <
= l 5 LOCATION MAP HYPOTHESIZED OZO O . SONGS 2 n FIGURE EGH-B l
V r\ %./
; :e-s .
'eno ' -
% h iNGLt.o
\ , \
h., g '\ w;
.g Q ,oi. .o
.. Yh.
e
", g ,5 g
.,.J***, N
%. N s
~, , *;
/
(f \'.. ' s
)yOSECRANSN
,3
,, y g
. x 1
O 'O fg+,*r,C. . l '-
~
* * ~t ',' ..,
.,s ,
N..- , 's, _, p
*g s j . %s % .' LONCliaCa, N
.n %-Q%e,
~
n, g c r *0 ,"[ ', ' 3 s ' statstac rat os vi mot s 7 f . , ' ,, %, ' A '\ ,' s D' e , a s * *
%,.v................... ...
. . . - v. .=a w ,. ..o. u s .
SOUTHWESTERN $HELF AND NEWrORT INGLEWOOD TRENO t> b . . . .. . . . .. .. .. a - , co * ' * ",5 ,
-Siruciwre of north.est and central part of Ne. pori.inglewood trend (.,ih od 6 elds named) and south.e,iern shelf of Los
^"**""~
(From Harding,1973) O) L FIGURE EGH-C STRUCTURE ALONG THE NIZD
\ <N
/N '/N ,
llyl { ! i i
\,
s
[) ,I~~l z
y li ' t. i f . _ g s E o
'l; 9j 6[: N / ti = N
/ 1. Ec$ t!!" c5n<;f t-y 41 -%tlP ,' m u.fli
!!8 .I - ! EEa I h 4 SM,2 o $ ,, / in. a l
b
'e I!'
_ ,1 9 I ! 0f k b Q h,, i r
- h"% -1 9; :...
10 i Pe ins i
's:
i I,{il /
- x /y, '
/ E "3 <
2 8 i
$ ! f[,'l { $* $ [ # U C
'..Y]
*
- N
/ g w
.k ! L.!f
..;t $ I ..![ j . -
-? . N
- Z w q le a '
\x c:-
x ,- y e . .4 f, .:p'q ..; ( 8 p
./s l! ls m
l
*- s.
. , ./
r,e s G-
-' ',0 __ g 'lI' N
,i ' l . 'I'
['EN 1l-l //*xO k.37 g ..v
^ 8 '
g N.' , s -
,,s , s N<
'S ) '
x, a n.9,. .Q 's
- s. fe N' d ij,i ( ,
.6 ./
ti .J x'c:.- i,..i s s
,/
. 0 y ,
$*f '
f'\ % x m
'd
.-cf.'N s ' "s p.X; w- ,?
? [ .
s
' [/p- g,- .,
~,.* ~a '- - * '
. ~ , v t ~ s. , ,
~
} 'ga M (s ,
- k';[^.
N \ ~2 .:,y. < <:.,' Ng .~. si.y y r.~,pt, -a 'n N eJ
~ -
. - i , . . ,
s
.'s w n'r.. ,a N y ,ek '*s -U
~ '
.. .xv. -
F - s .
. ,e
. . ,; v s% s
/ ..
' ~> .
. - ,J
'N iO
./
.f- 44 2 . . .. e e, s, e.'
'. \
j s ;
./ , ..
\[ -
- , om I
% .,g ' 4 ',%
-x Y e g .O. 9,- nggMg g,s . ii.g' , -
v- . /. p \, '
.N, og e .
s , N : . ::=
~
,/
~
s
/
c* '\,,e
+ A, 4 n b.hd.hk n %, T.y '
4 1s.
- lx., .-
, l}, x k
.. r.
i..
, . q' c
o, .* '- %- h' '
,, , ,. 4 g
\ , a: / / 'S' I ' pf'i?'9 *
~
I >/ s .. tre. , .;'NFJ tr% fi 4v. a i
- - /
~- 2..
j.x' /' j '
)',s,\ x,, " ag,e sK . u&....
~
. ..+7 --
. y , . 'o a se, g .
s T* ,s' , v 's b. p .*. .,,, s .,-.
% l ,
~ , -/ ,,
'N N $,l ....y.oh~h.8. .f
u - N <.d.? / .,.... xs .
,3 , f . s s
/ >g r
s /
,. .\ m.
q
\/ ,
'.l.E.j,'!s _ G) $j_ : .u IA/,t + ,O'h (L ,
t
, .s ,/, v ( / _. ' .
/
1.' . ., .. / ss t # , '. . a' I ...
O . O *o.'
~ ;
-r , .
f L.s.n. g,
. -+
9 ,
> f O l
~
O m s
' 'o -
i I J. n . 0%t )
, San
[' <
%, Diego j
.i I \
sr u s - \ u..e r i
.^ %n .
l I esoren .
,i wise cau.aag 1
Q Q - s -
$ ~g\ ~o,,ono,
+-. ; gx ~,
3, s ! is \w a o j E} 825 o 7h s Chulo
"" l/
m (ri a
\' i
,i 1
2 i i - gi 1 x M
'*I*'
N 8'**" O h L
\ l
- I;S 8 mitts @ 5g .-
si?* at s' Figure 2. Generalized f ault mop of offshore oreo stua.ed and immediately odgocent onshore cres. From Kennedy and Welday, 1080 O FIGURE EGH-E SOUTHERN RCFZ l
f3 U
"Nr.,2
. 361.38-2 SCLN CA;IlmaA S R rI-SI.!P FA:OT DE3 OiA%'.';T.RISTICS MC RME!!G CR."'GIA s
) r,e mz eT zo-cencRE-OiARA7. Jt.!S ICS SAN M.*FIAS SAN JACIN:0 IA.JA SA*.KA HY1U: MESI *ED C:D tbtal length - 1300 nca Total length - 260 m Total length - 339 ica Tctal length - 2001cn Ir;* rial-Cerro Prieto se; ent - 180 )cn (L-,erial Valley to 11f of California)
Scuthetri tana Linda- mittier - 42 icn N::D - 70 len seg u nt - 225 )cn Clanrent - 97 icn Cuno - 32 km Se;-e.nt lengths - 6.5-36 Icn Casa tona- Eagle-Glen SCD= - 75 + Icn (Ca3on Pr.ss to Sevent largths 27 )cn L-perial Valley) Clark - 126 k:r Ivy - 43 ics DL ensions and Central (byote Creek - 60 F.s Wildcrar- (Hertson B) segunt - 330 icn Superstiticn Elsinore - 160 len PCT: - 65 + Icn Sepentation (Parx.fleid to Mcnrstain - Se*, ics taguna Sevent lengths " % '-3 Seperstition Salada 80 lan Ca3cn Pass) Creep ses ent - 135 ics Hills - 53 Icn (Hollister to Parkfield) Northern seg ent - 435 ict (Cape Merskacito to Hollister) Meal 300 )cs 24 1cn 8-13 )cn 3 km Displacenent (Plioce'4) (Tentary) (t)pper Miomne-NI:D) (Maocene<retacuo:s) Distance frcrn Sa- Ardreas Faalt 0 k:n 0-48 ics 40-80 len 62-150 k:n T i (Plate Boutary) %J Historic P.:pture Imrgth 435 icn 33 k:n (Coyote Creek) tyA 30 k:n (Northern Seg ent) (Aftershock :ene - N::D) Historic Displacenent 6.1 m .38 m (Coyote Creek) N/A 31 .46 m (Sels: tic Mcrent - NI D) Discontir:Lous en ecelon Great Continuity th echelon Seg ents In eneelon Sepents segmnts Continuity I.ong linear surface Strong linear trerds rinear scarps, offset th enchelcn large felds at and scarps, neerms in young alluvi c , alluvial fans and rcrth e:d wit *t s.s11er aM Gecrcrpnic traces; traces sag- water tiarriers; sag stres s but faalt scre gentle folding to the Feat.:res gest great conti.nuity; depressicns, offset trace vanishes fre- south. Occasional linear sag pods, offset strea: s ard tcpo- quently in younger faalt scarps at north erd strea-s and topo- gra;ny, linearity sedL9ents sag de- with ro persistant scarps to grapny are ccntinuity rot as pressior.s the scush. pronounced as San Ardreas Histcric High in the north, icw in Selsnacity Wry Migh Wry High Ptaderate central ard n2thern areas pan t,mm liistoric 6.7,(1968 Coyote Creeit) 5.5-6 (1910) , Magnit.ade, M, 8.2 (1857) 7.1 (19401.perial) 6.3 (1933 - NI D) Geologic 2.3 er/yr (Elsincre} Slip Rate 37 nrvyr B urVyr 1.2 prVyr Ot.itt.Ler) 0.5 erVir (NIO) a FIGURE EGH-F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STRIKE-SLIP FAULT ZONES CHARACTERISTICS AND RANKING CRITERIA
O O O O O TABLE 361.38-3 COiPARISO1 OP ZOE CilARACTEltISTICS NORTil 'IO S3."I11 AIft1G , 'IllE IlYIOlllESIZED OFFSilOIE ZOtE OF DEFDI@iATION tJOR'lli CEtTI1tAL SOUlli FAUUP RELA'11CD !EMIDRP-INCIDJ000 SOUI11 COAST OFFSilORE IOSH CNiYON CilAlmCTEllISTICS ZOE OF IX:FDitMATIO1 ZOE OF DEFORMATIO1 FAULT ZOE ] 'Ibtal length '70 km 75 i km 651 km Maximtra Segrrent Irngth 18 km (36 km combined) 27 + km (Ilorizon "B") 48 1 km (offshore) Structural Features Large en echelon folds, Smaller en echelon folds, Gentle folds on op[n-En echelon faults, folds, En echelon site sides of fault North trending branch faults, North zone, faults near basement trending branch En echelon faults faults near basement Continuity of Iow en echelon folds, Little to none Main fault segments 1 Geonon) hic features short fault scarps Fault scarps up to terxl to follow Itose 1/2 neter Canyon, No persistent fault scarps Distance fran 62 - 80 km 85 - 130 km 110 - 150 km l San Andreas Pault J (Plate Boundary) llistoric Seismicity liigh Very Im Im Maximtun Ilistoric 6.3 (1933) 4.5 (1969) 3.7 (1958) Eartix;uake - Ms llistoric Hupture length 30 km U.K. U.K. l (Aftershock Zone) Geologic Slip Rate 0.5 nny'yr U.K. Indeterminant, see Ibsponses to Question 361.44 k) l FIGURE EGH-G COMPARISON OF ZONE CHARACTERISTICS NORTH TO SOUTH ALONG THE HYPOTHESIZED OFFSHORE ZONE OF DEFORMATION
15 14 - ' 4 - 13 - 12 -
/
11 E a C
* /, HUNTINGTON BEACH W 10 f '
w3 -
- u. 2 O u.
9 - 8 O z 5 o 8 5 g f f
/
S b 9 /* 7 -P p -
$ Z2
=
s 2 y6 7 5 a E J / SEAL BEACH OE5 -i ) 4 - i 1 3 - 4 2 - s @/ o-1 l 1 l i f I I i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AGE (MILLIONS OF YEARS) PLEISTOCENE PLIOCENE MIOCENE UPPER {~ LOWER - UPPE R j- LOWER - UPPER w d HORIZONTAL GEOLOGIC SLIP RATE,
- SEAL BEACH AND HUNTINGTON BEACH, EXPLANATION "eweoar '"o'swoOD z0"e O l . l Box represents limits OF DEFORMATION of xcuracy SONGS 2 & 3 FIGURE EGH-H
15 - 14 - Os V 13 -
"~
O i2 -
/
11 - m
- cz:
b10 w p3 - w
'.u 2 O 9 - o m
0 o 8 - k / [- r 7 H
$ 52 -
= 5 2 6- 2 O W
< 0 5 -
c. m g O 4 - q-3 .
^
1 3 - 2 -
@/
1 t i i i i i t t 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 AGE (MILLIONS OF YEARS) PLIOCENE MIOCENE PLEISTOCENE LOWER UPPER UPPER LOWE R ~ UPP ER -j-HORIZONTAL GEOLOGIC SLIP RATE,
$ 'o"o S"^c" "'*"o"T '"o'5*ooo l
' O exeLA"AriO" ZONE OF DEFORMATION SONGS 2 & 3 l . l Box represenu timiu ' of accuracy p EGH-i
IN _ _ l l l l 20 0 2o i3 $i3 - 2s ;; 3 32
- 34 3 _
3 03 p _ t Oi - J 12 0 -6 32 O5g 10 - i' is a 3i5 - 28 O _n C ** - W -
,"y[0,14 9,
' ^
- I9 -
M 18 T To 14" d -
^ 18 H - 16,17 22 ^ -
26.31
' w 22 C -
29,30 - 23,35 s.24 P
- as
^
_ , 73 g - Ab ,4b _ 4 25 m N 6 $ l1.0 - 27 O - g E n. 7 07 _ 3 _ _ v> u - - _J O w c w e 0.1 - is O ii _ 4 _ g - m - - For Fault Names and Data Base See Tables 361.45 - 3 and 361.45 - 4 0.01 ! I I I ' 5 6 7 8 9 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE, M s i EXPLANATION
$ Maximum instrumental recording Figure 361.45 - 1 Empirical Plot o ' ' 9' S "a "' "S "
O a uaximum n,e instrementai es1ima1 s
- Range over wtiich smaller earthquakes occur Magnitude for Strike-Stip Faults O No maximum magnitude from instrumental or pre-instrumental data.
FIGURE EGH-J
im _ l 1 1 , I :
- 2a 20
$13 13
~
~
2 ,, 2 O2 Q - 36 3=4 S' - 3 $3
- 1 $1 -
3 12 $ 3 12 8 g 38 - g 10 - 35 is [ gg 21 * [ 9,10,14 $ 9 - gg 16,17
^' 18 _
** 22 W 22 ~ '
26,31 E - 29.30 23,35 * - *
- u. s .2< - as y,
_ ,** ~
~
Q O ', w D Line Bounding 6 $ Maximum Observed 1.0 - 27 O - E
~_ Historical tiarthquakes :
3 (HE L) C 7 [7 m g
/
O o s -
/ -
o w U l e 0.1 - 11 $ ti _ 4 _ e _ w - _ For Fault Names and Data Base _ See Tables 361.45 - 3 and 361.45 - 4 I I I I 0.01 5 6 7 8 9 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE, M s EXPLANATION Figure 361.45 - 3 Historical Earthquake Limit Geologic Slip Rate VS Historical e Max.imum instrumentar record.ing Fe
&& 6 wh-
% / 6 Maximum pre instrumental estimates
- Range over which smatter earthquakes occur O No maximum magnitude from instrumental or pre-instrumental data. FIGURE EGH-K
IN _ _ l l } l 2o -
'~
- ^
13 -
,, - i _,
g 2
^
3 p _ t l~l g- _ O ( m
- o. 10 -
35 l f, i r a 8'
.m
!q i --
3 4. '
. - r -- 6
- - - ~""
it - L_~_LJ : 9 19
' ' " - - " ^'
W-W 2 ' #' ' ' ' M 9.10,14 -
,g 9 l1 li :Pi--w -
l l14 ' l l 9_ _ H - 16,17 18 _ m 22
, ,3 ,
3; , L___J,__J L - 2 23 5
- . i 73 m -
e .___o , m w I .
~ I; t
E e 1.0 _ g - - l m - 7 ; _ o. 3 - _ m o - - O e o a - _ o w o w e 0.1 - it ; _ 4 _ g _ _ w - _ For Fault Names and Data Base See Table 361.45 - 3 0.01 I I I - I ! 5 6 7 8 9 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE, M s O EXPLANATION 9 Maximum i istrumental recording Figure 361.45 - 2 Data Range Analysis 6 Maximum pre-instrumental estimate Geologic Slip Rate VS Historical ( - Range over which smaller earthquakes occur Magnitude for Strike-Stip Faults Box represents most likely range of geologic
$ slip rate data and possible error range of !0.2 in Magnitude calculation. Dashed box represents uncertainty of pre-instrumental estimates. FIGURE EGH-L
100 _ l l l 1
~
20 e, _ 13 n.m - eg 2 . _ _ . U _ W - 3 1 lw l . w f m a 1
- i. . .
O D u. g
- [,c__,
8 Tl ' il I
l l ;
1
- c. 10 -
is ,.- i , , M 3 4 19 i - v -- 4
.___2, _ _ _ _
si
.m u
I D" d 21 ,
, .w7 8 ' 'G 7 _
- 9. 0 M g lj_i_0_T;.
1 [147[ l gg _M _ l ll i q _ c i i l i i l .J-1 im i - l- - 16.17,2 g M ' l 1 e6 l 17 V i oc - i 5 L___J L___ - O 23 i \ -
- u. 3 -
,-- 23 -
m - db .____3 . w
% 5
^
1.0 - ; E w y _
~
~
- c. Line Bounding -
~i -
Extremes of
" Brs keted Ranges -
of Data (MEL) g O O w i O
- $ 0.1 _ it ,% -
c: _- - w j - i For Fault Names and Data Base I See Table 361.45 3
! I I !
0.01 5 6 7 8 9 EARTHOUAKE MAGNITUDE, M, O EXPLANATION Figure 361.45 - 4 Maximum Earthquake L.imit i O Maximum instrumental recording Geologic Slip Rate VS Historical 6 Maximum pre instrumental estimate Magnitude for Otrike-Stip Faults
- Range over which sma!!er earthouakes occur Box represents most likely range of geologic
$ slip rate data and possiMe error range of 0.2 in Magnitude calculation. Dashed box represents uncertainty of pre instrumental estimates. FIGURE EGH-M 1
O c 1 TESTIMONY OF DR. STEWART W. SMITH k)3 2 Q. Would you please state your name? V,_ . 3 A. Stewart W. Smith 4 Q. By whom are you presently employed? n 5 A. I am a Professor of Geophysics at the University of v 6 Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7 Q. In what manner are you associated with the 8 Applicants in this proceeding? c) s 9 A. I was retained as a member of their Board of 10 Technical Review to review the original work for 11 the San Onofre site in 1970 and have continued as a O 12 consultant since that time. 13 Q. Would you please describe your formal education? 14 A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree from the ggg 15 Department of Geology and Geophysics at the 16 Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1954; a 0 17 Masters of Science degree by the California 18 Institute of Technology in 1959 and a Ph.D in 19 Geophysics by the California Institute of 'n 20 Technology in 1961. v 21 Q. What professional positions have you held in the 22 area of seismology? g 23 A. I was a staff member of the Seismological 24 Laboratory and an Assistant Professor (1961-64) and 25 Associate Professor (1964-1970) of Geophysics at
- g,, 26 the California Institute of Technology. I am
'k_) 1
O 7, 1 currently Professor of Geophysics at the University
;, /
j 2 of Wushington having served as Chairman of G 3 Geophysics from 1970-1980. 4 Q. What other professional positions have you held in 5 the area of seismology? O,_ 6 A. I was a Geophysicist for the Shell Oil Company from 7 1954-1957 in the area of exploration seismology.
~
q 8 In addition I have been a Principal Scientist, u 9 earthquake seismology, for TERA Corporation since 10 1974. g 11 Q. Do you hold any professional registrations in the 12 State of California or any other state? 13 A. I am a Registered Professional Geophysicist in the 14 State of California. ggg 15 Q. What are your pertinent professional or 16 organizational memberships? 17 A. I am a member f the following organizations: O 18 Seismological Society of America 19 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 20 American Geophysical Union O 21 Q. Have you written or published articles in the field 22 of seismology? O 23 A. I have published about 40 articles in the field of 24 geophysics during the period from 1961 to the 25 present. A list of my publications is appended g ,_ 26 hereto.
~-)
2 'O
O 1 Q. Have you served with formally-organized groups 2 concerned wholle or in part with matters of seismic O 3 safety? 4 A. I have served on a number 'E committees and panels n 5 concerned with seismic safety. Recent activities V 6 include the U.S. Geological Survey, Workshop on 7 Earthquake Hazards in Puget Sound, the National 8 Science Foundation Workshop on Strong Motion O 9 Instrumentation and the American Nuclear Society 10 Standards Committee on Active Faulting. v, r 11 Q. On which matters have you been retained as an 12 expert consultant in seismology? 13 A. I have served as a consultant to private industry 14 on a number of important structures in the Western ggg 15 U.S., including Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 16 Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Pebble Springs g 17 Thermal Power Plant Site, and others. I have also 18 served as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission on matters related to the se istical 20 evaluation of seismic hazards and to the State of O 21 California regarding seismic considerations for l 22 several dams. 23 Q. Have you testified as an expert in any previous
- O 24 hearings or trials?
25 A. Over the past fifteen (15) years, I have testified 1 g, 26 at numerous regulatory proceedings including all (_I l ! 3 lC
O
,_ 1 hearings on seismic related issues before the t' 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ALAB) and U,[-
3 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for 4 Diablo Canyon. g 5 I also presented expert testimony to the ASLB a G at the construction permit stage for SONGS 2 & 3 7 (1972). 8 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this O 9 proceeding? 10 A. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether, n 11 based on the geologic and seismic characteristics v 12 of the OZD, including its length, assignment of Ms 7 13 as the maximum magnitude earthquake for the OZD 14 renders this seismic design bcsis for SONGS 2 & 3 ggg , 15 is inadequate to protect the public health and 16 safety. My testimony addresses whether assignment n Q/ 17 of Ms 7 is a reasonable maximum magnitude for the 18 OZD and whether such assignment renders the seismic 19 design basis for SONGS 2 & 3 established for p 20 issuance of the construction permit inadequate. a 21 Q. In addressing the question of the maximum magnitude i 22 that could be generated from a particular 23 structure, what factors do you consider? O l 24 A. The factors to be examined, in very general terms, l l 25 are; the seismic history of the area, the geologic c ,, 26 record of deformation, the regional stress as L) l 4 0
O 1 inferred from focal mechanisms and the faulting
.'\
2 characteristics of the particular structure. u 3 Q. Would you please describe the seismic history of 4 the area relevant to the SONGS site? 5 A. The south coast region has not been t.1 area of high 6 seismic activity either in the historic record that 7 dates bac to the early missions (1769) or in the 8 modern era of instrumental seismic recording that g 9 dates back to about 1934. The historic record is 10 reviewed in FSAR Section 2.5.2.1; Tables 2.5.1 and 11 2.5-3. The instrumental record is reviewed in FSAR O 12 Section 2.5.2.1; Tables 2.5-2 and 2.5-4. The 13 following figures display the seismic activity of ggg 14 Southern California from the transverse ranges to 15 Baja California: 16 Figure SWS-A " EPICENTER PLOT M3-M6 AND ABOVE O 17 CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE 1980" 18 Figure SWS-B " EPICENTER PLOT M4-M6 AND ABOVE 19 CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE 1980" n 20 Figure SWS-C " EPICENTER PLOT MS-M6 AND ABOVE o 21 CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE 1980" 22 Figure SWS-D " EPICENTER PLOT M6 AND ABOVE g 23 CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE 1980" 24 These four figures illustrate' the seismic activity 25 at different magnitude levels. They indicate in a 26 general way that although small earthquakes (less
- g, i e
5._.) 5 0
O 7y 1 than magnitude 4.0 for example) are widely O- 2 distributed over the Southern California area, they v 3 sho'i a clustering along major f aults on which 4 larger earthquakes have occurred. Major fault 5 systems that are active and may form part of the O, 6 boundary between the Pacific and North American 7 Tectonic Plates can be seen in the Imperial Valley g 8 area, the Los Angeles area, and in the Transverse 9 Range area. The conclusion from such displays is 10 that no significant zone of seismic activity has g 11 existed during the nearly half century during which 12 accurate recording of earthquake locations has been 13 possible. Further, this data supports the idea gggg 14 that the principal plate boundary at the latitude 15 of SONGS occurs on the San Andreas and San Jacinto 16 fault systems, and that activity generally g 17 decreases westward away from these faults. 18 Q. How is the geologic record of deformation on the 19 .OZD relevant to maximum earthquake magnitude? 'o 20 A. Since one cannot use several centuries of seismic 21 record as a sole indicator of future possible 22 activity, the geologic record must be examined for O 23 evidence of prehistoric activity. 24 Earthquakes represent the disturbance that 25 occurs during sudden fault movement, thus, the g _s 26 geologic record of past fault movement as preserved O e o
O 1 in the rocks of a fault zone, allows us to look ( :< 2 back millions of years beyond the historic record O 3 to get an idea of the level of earthquake activity 4 that may have occurred. 5 The geologic information most important for .v 6 assessing the seismic potential of a fault system 7 is the rate of deformation, or slip rate, over 8 about the last ten to twenty thousand years. The 9 measured slip rate (testimony of Edward G. Heath) 10 shows between 0.5 and 1.00 mm/ year for the OZD over 11 the past several million years. This is to be g 12 contrasted with other faults of greater activity 13 and seismic potential such as the San Jacinto with g 14 3.0 mm per year or the San Andreas with 37.0 15 mm/ year. A specific line of reasoning has been 16 developed by Mr. Heath to provide a quantitative n 17 estimate of maximum magnitude based on slip rate. v 18 In the context of the historic and pre-historic 19 seismic history being discussed here, it is g 20 sufficient to nots. that earthquakes larger than 21 about 6.5 - 7.0 (Ms) could not have occurred with 22 any regularity over the past million years without g 23 producing a record of geologic deformation much 24 more impressive than what is seen in the region of 25 the OZD. Finally, the rate of vertical uplift and g ,. 26 downwarping, which is often used as a measure of O 7 O
A v 1 the vigor of tectonism, indicates that the south ,I 7s N.)t 2 coast region has been a stable area compared with O 3 the more active regions of California over the past 4 several hundred thousand years. This is discussed 5 in detail in the testimony of Dr. Roy J. Shlemon. g 6 Q. Based on your investigations of the seismic history 7 and geologic deformations in the area of San 8 Onofre, have you drawn any conclusions? g 9 A. My investigations reveal a consistent picture of 10 relative stability over four different time scales q 11 inv lying f ur different types of data; the O 12 instrumental record of a half century, the historic 13 record of several centuries, the geomorphic record ggg 14 of several hundred thousand years, and the geologic 15 record of several million years. By itself, no one 16 of these could be used as conclusive evidence that g 17 large earthquakes have not (and will not) occur in 18 this area, but taken together they provide a very 19 strong case for just this conclusion. 20 Q. Are there additional reismological considerations O 21 that have been investigated in arriving at an 22 assignment of maximum magnitude? O 23 A. Yes, several other seismological charactereistics 24 of the OZD can be determined. The first concerns 25 the nature of the stress field operative at the g, 26 present time and at the time of development of the LJ 8 O
O fs 1 OZD. Earthquake focal mechanisms provide the most ( ) 2 direct way of estimating slip directions associated O[~' 3 with the contemporary record of seismicity, that 4 is, earthquakes for which we have modern 5 seismographic data. From the slip direction or 6 focal mechanism during individual earthquakes one 7 can infer the direction of principal stresses. In 8 order to derive such focal mechanisms, good O, 9 seismographic coverage is necessary, a level which 10 has only been obtained during the past decade. 11 Sin e seism graph coverage on all sides of the O 12 earthquake source is desireable for a well 13 constrained focal mechanism, the offshore region is ggg 14 especially difficult to handle as a result of the 15 lack of stations on the seaward side. The other 16 really important point to consider concerning the 17 ffshore zone is of course that there haven't been O 18 any significant earthquakes there with which a 19 seismologist can work. Despite these difficulties, 20 some information on focal mechanisms of events 3 l 21 occurring in the southern California coastal region 22 is available. The principal conclusion drawn from l g 23 these focal mechanisms is that the pattern is ( 24 irregular, with little preference for any one slip l 25 direction or system of fault planes. There is some n_ 26 preference for a general northerly direction for l V' l l 9 O
1 1 O-l 1 the compressive axis. I conclude that the lack of l
" \
2 consistent focal mechanisms is evidence that the O 3 regional stress levels are not at a high level. If 4 the area were part of the active section of a plate 5 margin, I would expect much more consistency in v 6 focal mechanisms and a higher level of seismicity. 7 If stress levels are not nominated by a regional 8 stress field, then residual stresses, which are 9 much more influenced by local geological 10 conditions, and thus more irregular, will be the 11 ones revealed by current seismic activity.
-)
12 Q. Given the irregular nature of focal mechanisms and 13 the lack of seismicity on the South Coast offshore 14 Fault, on what basis have seismic characteristics 15 for the OZD been assigned? 16 A. We have assumed that the Newport Inglewood zone is
. 17 representative of the overall OZD in terms of
' U-18 seismological characteristics. Since the 1933 Long 19 Beach earthquake (M 6.3) is the largest and most 20 significant earthquake on this zcne, it is the O 21 basis of the ascignment of seismological 22 charactereistics to the overall OZD. Although the g 23 modern seismic network was not in operation at the 24 time of this earthquake, the earthquake was large 25 enough to record long-period seismic waves on a 26 seismograph stations throughout the world. This vs k 10 0
O s I data made possible some special studies which have () * ,[' 2 yielded a focal mechanism, an estimate of fault u 3 ruptilre length and depth, and a measure of fault 4 slip associated with the earthquake. The 5 conclusion is that the mechanism was primarily g 6 right lateral strike slip and involved an average 7 slip of 41 cm over a rupture length of about 33 km, g 8 and that the depth of energy release was 9 approximately 11 km. Since this is by far the 10 largest earthquake anywhere near the OZD, it should g 11 carry the most weight in assigning characteristics 12 to the OZD. We thus conclude that future 13 significant earthquakes on the OZD can be best gggp 14 characterized as being strike slip, responding to a 15 northerly direction of compression, and would 16 involve rupture and energy release to depths of 17 about 12-15 km. () 18 Q. Have you considered any additional factors 19 characteristic of the OZD that assist in assignment g 20 a maximum magnitude for the OZD? 21 A. Yes, I have reviewed the investigations presented 22 by Mr. Heath in this proceeding. I would agree () 23 with him that assignment of a maximum magnitude for 24 the OZD requires a multifaceted appros.9h to bring 25 to bear as many different lines of evidence as are n,s 26 available. As an example, one particular piece of lt- 1 11 0
O 73 1 geologic information that has a direct bearing on i ) 2 the maximum magnitude for the OZD is the style of O 3 faulting or the degree of continuity. As discussed 4 in Mr. Heath's testimony, the OZD consists of a ,) 5 complex series of short and sinuous sections of t 6 faults and folds. The seismological question is, 7 can such systems generate large earthquakes. It is 8 clear that large earthquakes require large rupture O 9 zones, that future earthquakes are unlikely to form 10 on new ruptures but rather on existing ones and 11 thus it seems unlikely that a long continuous or O 12 throughgoing rupture could develop on the OZD. 13 Q. Is assignment of Ms 7 on the OZD consistent with 14 your assessment of the earthquake on which the gggp 15 SONGS 2 & 3 Leismic design basis was predicated? 16 A. Yer the early work for the SONGS site, I 17 ch .uct.erized the earthquake potential of the OZD O 18 in terms of a rupture length rather than a maximum 19 magnitude. The reason for this was my concern that 20 the only relevant prediction for earthquake O 21 engineering purposes is a prediction of ground 22 shaking at the site. I believed at that time that 23 it was possible and desireable to eliminate the O 24 uncertain step of estimating earthquake magnitude 25 and go directly from rupture length to ground g,_ 26 motion. Although a maximum magnitude was not O 12 .O
v 1 specified at the time of the Constructicn Permit I j) 2 hearing, one can ask now whether an M s7 would have Q 3 been consistent with the ground motion (.67g) used 4 at that time. My answcr in 1972 would have been 5 yes. At that time although very little data was a 6 available close-in to large earthquakes, it already 7 appeared that the design basis was adequate to 8 cover virtually any " size" earthquake. My Cg 9 conclusion is strengthened by statistical analysis 10 of the new data collected during the past ten years 11 . and by developments in numerical modelling of {U, 12 earthquake sources. My earlier objections to 13 specification of a magnitude are now largely 14 cvercome by an improved understanding of the g 15 relationship between magnj ude ( M ,, ', and ground 1C mo*_ ion and reductions in the uncertainty of ground c3 17 motion estimates that have occurred with the .o 18 increased data now available. 19 Q. Hsve you an opinion as te the maximum magnitude
- g 20 that should be assigned to the OZD?
21 A. Forecasting the size of future earthquakes is a 22 difficult task, and one in which there is n 23 considerable uncertainty. It is, however, not v 24 impossible and the uncertainties are not 25 overpewering. It involven a large number of gt, 26 different types of evidence, each one of which has
\,) .
13 0
J 7 1 uncertainties attached to it. I would also say ( / 2 that the process involves professional judgment, in f v 3 much the same way that professional judgment enters 4 into engineering assessments. The necessity of 5 judgment can be seen by considering what would 6 result if independent predictions of maximum 7 parameters were made from each class of seismologic 8 r ge 1 gic data, and then the maximum magnitude O 9 taken from the upper bourd of these parameters. 10 The result of " cascading" levels of conservatism n 11 yields a result which is essentially useless from u 12 an engineering viewpoint since it would make no 13 real distinction between any different parts of 14 western North America. In my opinion there is a gggg 15 real distinction between tha earthquake potential 16 of the OZD compared with other fault systems in g 17 southern California such as the San Jacinto, 18 Imperial, and Elsinor. Its potential is less based 19 on all the seismologic and geologic parameters we g 20 can quantify. My professional judgment of the 21 overall geologic-seismic situation including the 22 data presented by Mr. Heath in his degree-of-fault g 23 activity analysis leads me to conclude that M s7 is 24 a conservative maximum magnitude to assign to the 25 ozo, 26 /// Ors V 14 O
Attachm;nt O 1 STEWART W. SMITH
!y)
J' 2 PUBLICATIONS U 3 1961 H. Benioff, F. Press, S. W. Smith, Excitation of the 4 free oscillations of the Earth by earthquakes, 5 J. Geophys. Res., 66, 605-619. L,, 6 W. Buchheim, S. W. Smith, The Earth's free 7 oscillations observed on Earth tide instruments g 8 at Tiefenort, East Germany, J. Geophys. Res., 66 9 3608-3610. 10 R. Forward, D. Zipoy, J. Weber, S. W. Smith, H. O 11 Benioff, Upper limit for interstellar millicycle 12 gravitational radiation, Nature, 189 473. 13 1962 S. W. Smith, A reinterpretation of phase velocity data ggg. 14 based on the Gnome travel time curves, 15 Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer. 52 1031-1035. 16 1963 R. Phinney, S. W. Smith, Processing of seismic data g i7 from an automatic digital recorder, Bull. Seis. 18 Soc. Amer., 53 549-562. 19 S. W. Smith, Generation of seismic waves by g 20 underground explosions and the collapse of 21 cavities, J. Geophys. Res., 68 1477-1483. 22 1954 M. Shimshoni, S. W. Smith, Seismic signal enhancement O 23 with three-component detectors, Geophys., 24 24 664-671. 25 /// cp_ 26 /// b) 15 O
O 1 S. W. Smith, Broadband digital recording, Washington f
) '~'
2 Conf. Prdc.: A review of broadband seismographs U 3 to include digital seismographs, VESIAC Rept. 4 Univ. of Michigan. , 5 1965 A. Ben-Menahem, S. W. Smith, T. Teng, A procedure for u 6 source studies from spectrums of long-period 7 seismic body waves, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 55 o 8 203-235. o 9 S. W. Smith, Free vibrations of the Earth, 10 International Dictionary of Geophysics Runcord, 11 ed., Pergamon Press. g 12 S. W. Smith, Free vibrations of the Earth, 13 Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Fairbridge, ed., 14 Reinhold Pub. ggg 15 S. W. Smith, Seismic digital data acquisition systems, 16 Rev. Geophys., 3 151-156. g 17 1966 Clarence R. Allen, S. W. Smith, Pre-earthquake and 18 post-earthquake surficial displacement, Bull. 19 Seis. Soc. Amer., 56 966. 20 S. W. Smith, Free osci.lations excited by the Alaskan O 21 earthquake, J. .Geophys. Res., 71 1183-1193. 22 S. W. Smith, Study of the San Andreas fault system, n 23 Ann., Acad. Sci. Fennicae, Series A-III 90 v 24 1967 S. W. Smith, Earthquake prediction, Earthquake 25 Research Affiliates Conf., California Inst. of o, 26 Tech., May, 1967 '~1 ; 16 O
u,
- 1 S. W. Smith, Free oscillation analysis and Is)
[ u 2 interpretation, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Uniin, 48 3 409-412. 4 S. W. Smith, Earthquake prediction, McGraw-Hill
. 5 Yearbook of Science and Technology 6 1968 J. B. Davies, S. W. Smith, Source parameters of 7 earthquakes and discrimination between 8 earthquakes and nuclear explosions, Bull. Seis.
g 9 Soc. Amer., 58 1503-1517. 10 S. W. Smith, Max Wyss, Displacement on the San Andreas c, u 11 fault initiated by the 1966 Parkfield 12 earthquakes, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 58 13 1955-1973. gggp 14 S. W. Smith, Memorial: Hugo Benioff (1899-1968), 15 Eull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 58 1701-1703. 16 S. W. Smith, Fault creep, earthquakes and strain g 17 release in California, presented at Joint 18 U.S.-Japan Conf. on premonitory Phenomena 19 Associated with Several Recent Earthquakes and g 20 Related Phenomena U.S. Geol. Survey, Menlo Park, 21 California. 22 S. W. Smith, Earth oscillations, free and forced, Nat. 23 Acad. Sci. Autumn Mtg. California Inst. Tech., O 24 Pasadena, California. 25 /// cp, 26 /// O 17 O
G 7_ 1 1969 C. H. Scholz, .4 . Wyss, S. W. Smith, Seismic and
) ,[# 2 aseismf slip on the San Andreas fault, s ;
3 J. Geophys. Res., 74 2049-2069. 4 S. W. Smith, C. Archambeau, W. Gile, Transient and
, 5 residual strains from large underground t
6 explosions, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 59 2185-2196. 7 S. W. Smith, K. Kasahara, Wave and mode separation 8 with strain seismographs, Bull. Earthquake Res. U,s 9 Inst., 47 Tokyo Univ. 831-848. 10 S. W. Smith, J. McGinley, Jr., C. Scholz, L. Johnson, n 11 The effects of large explosions on tectonic u 12 strain, J. Geophys. Res., 74 3308. 13 S. W. Smith, William Van de Lindt, Strain adjustments gggp 14 associated with earthquakes in Southern 15 California, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 59 1569-1589. 16 1970 S. W. Smith, Long period earth noise, Woods Hole Conf. 17 on Seismic Discrimination (ARPA), July 20-23, c) 18 1970 Working Pag,ers 1. 19 A. Sylvester, S. W. Smith, C. Scholz, Earthquake swarm 20 in the Santa Barbara Channel, California, 1968, O 21 Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 60 1047-1060. 22 1972 S. W. Smith, The anelasticity of the mantle, g 23 Tectonochys., 13 601-622. 24 S. W. Smith, Rainer Kind, Regional secular strain 25 fields in southern Nevada, Tectonophys., 14
- n 26 57-69.
l ym k }'
%d i
18 O
O 1 S. W. Smith, Ra".ner Kind, Observations of regional 7 , i' '/ 2 strain variations, Jour. Geophys. Res., 77 9 3 4976-4980. 4 1974 N. Rasmussen, R. Millard, S. W. Smith, Earthquake 5 hazard evaluation of the Puget Sound Region, 6 Washington State, Geophysics Program Publ., 7 Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 8 1975 S. Malone, G. Rothe, S. W. Smith, Details of 9 microearthquake swarms in the Columbia Basin, 10 Washington, Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 65 855-864. 11 1976 Stewart W. Smith, Determination of maximum earthquake 3 12 magnitude, Gphys. Res. Lett., 3 351-354. 13 Stewart W. Smith, John M. Wells, Near-field ground 14 motion simulation for a vertical fault with gggp 15 dip-slip, TERA Corporation Technical Report, 16 Berkeley, CA 17 1977 Stewart W. Smith, The tectonic significance of large 3 18 historical earthquakes in the Eureka region, 19 California, Unpublished report submitted to 20 Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Francisco, CA 3 21 1979 John Knapp, Stewart W. Smith, Seismic velocity 22 structure of the Humboldt Bay region, o 23 California, Final Report to Pacific Gas and v 24 Electric Co. Geophysics Program, University of 25 Washington, Seattle, WA
v,. 16 ///
A _} 19 LO
O g3 1 1980 Stewart W. S-ith, John Knapp, The northern termination
\_)
2 of the San Andreas Fault, California Division of
,a_.,
3 Mines and Geology Special Report No. 140 4 153-164. Sacramento, CA
- 5 Stewart W. Smith, Craig Weaver, The significance of U
6 northwest seismic and structural trends in 7 western Washington, Workshop on Earthquake 8 Hazards in Puget Sound, U.S. Geological Survey, O 9 Menlo Park, CA 10 198- Stewart W. Smith, John Ehrenberg, Norman Hernandez, g 11 Analysis of the El Centro differential array ~for 12 the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake, Bull. Seis._ 13 Soc. Am. in press. gggg 14 Craig Weaver, Stewart W. Smith, Earthquake hazard 15 implications of a crustal seismic zone in 16 western Washington, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. in 17 press. 0 18 George Rothe, J. Booker, S. Malone, S. W. Smith, 19 Seismic modeling of Columbia River basalt flow g 20 sequences as a transversely isotropic media, 21 submitted to J. Geophys. Research 22 23 0, 24 25 26 lOm N-) l l 20 lO
,a-
- O
.O lO coe a
& O l c * &
l c o 8 h , .O ~ g
')
o O G e o = O e
. 5 IO ,
9 eh W '
% o
- O E
N .> O N b* O D* e, 5 a e o o o e* d $$ O e o *
- VW" bo ce os e .
e o c itWqJSO q e
* ,, e b b s m?t
- 2e
,g ,c,- 4 o sS Q %e c #
- % < roo o@ ,3 ceg,o o e4e
! e o ** a w3G ms y
'e
.O l
** o e ,} /e ch E'
g im *0 f gc
- 98 0 $* e c'* $c lO 4,
O** e eo e O V d4 o l
,,, e* e Q D o V v y 0
4 o o Q q O D 6 '. I
' / , ' E r F-o o
- O 0 "' " w u c c e C Bo - daa
, 3 !O d* " Cof 0 -
O COee O 1
- O FIGURE SWS - A
g ,0 o ,m e eec^ ~ n - _ e g e c, e D ess , < .e e a e be s - g: s>4 e . e e8 ep ' o
$m4 E m
? ep $ 1 f e eO i e e $h-ZW k e O g ws o
$ e e g<j1 )e, e e g ee yfg 8- 8 '
io e i < @~h O 9 e e e e 7 lO O e Qe g c c fe es
% e oge - -
3 i aaa r r z o vi u w o o o [ AYd Qe eee O i FIGURE SWS - 8
o o o o o o o o o O_o $ O O O O O O
- o t h '* y , ee 98 @
m* g e d'%N D 6
'Q L ASONGS )
w . e e4 > j(p g) g
, e too m
m 39 N b , C x TTI b 6.O s MAG cn O s.o c Mas < s.o EPlCENTER PLOT h M5-M6 AND ABOVE i CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE,1980 o
e
*g& - g om 6k s g a s0NGS C) o o b Gb 7
-Q)
C) LW C Ch b 6.O s MAG EPICENTER PLOT i M6 AND ABOVE D CIT CATALOG 1932 - JUNE,1980
O 1 TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE H. WIGHT O 2 Q. Would you please state your name? O 3 A. Lawrence Howard Wight. 4 Q. By whom are you presently employed? 5 A. TERA Corporation of Berkeley. 6 Q. In what manner are you associated with the Applicants in 7 this proceeding? 8 A. My firm has been a consultant to the Applicants on O 9 seismic issues since approximately 1974. Since I joined 10 the firm in 1976, I have been involved in these efforts g 11 in a variety of positions, initially in a very technical 12 role, more recently in a position of technical 13 management and direction. 14 Q. W ld you please describe your formal education? C'(') 15 A. In 1965 I received my Bachelor's Degree in Engineering 16 Management from Boston University. Between 1965 and 17 1967 I conducted research in geophysical fluid mechanics O 18 that led to a Master's Degree in Engineering Mechanics 19 from the Pennsylvania State University in 1967. In 1971 20 I entered the Graduate Program in Geophysics at the C) 21 University of Washington where I completed all the 21 course requirements for a Ph.D.
- g 23 Q. What professional positions have you had in the area of 24 seismology or earthquake engineering?
25 A. In the years 1967 to 1969, I was employed by Lawrence 26 Livermore Laboratory with the responsibility to O,Sj)
\_
o
.O 7-1 organize, implement and operate a seismic array around V 2 During 1969-1970, I was a the Nevada Test Site. O 3 lecturer at the Middle East Technical University in 4 Turkey where I taught civil engineering courses and 5 participated in earthquake engineering research. o 6 Between 1970-71 I was a lecturer of mathematics, 7 physics, and geophysics at the Caribbean Meteorological
, 8 Institute of the University of the West Indies. Between u
9 1972 and 1976, I was employed again at the Lawrence 10 Livermore Laboratory where I participated in or directed es o, 11 research in earthquake engineering. During this time I 12 was also a lecturer at the University of California at 13 Berkeley, Extension Division, in engineering and 14 engineering mechanics and in 1976 I was an invited gqgg 15 lecturer at Chabot College on seismology and earthquake 16 hazards. My position at TERA Corporation is Vice g 17 President in charge of Geotechnical Engineering. 18 Q. What are your pertinent professional or organizational 19 memberships? 20 A. I am a member of the Seismological Society of America, O 21 the American Geophysical Union, the Earthquake 22 Engineering Research Institute, and the American g 23 Association for Advancement of Science. 24 Q. Have you written or presented articles or papers in the 25 field of seismology and earthquake engineering? p, 26 /// qv) 2 0
O 1 A. Yes. A list of such publications, reports, and (sl 2 abstracts is attached hereto. O 3 Q. On what projects have you been retained as an expert 4 consultant in seismology and earthquake engineering? , 5 A. In 1977 Battelle Memorial Institute retained me to sit U 6 on a multi-disciplinary panel that was responsible for 7 providing expert opinion en the safety of geologic waste 8 rep sit ries. My resp nsibility n this panel was for O 9 the areas of seismology and earthquake engineering. The 10 panel meets annually to review on-going programs and O 11 make recommendations for future work. 12 I have also been retained by Lawrence Livermore 13 National Laboratory / Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission to gggg 14 review and assess the seismic safety at the General 15 Electric test reactor near Pleasanton, California. 16 Between 1977-78 the Pacific Northwest Laboratory 17 retained me to examine the state of the art in O 18 establishing seismic design criteria and to postulate 19 the design criteria that would be appropriate for a g 20 nuclear energy center on the Hanford Reservation. 21 In addition, I have directed many projects at my 22 company involving seismic hazard analyses. These g 23 include studies for nine eastern nuclear power plants, 24 all Department of Energy's facilities, all the 25 commercial plutonium facilities in the U.S., the Diablo os 26 /// Rv) 3 0
O
,_ 1 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and the Humboldt Bay Nuclear
('~',) 2 Power Plant. O 3 Q. Have you appeared as an expert in any previous hearings 4 or trials? 5 A. Yes, I have give:; expert opinion to the ACRS on the 6 seismic safety of the General Electric Test Reactor, and 7 I have also appeared before the ACRS on the seismic 8 safety of the following nuclear power plants: g 9 1) Oyster Creek 10 2) Yankee Rowe 7., a 11 3) Ginna 12 4) Dresden 1 & 2 13 5) Palisades gqgg 14 6) Big Rock Point 15 7) Connecticut Yankee 16 8) Lacrosse 3 17 9) Millstone 18 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony on this proceeding? 19 A. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether based on 20 the geologic and seismic characteristics of the OZD, O 21 assignment of M s 7 as the maximum magnitude earthquake 22 for the OZD renders the seismic design basis for SONGS 2 g 23 and 3 inadequate to protect the public health ard 1' 24 safety. My testimony demonstrates and it is my l 25 conclusion that given occurrence of a M s 7 event on the ln- 16 ///
-4 s w-4 O
O
-) %J 1 OZD, .67g as the anchor for the design response spectrum 2 is conservative.
O 3 Q. On what do you base these opinions? 4 A. I base them largely on the result of studies my office 5 has performed for Applicants, on my review of the V,, 6 relevant work performed by others, and my experience. 7 Q. What role did you play in the work your firm performed? A. 8 My firm has been responsible for a variety of O 9 seismulogical/earthquske engineering studies. 10 Dr. Gerald A. Frazier, technical director of our Del Mar g 11 office, is giving testimony in this proceeding on the 12 earthquake source modeling studies performed in that 13 office. gqlg 14 I was responsible for the technical and project 15 management of empirical ground motion studies performed 16 in our Berkeley office and which are discussed in this 17 testimony. O 18 Q. Would you briefly describe the nature of the work your 19 firm has performed for Applicants? g 20 A. We have performed an extensive study of the available 21 relevant earthquake acceleration data. The results of 22 our data analys_s and interpretation are presented in O 23 Exhibit LHW-1, " Evaluation of Peak Horizontal Ground 24 Acceleration Associated with the Offshore Zone of 25 Deformation at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station," cp s 26 dated August, 1980. With regard to the effects that U 5 0
O
,- 1 structures have in reducing ground motion, we have used 2 the available earthquake data to quantify the effect of ,,)
u 3 structural filtering on soil structure interaction. The 4 results of this study were presented in Exhibit LHW-2, g 5 " Reduction in Free Field Ground Motion Due to the 6 Presence of Structures," dated August, 1980. 7 Q. Is there anything in your data set that makes it well 8 suited for predicting ground motion at the SONGS site? O 9 A. We selected the 192 peak ground acceleration ("PGA") 10 recordings from 22 earthquakes based on a selection 11 criteria that statistically tested and eliminated data O 12 irrelevant to the SONGS site. For example, we 13 restricted the data set te accelerations recorded within gdll 14 50 kilometers of the earthquake fault. We also 15 restricted the data set to stations which recorded 16 ground motion statistically consistent with the SONGS g 17 site geology. As another example. we excluded 18 recordings from the basements of large buil' dings and 19 restricted the data set to recordings from instruments 1 0 20 located either in the free field or at the ground level 21 or basement of small buildings. l 22 We further subjected this selected data set to O 23 quality screening. The recordings from earthquakes 24 whose magnitude was uncertain were eliminated. 25 Similarly, we eliminated recordings whose distance to cx m s 26 the rupture surface could not be adequately defined. V) 6 1 10 1
O
- 1 Our data set can be used confidently to predict
[s} 2 near-sourco ground motion. One measure of this O 3 confidence is the average distance compared to the 4 prediction point. Our data base has an average distance 5 of about 11 km. This compares with the Cal Tech data 6 base having an average distance of about 50 km. This 7 distance reduction was achieved through the introduction 8 of data from several large non-north American U,s 9 earthquakes and some smaller magnitude near-source 10 recordings. Our average distance of 11 km can be 11 pared to the 8 km distance for SONGS. O 12 Q. What corfiusions were reached in your analysis of 13 earthquake acceleration data? gqgg 14 A. As more specifically stated in LHW-1, the accelerations 15 predicted from our statistical analysis of the data base 16 correspond to a median prediction of .33g and an g 17 84th-percentile prediction of .52g. My principal a 18 conclusion is that given a M s 7.0 earthquake occurring 19 at 8 km from the site, the design peak ground n 20 acceleration of .67g is conservative. v 21 Several other conclusions were reached. The 22 analysis confirmed that peak ground accelerations tend 23 to saturate both with decreasing distance from the fault O 24 rupture surface, and with increasing magnitude at small 25 distances. Also, the effects of site geology on peak 26 ground accelerations in the near-source region is c't sx 7 O
1 0 , ,- 3 1 negligible compared to the influence of other (m) 2 parameters, such as magnitude anc distance. Finally, J 3 the calculations confirmed that earthquake accelerations 4 can be considered lognormally distributed.
, 5 Q. Would you describe the assumptions you have made in your 6 analyses and describe for us how you have tested the 7 sensitivity of these assumptions?
m 8 A. There were three important assumptions or elements to V 9 our calculations: 10 (1) The functional form used in the regression analysis, g 11 (2) The far field acceleration decay rate, and 12 (3) The inclusion of two very well-recorded earthquakes 13 in the data base (San Fernando, 1971 and Imperial gjgg 14 Valley, 1979). 15 We have examined the sensitivity of our results to 16 these assumptions by repeating the analysis using
-)
17 different functional forms, different far field 18 acceleration decay rates, and deleting from the data 19 base the well-recorded eqartnquakes. These sensitivity g 20 studies, which were set forth in Section 3.0 of Exhibit 21 LHW-1, showed that the SONGS predictions are insensitive 22 to each of the above assumptions. g 23 Q. Since submittal of LHW-1, have you refined er improved 24 that analysis? 25 A. Subsequent to the SONGS report, LHW-1, we continued to ns 26 investigate PGA in the near field. This involved K) 8 O
O m s 1 augmenting and refining the data base, implementing N) m 2 improvements to the magnitude definition, and performing g 3 additional sensitivity studies. Results of these 4 additional analyses were presented to severci scientific . , , 5 conferences (e.g., Campbell, K. W. and Davis, B. J. "The g 6 Effect of Fault Type on Recorded Peak Ground 7 Accelerations", presentation to Eastern Section of g 8 Seismological Society of America ("SSA"), Pennsylvania 9 State University (Oct. 28, 1980); Campbell, K. W. and 10 Davis, B. J., " Statistical Analysis of Earthquake Ground O 11 Motion Characteristics, presentation to SSA, University 12 of California, Berkeley (March 28, 1981) Campbell, K. 13 W., and Polit, M. W., "An Empirical Analysis of the gqgg 14 Source of Energy Release During the Imperial Valley 15 Earthquake", presentation to SSA, University of 16 California, Berkeley (March 25, 1981)), were submitted
- O 17 f r j ournal publication (Campbell, K.W. , "Near-Source 18 Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration", submitted 19 to Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (May 9 20 4, 1981)) and were published as a TERA Technical Report 21 (1980). Results of the extensions and improvements have 22 further strengthened our previous conclusions.
O 23 Specifically, our current and previous predictions for 24 M g 7.0 at 8 km are presented in Figure LHW-A "Effect of 25 Improvements on SONGS Predictions," for both the g- 26 Statistical and Physical models. The difference between () 9 O
en
'\)
< ~x 1 the previous and current results for both models are
( )
%j' 2 essentially negligible. The results of 'these subsequent u
3 investigations have thus increased the level of 4 confidence in our earlier predictions. 5 I would like to elaoorate on these improvements, and in u, 6 particular, the results of some of the additional 7 sensitivity studies: g 8 o After LHW-1, the magnitude scale was improved. The 9 improvement amounted to the use of Ms for 10 magnitudes greater than 6 and ML for magnitudes g 11 less than 6. We have examined the sensitivity of 12 this criterion and find the results to be 13 exeeedingly insensitive to the division point gqgg '4 between M g and M s* 15 o The data bare for LHW-1 was frozen in January 16 1980. In August, 1980, we increased the Cata base g 17 by adding 37 acceleration components from 5 18 earthquakes. The improved data base consists of 19 229 acceleration components racorded from 27 20 separate earthquakes. 0 21 o Refinements were made to certain magnitude and l 22 distance values based on further investigation. g 23 o Whereas in LHW-1, our calculational approach 24 employed two physically-derived constraints in the 25 regression analysis, (the " Physical Model"), we c3_s 26 subsequently tested the sensitivity of our results
'~i )
v 10 0
s 7, 1 to these constraints by repeating our calculations V 2 without the constraints. This is termed the 'O 3 " Statistical Model". - 4 This expanded data base allowed for more elaborate m 5 sensitivity studies. This allowed uc to isolate the U 6 influence of fault type and building effects. 7 We have carefully examined our results for any
- c. 8 influence of fault type (e.g., reverse vs.
a 9 strike-slip). As Figure LHW-B, " List of Earthquakes in 10 Data Base by Fault Type" indicates, the 27 earthquakes g 11 in the augmented data set represent a diversity of fault 12 types, but principally strike-slip and reverse. When 13 the effect of fault type is incorporated in the 14 regression analysis, we find that there is a systematic gqgg 15 upward bias in the ground motion associated with reverse 16 faults. Reverse fault ground motion is approximately 23 g 17 percent higher than the corresponding ground motion for 18 strike-slip faults. This confirms the conservatism of 19 our analysis since our SONGS ground motion predictions g 20 include reverse fault ground motion. 21 Our augmented data base enabled.us to precisely 22 address the effect of structure size on in-structure g 23 recordings relative to free-field. The location of the 24 instruments that recorded the majority of the data in 25 our da+a base can be divided as follows: free-field, p -, 26 ground level of small (one to two story) buildings, M i E 11 O
\
O
,c3 1 basement level of larger (three to twenty stories)
U m 2 buildings. The effects of both structural embedment and u 3 building size were studied by regression analysis on 4 these instrumant locations. Comparisons were made m 5 between small 1uildings/ free-field recordings at ground u 6 level (115 components) and recordings obtained in the 7 lowest basement level of larger buildings (40 8 components). The results indicated that the peak ground 0 9 acceleration recorded in the basement of larger 10 buildings was on the average 24 percent lower than the g 11 corresponding accelerations recorded at ground level in 12 small buildings or the free field. This result is 13 significant at the 90 percent confidence level. gggg 14 Q Do you have additional evidence to support your 15 statistically derived results that the ground motion in 16 the basement of larger building in the near-source g 17 region from large earthquake s is roughly 25 percant less 18 than the corresponding free-field ground motion? 19 A. Yes. We have compiled additional evidence that 20 specifically addresses the reduced ground motion O 21 associated with in-structure recordings. These results 22 were first tabulated in our report LHW-2 " Reduction in-0 23 Free Field 7,round Motion Due to the Presence of 24 Structures" d ..d August 1980. This work also has been 25 extended and elaborated upon. Improved comparisons have gS 26 been prcsented to a scientific conference (Darragh, R. B. V 12 O
O
,- 1 and Campbell, K. W. " Empirical Assessment of the
~
2 Reduction in Free Field Ground Motion Due to the
,0 3 Presence of Structures", presentation to SSA, University 4 of California, Berkeley (March 23, 1981), SSA). This 5 report and abstract tabulate and analvze data from u,
6 nearby instruments and compare recordings obtained in 7 the free-field, in small structures and in very large
,s 8 structures. On the average, the peak ground V
9 acceleration in very large buildings is approximately 30 10 percent less than the corresponding free-field c 11 acceleration. This reduction is a function of frequency J 12 with the reduction factor being roughly constant between 13 25 Hz and 2 Hz. gqgg 14 Q. As a result of your studies, can you conclude that .67g 15 is a conservative anchor point fo? the design response 16 spectrum given a M s 7 event on the OZD? g 17 A. Yes. The San Onofre design criteria of .67g has been 18 compared above to predictions based on instrumental 19 values. The instrumental one standard deviation 20 free-field acceleration for the San onofre site is .52g O l 21 for an M s 7.0 at 8 km. This should be further reduced i 22 for the strike-slip environment and by consideration of l 1 n 23 structure effects. The corresponding one standard t' 24 deviation design acceleration is then even less, perhaps ( 25 one-half of the acceleration to which structures at the (3 n 16 lll a l 13 O i
O 3 1 San onofre site have been designed. The seismic design 2 criteria for SONGS 2 and 3 are extremely conservative. 3 /// 4 /// lll O 6 /// 7 ///
- lll O
9 /// 10 /// 11 .o /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// ' 16 /// 17 /// O 18 ///
- 19 ///
O /II O 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// O 24 /// 25 /// n 2C /// 14 0
Q Attachment 1 Lawrence H. Wight ,O 2 PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ABSTRACTS 3 " Acoustic Waves in the Icnosphere," AFOSR-67-1904, August 20, 4 1967. 5 " Analysis of the Cooling System for the Plowshare Nuclear O l 6 Explosive," UCRL-51527, 45 pages, February 1, 1974. 7 " Empirical Tuff Equation-of-State Models," UCID-16764, 23 g 8 pages, April 24, 1975. 9 " Evaluation of Methods for Analysis of Nuclear Fuel 10 Reprocessing Plants, Part 1," UCRL-51802, Part 1, 89 11 pager, ebruary 7, 1975. .O 12 " Geological and Seismological Investigation of the Lawrence 13 Livermore Laboratory Site," UCRL-51592, 38 pages, June g 14 3, 1974. 15 " Site Response Calculations for Nuclear Power Plants," 16 UCRL-77371, 9 pages, October 14, 1975. . 17 "A Ge 1 gical anc Seismological Investigation for the 834, O 18 836, and 854 Building Complexes at Lawrence Livermore 19 Laboratory's Site 300," UCRL-52006, 39 pages, January O 20 29, 1976. 21 " Soil-Structure Interaction in Nuclear Power Plants: A 22 Comparison of Methods," UCRL-78371, 7 pages, July 22, O 23 1976. 24 " Analysis of Diablo Canyon Site Response Spectra," 25 UCRL-52263, 59 pages, June 24, 1977. O 26 /// 15 'O
O
,7-1 "A Review of Potential Technology for the Seismic t
'~'
2 Characterization of Nuclear Energy Centers," TERA u 3 Corporation Report, October 21, 1977. 4 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the Babcock-Wilcox Facility, w 5 Leechburg, Pennsylvania," TERA Corporation Report, u, 6 October 21, 1977. 7 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the Westinghouse Facility, ( o 8 Cheswich, Pennsylvania," TERA Corporation Report, V 9 October 21, 1977. 10 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the EXXON Nuclear Plutonium p 11 Facility, Richland, Washington, TERA Corporation a 12 Report, September 29, 1978. 13 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the Battelle Memorial Institute 14 Nu' lear Research Facility, West Jefferson, Ohio," TERA gqgg 15 Corporation Report, September 29, 1978. 16 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the Atomics International Nuclear g 17 Materials Development Facility, Santa Susana, 18 California," TERA Corporation Report, December 29, 1978. 19 " Seismic Risk Analysis for the General Electric Plutonium g 20 Facility, Pleasanton California, Part I," TERA 21 Corporation Report, July 31, 1978. 22
" Response Spectrum Attenuation Pr' ation for the Eastern g 23 United States," Abstract to the Eastern Section of the 24 SSA, October 1979.
25 /// ns 26 ///
'V 16 O
G
g~) 1 close distances decreases as the magnitude increases; V q 2 and (3) the dependence on magnitude of spectral u 3 ordinates at different periods increases with increasing 4 period. 5 As given in IMI-6, the scaling factor (from M s 6.5 O 6 to M 7) is 1.11 for periods up to .2 seconds increasing 7 to 1.4 for periods in the range 1 to 2 seconds. Using g 8 the relationships in IMI-6 and the 84th percentile 9 instrumental response spectral ordinates for magnitude 10 6.5 (given in Figure 11 of Exhibit IMI-1), the O 11 84th-percentile instrumental response spectrum for M s 7 12 earthquake on the OZD was obtained as shown in attached 13 Figure IMI-A, " Instrumental 84th Percentile Response gqgg 14 Spectra Estimated for SONGS from Magnitudes 6.5 and 7 15 Earthquakes on the OZD." The 84th percentile 16 instrumental peak acceleration for a M 7 is estimated s O 17 to be .63g compared to .57g for ar , 6.5. 18 Attached Figure IMI-B " Comp '.u." of the 84th 19 Percentile Instrumental Spectra with e DBE Spectrum" O 20 presents a comparison of the 84th percentile 21 instrumental spectra for M s 6.5 and M s 7 with the DBE 22 spectrum for SONGS 2 & 3. The DBE spectrum exceecs the o 23 84th percentile instrumental spectra for M s 6.5 and M s 7 24 at all periods. 25 The DBE spectrum is a design spectrum; the e-s 26 equivalent instrumental spectrum would be significantly (_) 13 'O
O l _ 1 higher than the design spectrum, as noted by Dr. Robert 2 McNeill. Therefore, the instrumental spectrum O 3 equivalent to the design DBE spectrum ia significantly 4 higher than the 84th percentile instrumental spectra for 5 M 6.5 and M 7 at all periods. O s s 6 Q. Woulo you please describe the verification of your 7 results with ground motion data recorded in the 1979 8 Imperial Valley earthquake? O, 9 A. Additional strong motion recordings were obtained from 10 the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. 11 Accelerograms recorded during this earthquake provided tq 12 significant data, particularly at near source 13 distances. The e camination of the 1979 Imperial Valley 14 earthquake data confirmed the conclusions reache d with gggg 15 regard to the selected form of the attentuation 16 relationship and quantification of parameter C. These 17 bservations are set forth in Section 3-b of Exhibit O 18 IMI-7, "NRC Staff Question 361.55 and Response" and 1 i 19 Section 3 of IMI-5. l 20 Peak accelerations and response spectra for O 21 horizontal components of the IV-79 earthquake are 22 presented in Exhibits IM'-7 and IMI-8, "NRC Staff jg 23 Question 361.57 and Response." As shown in Exhibit l 24 IMI-7, the mean and 84th percentile peak acceleration l 25 values for IV-79 at 8 km are .32g and .44g, l 26 respectively. The mean and 84th percentile instrumental
- q,
\-)
14 lO
O gy 1 response spectra for IV-79 corresponding to a distance G 2 of 8 km are illustrated in Figure 361.55-3 of Exhibit 3 IMI-7. 4 The mean and 84th percentile peak horizontal g 5 accelerations for IV-79 earthquake at 8 km are v 6 significantly below the .63g instrumental peak 7 acceleration derived for M s 7. They are also g 8 significantly below the .67g acceleration used as the 9 horizontal design basis for SONGS 2 & 3. As indicated 10 in Figure IMI-C " Comparison of the Imperial Valley 1979 g 11 Spectra with the 84th Percentile Instrumental Spectrum 12 and the DBE Spectrum," the 2% damping horizontal DBE 13 spectrum and the 84th percentile instrumental response ggl) 14 spectrum for M s 7 envelop the mean and 84th percentile 15 instrumental spectra associated with horizontal ground 16 motions at 8 km from the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. O 17 Q. Have ycu made an estimate of the probability of 18 exceedance of SONGS 2 & 3 DBE spectrum? 19 A. Yes. Equal-probability-of-exceedance instrumental g 20 response spectra were developed from the resulus of 21 probabilistic seismic exposure analyses. The results of 22 these analyses are shown in attached Figure IMI-D 3 23 " Comparison of SONGS 2 & 3 DBE Spectrum with Equal 24 Probability of Exceedance Instrumental Spectra." As 25 shown in Figure IMI-D, the SONGS 2 & 3 DBE spec'. rum 26 coincides with the instrumental spectrum with an equal l 15 0
O 1 p_obability of exceedance of 1 x 10-" at zero period and 2 exceeds this spectrum at all other periods. At periods 3 greater than approximately .5 see the probability of 4 exceedance is less than 10-5 5 However, the SONGS 2 & 3 DBE spectrum is a design g 6 spectrum; the equivalent instrumental spectrum would be 7 significantly higher than the design spectrum, as noted
- 8 by Dr. Robert McNeill. Therefore, the annual U
9 probability of exceedance of the SONGS 2 & 3 DBE 10 spectrum is estimated to be at least one order of
) 11 magnitude, and more likely two orders of magnitude lower 12 than shown in Figure IMI-D.
13 /// ggll 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// g 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// n 20 /// u 21 /// 22 /// lg 23 /// 24 /// 4 25 /// g 26 /// 16 .O
i (Attachmsnt] .O g 1 DR. I. M. IDRISS U 2 Publications O 3 Technical Articles 4 1. " Analysis of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake," by
,, 5 H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Journal of the Soil u
6 Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 93, No. 7 SM3, May 1967. . Vy 8 2. " Response of Earth Banks During Earthquakes," by I. M. 9 Idriss and H. B. Seed, Journal of the Soil 10 Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 93, No. 11 SM3, May 1967. O 12 3. " Finite Element Analysis for the Seismic Response of 13 Earth Banks," by I. M. Idriss, Journal of Soil 14 Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, No. gggg 15 SM3, May 1968. 16 4. " Seismic Response of Horizontal Soil Layers," by 2. M. .O 17 Idriss and H. B. Seed, Journal of Soil Mechanics 18 and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM4, July 19 1968. .n 20 5. "An Analysis of Ground Motions During the 1957 San V 21 Francisco Earthquake," by I. M. Idriss and H. B. 22 Seed, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 23 America, Vol. 58, No. 6, December .~)68. .O 24 6. " Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motions During 25 Earthquakes," by H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, (m 8 16 /// 1
- k. .
17 ,O
O 1 Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., (~)
%s 2 ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM1, January 1969.
Q, 3 7. " Influence of Geometry and Material Properties on 4 Seismic Response of Soil Deposits," by I. M. 5 Idriss, H. B. Seed and H. Dezfulian, Proceedings, O 6 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 7 Santiago, Chile, January 1969. g 8 8. " Influence of Modulus Variation with Effective Pressure 9 on the Seismic Response of Cohesionless Deposits," 13 by I. M. Idriss, Proceedings, Specialty Session on n v 11 Soil Dynamics, 7th International Conference on Goil 12 Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 13 August 1969. gggg 14 9. " Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes," by 15 H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss and F. W. Kiefer, Journal 16 of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, 17 V 1. 95, No. SMS, September 1969. O 18 10. " Analysis of Sheffield Dam Failure," by H. B. Seed, 19 K. L. Lee and I. M. Idrias, Journal of the Soil g 20 Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE; Vol. 95, No. I 21 SM6, November 1969. [ , 22 11. " Analyses of Ground Motions at Union Bay, Seattle, l g 23 During Earthquakes and Nuclear Blasts, " by H. B. l 24 Seed and I. M. Idriss, Bulletin of the 25 Seismological Society of America, Vol. 60, No. 1, g 26 February 1970. 18 O
r O s 1 12. " Seismic Response of Soil Deposits," by I. M. Idriss and f 1 V 2 H. B. Seed, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and O 3 Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol 96, No. SM2, March 1970. 4 13. " Analysis of Earthquake Ground Motions at Japanese 5 Sites," by F. W. Kiefer, H. B. Seed and I. M. o 6 Idriss, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 7 America, Vol. 60, No. 6, December 1970. 8 14. " Influence of Soil Conditions on Building Damage 9 Potential During Earthquakes," by H. B. Seed and 10 I. M. Idriss, Journal of the Structural Div., ASCE,
._ s 11 Vol. 97, No. ST2, February 1971.
U 12 15. " Studies c.f Seismic Response of Soft Clay Banks," by W. 13 D. Kovacs, H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Journal of gqgg 14 the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 15 97, No. SM2, February 1971. 16 16. "A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction 17 Potential," by H. B. Sced and I. M. Idriss, Jc rnal O 18 of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, i 19 Vol. 97, No..SM9, September 1971. 20 17. " Relationships Between Soil Conditions and Building 3 21 Damage i- the 1967 Caracas Earthquake," by H. B. 22 Seed, R. V. Whitman, H. De:fulian, R. Dobry and l 23 I. M. Idriss, Jeurnal of the Soil Mechanics and 3 24 Foundations Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM8, August 25 1972. I p ,,, 26 /// V s 19 lO
O gs 1 18. " Site Evaluation in Seismically Active Regions - an (-) 2 Interdisciplinary Team Approach, " by L. S. Cluff, O 3 W. L. Hansen, C. L. Taylor, I. M. Idriss and 4 others, Proceedings of the International Conference 5 on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research 6 and Application, Seattle, October 1972. 7 19. " Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction for Nuclear Power 8 Plants," by I. M. Idriss and H. B. Seed, National g 9 Structural Engineering Meeting, ASCE, San 10 Francisco, April 1973. a, 11 20. " Soil-Structure Interaction of Massive Embedded 12 Structures During Earthquakes," by H. B. Seed and 13 I. M. Idriss, Proceedings, 5th World_ Conference on 14 Sarthquake Engineering, Rome, June 1973. qgggg 15 21. " Seismic Response by Variable Damping Finite Elements," 16 by I. M. Idriss, H. B. Seed and N. Serff, Journal c, 17 of the Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. a 18 100, No. GT1, January 1974. 19 22. " Earth Dam-Foundation Interaction During Earthquakes," 20 by I. M. Idriss, J. M. Mathur and H. B. Seed, O 21 Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural 22 Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 4, April-June 1974. 23 23. " Effects of Local Geologic and Soil Conditions on Damage O 24 Potential During Earthquakes," by I. M. Idriss and 25 H. B. Seed, Proceedings, 2nd International Congress (1-s 26 ///
'()
20 'O
i O 1 l 73 1 of the International Association of Engineering
\_/
2 Geology, Sao Paulo, August 1974. O 3 24. "An Approach to Siting of Nuclear Power Plants: the 4 Relevance of Earthquakes, Faults and Decision 5 Analysis," by K. Nair, G. E. Brogan, L. S. Cluff, U 6 I. M. Idriss and K. T. Mao, Proceedings, Symposium 7 of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities, Vienna, ,s 8 December 1974. u 9 25. " Soil Response Considerations in Seismic Design of 10 Offshore Platforms," by I. M. Idriss, R. Dobry and 11 M. S. Power, Proceedings, Offshore Technology O 12 Conference, Houston, May 1975; also reprinted in 13 Journal of Petroleum Engineering, AIME, March 1976. ,, /l 14 26. "The Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the w_,' 15 Earthquake of February 9, 1971," by H. B. Seed, K. 16 L. Lee, I. M. Idriss and F. Makdisi, Journal of the g 17 Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. 18 GT7, July 1975. 19 27. " Properties of Soil in the San Fernando Hydraulic Fill 20 Dams," by K. L. Lee, H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss and O 21 F. Makdisi. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 22 Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, Mo. GT8, August 1975. n 23 28. " Dynamic Analysis of the Slides in the Lower San J 24 Fernando Dam During the Eartht:uake of February 9, 25 1971," by H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss, K. L. Lee and g 26 /// 21 0
O 1 1 F. Makdisi, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering ; ( 2 Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT9, September 1975. O 3 29. " Static Stresses by Linear and Nonlinear Methods," by K. I I 4 L. Lee and I. M. Idriss, Journal of the 5 Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. v 6 GT9, September 1975. 7 30. " Criteria and Methods for Static and Dynamic Analysis of 4 8 Earth Dams," by H. B. Seed, J. M. Duncan and I. M. O 9 Idriss, Proceedings, International Symposium on 10 Criteria and Assumptions for Numerical Analysis of 11 Dams, Swansea, Wales, September 1975. O N, 12 31. " Behavior of Soft Clays Under Earthquake Loading } 13 Conditions," by I. M. Idriss, R. Dobry, E. H. Doyle 2 m, 14 and R. Singh, Proceedings, Offshore Technology V j 15 Conference, Houston, May 1976. 16 32. " Seismic Stability Evaluation of Earth Dams," by I. M.
,s 17 Idriss and K. Sadigh, Proceedings, 2nd Iranian a
18 Congress of Civil Engineering, Shiraz, May 1976. 1 19 33. " Seismic SSI of Nuclear Power Plant Structures," by 20 I. M. Idriss and K. Sadigh, Jourr.al of the
)
21 Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 102, No. 22 GT7, July 1976. 23 34. " Relationships of Maximum Acceleration, Maximum
- g
; 24 velocity, Distance from Source, and Local Site 25 Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes," by g 26 H. Bolton Seed, Ramesh Murarka, John Lysn.er and i
22 1 0
- - _,.----,,,-m-- . - - . - , . . - - - . f,, . . . - . - - . - , - , - , -- +
O 1 I. M. Idriss, Bulletin of the Seismological Society
~
2 of America, Vol. 66, No. 4, August 1976. 3 3 35. " Seismic Stability Evaluation of Embankment Dams with 4 Chutes," by I. M. Idriss, B. B. Gordon and F. 5 Makdisi, 1976 Winter Meeting of the American J 6 Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, 7 December 1976. 8 36. " Influences of Magnitude, Site Conditions and Distance .) 9 on Significant Duration of Earthquakes," by R. 10 Dobry, I. M. Idriss, C.-Y. Chang and E. Ng,
, 11 Proceedings, 6th World Conference on Earthquake J
12 Engineering, New Delhi, January 1977. 13 37. "A Study of Soil-Pile-Structure Systems in Severe ,ggg 14 Earthquanes," by Peter Arnold, R. G. Bea, I. M. 15 Idriss, R. B. Reimer, K. E. Beebe and P. W. 16 Marshall, Proceedings, 9th Annual Offshore
, 17 Technology Conference, Houston, May 1977.
'J 18 38. Recent Advances in the Characterization of Ground 19 Motions on Rock and Soil Juring Moderate Magnit*1de 20 Earthquakes," by R. Dobry, I. M. Idrisa and D. 3 21 Tocher, Proceedings, Central American Conference on 22 Earthquake Engineering, San Salvador, January 1978. 23 39. " Analysis of Chabot Dam During the 1906 Earthquake," by 3 24 Faiz I. Makdisi, H. Bolton Seed and I. M. Idriss, 25 Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Earthquake 26 /// y,_) v 23 3
O
,s 1 Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, June
() 2 1978. 'D 3 40. " Drainage Effects on Seismic Stability of Rockfill 4 Dams," by K. Sadigh, I. M. Idriss and R. Youngs, 5 Proceedings, Specialty Conference on Earthquake 6 Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, June 7 1978. 8 41. " Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motions," by I. M. 9 Idriss, Proceedings, Specialty Conference on 10 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, 11 Pasadena, June 1978. g 12 42. " Duration Characteristics of Horizontal Components of 13 Scrong-Motion Earthquake Records," by R. Dobry, gqgg 14 I. M. Idriss and E. Ng , Bulletin of the 15 Seismological Society of America, Vol. 68, No. 5, 16 October 1978. 17 43. "Microzonation of Offshore Areas - An Overview," by g 18 I. M. Idriss, Lloyd S Clu'f and Ashok S. 19 Patwardhan, Proceedings, 2nd International n 20 Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, u 21 November 1978. 22 44. " Auburn Dam - A Case History of Earthquake Evaluation n) 23 for a Critical Facility," by D. R. Packer, L. S. 24 Cluff, D. P. Schwartz, F. H. Swan, and I. M. 25 Idriss, Proceedings, 2nd International Conference g, 26 on Microzonation, San Francisco, November 1978. "!s-_-) 24 n us e
A lO 1 45. " Nonlinear Behavior of Soft Clays During Cyclic (~) 1 2 Loading," by I. M. Idriss, Ricardo Cobry and Ram D.
- C,F 3 Singh, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 4 Div., ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT12, December 1978.
5 46. " Analyses for Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for 6 Nuclear Power Plants," Report by the Ad Hoc Group 7 on soil Structure Interaction (I. M. Idriss, 8 Chairman; R. P. Kennedy, Secretary; P. K. Agrawal;
.O 9 A. H. Hadjian; E. Kausel; J. Lysmer; H. B. Seed; 10 and R. V. Whitman), Nuclear Structures and 11 Materials Committee of the Structural Division of
.O 12 the American Society of Civil Engineers, published 13 by ASCE, May, 1979.
" Primary Variables Influencing Generation of Earthquake
~
14 47. q_(g% -v 15 Ground Motions by a Deconvolution Process," by 16 I. M. Idriss and M. R. Akky, P2beeedings, 5th 17 Annua & Conference on Structural Mechanics in ,0 18 Reactor Technology, Paper K 1/3, Derlin, Germany, 19 August, 1979. !O 20 48. " Considerations in Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic 21 Inputs," by I. M. Idriss, R. B. Kulkarni, and A. S. 22 Patwardhan, Part of Panel Discussion, Session IV, 23 " Future Developments of Probabilistic Structural lO i 24 Reliability to Meet the Needs of Risk Analyses of 25 Nuclear Power Plants," 2nd International Seminar ,g 26 on: Structural Reliability of Mechanical 25 .lO
, -. . . . . - . . . - - - - - - . . - . - . - . .- . . ~ _ - .
O 1 Components and Subassemblies of Nuclear Power O,c3 m 2 Plants, 5th Annual Conference on Structural u 3 Mechanics in Reactor Technology, August, 1979. 4 49. "Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Exposure," by R. B. m 5 Kulkarni, K. Sadigh, and I. M. Idriss, Proceedings, u 6 2nd U.S. National Conference on Earthquake 7 Engineering, Palo Alto, California, August, 1979. O 8 50. " Geologic, Seismologic and Geotechnical Considerations 9 Related to Performance of Dams During Earthquakes," 10 by I. M. Idriss, L. S. Cluff, D. Tocher, F. O 11 Makdisi, and P. L. Knuepfer, Proceedings, 13th 12 International Congress on Large Dams, New Delhi, 13 India, November, 1979. gqgg 14 51. "On the Importance of Dissipation Effects in Evaluating 15 Pore Pressure Changes Due to Cyclic Loading," by H. 16 B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Proceedings, 17 ;nternational Symposium on soils Under Cyclic and O 18 Transient Loading, Swansea, January, 1980. 19 52. " Behavior of Normally Consolidated Clay Under Simulated O 20 Earthquake and Ocean Wave Loading Conditions," by 21 I. M. Idriss, Y. Moriwaki, S. G. Wright, E. H. 22 Doyle and R. S. Ladd, Proceedings, International 23 Symposium on Soils Under Cyclic and Transient O 24 Loading, Swansea, January, 1980. 25 53. " Soil-Structure Interaction during Earthquakes, a g,_s 26 State-of-the-4rt Review," by I. M. Idriss and N -) 26 O
O 1 C. Y. Chang, paper presented at the International 2 Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical 3 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, S.F. 4 Lions, April, 1981. g 5 R_esearch Reports 6 1. "The Response of Earth Banks During Earthquakes," by 7 I. M. Idriss and H. B. Seed, Research R'; port, Soil g 8 Mechanics and Materials Research Laboratory, 9 Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Calif., 10 Berkeley, April 1966. O 11 2. " Analysis of Soil Liquefaction in the Niigata 12 Earthquake," by H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, 13 Research Report, Soil Mechanics and Bituminous gj{} 14 Materials Research Laboratory, Department of Civil 15 Engineering, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, April 1966. 16 3. " Response of Horizontal Soil Layers During Earthquakes," O 17 by I. M. Idriss and H. B. Seed, Research Report, 18 Soil Mechanics and Bituminous Materials Research 19 Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. lg 20 of Calif., Berkeley, August 1967.
- 21 4. "An Analysis of Sheffield Dam Failure," by H. B. Seed, 22 K. L. Lee and I. M. Idriss, Research Report, Soil 23 Mechanics and Bituminous Materials Research k) 24 Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Univ.
25 of Calif., Berkeley, April 1968. lC(m, 26 ///
'V 27 O
O 1 5. " Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes," by O 2 H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss and F. W. Kiefer, Report O 3 No. EERC 68-5, Earthquake Engineering Research 4 Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, September 1968. 5 6. " Computer Programs for Evaluating the Seismic Response Q 6 of Soil Duposits with Nonlinear Characteristics 7 Using Equivalent Linear Procedures," by I. M. 8 Idriss, d. De:fulian and H. B. Seed, Research O 9 Report, Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of Calif., 10 Berkeley, April 1969. 11 7. " Rock Motion Accelerograms for High 14agnitude O 12 Earthquhkes," by H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, 13 Report No. EERC 69-7, Earthquake Engineering 14 Research Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, April C(~,) 15 1969. 16 8. " Influence of Local Soil Conditions and Building Damage . ,o, 17 Potential During Earthquakes," by H. B. Seed and 18 I. M. Idriss, Report No. EERC 69-15, Earthquake 19 Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Calif.,
- g 20 Derkeley, December 1969.
21 9. " Relationship Between Soil C ditions and Building 22 Damage in the Caracas Earthquake of July 19, 1967," 23 by H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss and H. Dezfulian, O 24 Report No. EERC 70-2, Earthquake Engineering 25 Research Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, g 26 February 1970. 28 O
r
.O
, 1 10. "A Simplifiad Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction 2 Potential," by H. B. Seed'and I. M. Idriss, Report u
3 No. EERC 70-9, Earthquake Engineering Research 4 Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, December 1970. 5 11. " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response 6 Analysis," by H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Report 7 No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Rescarch a 8 Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, December 1970. u 9 12. " Analysis of the Slides in the San Fernando Dams During 10 thr. Earthquake of February 9, 1971," by H. B. Seed, O 11 K. L. Lee, I. M. Idriss and F. Makdisi, Report No. 12 EERC 73-2, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 13 Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, June 1973. gqgg 14 13. " QUAD-4: A Computer Program for Evaluating the Seismic 15 Response of Soil Structures by Variable Damping 16 Finite Element Procedures," by I. M. Idriss, J. O 17 Lysmer, R. Hwang and H. B. Seed, Report No. EERC 18 73-16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 19 Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, July 1973. O 20 14. " Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Mas:imum 21 Velocity, Distance from Source, Local Site 22 Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes," by O 23 H. B. Seed, R. Murarka, J. Lysmcr and I. M. Idriss, 24 Report No. EERC 75-17, Earthquake Eng.c.eering 25 Research Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, July gp_ 26 1975. U 29 'O
O 1 15. " Representation of Irregular Strest Time Histories by w/ n 2 Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction
- O 3 Analyses," by H. B. Seed, I. M. Idriss, F. Makdisi, 4 and N. Banerjee, Report No. EERC 75-29, Earthquake 5 Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Calif.,
6 Berkeley, October 1975. 7 8 3 9 10 11 12 13 14
#) ~
15 16 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O*
- 30 l
0 l i
) i
;O-1 I
1000 i , l I
.O -
l - 300 - i O /
/'N M = 5 7 _
- j. / Ms = 6.5 t f nj i
- 100 -
/ -
/
l / .
/
jO
/ _
f
/ _
u y 30 E
,/ -
1 r U ~ I 5 / 84th Percentile
~
- O. .g / Instrumental Spectra j o /
; $ 10 -
/
! c /'
} -
/
t 3 -
/
!OO 4 e /
- l. ]
E 3 - f b, % / 1 Q/ . O'/g% {O / 0-1 1 _ /
!O Damping = 0.02 0.3 -
O g,3 , l , , ,,,,l , l , , ,,,,; j 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 Period (seconds) O eroere i M > ins 1re m eetei 84t8 eercentire a e.nonse sgectre Estimated for SONGS from Magnitudes 6.5 and 7 Earthquakes on the OZD O
- O O :
~
20
~
SOS'GS 2 & 3 DBE - 300 - t
._ /,\ M
- 7
- O
< / s -
/ Ms = 6.5 f
> ml
- 100 -
/
7 .
. / .
/
O _
/ _
- / -
3 / J 30 - j - E U ~
- O 5 / 84th Percentile
~
5 / instrumental Spectra 2 /
$ / -
e / -
.2 /
M -
/
3 / 00 i
~
9 : / i
] 3 -
,/ -
[ E /
/
/
- O ,/
1 - ~ O - 1 Damping = 0.02 1 0.3 - J -
-O g,, , i , ,,,,,; ,
l , , ,,,,l , j , ,,,, 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 Period (seconds) i
!'O Figure IMI-B - Comparison of the 84th Percentile Instrumental Spectra
. with the DBE Spectrum i
!O-4
-.._--._.____...~._.._._..__...._......m._ . . . - - - . . _ . , _,_m...,_,_..,.-__.....-,__._-.____._.... , . , _ _ _ . _ , . - . . .
4
- O 1000 O _
,0 2 -
~
~~S dNGS 2 & 3 DBE -
300 -
~
~
!O '
/
f v'
~J 100 -
/ A -
/ A A g
/ ,
- e -
/ A , e 40 /
4
^ e ^
- e -
/*
- e e o -
*J 30 -
f $. -
~
5 ~ le n
- O r / 84th Percentile O
_8_ /^ Instrumental Spectrum
$ 10 -
- / ,8 -
e / -
.?
/
- E _
/ *e -
o ! - / e -
% ~
/ o
^
I 3 --
' ^ -
S l
- c. / ,e 7 -
/ e
!O ./ J I - 1 i - 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake
~
O Distance: 6 to 13 km Damping = 0.02 0.3 -
~
a 84th Percentile e f*>an ! _] O o3 i I , . i ,1 i I - i i it'l i I e i i iii 0.01 0.03 0.1- 0.3 1 3 10 Period (seconds) O Figure iMt.C - Comparison of the Imperial Valley 1979 Spectra with the n) ( 84th Percentile Instrumental Spectrum and the DBE Spectrum O
[ . ., .- f j 500 , l
\ 300 -
10 Annual Probab;iity of Exceedance O SONGS 2 & 3
' , - 1x10 4
- . DBE Spectrum -
i
/
i
- 100 -
,/ ~
- 6x10-4 --
~
,/ ,- ~
~
.,O
,' / - 2x10~3 e ' '
~
i /
/-
/ ,l ,/
~
}, -
/
/
,/
/
s' -
~ l '
~
, / /
/ l ' ~
, j
- O e ' / '
a, u
- 30 -
/ / /
/. / / -
t / / /
'O o
/ / /
m
/ / /! ,
l l/
/ ' /
/ -
100 -i S ///'/ /p
/ / /
/ / /
10 / /
- o
// f
, / /
/ /
i
,/ / -
~
j / / / 1 c
/ / l / '/ 7 l -
/ / -
- O
)
/
/ / //
/ ,/ / -
/ /
/ /
3 / / -
- s% / /
4 / / 4/ /
- O 4/
- - , 'o, ' -
!. ,/ ,/ Damping = 0.02 l / i
/
i 1 ' iO l , , , , , , l , , , , , , , 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 2 i Period (sec) Figure IMI D - Compa ison of SONGS 2 & 3 DBE Spectrum with Equal Probability
.;,O of Exce.edance instrumental Spectra -
4-
.n,., ..-..n.~ ._...--,..,.....,_-_-_._,,,.e.,,n.-n..,,.,,,,,_,e,_,,,_.,__,,,,nnn-.,,,wn,,--,-,,..n.~..--_~
.O 1 TESTIMONY OF DR. GERALD A. FRAZIER 2 Q. Would you please state your name?
O 3 A. Dr. Gerald A. Frazier 4 Q. By whom are you presently employed? 5 A. Del Mar Technical Associates - a division of TERA O 6 Corporation (" TERA / DELTA"). I am also self- employed as
^
7 geophysical consultant on the exploration of 8 hydrocarbons, ninerals and other earth resources. g 9 Q. In what manner are you associated with Applicants in 10 this proceding? 11 A. I have been retained as a consultant for the purpose of O 12 conducting ground motion studies related to the San 13 Onofre site. Q. Please describe your formal education. O (() 14 15 A. I received a Bachelor cf Science in 1964, a Masters of 16 Science in 1966 and a Ph.D in 1969, all from Montana 17 State University and all in Civil Engineering. My O 18 specialization was earthquake engineering; my minor was 19 mathematics.
- O 20 Q. Have you been associated with any educational 21 institutions?
22 A. Yes. 1969-1971, post-doctorate research fellow in j) 23 Earthquake Engincering at California Institute of 24 Technology; 1971-1974 Visiting Research Associate in 25 Seismology at California Institute of Technology;
- O 26 1974-1976 Assistant Professor, Institute of Geophysics i
'O
.O g- 1 and Planetary Physics at Scripps Institute of V 2 Oceanography at the University of California at San O 3 Diego; 1976-1981, Visiting Research Associate, Institute 4 of Geophysics and Flanetary Physics at Scripps Institute 5 of oceanography at tae Universit.y of California at San O 6 Diego. 7 Q. Wbsc are your pertinent professional or organizational g 8 memberships? 9 A. Yes. I am a member of the Seismological Society of 10 America, American Geophysical Union, and Society of O 11 Expl ration Geophysicists. 12 Q. Have you written or published articles in the field of 13 geophysics? g ,(" } 14 A. Yes. I have authored or co-authored several articles. 15 The list of the more pertinent ones is attached hereto. 16 Q. Have you testified as an expert in any previous hearings 17 or trials? O 18 A. Yes. I have testified before the Advisory Committee on 19 Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the Atomic Safety and g 20 Licensing Board (ASLB)', a'd the Atomic Licensing Appeal 21 Board (ALAB) on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. 22 In these proceedings I was qualified as an expert in O 23 seismology and earthquake engineering. 24 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in the proceeding? 25 A. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether, o 26 assuming a Ms 7 earthquake on the OZD, the seismic 2 O
O , b 1 design basis is adequate to protect the public health
' () 2 and safety. My testimony d'emonstrates and it i.s my O
3 conclusion that the DBE spectrum for SONGS 2 E. 3 is 4 conservative relative to the ground ., tion that would 5 result from such an earthquake. 6 Q. Have you performed earthquake modeling s'. dies to 7 predict ground motions at SONGS from hypothesized 8 earthqurkes along the OZD? O, 9 A. Yes. The results of these studies are provided in four l i 10 reports which I am presenting as exhibits in this 11 proceeding:
)
12 (1) GAF-1, " Simulation of Earthquake Ground Motions for 13 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Final Report" 1978
) ( } 14
- 15 (2) GAF-2, " Simulation of Earthquake Ground Motions for 16 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1,"
17 Supplement I, 1979 O
- 18 (3) GAF-3, " Simulation of Earthquake Ground Motions for 19 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1,"
20 Supplement II, 1980 (3 21 (4) GAF-4, " Simulation of Earthquake Ground Motions for 22 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1," g 23 Supplement III, 1980 24 Q. Would you describe the objective or premise for the 25 rarthquake modeling studies? 26 /// lO 3 O
._. - _ . . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - _ - - _ _ . _ , _ -,_ ,,_.-- ._ _ __ ,. _ _- - _ .. _ ~ . , . . - _ - . _ - . . . . _ , _ . - - - - _ - -
iO 1 A. The basic objective has been to predict ground motions () 2 at the SONGS site that would result from a large 10 3 earthquake hypothesized to occur along the 02D. The 4 premise being that by modelling the physical processes 5 of previous earthquakes, a rational basis could be
- O 6 developed for simulating hypothesized earthquake 7 conditions in the vicinity of SONGS. This effort has
. 8 been conducted in four stages:
)
9 (1) Model Development: Computer methods were developed 10 for simulating earthquake rupture and wave
- O 11 propagation through the earth to synthetically 12 produce ground shaking over the frequency range 0 13 to 20 Hz.
(2) Model Calibration: Strong motion recordings of lO ( ) 14 15 past earthquakes (1966 Parkfield and 1940 Imperial 16 Valley) were used in conjunction with earthquake lg 17 physics to calibrate rupture parameters in the 18 computer model. 19 (3) Model Validation: The calibrated model was then 20 tested for simulating ground motions for additional 93 i 21 earthquakes, namely 1933 Long Beach, 1971 San f ' 22 Fernando and 1979 Imperial Valley. 3
- .0 23 (4) SONGS Predictions
- The resulting model was used to 24 predict raotions at the SONGS site due to several 25 hypothesized earthquake ruptures along the OZD.
26 Conservative predictions were provided by
!O (
i 4 o _.. _..... _ ._-,.-__ ._..._.--.. _ ,- __ .- -. _ _ ,- .. _ _,.. ,__ _ _... _ ._ _ _ _.._ _, _ . ..._,. _ __ __ ...___ _..~.
O 1 considering worst-case rupture configurations, O
+J 2 i.e., ruptures that maximally focused seismic waves
,O 3 at the SONGS site. 4 Q. Could you briefly elaborate on the computer methods that 5 were employed? 6 A. The computer methods have been developed to simulate the 7 physical processes that occur during an earthquake, 8 namely, fracture along the earthquake fault and
)
9 transmission of seismic waves from the fracture zone to 10 the recording site. The technical details on how this q) 11 is accomplished are presented in GAF-1, 2, 3 and 4. 12 Earthquake notions have been modeled in three 13 mathematical steps: (1) Earthquake Fracture. The earthquake fracture is O ([) 14 15 characterized as a shear crack that initiates from 16 a point in the earth which is referred to as the IO 17 " hypocenter" or the " focus" of the earthquake. The 18 idealized fracture spreads at a subsonic speed 19 indicated by crack theory. The fault slip that 20 results from fracture is prescribed on the basis vi O 21 crack theory and laboratory measurements of shear 22 cracks. Additionally, random processes are 23 included to mimic observed earthquake behavior. !O 24 Because of the introduction of random fluctuations 25 in the characterization of earthquake fracture, a simulation of ground motion for one hypothesized
- g ( ) 26 5
lO
O 1 earthquake is repeated several times to determine O 2 the range of effects that could result. O 3 (2) Wave Transmission. Voluminous calculations are 4 performed to determine the ground motions that 5 result from fracture at each of several hundred O 6 points along the fracture surface. These results, 7 denoted " Green's functions", provide transmission 8 characteristics for the composite of earth 9 materials traversed by the seismic waves. The 10 methods used for this step simulate the complete 11 myriad of seismic waves that arise in our layered 12 represen*.ation of the earth. The several model 13 layers are assigned viscoelastic properties to simulate the hysteretic behavior of earth materials.
) ) 14 15 (3) Earthquake Simulation. The fracture model (Step 1) 16 is used as input to the wave transmission model 17 (Step 2) to produce synthetic ground motions at the O
18 desired recording site. Mathematically, this is 19 achieved through the convolution of fault slip with 20 the Green's functions for the earth. The g 21 orientation and distance of the site with respect 22 to the fracture is specified at this stage of the 23 analysis. }) 24 Q. What are the parameters used by your model? l 25 A. Although the modeling procedure is sophisticated, the 26 parameterization of the model is straight- forward. 6 O
O 1 Conceptually, the model parameters allow me to O 2 characterize a specific fault slippage along a specific O 3 rupture surface in a specific earth structure. This 4 involves characterization of (1) the geologic structure, 5 (2) the rupture geometry, and (3) the rupture kinematics. O 6 (1) The geologic structure for a given site is 7 represented by a stack of horizontal, viscoelastic g 8 layers; the bottom layer extends to infinity. The 9 layer thicknesseu and seismic wave velocities are 10 extracted from field data (e.g., well logs and 11 Seismic profiles) at the site. The layer densities O 12 are estimated from the wave velocities and geologic 13 data on rock type. The material quality factors in each layer are empirically related to the seismic O ( ) 14 15 velocities for that layer as discussed in Section 16 2.5 of GAF-1. O 17 (2) The rupture surface is represented by a fault with 18 a specified dip, rake, and strike relative to the
- 19 site's azimuthal location; a specified hypocentral g 20 location; and a specified I'pture extent.
21 (3) The fault slippage over the rupture surface is 22 characterized by a spatially invariant slip lg 23 function that spreads at a specified velocity which , p =# 24 is then perturbed randomly. The shape of the slip 25 - function is defined by three parameters: initial O 26 slip velocity, duration of slip, and final offset. l l 7 lO
. . - . . . , . . . . - . - . . . ~ - - - - , . . - . . - . - . , - - .,--
.O 1 The gross rupture velocity, the duration of slip at O 2 a point and the random irregularities are assigned O
3 values generically. The gross rupture velocity is 4 se to ninety percent of the local shear-wave
. 5 velocity for each layer undergoing rupture, while 6 the duration of slip at each point is taken as the 7 travel time of shear waves across the narrowest 8 dimension of fault rupture. The final offset is g
9 assigned a value so as to give a desired seismic 10 moment to the earthquake rupture and is related to 11 the static stress drop for the earthquake. The O 12 initial slip velocity is the principal parameter in 13 the earthquake model that has been calibrated from 14 near-field recordings of earthquakes. O() 15 Q. Would you elaborate on the calibration of the model 16 parameter termed " initial slip velocity?" 17 A. Because the initial slip velocity governs the amplitude
-O 18 of ground motions for frequences above about 2 Hz, 19 considerable effort has gone into the assignment of 20 values for this parameter. As described in Supplement I
!O 21 (Exhibit GAF-2), the initial slip velocity at the lead l 22 edge of the subsurface fracture was assigned a value of i 23 800 cm/see to yield high-frequency accelerations equal O 24 to or slightly greater than near-field accelerations t 25 recorded for the 1966 Parkfield earthquake (Ms 6.4). i 26 Similar calibration studies were then performed for 1940 O 8
- O
O 1 Imperial Valley earthquake (M s 7.1). '1he same value -' O 2 800 cm/sec was found to be appropriate for this much O 3 larger earthquake. 4 Subsequently, in Supplements II and III (GAF-3 and 5 GAF-4), the value of 800 cm/sec was found to be suited 6 for producing the high-frequency accelerations recorded 7 for the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Ms 6.3), the Pacoir a 8 Station of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (Ms 6.5) and 9 the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (M s 6.9). These 10 five earthquakes represent a major portion of the near 11 fi ld data available for Southern California. Because O 12 all five earthquakes required the same value for initial 13 slip velocity, I conclude that the production of high o O '"**"*""' "****** "*"*" "*" "*"*"* ** "***" ' """'""* 1 15 surface is independent of earthquake magnitude and i 16 static stress drop. 17 This earthquake property is pnysically reasonable, O 18 because the initial slip velocity directly relates to 19 dynamic stress drop (the rapid change in stress at the 20 crack tip as gouge materials undergo initial brittle O 21 fracture). The fracture strength of the earth 22 constituents is not a function of either magnitude or 23 fault offset, consequently neither is the empirically O 24 derived parameter - initial slip velocity. 25 Q. Does your modeling study include focusing effects? g 26 /// 9 O l
~O 1 A. Yes. In fact, the model tends to overestimate the O 2 effects of directivity or rupture focusing at high O 3 frequencies. Actual earthquakes exhibit smaller 4 focusing effects due to the apparent abundance of 5 localized irregularities. 6 Q. What is the effect of focusing on earthquake ground 7 motions? 8 A. Recorded ground motionc tend to be higher in the g 9 direction of spreading rupture than in other directions 10 due to focusing of seismic waves. Conversely, for the 11 ase f unidirectional rupture, recorded ground motions O 12 tend to be lower in the direction opposite to rupture 13 growth due to defocusing of seismic energy. The bias of ,0 ( } 14 large amplitudes of motion in the direction of spreading 15 rupture (i.e., the phenomenon of focusing) has been 16 theorized, and indeed observed, for intermediate to low 17 frequencies (less than about 3 Hz) for more than a O 18 decade. One would expect to see the primary effects of 19 focusing in the lower-frequency parameters of peak 20 ground velocity and displacement as opposed to the O 21 higher-frequency parameter of peak ground acceleration 22 due to irregularities in the earth. 23 Earthquake focusing results from time compression O 24 of signals. Recall the familiar Doppler effect heard as 25 a train passes: high-pitched and loud noise as the 26
- O train approaches with both the loudness and pitch 10
^O
O 1 diminishing as the train passes. Focusing for O 2 earthquakes can be understood by considering a 0 3 unidirectional fracture that ruptures due north and 4 emits seismic waves for a duration of 10 seconds. 5 Because of the approaching rupture, an observer in the 6 near field and north of the source experiences strong 7 shaking for a duration less than 10 seconds, say 6 8 seconds. The fact that 10-seconds-worth of seismic O 9 energy arrives within 6 seconds tends to increase the 10 amplitudes of ground motion in the direction of rupture 11 f using. Conversely, an observer in the near field, O 12 south of the source, experiences strong ground shaking 13 for a duration longer than 10 seconds which tends to g 14 decrease the amplitudes of motion in the direction of 15 rupture defocusing. 16 Actual earthquake rupture spreads in a somewhat 17 irregular manner, lurching and altering directions in O 18 response to stress aberrations and material asperities. 19 The consequence is that the bias toward large amplitude 20 motions in the path of focusing is subdued for O 21 frequencies greater than about 3 Hz with significant 22 biases confined to peak velocity and lower frequencies. 23 The effects of rupture focusing and defocusing on lower O 24 frequencies are widely observed at distances ranging 25 from near field to teleseismic (more than 1000 km). O 26 /// 11 O
O 1 Q. How does focusing affect strong motion recordings of O 2 earthquakes? O 3 A. Data recorded for several earthquakes illustrate the 4 subdued nature of focusing at high frequencies. 5 Relevant data were recorded for the 1966 Parkfield O 6 earthquake. An accelerometer (Parkfield Station 2) was 7 positioned directly in the line of about 30 km of 8 approaching rupture. The instrumer.t recorded 0.5 g in 9 the horizontal direction. About 5 km away, 10 perpendicular to the surface break, Parkfield Station 5 11 recorded 0.45 g, a value only 10% smaller than that
)
12 directly in the beam of maximum focusing. In contrast, 13 the lower-frequency velocity peaks were nearly three 14 times larger in the direct path of focusing (Station 2) 3 15 as compared to recorded velocities at Station 5. 16 Similarly, in the Pacoima Dam recording of the 1971 San 17 Fernando earthquake, the effects of rupture focusing are O 18 more apparent in the velocity peaks than in the 19 acceleration peaks. O 20 The 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake was an example of 21 focusing affecting all three parameters but with the 22 primary effect on the low frequency parameter of 23 displacement. The peak acceleration was O.42 g directly O 24 in the path of focusing (Station 6) and 0.25 g within 25 one kilometer of the fault, but in ths path of 26 defocusing (Coyote Creek). The corresponding values for
- O 12
- O
O 1 peak ground velocity are 44 and 20 cm/sec at the two O 2 stations. While effects of focusing are only slightly 10 3 more apparant for velocity than acceleration, the i 4 recorded peak displacements of 9.3 cm and 2.4 cm, 5 respectively, represent a substantially larger effect
)
6 due to focusing than that for the higher frequency 7 acceleration peaks.
;O 8 Recordings of the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake 9 provide further evidence on the limited effects that I
10 rupture focusing has on increasing peak accelerations. g) 11 At least five strong motion recordings were obtained 12 essentially on the fault (within 1 km) at various points 13 along the path of rupture. The horizontal accelerations g ) 14 of these stations range between about .25 and .75 g with
! 15 a mean value well under .5 g. These values fit well 16 within the range of peak horizontal accelerations cited l
g 17 above for the Parkfield and the Coyote Lake 18 earthquakes. These values are also consistent with the i 19 values recorded out to 6 or 7 km from the fault. O 20 Furthermore, there is no significant difference between 21 peak accelerations rece-ded south of the epicenter, in 22 the defocused zone, and those recorded north of the i 9 23 epicenter, in the focused z ae. There is apparently no 24 significant increase in peak accelerations as a res lt 25 of focusing in the IV-79 earthquake data. g 26 /// 13 O
=O 1 Q. Would you describe your ground motion predictions for O 2 SONGS? O 3 A. Referring back to the three mathematical steps for 4 modeling earthquakes, the wave transmission properties 5 (Step 2) were calculated for the earth structure 6 underlying the SONGS site. The viscoelastic parame ars 7 derived for the subsurface geology at SONGS are ' 8 presented in GAF-2 (Table 6-1, page 6-2). The relevant 9 parameters include compressional- and shear-wave 10 ve locitier,, density, compressional- and shear-wave 11 quality factors, and layer thicknesses. The response of O , 12 this earth representation has been calculated from 0 to 13 20 Hz for 60 epicentral distances from 1 to 60 km and f r 21 soume depths hem 0.26 to 15.0 km. h Oh M 15 calculated earth response at each epicentral 16 distance / source depth pair has ten independent O mp nents, giving a t tal f 60 x 21 x 10 or 12,600 k17 18 individual time histories of tha ear *h's response to 19 points of rupture distributed over the hypothesized zone 20 of major rupture. .O 21 The earth re=ponse functions are convolved in time 22 and space (at each point of rupture) with the standard
- O 23 characterization of fault slip to give the site-specific 24 results at SONGS. Variations that result from 25 stochastic properties of the earthquake model are 26 ///
~O 14 O
1 0 1 included by repeating each earthquake simulation several O 2 times to determine the full range of effects. O 3 A range of plausible fractures along the OZD were j 4 examined (described in GAF-2). The worst-case fracture 5 is pictured in the attached Figure GAF-A, " Schematic 6 representation of the SONGS site relative to the i 7 hypothesized offshore zone of deformation. The 40-km 8 fracture corresponds to hypothesized earthquake 'D' from lO 9 Exhibit GAF-2 and GAF-4." The worst-case fracture, i 10 denoted earthquake "D", represents an M s 7, maximally 1 1 11 oriented with respect to the EONGS site.
- O 12 The predictions at SONGS, computed with both the
; 13 Supplement I Model (GAF-2) and the Supplement III Model 14 (GAF-4), are shown in Figures GAF-B, " Site
) '
! 15 specific... predictions computed with [the refined model 16 (GAF-4)]... compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the ] 17 v rtical component with 2% damping", GAF-C, " Site O 18 specific... predictions computed with [the refined model 19 (GAF-4)]... compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the l 20 horizontal SE component with 2% damping", and GAF-D, g
- 21 " Site specific... predictions computed with [the refined 22 model (GAF-4)]... compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the g 23 horizontal component NE 2% damping". In each figure, 24 the computed mean and mean plus one standard deviation l 25 response spectra is compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE 26 spectrum at two percent critical damping. Also shown c) 1 i
O e 15 O
10 1 are the calculated mean values for peak acceleration, O 2 velocity and displacement and local magnitude. The .O 3 results indicate that the design spectrum for SONGS 2 & 4 3 conservative in that it exceeds the predicted 5 instrumental spectrum at all periods of interest.
)
6 Damping values of five, seven and ten percent also 7 reveal t comparable degree of conservatism for the 8 -design spectrum. O 9 Q. " Would you describe the degree of conservatism and
- 10 reliability provided in your modeling studies?
g 11 A. As illustrated in GAF-A, the SONGS site is 8 kilometers 12 from the OZD. A conservative prediction of site 13 specific response spectra has been determined for hypothesized earthquakes along the OZD. The site O ( ) 14 15 specific predicticn is conservative with respect to the 16 assigned earthquake magnitude (Ms 7) and the critical 17 rupture sequence which maximally focusses seismic waves O 18 at the site. Also, the instrumental predictions have 19 not been reduced to account for either the presence of
- O 20 SONGS structures or the conservative methods by which 21 base motions are input into the structures.
22 One of the useful features of the earthquake
- O 23 modeling approach is the capability for examining a 24 suite of postulated earthquakes so as to isolate 25 particular rupture configurations that produce the
- o 26 strongest ground shaking. Such a study has been
)
16 10
O 1 conducted for SONGS (cf. Chapter 6 of GAh-2) where the 4
) 2 ground shaking from the following suites of earthquakes O
3 were compared: (1) seven different fault locations and 4 rupture directions; (2) three different fLult lengths; 5 (3) three different hypocentral depths; (4) three
)
6 different depths to the fault bottom; and (5) three 7 different depths to the fault top. 8 These site-specific calculations for SONGS are based on j) 9 as complete and rigorous simulation of earthquakes as is 10 currently available. The SONGS predictions, based on 11 these studies, offer a high degree of reliability for O 12 the following reasons. 13 (1) The results have been validated against near-field recordings of five important southern California O (]) 14 15 earthquakes in the same distance range that is 16 relevant for SONGS;
;g 17 (2) The capability provides a rational basis for 18 extrapolating from past earthquakes to hypothesized 19 conditions at SONGS, including site-specific
- g 20 conditions: hypothesized earthquake magnitude, 21 distance to the OZD, and ea.ch structure.
22 (3) The results provide a basis for appraising the 23 likelihood of unusual combinations of fault rupture O 24 and wave guide effects that would cause large 25 amplitude shaking at SONGS.
'O 26 ///
17 O
O 1 (4) Instrumental predictions at SONG: are being O' 2 compared with design spectra in GAF-B, C, and D O 3 with no reduction in the predicted spectra at short 4 periou (high frequency) to account for the presence 5 of the SONGS structures. 6 Q. How does the assignment of Ms 7 impact your predictions 7 of ground motions at the SONGS site? g 8 A. The sensitivity of peak grottnd seceleration (PGA) on 9 earthquake magnitude diminishes with increasing 10 magnitude and with decreasing distance. The earthquake O 11 nditions hypothesized for SONGS are sufficiently 12 sevare as to be insensitive to small changes in the 13 assigned magnitude. I will explain. The " size" of an
~s 14 earthquake is quantified using one of several different '() (\s) 15 magnitude scales. Local magnitude (M L) and body wave 16 magnitude (mb) are determined from the amp 1.itude of 17 waves with a period of about 1.0 sec. Both ML and mg O
18 saturate at values near Ms 7. Earthquakes le.rger than 19 Ms 7 register about ML and mb 7. This is because the g 20 amplitude of 1.0-second waves does not increase with 21 increasing size of rupture. 22 Surface wave magnitude (Ms) is determined from the O 23 amplitude of 20-second waves, thereby largely 24 circumventing the problem of magnitude saturation. 25 Eventually, the amplitude of these long-period wavec O 26 saturates at about Ms 8.3. An Ms 8.3 would result from 18
.O
. _ . -_._ _ _ . - . . _ - - . .- _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _____._ _ _ _ _ _ . - -. _.
O 1 an earthquake rupture of several hundred kilometers. () 2 Because Ms and mg are measured teleseismically (r > 2000 O i 3 km), considerable worldwide data are available for 4 empirically establishing saturation levels in these 5 measures of earthquake " size." O 6 Similarly, the amplitude of 5 Hz waves (about the 7 frequency of PGA in the near field) would be expected to g 8 saturate, becoming insensitive to differences in 9 earthquake " size" for magnitudes greater than about l 10 6.5. The saturation of high-frequency waves is not as () 11 historically documented in the seismological literature 12 as that of the lower frequency waves used in the various 13 measures of earthquake magnitude, because the amplitude g ( ) 14 of these high frequency waves is not easily measured at 15 teleseismic distances. The necessity of relying on 16 rtrong motion data for relating the amplitude of high O 17 frequency waves to earthquake size significantly limits 18 the availablity of data for large magnitude earthquakes 19 as compared to teleseismic recordings. Considering that o 20 20-second waves saturate at a about, Ms 8.3, and 21 1-second waves saturate at about Ms 7.0, I conclude that 22 5 Hz waves (PGA) should saturate at a somewhat lower o 23 magnitude (M s 6.5). Consequently, the ground motion 24 criteria for SONGS is dependent on the postulated nearby 25 earthquake; the precise magnitude assignment for this 9 26 event is not critical. 19
.O
O 1 Q. How does the proximity of the OZD to the SONGS site 2 influence saturation of ground motions with magnitude? O 3 A. As I just explained, the widely accepted phenomenon of 4 saturation of the various magnitude scales with 5 increasing earthquake size indicates that higher 6 frequency motions (f > 1.0 Hz) will also saturate. 7 Additionally, based on earthquake physics and recorded 8 data, saturation of PGA with increasing magnitude is g 9 even more pronounced close to the causative rupture. 10 For distances less than 10 km from the zone of rupture, 11 PGA is controlled by the nearest 10- to 20-km zone of O 12 rupture. High-frequency waves produced by more distant 1 13 rupture are substantially attenuated so as to negate 14 their influence on near-field PGA. Additional rupture O (]) 15 length would be inconsequential for influencing the 16 high-frequency waves and consequently PGA recorded in 17 the near field. O If The earthquake modeling studies that I described 19 above have tested this mechanistic basis for the
.g 20 saturation of near-field accelerations. These studies 21 indicate that the source of high frequency waves along 22 the rupture surface is both independent of earthquake g 23 magnitude and fault offset (static stress drop). Ground 4
24 accelerations increase with increasing magnitude to a 25 point where additional extension of the earthquake 26 rupture serves only to increase the dur. tion of O 20 l O , l i _ _ . . . - . _ - . . . . - . . - _ , . - . - . . _ _ . - ~ . , . . . . . . . _ _ . - . . _ . . , _ _ , _ _
O # 1 shaking. Both theory and data indicate that this point { O 2 of saturation occurs at about magnitude 6.5 for high O 3 frequency ground motions within 10 km of the causative 4 rupture. 5 Based on my studies of earthquakes, I conclude that O 6 the DBE used for SONGS 2 & 3 is conservative with
~
7 respect to the postulated Ms7 earthquake on the OZD. 8 O 9 10 11 O 12 13 i oO" 15 16 0 17 18 19 O 20 21 22 0 23 , i 24 25 O 26 l 21 0
m Attachment U GERALD A. FRAZIER O PUBLICATIONS O Frazier, G. A. (1966). Analytical Investigation of the Vibrational Behavior of Earth Dams, M.S. Thesis, Montana g State University. Frazier G. A. (1969). Vibrational characteristics of Three-Dimensional Solids, with Applications to Earth Dams, g Ph.D. Thesis, Montana State University. Fyazier, G. A. Alexander, J. H. and Petersen, C. M. (1973). 3-D seismic code for ILLIAC IV, Systems, Science and g Software Report Report SSS-R-73-1506. Frazier, G. A. and Petersen, C. M. (1974). 3-D stress wave code for the ILLIAC IV, Systems, Science and Software g Report SSS-R-74-2103. Frazier, G. A. and Day, S. M. (1975). Finite element analysis of quadrupole ground motions in axisymmetric g earth structures, EDS, 56, 1026. Day, S. M. and Frazier, G. A. (1977). Radiation and scattering of seismic waves by a hemispherical 9 foundation, submitted to Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE. Kosloff, D. and Frazier, G. A. (1978). Treatment of g hourglass patterns in low order finite element codes, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Method s in Geomechanics, Vol. 2, pp. 57-72. O lll . 22 0
O Wiggins, R. A., Frazier, G. A., Sweet, J., and Apsel, R. J. O (1978). Simulation of Eartaquake Ground Motions, O Proceedings of N.S.F. Seminar Workshop on Strong Ground Motion, Rancho Santa Fe, California, pp. 98-101. Archuletta, R. J. and Frazier, G. A. (1978). Three-O demensional numerical simulations of dynamic faulting in a half-space, Bull. of the Seis. Soc. of Am., Vol. 68, g no. 3, pp. 573-598. Geller, R. J., Frazier, G. A., and McCann, Martin W., Jr. (1979). Dynamic finite element modeling of dislocations g in a laterally heterogeneous crust, J. Phys. Earth, Vol. 27, pp. 1-13. Apsel, R. J., Olson, A., and Frazier, G. A. (1981). g " Numerical Inversion for Localized Zones of Energy Release", Apstract in the Seismological Society of America Annual Meeting, March 23-25, 1981, Berkeley, CA. O O O O O 23 O
O 4 O O
]
- O L i _I O 5 10 Scale (km) N O
Hypocenter Location N O
\s SAN ONOFRE SITE AREA
$N /
PACIFIC \ OCEAN j OQ N/ .o
\%
Hypothesized Q O Surface Fracture Earthquake "D" for\ g~ % .
\\
N . O . 4
- O Figure GAF-A. Schematic representation of the SONGS site O retetive to the hxpethesized offs 8ere zene of deformation. The 40-km fracture corres-ponds to hypothesized earthquake "D" from Exhibits GAF-2 and GAF-4.
O
O SITE VERT 1000.n , MEAN PEAK SUPP. I SUPP. III - O : EEis-- VEL (CM/SEC)
~ ~6.~ii i 8.47
- i. 58-~~
11.77
~
,o -
~
DISP (CM) 4.02 4.18
/
O '
/
100.0. . i f .
,/
~ ' -
O ~ 0 ' f~\s
. I .
/
m /
/
N # E
\'%
f (.) w / % f O >- 10.0 .
/ .
I-- . / . t; o -
- /F
//
I - p . LLI
/
~
.O O O
~
/
/ ~
Q / D LLI
/
s' . (t) ' O_ s' / lO 1.0 ; ,e' 7
/
Units 2 and 3 DBE ---------------
- Mean plus one-standard-deviation p r e d i c t i o n s': .
~ '
Supplement I Model
~ '
O Supplement III Model - - -- 01 . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 PERIOD (SEC) Figure GAF-B. Site specific mean plus~one ;tandard-deviation lO predictions computed with Supplement I Model from Exhibit GAF-2 (solid line) and with Supplement III Model from Exhibit GAF-4 (dashed line) compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the vertical component with 2% damping.
-O
O SITE SE 1000.n ~ MEAN PEAK SUPP. I SUPP. III
~
"cc'S' 22 72 O
(Ei-(CM/SEC) 30.21 3tl.26 - O - DISP (CM) 22.86 22. 0L4 ----
/
/ -
/
/ -
* /
/
/
/
O 100.0 . -- -
,/ -
/ /
/ s\ s
[ f \ -
- . / N %
O O /
\ -
W .
/
/
/ %
y) h O
/
, \-
. ,/l
>- 10.0 . / / -
0 W .
/
/ -
m .
/
O . D -
/ -
_3 . f W / -
/
/
O Cd D a
/
/
D .
/ -
til in /
/
O- / 1.0 . !O Unit s 2 arid 3 DBE i'
. Mean plus one-standard-deviation predictions. -
' Supplement I Model i Supplement III Model - --
- O i
! 0.1 , , , ,,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , . -, , , , , ,
0.01 0.10 1.GG 10.00
;O PERIOD (SEC) i F i gu re G AF- C.
~
Site specific mean plus one-standard-deviation predi ti n mputed with Supplement I Model 'O; from Exhibit GAF-2 (solid line) and with Supplement III Modet from Exhibit GAF-4 (dashed line) compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the horizontal SE component with 2% damping. iO
f I O SITE NE 1000.n . . . . ME6[j_EE66 SyEE _1 gyEE _Ill [ - RCC(G) 0.298 0.260 - O " VEL (CM/SEC) 22.77 23.10 - OISP(CM) 16.40 14.S3 -----
/
/ .
/
~
" /
O /
/
100.0. .
,/
. s
/
/
- / :
O -
/ '-
LLI . (f)
/
I -- ,\ U
/ \
/
/
'O
>- 10.0 / .
/
t~. .
/
m . .
/
o .
,/
c . I J . ; LLJ /
,e OQ O f
~
Q /
/ -
D . LLI (/)
/
/
. a. /
( O 1.0 . Units 2 and 3 DBE . Mean plus one-standard-deviation predictions: i . I Supplement I Model - O . Supplement III Model
~ ~ ~'
( . 0.1 , , , , ,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,, 0.10 1.00 10.00 O.01 PERIOD (SEC) Figure GAF-D. Site specific mean plus one-standard-deviation O predictions computed with Supplement 1 Model s from Exhibit GAF-2 (solid line) and with Supplement III Model from Exhibit GAF-4 (dashed line) compared with Units 2 and 3 DBE for the horizontal NE component with 2% damping. lO
O 1 TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL
' 2 Q. Would you please state your name?
.O 3 A. Robert L. McNeill. 4 Q. By whom are yo 2 presently employed? 5 A. I am presently employed as a Member of the Technical 6 Staff at Sandia National Laboratory, located in 7 Albuquerque, New Mexico. In that capacity, I am doing 8 research on earthquake ground motion offshore, and the O 9 difference between instrumental and structural response 10 to earthquakes. I am also self-employed as a 33 11 geotechnical engineering consultant to Southern 12 California Edison Company ("SCE") for matters related to 13 San Onofre Nuciaar Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (" SONGS 2 & 3"). The opinion expressed herein is solely O ( ) 14 15 my own, and does not represent the views or the position 16 of Sandia National Laboratory, or the United States 17 Department of Energy. O 18 Q. In what manner are you associated with the Applicants in 19 this proceeding? .g 20 A. From 1970 until 1975, I was President of Woodward-21 McNeill & Associates ("WMA"). WMA was retained by SCE 22 for geotechnical engineering work associated with the 23 analysis, design, and construction of SONGS 2 & 3. In .O 24 that capacity I was the Principal in charge of said 25 work, and personally accomplished a substantial amount .O 26 of the geotechnical work on the project, in addition to O
C 1 my management duties. Since 1975, I have been an O 2 independent consultant to Woodward-Clyde Consultants O 3 ("WCC") and to SCE, providing advice and consultation ti 4 WCC as they continued the work of WMA at SONGS 2 & 3, 5 and providing technical advice and review to SCE on many 6 other aspects of that project. 7 Q. Would you please describe your formal education? 8 A. I hold a Doctor of Science Degree in engineering O 9 mechanics (minors: mathematics and physics) from the 10 University of New Mexico, and a Master of Science Degree 11 in ge technical engineering and a Bachelor of Science C 12 Degree in structural engineering from the University of 13 California (Berkeley). g 14 Q. What professional positions have you had in the area of 15 geotechnical engineering, soil dynamics, and earthquake 16 engineering? 17 A. I have 28 years experience in geotechnical engineering; O 18 two years as a field and laboratory technician, three 19 years as an engineer-in-training in California, and 23 20 years as a registered professional engineer. My 0 21 experience encompasses the geotechnical, dynamic, and 22 seismic design aspects of almost every kind of heavy 23 construction: dams, buildings, bridges, roads, power 9 24 facilities, mining facilities, tunnels, subways, 25 pipelines, offshore structures, anc hardened defense 26 structures. O 2 O I
O 1 Q. Have you been associated with any educational 2 institutions? O 3 A. I was an Adjunct Professor and lecturer from 1961-1965 l 4 and 1978-present at the University of New Mexico in 5 geotechnical engineering. I was a lecturer at the 6 University of California at Los Angeles in 1968, 1969 7 and 1971 in geotechnical engineering and soil dynamics. 8 I was a lecturer at the California State University at g 9 Long Beach in 1971 and 1974 in a graduate course in soil 10 dynamics and earthquake engineering. I was an Assistant 11 Professor at California State University at San Jose in O 12 1957 to 1961 in geotechnical engineering and soil 13 dynamics. I have also given guest lectures on g 14 geotechnical engineering, wave propagation and soil 15 dynamics at the University of California at Berkeley and 16 at Los Angeles, the University of New Mexico, the Texas 17 A & M University, and the University of Colorado at O 18 Boulder. 19 Q. Do you hold any professional registrations in the State g 20 of California or any other state? l 21 A. Yes, I am a Registered Professional Engineer in 22 California, New York, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona. g 23 Q. What are your pertinent professional or organizational 24 memberships? 25 A. American Association for the Advancement of Science O 26 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 3 0
O s 1 American Society of Civil Engineers
] 2 Q,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers 3 American Society for Testing Materials 4 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute , 5 Highway Research Board O 6 Marine Technology Society 7 Navy League g 8 Oceanic Society 9 Seismological Society of America 10 Society of Experimental Stress Analysis O 11 U. S. National Council on Soil Mechanics and Foundation 12 Engineering 13 Q. Have you written or published articles in the field of g(']) 14 geotechnical engineering, soil dynamics, and earthquake 15 engineering? 16 A. I have authored or co-authored several articles dealing g 17 with geotechnical engineering, soil dynamics, and 18 earthquake engineering. A list of these publications is 19 appended hereto. 3 20 Q. Have you served with formally organized groups concerned 21 wholly or in part with matters of seismic safety? 22 A. I was nominated for the Governor's Seismic Safety 9 23 Commission for the State of California in 1978. I was 24 Chairman of the National Soil Dynamics Committee of the 25 American Society of Civil Engineers from 1968 to 1973. D 26 /// 4 3
.O 1 Q. On which projects have you been retained as an expert 2 consultant in'geotechnical engineering, soil dynamics, -O 3 and earthquake engineering? 4 A. I have been retained by a number of governmental 5 agencies and private companies over the past eighteen 6 years as an expert consultant in the area of 7 geotechnical engineering, soil dynamics, and earthquake 8 engineering. I have participated in the following
)
9 nuclear projects: Bolsa Island, Cooper Station, Ft. St. 10 Vrain, South Texas Project, SONGS 1 and SONGS 2 and 3. O 11 Q. Have you testified as an expert in any previous hearings 12 or trials? 13 A. Yes. I presented expert opinion to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS") in this O ( ) 14 15 proceeding as well as that for the Cooper Station 16 Nuclear Power Project. In addition, I have qualified as 17 an expert witness in geotechnical engineering in various O 18 Superior Court cases in Los Angeles and Orange 19 Counties. I have been an arbitrator and have presented 20 expert opinion before arbitration boards concerning
- O 21 geotechnical engineering in California and New Mexico.
22 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? 23 A. . One of the issues in this proceeding is whether,
- O 24 assuming a Ms 7 earthquake on the OZD, the seismic 25 design basis of SONGS 2 & 3 is adequate to protect the g 26 public health and safety. My testimony demonstrates and 5
- O
O 1 it is my conclusion that the design basis earthquake O_.s 2 ("DBE") spectrum as used for design of SONGS 2 & 3 is a O 3 conservative representation of the motion of structures 4 at the site due to a very large, nearby earthquake. 5 Q. Would you please define and explain the technical terms 6 which you will use in your testimony? 7 A. I will be speaking about earthquake vibrations, but let 8 me first define some terms which are used when O 9 discussing virtually all vibrations. Figure RLM-A, 10 " Definitions (Tine)", shows some vibrations as they would appear as a function of time, such as would be
) 11 12 recorded by a seismograph. The maximum motion for any 13 one cycle is the amplitude, and the time it takes to mplete one full cycle is the period. In RLM-A O()14 15 amplitude Zs=Z2, but period T i is more than (longer than) i 16 T2 Period is usually expressed in seconds, O
17 understanding that it really is " seconds per cycle." 18 The reciprocal of period is frequency, f=(1/T), usually 19 expressed in cycles per second or Hertz (1 cps = 1 Hz). 20 The foregoing terms describe the behavior of a wave O 21 in time. Figure RLM-B, " Definitions (Space)", shows the 22 similar system in space, as if the travelling wave had !O 23 been photographed. In this case, the distance travelled 24 while completing one full cycle of vibration is the 25 wavelength, L. If the wave at that location is j) , 26 /// U 6 !O
O 1 travelling at a wave velocity, c, and recalling that it O 2 takes the time-period T to complete the cycle .O 3 L = cT 4 or, because f=(1/T), L= (c/f) 5 Thus for a given ground (with a wave velocity c): 6 the wavelengths are long for long periods or low 7 frequencies; and the wavelengths are short for short ' 8 periods or high frequencies.
)
9 A structure has a certain natural period (or 10 frequency) at which it will vibrate when plucked. A
- g 11 complex structure has many natural periods, all being 12 shorter than the fundamental period (or higher than the 13 fundamental frequency). If a structure is shaken or
;O { ) 14 vibrated at or near one of its natural periods (or 15 frequencies), it will respond by amplifying the input 16 motions with which it is being vibrated. The ratio
- g 17 between the structure's response motion and the input 18 motion is the amplification ratio.
13 When a real structure is plucked and vibrates, the g 20 vibrations tend to decay or damp with time. This 21 tendency is expressed quantitatively as the damping (or 22 damping ratio), usually as a percentage. Generally, at 23 the short-pericds (high frequencies) of interest to IO 24 reactor design, response motions tend to be lower for i ) 25 structures with higher dampings. 26 /// lO ( { 7 IO
O 1 Amplitudes of motion are expressed as one of three O 2 quantities, the choice of which is purely a matter of O 3 convenience for the situation at hand. These quantities 4 are: displacement, d; velocity, v; and acceleration, 5 a. Velocity in this case is the velocity of a vibrating O 6 particle at a point in the earth or in a structure; and 7 it is not the wave velocity mentioned above. 8 Any one of the quantities d, v, or a provide a g 9 complete description of the motions; and d, v, and a are 10 explicitly related, so that one may easily convert from 11 one to the others. If the wave is smooth and orderly
)
12 (harmonic, sinusoidal), the absolute maxima of the three 13 quantities are related quite simply, as follows: Let the maximum displacement = D . . . . . . . . (1) O ( ) 14 15 Then maximum velocity =V= (2nD)/T . . . (2) 16 and, maximum acceleration = A = ( 2n V)/T . . . (3) g 17 Thus, for such an harmonic wave, if any two of the 18 quantities T, D, V, or A are known, the other two are 19 easily calculated. This is seldom done, however: the g 20 expressions above are power functions, which map as 21 straight lines on a log-log plot. Thus there has been J 22 developed a four-axis logarithmic paper which is the g 23 solution to the harmonic expressions above. Figure 24 RLM-C, " Examples of Use of Harmonic Paper" is an example 25 of such an harmonic plot (also called tripartite plot), 26 and shows two examples for reference. O , 8 'O
O 1 The foregoing use of harmonic plot in principle O 2 applies only to smooth harmonic functions, which an O 3 earthquake usually is not. The harmonic plot is so 4 revealing of the properties of the motions, however, 5 that it is nevertheless widely used fro displaying O 6 earthquake motions, with the adjective pseudo appended 7 to the quantities (either explicitly or implicitly) as a 8 reminder. It is generally agreed that the O 9 approximations of this very powerful procedure are 10 small, and of no practical significance for the 11 short-period ranges of engineering applications. O 12 Q. Would you please explain what spectra are, and how they 13 are calculated and used? A. The spectrum is one of the most useful tools available O { } 14 15 to the seismologist and the earthquake engineer. A 16 spectrum clearly and concisely displays certain relevant
;O 17 information about an earthquake's characteristics better 18 for some purposes than does the instrumental recording 19 alone and,' in proper form, a spectrum provides
.o 20 information vital to the design of earthquake- resistant 21 structures. There are, however, important differences 22 between the instrumental form of a spectrum (used by
- O 23 seismologists and engineers to study free-field ground 24 motions), and the design form of that spectrum (used by
- 25 engineers to design and evaluate structures). To avoid to 26 possible confusion, I point out that there are several 9
,O'
O 1 types of spectra (e.g., response spectrum, Fourier O_ 2 spectrum). My testimony is limited to the response O 3 spectrum, because tha* is the one of interest to these 4 proceedings. Other types of spectra, if used or 5 presented, should be so identified. I will now explain g 6 the terms used when dealing with spectra, develop the 7 properties of spectra, explain the differences between 8 the instrumental and design forms of spectra, and O 9 explain how to use spectra to compare various 10 earthquakes. 11 A spe trum is a graphical representation of O 12 vibratory motions in an orderly array according to the 13 frequency (or period) of each part of the motion. For g example, the spectrum in Figure RLM-D, " Simplified
}14 15 Example of a Spectrum" represents a certain vibration 16 and indicates that the amplitude of the vibration is 5 g 17 in. at a frequency of 10 cycles per second, but only 1 18 in. at 20 cps.
19 An instrumant or a small, light structure does not g 20 alter the earthquake ground motions: that is, an 21 instrument or small structure appears as an 22 infinitesimal massless point to an earthquake wave, O 23 which may have a wavelength of many tens to a few 24 hundred feet, or more. For this reason, the 25 instrumental spectrum for a given instrumental recording o 26 can be calculated quite simply, by allowing the 10 O
O 1 instrumentally recorded motions mathematically to
} -
2 vibrate small oscillators, as shown in Figure RLM-E, O 3 " Calculation of Instrumental Spectrum". Each oscillator 4 is composed mathematically of a mass, spring, and 5 weightless base. The masses and springs are selected so O 6 that the oscillators have different natural periods, 7 ranging in an orderly way over the range of the periods 8 of interest. The recorded motion is mathematically
)
9 input to the base of each oscillator, and the resulting 10 response motions of the mass are calculated as a O 11 fun tion of time. The maximax (maximum of all maxima) 12 for that oscillator is then plotted at the fundamental 13 period of that oscillator as one point of the 'O /^T instrumental response spectrum. The usefulness of this
\_) 14 15 procedure is that any simple (single-degree-of- freedom, 16 SDOF) structure with the same fundamental period as one ,
17 f the oscillators will respond to that instrumentally O 18 recorded motion exactly as did the little oscillator. 19 Thus the instrumental spectrum portrays the response of 20 any small structure, regardless of the structure's O 21 characteristics, if the structure's period is known; and 22 the portrayal on harmonic paper allows expression of 23 that response in terms of any or all of the three O 24 maximum quantities (D, V, or A, Equations 1-3) as is 25 convenient. O 26 /// 11
- O
O 1 As an example of the utility of a spectrum and the 2 method of displaying it on harmonic paper, Figure RLM-F, O 3 " Example Accelerogram" shows an accelerogram 4 (time history) of an earthquake. Inspection of that 5 recording offers little quantitative information other
)
6 than that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) was about 7 one-quarter of gravity (g). The important engineering 8 information on frequencies and responses are in that O 9 record, but they are hidden by its complexity. That 10 information appears when the instrumental spectrum is 11 calculated and plotted, Figure RLM-G, " Instrumental O 12 Spectrum", as will now be discussed. 13 The oscillator-response calculations are done for
- g [ } 14 many periods, so that the resulting plot of maximax 15 response as a function of oscillator period, the 16 spectrum of RLM-G, is usually a nonsmooth, jagged O 17 curve . It does, however, clearly display how a small Ib structure would respond to the same earthquake. For 19 example, if a small structure had a natural period of g 20 0.1 sec (a stiff, rigid structure), it would respond 21 with about (point X, RLM-G) D = 0.09 in., V = 5.81ps, 22 and A =0.95 g. The maximum displacement response is at O 23 point D, the maximum velocity response is at point V, 24 and the maximum acceleration response is at point A, in 25 RLM-G. Small, light, and rigid structures (and
.o 26 oscillators) have very short fundamental periods, and 12 ~O
O 1 there is not much motion at those periods. For this 2 reason, the maximax response of a very short-period O 3 structure is the same as the maximax of the input 4 recorded motion. In other words, the response of very 5 short-period structures, the zero-period acceleration 6 (ZPA), is the same as the peak ground acceleration 7 (PGA). This is shown in RLM-G, where on the left side 8 the spectrum is shown converging (dashed line) to the 9 PGA of one-quarter g. The ZPA is also referred to as 10 the anchor point of the spectrum. 11 Earthquake spectra have certain properties, which O 12 will now be discussed. To simplify the discussion, the 13 calculated spectrum of RLM-G has been smoothed to the 14 straight-line segments shown, and as reproduced in g 15 Figure RLM-H, " Smoothed Instrumental Spectrum". 16 Earthquake spectra can be fairly described by plateaus 17 where either D, V, or A are essentially constant. Those O 18 three plateaus are labelled in RLM-H. The 19 acceleration ramp is the transition from the ZPA to the 20 acceleration plateau. The ratio between the O 21 acceleration plateau and the ZPA is the 22 dynamic amplification ratio (DAR). For the example 23 shown, the DAR is (0.9/O.25) = 3.6. The turning points O 24 of the spectrum are the corners where the straight-line 25 segments join. 26 The virtues of the logarithmic harmonic plot become O O apparent when the spectrum of RLM-G is plotted to 13 O
O 1 arithmetic scale, as is shown in Figure RLM-I, O 2 " Instrumental Spectrum". In order to dicplay the O 3 long-period part, the short-period part is a mass of 4 points, masking important engineering information. To 5 make such a plot, the quantity to be plotted (D, V, or O 6 A) must be selected; and information on the other two is 7 unavailable without further calculation. The 8 characteristic plateaued shape is also masked. O 9 The instrumental spectrum of RLM-G is not, in 10 general, the spectrum which would be used to design a -g 11 large or embedded structure. Large structures are not 12 points, but rather have dimensions which are larger than 13 the wavelengths of the short-period waves. For this .g ( ) 14 reason, large structures do not respond fully to the 15 short-period waves, much as a large ship does not 16 respond fully to small water waves. If a structure is g 17 embedded, it responds less than a surface instrument 18 because the motions at depth may be less than those at 19 the reflecting surface, and because the structure is g 20 subjected to an average of the various incoming and 21 reflecting waves. Tha incoming waves are likely not 22 plane and cohorent, but rather probably have-some .o 23 components lagging and some leading the wavefront. 24 These effects (wavelength, embedment, and noncoherence) 25 tend to lower the short-period end of the design RD_ 26 /// 14 0
O 1 spectrum relative to the instrumental spectrum. These O' 2 effects collectively are soil-structure interaction. O 3 The above discussion of the shape of a design 4 spectrum applies to structures which behave perfectly 5 elastically. This assumption is made for mathematical
)
6 simplicity, but real structures respond in a somewhat 7 ductile fashion, rather than perfectly elastically. Key g 8 structures at nuclear facilities are designed to 9 minimize their ductility, but nevertheless some exists, 10 which has the effect of lowering the entire instrumental
,g 11 spectrum to some degree.
12 As an example, Figure RLM-J, " Example of 13 Instrumental and Design Spectra", compares an instrumental to a design spectrum. Some facilities,
.(3{}14 15 such as SONGS 2 & 3, are conservatively designed 16 directly from the instrumental spectrum, with no credit 17 taken for the above effects.
(3 18 Q. IIow are spectra used to compare the strenths of 19 earthquakes? !O 20 A. Spectra are often used to compare the strengths of j 21 earthquakes. This is basically a good process, provided 22 all of the following seven conditions are met: .O 23 1. The spectra being compared must be of the same type 24 (e.g., response, Fourier). 25 2. The spectra being compared must be in the o 26 instrumental form, not in the design form. 15 0
'O 1 3. The spectra being compared must be for the same O 2 damping.
- O 3 4. The spectra being compared should be from 4 earthquakes of the same magnitude, or they should 5 be scaled to represent the same magnitude.
6 5. The spectra being compared should be from 7 recordings taken at the same distance from the 8 causative fault, or they should be scaled to 9 represent the same distance. Distance should be 10 mesured in a consistent manner. 11 6. The spectra being compared should be from 'O 12 earthquakes with the same style of faulting, or 13 they should be scaled to represent the same style .O O 15"
- 7. The spectra being compared should be from 16 earthquakes in the same or similar tectonic 17 s tting. There is probably no way to scale for O
18 this point. l 19 Spectra which do not meet all of these seven l 20 nditions should not be compared, for the comparison O 21 will at best be misleading. 22 When comparing spectra, it is important to include 23 a number of spectra. Because the world is a O i 24 probabilistic place, some spectra must be. anticipated to 25 exceed, and some to lie under, a given instrumental 26 spectrum assigned to a given site. This is precisely O 16 O
O 1 the reason engineers include material safety factors in O 2 their design, and why they use minimum specified .O 3 material strengths in their calculations. Safety 4 factors are not, however, a panacea against distress to 5 a structura. If an appreciable number of spectra 6 meeting the seven conditions listed above exceed the 7 site instrumental spectrum, then that site instrumental 8 spectrum may be too low; and, more importantly, the 9 design spectrum derived from it may also be too low; 10 and, if the amount by which the design spectrum is too 11 1 w ex eeds the margins provided by the safety factors, O 12 distress to the structure would impend. Thus 13 conservatism is appropriate at each stage of this process: g { ) 14 selecting the instrumer;tal spectrum; 15 developing from it the design spectrum; and the 16 selection and application of the safety factors. If g 17 these are done in a careful and prudent manner, even 18 though the values at each step may not be exactly 19 accurate in a scientific sense, engineering experience 20 shows that the overall process yields structures which O 21 have a very high probability of surviving their design 22 assumptions, and a reasonable probability of surviving 23 loads which substantially exceed their design O 24 assumptions. 25 Q. Would you please describe the procedures you employed in g 26 constructing the SONGS 2 & 3 DBE spectrum? 17 O
O 1 A. During the period 1971-1972, I was directly responsible O 2 for and actively involved in calculation of the DBE O 3 spectrum for SONGS 2 & 3. The shape of the DBE spectrum 4 was derived by mathematically propagating virtually all 5 of the strong motion recordings then available through g 6 the profile of the San Mateo Formation. I calculated 7 the resulting instrumental spectra at the site ground
,s 8 surface, and enveloped these intrumental spectra. For v
9 this purpose, the dynamic properties of the San Mateo 10 Formation were determined by both field and laboratory 11 tests. O 12 The instrumental spectrum shape was anchored to a 13 ZPA of 0.5g, which I still believe to be a realistic upper limit of the maximum ground motion governing q) [ } I4 15 structures response at this site. The resulting 16 instrumental spectrum is shown in Figure RLM-K " Original 17 Instrumental Form of DBE Spectrum". For that case, at O 18 two percent damping, the technique of enveloping the 19 spectra of real earthquakes indicated that the g 20 acceleration amplification ratio at this site would be 21 about 3.2, w.'tb a short-period turning point at about 22 0.05 seconds or higher. At that time (1972), the 23 maximum magnitude on the OZD had not been determined, !O l l 24 but it was recognized that design for a very large, i 25 nearby earthquake would be conservatively appropriate. .O 26 For that reason, and in consideration of the state of
)
18
- O
1
- O
_ 1 the art of predicting ground motions and structural 2 response at that time, the following modifications were 3 made to the 0.5g site instrumental spectrum to add extra 4 conservatism: (i) the ZPA was increased to 0.67g, and 5 the entire instrumental spectrum was scaled up to that
)
6 value; (ii) the acceleration amplification ratio was 7 increased by about ten percent; (iii) the short-period 8 turning point was decreased from 0.Or second to 0.033 O 9 second. The resulting modified spectrum is sh wn in 10 Figure RLM-L, " Design Fcrm of DBE Spectrum". ,g 11 Q. Were these the only conservatisms applied to the 12 calculation of the DBE spectrum? 13 A. While these modifications added considerable conservatism to the calculated instrumental spectrum, g [ } 14 15 probably the greatest conservatism lies in the way that 16 spectrum was used: that DBE spectrum was used directly
- g 17 for design. No allowances were made for wave-passage, 18 incoherence, mass, depth-of-embedment or other effects 19 which cause the motion governing structural response to O 20 be less than those recorded by free-field instruments.
21 Furthermore, no allowance was made for the extra l 22 strer.gths which are provided for in the structural l O 23 design. That is, the 0.6'ig modified instrumental 24 spectrum was used directly as the design spectrum, shown 25 in RLM-L. O 26 /// 19 O l
- - - - - ~ ~ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ , _
O j 1 Q. Would you please quantify the conservatisms you believe O 2 are contained in the design spectr- for SONGS 2 & 3? .O 3 A. I will quantify the conservatism of the design spectrum 4 for SONGS 2 & 3 by comparing its instrumental form to 5 some instrumental records calculated for or taken from 6 the free-field at the ground surface. Before making 7 such comparisons, however, I must convert the DBE 8 spectrum, as used directly for design, to its g 9 instrumental form. I have done that by examining data 10 from the literature, as I will now explain. 11 The majority of the existing free-field O 12 instrumental data have been acquired only in the last 13 two decades. Some of there instrumental recordings 14 ntain PGAs much larger than had previously been O() 15 deduced based on observed structural behavior during 16 earthquakes. 17 For example, Forrell and Nicolletti ("EERI O 18 Reconnaissance Report" (1980)) gives the maximum 19 accelerations.from recordings made in the free-field 20 adjacent to, and on the ground floor of a steel mill
- O 21 building in the Guerrero, Mexico earthquaks of 14 Mar 79 22 (M s 7.6). In that case, the ratio of the maximum O 23 free-field instrumental acceleration to the ground-floor 24 maximum acceleration was 1.7 to 1.9.
25 The foregoing is an example of the reducing effect 26 of a structure on short-period ground motions, when that O 20 . O
;O 1 structure has large plan dime ccions, but no basement.
O 2 The following table shows the effects of embedment of
!O 3 the structure for magnitudes greater than M s 6.
4 Distance Distance between from 5 buildings, earthquake () Location
- Instr.+ m km Ratio **
6 14724 Ventura G - 15 7 15250 Ventura B 914 1.2 8 1260 N. Orchid G - 19
.O 7080 Hollywood B 450 1.9 9
6430 Sunset G - 20 10 6464 Sunset B 100 1.6 11 6200 Wilshire G - 24 10 5900 Wilshire B 500 1.6 12 3407 W. Sixth G - 39 13 616 S. Normandie B 536 1.5 3470 Wilshire B 396 1.4
, 3411 Wilshire B 416 1.4 0 (w) ss 14 3550 Wilshire B 666 1.2 15 Average = 1.5 16
- In Los Angeles
+ G = Ground Floor; B = Basement 1 , 17 ** Ratio: Peak Acceleration at Ground Floor, no basement Peak Acceleration at Basement 18 19 The earthquake was the 09 Feb 71 San Fernando 20 event. The ground-f1)or recordings were in buildings O
21 with no basement. The table above shows that, although 22 the no-basement buildings had reduced the motion, the O 23 basements under the adjacent buildings further reduced 24 the motions, so that the ratio of the peak accelerations 25 in buildings with no basements to those with basements 26 averaged about 1.5. O 21 0 I
. _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ . _ . _ _ . __ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . - . . . _ , , _ _ , _ _ - . . _ - . _ _ _ . _ ~ _ . - , _ _ _ - .
^
O 1 I do not know if these two effects (plan area and O 2 embedment) are additive or multiplicative; but if they O 3 are additive their combined effect is 2.3, and if they 4 are multiplicative their combined effect is 2.6. Thus 5 it would seem reasonable and conservative to take an
- O 6 upper limit for these combined effects as about 2, for 7 purposes only of comparing the DBE maximum acceleration 8 to another instrumental maximum acceleration.
9 The foregoing is for peak accelerations. The 10 situation with respect to spectral values is shown in q) 11 Figure RLM-M, " Examples of How Structures Without 12 Basements Have Higher Spectral Accelerations Than 13 Structures With Basements". These are the same 14 buildings as in the table above. RLM-M shows that
)
15 buildings without basements experienced spectral 16 accelerations from 1.15 to about 3 times those of y) 17 buildings with basements. 18 The case histories mentioned above and in RLM-M 19 clearly demonstrate that the PGA and spectral 20 accelerations from instrumental free-field recordings O 21 are higher, and in many cases substantially higher, than i 22 those of structures with large plan area and/or
- O 23 embedment. The combined effects of area and embedment 24 are shown in Figure RLM-N, " Examples of How Structures
! 25 Reduce Ground Motion". Shown there is the ratio of
- O 26 instrumental free-field response to the response l
22
- O f
i
O 1 measured at or near the bottom of the structures. That O 2 ratio is from 1-1/2 to about 4-1/2, at short periods. O 3 Thus, to derive the range of the instrumental form of 4- the DBE spectrum, I have multiplied the design spectrum 5 by 1.5 and 2 at very short periods (less than about 6 0.025 sec), and by 1.25 and 1.5 at periods about 0.2 7 sec., and by 1.0 at periods above 1 sec. The resu' ting 8 multiplier ratio is shown in Figure RLM-0, " Values of
)
9 Ratio Used to Construct Instrumental Form of DBE", along 10 with the examples of RLM-N. I view this operation as 11 being cautious and conservative for purposes of 33 12 comparison, because the correct ratios for structures at 13 this site are probably higher based on the data in the
'N 14 literature.
O (J 15 The results are shown in Figure RLM-P, " Design and 16 Instrumental Forms of the DBE" where the lower bound of O 17 the Instrumental Form applies to the smaller and 18 shallower structures at the site, and the upper bound 19 applies to the heavier and deeper structures. 20 To evaluate the conservatism of the DBE spectrum, O 21 that spectrum is shown, along with the 84th-percentile 22 corresponding values calculated from the Imperial Valley O 23 earthquake of 1979 ("IV-79") data, and the instrumental 24 values calculated by Woodward-Clyde (regression study, 25 cf., Testimony of Dr. I. M. Idriss) and DELTA (source o 26 modelling study, cf., Testimony of Dr. Gerald A. 23 'O
O 1 Frazier), in Figure RLM-Q, " Instrumental Form of DBE 2 Spectrum, Compared to Other Instrumental Spectra". For O 3 additional comparison, the instrumental value of ZPA 4 (84th percentile) calculated by TERA (regression study 5 cf. testimony of Lawrence H. Wight,) is O.49g, whereas 6 the corresponding value for the DBE is 1 to 1.3g. Using 7 the TERA ZPA, RLM-Q also shows the instrumental spectrum 8 calculated by the methods of NRC Publication 9 NUREG/CR-0098. All of the calculated values (IV-79, 10 Woodward-Clyde, DELTA, TERA, NUREG/ CR-0098) lie below 11 both the instrumental and the design forms of the DBE. O 12 Based on those comparisons, it is my opinion that the 13 DBE spectrum as used for design of SONGS 2 & 3 is a
- O O ""*""***"* "*""*"*""*** " ' *** * ** "" ' **"""*""**
15 at the site due to a very large, nearby earthquake. 16 Q. Is it your opinion that the DBE spectrum for SONGS 2 & 3
;O 17 is als conservative for the vertical motions?
18 A. The situation for vertical motions is shown in Figure 19 RLM-R, " Instrumental Form of Vertical DBE Spectrum 20 Compared to Other Instrumental Spectra" where the O 21 instrumental form of the DBE vertical spectrum is shown, 22 compared to the 84th-percentile corresponding values 23 calculated from the IV-79 data, and to the instrumental lO ' l 24 values calculated by DELTA (source-modelling study). 25 The IV-79 verticals are somewhat high because of the O 26 velocity profile of the Imperial Valley (which is 24
- O
O 1 different from that at SONGS). Nevertheless, the values 2 fro'm IV-79 and the U.C. study all lie below the O 3 instrumental form of the DBE. Based on this comparison, 4 it is my opinion that the ver e' aal DBE spectrum, as used 5 for the design of SONGS 2 & 3, is a conservative 6 representation of the motions of structures at this site 7 due to a very large, nearby earthquake. 8 Q. Has the recent publication USGS 81-365 caused you to 9 modify your opinion concerning the conservatism of the 10 DBE spectrum for SONGS 2 & 3? 11 A. No. First of all, I would like to state that I have O 12 disagreement with applying the results of USGS 81-365 to 13 SONGS because the calculated accelerations and 14 velocities appear to be inappropriate for SONGS based on g 15 engineering experience, and on the site-specific studies 16 which have been done for SONGS (Woodward-Clyde g 17 regression study, Tera regression study, Delta source-18 modelling study). I agree with the testimony of 19 Dr. Smith on this matter. Nevertheless, if one were to q) 20 use USGS 81-365, for the faulting conditions assumed for 21 purposes of licensing Units 2 and 3, the result would be ! 22 an instrumental 84th perce.'. tile of 0.87g. That is less i 23 than the instrumental DBE value of 1 to 1.3 g. O
- 24 ///
l 25 /// i
///
lg (~) 26 l 25 O
- O Attechmsnt 1 DR. ROBERT L. McNEIL 2 PUBLICATIONS O
3 On effects of highway dynamic loadings on soil behavior 4 (1957-1961): 5 " Clay Strength Increase Caused by Repeated Loading," with 6 H. B. Seed and J. DeGuenin, Paper 3018, Vol. 125, 7 Part 1 Trans. ASCE, New York, 1960 (Paper awarded 8 Thomas Fitch Rowland Prize, ASCE, 1961). O 9 " Soil Deformations Under Repeated Stress Applications," with 10 H. B. Seed, STP 156, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1957. j) 11 " Soil Deformations in Normal Compression and Repeated Loading 12 Tests," with H. B. Seed, Bulletin 141, HRB, NRC (Pub 13 433), National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
'4 S56-OO 15 on effects of shock (blast) loadings on soil behavior 16 (1962-1966):
- g 17 " Practical Aspects of Scil Dynamics," SW Section, ASCE, 1962.
18 " Fundamentals of Soil Shock Dynamics," with R. J. Woodward, 19 ASCE National Meeting, 1963. .g 20 " Study of the Propagation of Stress Wsves in Sand," 21 AEWL-TR-65-180, USAF, 1966 (Doct oral Dissertation) . 22 on design aspects of dynamically loaded foundations
.O 23 (1964-1970):
24 "The Role of Foundations in Earthquake Resistant Design," 25 Colorado Earthquake Research Committee, Boulder,
.O 26 Colorado, 1964.
26 O
- O 1 "The Role of Soil Dynamics in the Design of Stable Test O 2 Pads," with B. E. Margason and F. M. Babcock, Proc.
O 3 10N-63, American Institute of Aeronautics and 4 Astronautics, New York, 1965. 5 " Design of Test. Pads for Transient Loadings," with B. E. 6 Margason and J. A. Barneich, Paper No. 67-550, American 7 Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, 8 1967. O 9 " Modern Foundation Lesign for Dynamic Loadings," with B. E. 10 Margason, Proc., SEATO Regional Conf. on Soil 11 Engineering, Bangkok, 1967. IO 12 " Design Methods for Transient Response and Isolation of 13 Ground-Founded Microprecision Slabs," with B. E. OO
'4 """'*" "' '- "- """ "*' """ 3- ^- "*""** "' 3-15 Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 5, No. 11, American 16 Institute of Aeronautics and Astronaatics, New York, 17 Nov. 1968.
!O 18 " Case Histories in Foundation Vibrations," with B. E. 19 Margason and F. M. Babcock, Proc. STP 450, ASTM, l 20 Philadelphia, 1969. O 21 " Machine Foundations: The State-of-the-Art," Invited Paper, 22 Proc. Specialty Session 2, Seventh Int'l Conf. on Soil g 23 Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, 1969. 24 "The Geophysical Environment," with V. R. McLamore and J. A. 25 Barneich, Paper No. 70-959, American Institute of 26 Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, 1970. O 27 O l ._ _
I O 1 On penetrators (1967 - Present): O 2 "The Feasibility of Rapid Soil Investigations Using O 3 High-Speed, Earth-Penetrating Projectiles," with W. N. 4 Caudle, A. Y. Pope, and B. E. Margason, Proc., Int'l 5 Symp. on Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of O 6 Earth Materials, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1967 7 (Published additionally by Sandia Labor' tories, 8 Albuquerque, New Mexico, as SC-R-68-1736). O 9 " Air-Dropped Earth Penetrators," with B. E. Margason and 10 J. A. Trantina, Consulting Engir.eer Mcgazine, New York, 11 April 1969. O ', 12 " Rapid Penetration of Terrestrial Materials: The 13 State-of-the-Art," Invited Paper, Proc., World Conf. on Rapid Penetration of Terrestria.1 Materials, ALJE/Sandia O (' ) 14 15 Laboratories /TAMU, 1972. 16 " Enhancement of Geophysical Soil Profiles Using Instrumented 17 Marine Sediment Penetrators," OTC 3526, 1979.
!O I 18 " Estimation of In-Situ Clay Strengths Using Marine Sediment 19 Penetrators," with A. D. Foster, Proc., Int'l Conf. on i
20 Recent Adv. in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and i
!O l 21 Soil Dynamics, 1981.
l 22 "An' Approximate Method for Estimating the Stengths of 23 Cohesive Soils from Penetrator Decelerations," Proc., O 24 Oceans '81, MTS, IEEE, 1981 25 /// g 26 /// 28 'O L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D _s 1 On geotechnical aspects of reactor design (1973 - Present): d 2 " Soil Structure Interaction - A State-of-the-Art Review," O 3 Proc. Structural Engineers Association of California, 4 1973. 5 " Experience in Settlement Analysis and Related Geostatic g 6 Considerations for the Foundation Design of Heavy 7 Reactor Structures," with B. C. Yen, K. Bhushan, and g 8 S. C. Haley, Institution of Civil Engineers, London,
- 9 1975.
10 "Geotschnical Aspects of Interim Near-Surface Storage of { !g. 11 Spent Nuclear Fuel," Paper 3791, Vol. 1, ASCE, N.Y., t
- 12. 1979.
~
13 On offshore geotechnical engineering (1978 - Present):
" Stereoscopic X-Ray Assessment of Offshore Soil Samples,"
3 [ } 14 15 with R. L. Allen and B. C. Yen, OTC 3212, 1978. 16 " Concepts for a Shear-Normal Gauge to Estimate In-Situ Soil 'g 17 Strength and Strength Angle," with S. L. Green, ASTM, 18 Special Techn. Pub. No. 740, 1981. 19 "In-Situ Measurements of Fore Pressure," with E. W. Reece, i t) 20 Proc., Int'l Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotechnical 21 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 1981. 22 "An Approach for Estimating Soil Attachment During () 23 Penetration Events," SAND 80-2667C, 1981. 24 on earthquake engineering (1974 - Present): 25 " Soil-Structure Interaction Parameters for Seismic Design of ! 29
- O
, - , , - , . . . , . , . - , .,..-.----,---r.---.,.----e----c x .w-,,---- ---,-,,<--y--. .. - - - . - - . . - - - - - - - - . - - - . . - . - . - - - . - - - - - .
lO 1 Nuclear Power Stations," with J. A. Barneich and D. H.
- O 2 Johns, Preprint 2182, ASCE' New York, 1974.
.O 3 "Long-Term Measurements of Ground Motions offshore," with 4 E. W. Reece and D. E. Ryerson, Proc., Int'l Conf. on 5 Recent Adv. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
- O 6 Soil Dynamics, 1981.
7 8 0 9 10 11 O 12 13 l lO O 14 15 16 l .
'l
.O 18 19 20 O 21 22 23 o 24 25 26 O 30 O l ---- - _.__._._ _ _ Ne%,. Y*"&9q a, "*"-"rv>-.,,_
O. O O
. Period, Ti _i a
O mi l Amplitude, Z i e 4 (+)
.e 3 : .
f Time B= 5E ~ O m O oO i Period, T2 z' I O Amplitude, 2 cO y4 (+) . h ' iG Time
- a
><E (-)
.9 O --
n o O O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Fig Definitions (Time) RLM-A Date: 28 MAY 1981 O
O. O O
- O
- O
, Wavelength, L ,I Wave Velocity, C g T ^ "
8 (+) 3
= Distance E
< (-)
OO --
- O O
O O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL .. Fig. Date: 28 M AY 19 81 Definitions (Space) RLM-B O l
FREQUEhCY, cps
, yp 'a' w'; . *3 w '*c
=c ' ' ' .
O. =c t_ ,ys N--N / 3 'y.'--M u n_W O .W x- _..
' _ x' m} g' _
'O d ==
== E 3 &'Q, Ws,s. e d;,.7,77{r~~ 4.. f w M; .i3 ,,, "NT
,y ,4-%'/,'r
- - f c a i- tN s f 6
mt 1 # eg - . .
>- N ,s */ .! . , . /*
g gN. ' . , / y ags v.* .y / ^ <-
/s , ^s ! ,y'.iv V ' ,'s
,@4 -.\ ,ygi O -. M V,
%.N
/,'
' h; /,l./K N'
i ;:).} X >\.'/-IM.
\ Ms$'-7 x__
> Ab.s., M,.M. N:
yg 0("1
'N y.u .- x y iy O _
. {\'+ MNyM kN 'N Y ',N , ,*e[ [4 h> , . : : ,
. '. . . too
,J h, : , . '5
- - ~ ~
K x\, k. k >>'[J'.N,? O'h, d ,s, ;fM ace Y' '. 'N \},7 k-J9 /'? [.kh,'f., ,u '@MWyJ
- k. $ '
'a= s,_
,.,sM, W ., >s a
,a v
s.w.w
., s a .
r 3. v - _ < vv
, ; /. n.xa-n_-- "
, . +, /, y , , . -
'2s~' y 71 O 1 xM_ 2 1 :
/v 4 4> s p'v%N0axy
" - /_e e ._ r e_
r AT VN c_../. a - s s
///e.'y'
,N, _ f.X / _
- N s ,#N ' 'f -
S ,"x Y ,s M ,.M./ / , 5
,N t_'y',,-; N.n y'('// 's ix X N Nxyg g
V,g' / ", 1
. ' ~,' -" .; ~/sg' - ,N , N !\'y^,.3 '
- ' M W , %- l ',- f :QT,,,ks ,% ]g$,M
},,/);:N- /' '{:,;V.'[.
,, , -, u-,
'Ss '
'> b N ' ,%,pfX, - ,A . m 9 gN',(GN yv\sss\ ,- , .
,N/a's N. .'s , . ..
- ,.-,-~
y, ,
- w. , -w(. -f
> .> N'N.wx
~ ,
, . , , , SC
- N'f, L. & '/? j M $ .6
^
', ,'l EC . ,- x h '
s+)s,l'.s', ,b,;^ ' 'I ,' ..-
<82.
,7;fs y s ; v se . rs .. [ ./
Exemple 1 J ,E
,, r /_, , N f s., v , ,
7' T, : 1.0 sec. M , 8
,E e /-
O. < 1s,J
. is >_ v1 .N.; f r ~ % -
, , i-7:h as_d>K_ ,_ m.
x s 'p. , :f#- D, = 2.0 in. . o a a y O , y _ / , /s s v s'em , x v - 'i ynM ' V : 12 in./sec.D N,;//i >' fs x N <, Jh i f >. .,1 i
@'X", /l /N' fs [ [' ' $ % / -
' 'Xf Dh A, = 0.20 g .
x ' I Yx V~. ,$.'/l /8% R Q:Q &. . ,
, y = &- / % g L>,, . Yl h
~
- < h .' N ,b N
's.; u j n .:'r '
oO , s /. ,n.:)x/,.s s a /w> 3 r. <s.
')-/y. ,a .
x,
) \*
y' # y/ y /w' V)EA sV' i )#s
' i, l)
/. . . V , A( y N' #N .4 ) ', y'
( , ss //..y A;sh . ,
.,s'
, s 3s 8
.S ,-K na--
X~1. Example 2[ _j~ / ~.~ T,X .'.s M.,Q , ,? i -
, s '
* . f , ,, j
- - x s.
NNE'
A &' -'L-j ' T' = 0.15 s e c. ' < 642- g' ' ? ' 'g ' \' ', '9\ ,3 ' *s .
O [' .h ,,j O2 = 0.034 in. Q _ _.
eS *
'h i
/
f x . t
*r/M I Vz : 1.4 in./sec. '
/.
'i* _' 3f
,<d'h i~
U' ,. ^ \
,D f.sh A 015 g ' - - -'
f,h =hWk$ , h .Y'. <+ h's?
' ' }' ' '
J., % # x w % ' s A , v' u' n M'sn. . . . . 7 O o, c, o. c. o. , , PERIO'., see O
*O Fi g .
Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Exomptes of Use of Hormonic Paper RLM-C Date: 28 M AY 1981 0
O. l l O ' O ! l O 7 i i 6 - O z
-.5 y a C
o b 4 _ 0 s , 3 - , z 9 w
$2 m
OO 5 I a o o io 20 30 O FREQUENCY, CPS O O O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Simplified Example of a Spectrum, Fig an ordered array of the motions RLM-D i Date: 28 M AY 1981 D
.O .
O o
'O O
<- ,\
/ \
- O s
' / "
Maximum
Response
F Long N Period [ MOSS
/ 'h'ILResponse Maximum O Short c - - spring 7 Period wits. Bose #" **
s !O O ig) // ,a w ,... .,- , ,,n e 9 f!(-) ! ! l lO lO
^
l l lO iO Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Calculation of Instrumental Spectrum LM-E Date: 28 MAY 1981
- O
1
- O .
O a
- O lO f
lO 10 FIGURE 9(b) WCC VERT RPT 09 MAY '80 !o O i l0 S i
- O O
O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Example Accelerogram Fig. Date: 28 M/n 1981 IV -79, USGS 5055, vertical component RLM-F
FREQUENCY, cps O, oc << o .. . . > > > .. . e, o.-
> .. on .. ..
"C t_ _' 4. j-{ Aj .
;s_ y ..
, jg , . r ,s p s q 4,gn74 y , .aao
.o, ._h ,?
C
,w ? ,, $,,s ff,r l ,f f, s ,1_ -7,5 , , .
L
, , ,s ~ jNf,v D %& ***
',s Q Fs _ _, .,s, }' ' ,py y**
/' '.", J '
b] ' ;N s'9 7.\ '/ A.
! , \ , '- , f, ;P. X V Q, ;5
)9X/g'cf,s /h iN'>NF;=X,N'M 7's ,yMN$'/M pk,yM'M /VdQ$'W i,
0 [
~ % / \> +g p n?>' m p' '.*: 4 g '. gg K N ,e R , w X 'x, g o v :, p' 9 p p;>y -
0 -
/.;.;
q, f 1 ^ ', : y n. _
=x i
e
- f. j _, f s,
, A
- s. .
T~ ge ,i,,p i 1_spf-1 vg g _ x - g
,.m _a.,m_q A . > N ,;\ q
(_...i/.,,A1s 's/ /s './s ,, , %, ,1' w+1 - y ', s ,s ,3sg-g c,,N,_g_N s NNNNNN A fv _c, '- N , .jyg . _/ s - ,s ., 3 g y. p ,<,/ x _ f y y s g g **
.o X.. _ y / ,^.;
- 3 .. M,,.Y,Y. .'s;p
, a ' s..'. M)
,y.;p,x- / ,N 4 jN y,;5,
.o h*, c , --
. /, ' ' , J. w,rN. s. p 3
A-. /' .~ , $ \ , ,s <h, , so r # . -g , -
.,._x
{ # -
~/ h\ * . -- 82e *
- b e,b h *'*
/ f ._5 to O',\s \'
~
<i . \ ,'s ' ColCulOted Spectrum ' .s,x .
\NN,, e _/y )' /. d N, , so
',N' ',1. , ,A ,' ,,, <., , y'/ .A./ j
. '\' N,t,rsy
>_ .. , 3. , ',. , N.'
Y ./)/.. - >
,e t s. yA-%- .s. Smoothed -
Spectrum e
\y s D ,b, a
, y.
( / w v,M V ,. m i ,. w /,.h.,..y ..x N/, .Nv< , % ', A ,o -.C.
- '.; n . ,M& - ,-
.M ega
- j , , , ,' , . ,.y s. --y ' s -
Oe a -
- -- '+v'- , r- 6' - . -aw
- n' . ,. ,, ., ,
1 s s s w .~..sW ,- - - 5
,7; <;~o- - c. N,s J w w A . _ , ', < : . / -y.X w X< / x0- n s
W ,' s x WK ' " N y ,a 2, s g y . j y ,' - j s'x R g ,( .< / s ,A N ygs ,
, Y'/. N' c ./+'\ '
> .1. r{ .-
/ l #),'
-/' '
uiWn ' n)e/lY ,.I'\,; &?, %9bQ N _ :' j (;/VN sT, sg,3' /,y y , . f y' ' VNv'gN
, 'N $
\ y Jg;s g 4- ,,,,'fyy' '3
,/ > e
' \. ;'/:s . , ' ;> r' i :
N ., ,'y f,. y ,- s J ;h, , ). 's' \ Qhf>>y _ ;/'ii t N 4,eyrV ) <
.-s E' N y,>,:4, ;(/ sN, , . .
.xv n A
,,<,s.a,
/_ ,, ,c . :. y .n.. .n. 1
. /: < /~ < , m . - *
's
/, < s ' , F
.',8 '? /,,_ , ^ 's n ' r '\ \" x
~
/.
~./',',g,
- / /, ;? , . / _ /, *.> ,'s _;;- .
4
/m ,i; ;.xN>g 8-,g~xpya
- s. , i; s N' ,s i s, 5N,sg c, f , , ,
O w _ '-
- - N'TN/. . .' > N,, . % 4 / - <x -
.N N TA
, X ',Q '
. % fr.W S/ ' 5 Ngy.Y
/ v/',,N N>N1
'['r,6 h'/'%[ fx }4 M S ,
, [y',. M G j> 'J5>'_' _,
h s h 'e s'x f '
. p
- i
%.W, s '
- o :,\,\ s . w>'/.),(V ,
i >,l,n ;) < 'sQ %n*T ,A/i>,' { ' o
" l'2pMS)Y JN ' MYNx 'j,y&s'j .
/ x 's>O, Y2 M ,
/s / / ) %) '
.., o, ei o. o. . , . . . .. 1 i . . . .o PERIOO, sec O comping = 2%
IV-79, USGS 5055, vertical component O (asi 1 Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Fig . Date: 28 MAY 1981 Instrumental Spectrum RLM-G 10 1 l
v . FREQUENCY, cpt oc FC 3C 20 O ID ? $ 9 3 e6 9 07 Of CS C2 CE O4
' x/ _?w <x . ,.g ,-. , j ooc r;7_r_..x,, ,_ .gy.f, . ,-
eco* %Q%- p:fr q_ ' ? ry'}r y,.y.y - _ (sy C y ..- ,./y
~
Y ,W / .%g <> r,[ . ,},?, j- . .:2 .ac, h'; " kD.Q ,
, -;is fxX;'s,W.% <N N %'g;W- /X_e js -5Gs s. '*,rM.'/
y , / k -s -Y'^- '&
, c cy 7, ,' /y- -
i m w w w s , x , x a s.x m , A Y, Y / / '. !
- Y ,
h Y
~
x sfs .
. 'h s Nsh - '
~
' , j ' '
p 'N y ,.A
* ] ' /> *'
-l>:,
' / '** - . , m. 2. A . >. A xx . . e_ & -
,. \^ / ' /\
s .si Y,nx , s .n-,: ' } **o
, ,/ 7 n A- , ;,;
- ///(f A>xAT tw.- _ 4 f,Ad/ 3_ A s mA 2u<
9. mNN . g/ /c / f: .8 K K 3 ux - t c ,s a x x a 3
" //// N/ /3',% y 1' , - M'*//s/_% N yxNNyy/ < / %, e.3- /s w sNsw
{N/ _/ f _X /' '/'_ \ s/ % .* / i /w ~'A 4 N 'Q#fQ / / \ _ i y y \ N 'hj
~
j>',g/ / , "y ^ .- - y/,,X'<,s - -/ ' ,* ? / [ ., oc = , . -h---- 3 p.3, ,,;'4./ / N , N gA g g
'N/ <$'y ' ,/.
~
- s. / ' ;, N, NM:!.. N',kn /\, , [ $ so
[6t h J M ' G h d M O ' E ' 2 N Yj ~ . i kl'N'h?h'I'f,;Nf'$. N,ds NA,A . f r%',N* /,' .:h;.f'&b,'lf'hy,f,l') ,kN ' , '/ /v 's n. .y [ O ~Y
- /u,5
) ?, rs'[ '.> vN Ng,7j Velocity Plateou *; X .s - s
- S s' y 'x cN .. . > _ . s_. .m n w x %m
> v ,c,v' :,cryy _ .; jy s,\ N s
, rxs .-
, , vmy. ; 7</
. , , s ,,
y g(< // v f- v x Su . c . . 3 , s yf y < f y f y,/o , , IN Y /I /N /h ' c [ ,
'.', , M )'h*',' h 5 ,/\ / y [\,00 e f /'sa'/ jf%.9//h /Nq h/))-
~
g"_N , .. O'y ./ , O I,~NI A vs s Iv N A;. ^ ;n h, / . .# , .e . . s - ' _;y/- 'vv .A cp. y,y , s
' N, $. \. ; ;< i s,. < I ', s* \ v rk: b =
v
,(s Oe y ), ' > ,N N
Ei s's N s' , /.>> ;. c'N. . ,/.s ." i. A '/
' //
,. ~a s- ,
s > .. ,
/,'.s
e, ', ' e
/c s N - f )i.,/e,y'%yw
- w. v .O2&/ ot iq N N ^ , y"v',,'A, . y N $f ag .f> ;f1i ,,
C >'~ Y_ I s ,_, e, ,s s _r A vX"l u@ %u_ a ,
-t e -
/.
_/ ._.\ / /-( ,N A N A s x f .a
- s. s. - i .t
,/~,,,,u
- 4, c x. _ /s u ;-> ,ccxi.
/. ,-
y 7,
,- . ~ x. w m ~,x :, ~a ,
.p d
. g/ 3
* 's 1/ ' */
.',- 's' '
s ( .\ / g* _ s/
'3 c's N"g W yt W (s e . ,/ . 'a's'.; ?>N -
, . sX,v e < > r. AN l F's,'k ' * . a. fG . y ' *
'.'XRfJN /.^, Y N S'.4
! / e MM$ I bMShk'$ JP$'6X k_',','<h h/W h'[><.IN.sPNI PN'.k /
- o i s'
,M/p(I.xN%
+- pe X , h i
~37 9^:'gg>/' j'%>j'+pM ,
i> \ ^'x e / \
/ ~.p a
l
, I'xor
. N.. ./KN"oM / /
\ N % y'W e /9 ,
.o. es o. o. ce .. a a . . e a s 4 i e io l DERIOD, see i
'O l l l l l bv Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL 6-9 i Date: 28 M AY 1981 Smoothed Instrumental Spectrum RLM-H I l i
l
;O O -
O i O 20 , , , , l lO i 15 - -
- O .
y10 - s W L
> I l
lO O 5 - O
- o l 0 2 4 6 8 10 l PERIOD, SEC.
O Damping = 2% IV - 79, USGS 5055, vertical cornponent. LO O O . Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL 28 MAY 1981 Instrumental Spectrum RLM-1 Date:
O. oc FRECUENCY cps se ac to o e > r s es u et cs ca os oi y ,._.y - _ _ y,.,;_.,y_ 3 ou eco t _f sy I, : y\ n p [,;. sfY- 1-%f '/ } 5 '1 4
~- - / _- ,.
fY_ y,;.v ,n ,
-s ' ; y,j
' ~
eco E Y E3 A Ej 9' _ _ /'h' N, .N 0M{, /' [% v
.co E.,1 _V3 ts,Q.y V . _, b '.*' _.,kN W 's WQ' .s 1 / 7-Ye k 'i ..N > -
es ,,6 % 4 '4.N / NiN M N ~ X ,' .\, / ' s MINK ,' / 4 f .% 1d . jaksk, ,'/,'\ N,%%')"k /\, %.5kA'[,k)g' ,,f@ h$$ 1
$''$i[ M ' @ X .2
'Y %
3,'/;lt)' y"s 'i}? I % ,6 2 }N @ ,D d b'
,i),' ,}'( y h\ > >
'i
,2 '*
."u N Qt . ,. . y ./ -' ,\ '
~ 'N ' ' ' '
b,$,' y ,y .o s n v/,,
...- ;y - s s' x,?wh* y! /j,- '*o
^ - ,m -
y / f. A A ,/ < _.te. < o s 7 , 1 . . ca_. f. ,_,f g- m _ f c f,c . x ma s o s f-P_ .-- c i1 f A A s '<m i . _ . , j " p, e q/ /s, A v1N ex',;;. , qr nxg, ,q 3,A.---f. s c f x , , ,x m s is sys CN - _ / i t' ' Xj N ' s Q'>,N , . s ' ,N' M s 'W 7,%. 4 Q **
,'s ,
f,4' / N i' MrW'.g/ - '
, gy , y ,N , ~ .%'$
u, ne
$?,'h' t \ . M Q ' . , ,, ' ] 7 5. Q / W ~ ,', N J < , 9 "
, instrumental y x .,
s s,. , s s
.- a to h g'qsx{N Spectrum d ,'N
\'( S. ,,,, ,. ; ,' , De sig n. sx
,g .3, /, ,,, , . ',, k ,q K
bs ' N M*
,. ' } _N*, f ' ,
/
\
y,' ff k'
~
y
'//)" '.
/. NVy,'s ',k W/*' , - a./ / .5 , F, '.
rN , , 3 [- q : :! *;
/, i,o . 'A A :.l,OM _ 1 yf,- I Wm, ,;<f %' s' ,,1 N,. '
= , 4' :0"Q h
>, m, i,;,,,a>+ .c :
u ' , ,, -. .x w .a
- p/'Ae .1 N y W1g. .N ,.y >
_q 3 ,3x/,we ,y ,s " s x , sw. w
~
r.Q ' , ' -
. .A S; 's e/,,j.) j/'/ - / . : s , Nyf' N e / > ,
f N N s '>Q
,k . ' I /\ / _ I\8, M .'b'[ ' '
' , M' h_.' h /_e^\ /k I N Y?d Eis g'- 4 /\:s L ,..>p4. _. ' /a\ ' zf '/"I
_;' . M_%/ ='g f/N. wMi'M
. ns -! .c s -
' ' ' 3 0ptq.)
h .,,e' p /- < -
') /f /y ' U,'> h, .
= /f, K _
x .'% , *S i x,/$ ,'<,, e* .- .A' -? - ? ? . , ^g , 'd s'. <--<--,.%
, .s s
r?% ,'.xi z -,-- ---
). y s s - :.
. . e
- g. i
/s e f ' s. -
77,ff 7
.,3 hs , xj.
f
,b e' >;: \,
,' ')' /,e'y >'d
). /*,,'.*h, ,'/ \\
3 sht?[,
- f.& ' , , :)y
*s .._.x th),f './ : ;)7 '
_.s f. n,- 1x f. . xx f i
~< - /Axs . sx, -
* +w r:. v. i
,- .^
.x , c.: \M !.
' s. <
,y r.
.y ,. ;;-r .
'n ! // j .- 1 s.' > , ^ ^ . x - *
; ; ;i_ ;s y x 8 ;,.x -
g" ,V, e. N N __c_'E/ /, s
'1 4
g1 .N//g A / /sjN \ N gN
,, .,' i
. y; {py.y i i . , , ,'7& p ,r i _^.'n,Nssy - ,
, g N e'
. A._ Sv . i 3 '
. . yf>Jp_.'W /'s; Ai\W1
,%,-,._,/,x*g. /\ yQ ,
F-C'; w% gNe
- y'("p A~<(4
. '. /
~ i m,g\.?
.s- w ween , x'$!:: . f,n un,, 4
fI b , $' -. '#>/' N- s . s'$',x ' /
' e < r[x),'% '
O k ,v '% f f , '/, Y',) l/s'sQ'&' ' ' r X, k e <'/,s / Ns d/ l'>Is!,A
/ ' , %s '>gNN&,\,?'f,/)M,f N
,A #
/.
, ' '>'/ I,! \ 'Y./- N / 'N d .// --- J .,
4 or on o. c. o. . a s . e e ' e s . e e io PERIO3, see n V Based on NUREG/CR-0098, Dornping = 2% , SSI Factor = 0.60, Ductility = 1.3 C N J s Witness- DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL
- Fig .
Example of instrumental and Design Spectro aty.a Date: 28 MAY 1981 'O
n. FREQUENCY, cps O ,, .c ,o ,, , ,, , , , , ,, , , , , , . ,, ,, , , , , co=w rw ,., n c , u . ,., , , ,x .,
. ,,_i
-, . v , ,, n . - . yaw
.x R ' :>
,,-f.;y;;;;<Q;,%,Q Mq,}$ % 4g:,y_y' n
-kAW>2MM:m'M'%7
~6X kdh A N>RWX/ , / ,M%vX. ' 'xlMn & 5
_m 7x lesew /x xxwx Aw%a-O gLh }'. .dM'dXM M@,NM[Mf> 2 , \N 'fMMd f 'I / ~ u, 'a i \ ' h h[r'// up1
- ~- .: na s~ # xx,.,a_ - i
/ [ k lYx 's/sc,'dth
\ 'f>[s\ .e,_
r, te.- h h'[k,' ,' O , h ac n<. x m , -
-ex UI[fs 'a y-.f~swrx
** /. is
- / m r y f_x 3 m ,! . g . s / A /. ,s , e 2 ! . 7 s / x u m **
, (// /.' V /N /s N'sN i M '/,* ."/ ^s , % NQg G' ', ' /s/ /% f"x X "1NisN N/f / X t / X: N 's V M /,' / rs cf MX / / x /s _ X N N q ,,
,4 , 'ge ;y,y - '
.\ ,% IN'yp;j
"(py 6X'b' f. /' N , / i' f>(r '9 f ' / , > s%,'Q s
[*rM/ .;;/ / , /\g }y(hM g no
; Ga s- .. <, s.3 -:~,m yM
- x. s
- ey < v:
no fvhIh <,' ,y'M, . , ,'f Adr,[b k .'k'N's ( ',
'y' s ~~. '$ 'fk , , .E kx' // A(AlaN !j /
e x"y ' ' iv si,>.
'. j, ~ %'/s , - 4'> j :> N' '
v ;r ,; s '/9
- K
- w,-
eiN /s.Vf ,N Y ;m O .4 - N r /r,f, ,, , ,^ ( x ,, m; i '__ i m f'~h%' , C '; ,' i ' @ O *
- f~ e ,1x. es . ,_ , > ,s 3 s wx a ;
, c. y j ,, .s y g, . . , >- - - s , , ; are,f; v - x uvs,x e K/ '/ _ < /s . N N 4 >> .v f '/' /
_ /s > (N N sffN_/,* f X _
^
's . ;x NNN)Q
, ii.N /i 's /~:s @ ff.*Y /~ , i ,'y(r; f': h ' / / % A i\;'y};$ ,
, MM [N D ,)[M f s_ }, [ M M M / \d b[/ M(I$ ,
g (') q , ,' ,
,l'5 )'f';;'M&R.' 3'tWW%'$$y%f ,
; k sx>d[ t 2!
N,h'< x
- ',M4*"[ v' ,I
.f hC Jh\ (X
. ,, , ,s<wm, i - A < . ~. . /> > a ~ a ,x . , *
/J/ s . % . *_ i A AA
- /_<.y / / ,.- i /. e 2
>_',,A.x
* .. .i /'i i, A.N '
. _ s Vs 4
. x,cN , /- ,, / , , si r,- / y / y y , - ,x *
- ffi/ f / .*1 N \ % N @ R /,' / * / / .$ N's s sN/ @ / // /s /s NA NN O x / . ' /s sj N'.cij? x 'f ', / 3 % ,s f,x / / , f x m N s xiq
~
W / 's 4 ,IN p t:'s >',4 fx 4 iN 'yMP_>Yf: /N A iN >y3
,f9h' /'4}&MWM /N W dim'<bi / N! M'd , >
1@SPN36N$fE MD' MOM 8AN , O Ik wy j \ kNh' f; /h Mh>'hh
- w' k
..- on e, o. o. o. ,
~
BR :'.^d'['MM[Ln . PERIO3, see 'O - 2 */. Dornping
-Derived from calculations using instrumental records.
O s
\
-)
Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Fig . Date: 28 MAY 1981 Original Instrumental Form of DBE Spectrum RLM-K O c
r3 FRECUENCY, cos
%)
ec re so no o e ' or os s_ s e is i ci os ce ei
*** w y 3r + yp~y. < - . ,, 7: . /m > ., s, , g no
"'g<. v '
d 4 I'hMkhM.MM_a r,;.qqu. i,v, /??s~h//f , /,NO~h~FtN "o s 1.s va ,w~v7' ,v p (n ,j " t,X /, i / N/sj \NT.17.Q /3 i
.s y's, w,/pff / ;>. ,N g \T
'> s
.n
~'
(5 $ /' ' d / h [ D )"2"5"'l'h'
, N , I i , // AIN'X / / s 'f g'j V'M ,'dN %?%s'/l'.< , ' 'N /k%/?!W ,f(,/h > %,y$$8 M 'E:j gM E RK) % A M M 6 J K' M
~y yp. '
QsXVgg, ~
, ,~ / '>4 . , v y y. y , g, qxhd. jUg- ~. h./ '.
O \ ,k'IK,, N.aN,\/',O",{
, , u _ ' ,ss
. z, . . ,z , , mmxm -
A A < i . '
- . .,. _b,m,,
/
=- g.
s'\ ! y, - j , /s 1 a g gx q
~ + . i._ /1.: , / n.- 1
. . n p/x x x v~ ~
x vs ww g/f y /'s /s v 1 -s ',- A 7 1., v , ff s , 3 wp . w / , 1. , x .n x./ , . ,i . 8 v n x / x ,\ w m - a'p,$y. '( / ,N , % Ps y,.3 P' M.' /.' /j ,,A p A,.,.
/v./:sN y >.'
", W. h _ .
'^~ y s w. -,%. /N, M.sn-- .
g s'g.
- s \s m
;y33.- x, ..s ' w,.
, ,s s ,.y,g.(N3x x , 4 . v. .(syA,4,v, 3y"e, "
[x,N)'fh'[,h, Mh,:. _ , , xie - 5,,wi '!k h'MM>,4,'N
,w, f .a s 4:
O $
- /,
'+~_' ,',~~~.
,X %r N'1s W -/91,7 n
-X- i, d, I /:/, r' /,X'
,n +nx W'- : $Sn
((Jy ; /, ' _ =.s'
</, e,/ . W,7,N/
XJ \ , fs"N//fa f
's s ' ' J [ 1X/ ~ * , . f _.N N N N y[s'N , y
', XXT')Q
, j \ s 's AN_ ,e ,/ \ ,
NV /i /\ /h i 49W,h' / N^ . yj W,h'? lN / N$9M , W{/ q 1. 4g/.Fy / ',($/> 7; Q.( ,$' . . xN . /N M,/ >,$y
, p c/.r ,,.m, A xs. .
r .. ,A p ,' ,,,>A', e , . N s ' m,/.3 .
! s N' , h, y,,' N ,
s ,41, -l, ',(< pe.A N4K _,7 ff j O (n) - 2,,.[.'g/ :n[>n(Q:j h_4 + . ['k.s:k.s, , ~ . ,h d',>d,x'[j,',$oA&
/c.
' ,s sM
/.
~y .
. wx . , ., ~ ,
- -.nxce, -
k' ,'N v";
= y -4 N '[~/i ~/. /' , s /~ > r W N ! . <.':/: x'v W N, ' ' ' '
" ' ' ~
e
,r': 7. o' r^ ' ,
= 2
'O ,u' - s, a
>,~ -
Q.N(/ // / / ,/ 3 , 1 ,1, ,N N/6N,_3N
/. ,
armx . / A
, , ,nw ., / . , ~ m,m ,
- _ .v /. ', i % 'gQi . y
, 'yj.3 . 'U f s , \ N'>fM
,pf'% '_./w / f y lA' % ,,
n , 2,M> 6',4' y x / ,'di 3 g>s.:M ~ v's w sy A4 r
' y,%m m ao m: x A m; h , n > 9 -
.O m ,y's Q
'7 y'f ,^ Q ,w^,W)f>v,f ,
f . $w;cM)f >
%, ,i,) ,>>y' i %@
n _%Y
, \N,
,,4_MC, -
'xd A ..h & V M ,
i-
., o, o, . o. o. . , , . . .. . . . . . .o i
PERIO"), sec 'O 2% Domping O ,, ~ ( v
)
Witness: DR. RCBERT L. McNEILL R-9 Design Form of DBE Spectrum atu t Date: 28 M AY 1981 .O I m .=. - - --y.
;O .
1 O 5 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, , , , , , , ,, O E
=
E n E o 4 ~ ~
.O c 2
e i e e 3 ~ ~ O ! o m E E 8 8
= =
0 0
!8 !8
~ ~
00 , k f
~~~~-
Bosement reducing Ue Ue motion. Y !EpIiIy*ing 9 motion j U a: I f f I e I t fl 1 f f p i e ie i 1 e e i e i t I lO O o.01 0.1 I to i SPECTRAL PERIOD, SEC. i Los Angeles, 09 Feb '81 San Fernando Earthquake O after compbell (I980). r i 10 O i Witness. DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Examples of How Structures Without Basements Fig Have Higher Spectral Accelerctions than RLM-M Date- 28 MAY 19 81 Structures with Basements O L_ _ . . . .. .- . .- _ _ _ _
7 O - O O O 5 , , , , , i,. 1 . . i i.i , .- . .- .. ,. Homboldt Power Plant 06 Jun '75. Ferndole O ., Af ter Valero, et al (1977) 4 _ , 8 2 o
=
z 8
= 2
=
2 5 0 ir i 3 - - E E
$ U:s o b E _u) "
00 8
- e
*g a
l .E co c -- 9.. Hollywood Storoge Bldg E fe'[uc g' 09 Feb '71, Son Fernando. O e motion Af ter Compbell (1980). Structure amplifying p motion O , , 0.01 0.1 l 10 ! SPECIAL PERIOD, SEC. .g Damping = 5 %.
- Hollywood Storage Bldg: Instrument at - 3 m.
- Humboldt Power Plant: Instrument at - 25 m.
l l IO i O l Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Examples of How Structures Reduce Fig. Date: 28 MAY 19 81 Ground Motion RLM-N
- O L- _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ . _ . _ .-__ ____. _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ __ ____. _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .
O O O , 5 i , , , ,,,ii , i i i ..ii. . . , i ,,ii O E 4 - - O $ $ 5 8 a e E 3 2 o E B 3 - O e 2 E Gi E i E I E E _ oO is* a - P
<r e
O o O o.oi o.i i io SPECTRAL PERIOD, SEC. O O O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEl'.L Values of Ratio Used to Construct Fig. Date: 28 M AY 1981 instrumental Form of DBE RLM-o L ______ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ - - -
O. rarouss:Y, cps . se K BC 2C e sp ? S S P *3 0F Of GS C2 C4 Ce I
~ ,v:n m..
o r
.n m.. ,. ,+;
g ,.s=.s g yr , y. g
^, , , , - - R,.= -
/
I w-Av,m,; D Q f' . - Wwg
.~ y m, ;, ,/,7.Ql
','F.V~i s in , whtr~, ..,,
'NX' / / * .
) N ll ' $ "'
g' 29X/;'Q',4 /hj'8769X/ 'N -'
' >" G 9 X ,'
's f ..% M (d
[ KfM X j><g Q4'W/M /' i s
- -h ANN p ..! , , x<xi w e.Ng.s ;s xs e,,N<wivs Ifh9<^X'X
<px/q s Nw z& ,
.r t Nl MM'x [
f
'N { '/, ' ' ? s ,')s(,{s M ' ' ,' 'jf' M "
o x \ [M.[r'/j'
'0 8
~
/n ,v N ,I E,r[$.g,_.t't(/,fx 4it f1 5_ K 4 .'iN .. ,. , n <,
, s ; _
'J S,M,N m+, , /, . . . v y.sd , a
)p' s
> . 8
,=1 N\ 8 '
o'/ , ' _ Xe 3 . 'e -\', X >\ K \ > N's\ -4
, r////N /N /s X Y \_, s~1 s */g'.N ' <* /g ' ,'a'IN s 3
'.' 'XV fr - ' s"v ' . "s 't \ "v\N% u N// / _X i J =
g7,@ \ _/ / \ _e's \} 'N N TK
- f 7 ' A /y. s ' . y'? M ' .* M *
,'j! 7.>Y _ h ^ ~\ '~ d -
.a n
o _&3G . / 'ip. W., ~
. p,.D P /.&,.. tN %~ ,,
x.;, yA
,,;n w.g .
y, yw.
/wq EV'InstrumFntal Form . ; , x y,' -p/, w v \Nsg;qsN /,m ov,y' o h I N\' - ' '
J. } [ ., #'/,/ V[xN ,q, c.p[' , ' '
. 9.h. /'fb)' ' ,% ~
/N' ' >a / ,>9 -
5s ', f., x v,pv .5.y,s,'y ,)s . s
.h N ./. v , ,s, .,.v'n xc t
_. x < _ _ a .
._ , s
, . . ./.= _ /- 1. w . -
z
--A x
. v ., .,e c
- / fr 4
/_ > \ t ',,/ A i 3's ! b z', . 7 ix y s yn_sM .;
, r/ ' '_ D' / / s N V ' s . '/ "s/ 's N ' . i -M f f, "s/ A A N "s N SNN' , y M '/L' f _ 4/ ' aDN / .
- f- _N s iXrh_" # / 'e f- ); \\\,)Q
, N>Y /4 /N / y M.'Y ' s '
!'s ')6 M. M ,e j N /' iN 'y>'d '
g4,(
~
_ _/. ; p' *a.'9. 6eSi9n' Form , ) /[ I 2 2 / M ' / \ I'// ) 7 $ ,
~ .
p"b/') M" *[NNN p. , e ) s. J J . = '// ' / j ^ ./[~< ~// s) '$1, w'N e.x -_ e f : / c_ A. Q' . s .s 8/ vc M,\w , vs \^ cq ,/y's
,s : > y
~s .v . ,i y' . .';, .i.4>.. s; i . , ,y N r . ,,i
, f> nu,,,ita sjj :
s,5'i. . . w,. ?jW,' y .X l,1::^ c, ,c .
,_~.*s W ,/y'i08\',l2h,+)y$.1 > . ~.
y
*4 x , " x , s w i m. . # - 5 s a' <z',',x x m u
. A ,i - _
+ ' v's _ .! /. e , A .T I /. /, AA . 7 T Vs
- o
- u v myv ,- v , m e u a v m sy
- x ,
' ^
f '4 N's'6M\ . L/ . _ , s , sfd. #/- -
.,N ..=; \ N NjQ
.cy / c s A N yhM9Y A /s > JS : i>.N f y _
, N iN'>Mj W M 4 Q D y Vs N 'N Lo ,j yX $ ex 1-@ ns ,
M dN$'28%,%iA?N)'6W 8Wb, M, i id2D .' % "M PRSN A ' #4 4 h.' $D M'M 'N d>AiN/ A ,W$3Md PERIOC, se: nv
- 2 */. Domping O
L' w Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Fi g . Date: 28 MAY 1981 Design and Instrumental Forms of the DBE RLM-P g a k-
[ O. .
,c u ee w a . , ,
FRECJEN*Y, cps
. i e .. .c, e ci en e, . < , .
p.7 : -x '
'74 -)~ *nac*
+,3., p ~ ,'.W.- G -pf.u,A:,,.9.J '.;.4=p y '- .Ay -, p* _. ,:m: c , :m, . .s.%;1 ano -
v--g
' ' /'g',
~
t a--e---* .
'. f , ,' . ' 3 /+
Q. _,. ='_,*'_~ ..N - x' ,'.',' O 1' N .
s'. . _
. - .*y .ac, 7 __/ _
' Q_.% '/ A s = < s ']b,'c / = s s #
,% 7g O P~,g' /. N /N ' 'f' ,M9. X, /' s. ~, s .y", '
. . ,'i ---_ ' ' 4
. W.
,%. -- d.
' f \_$ $ d(~'"5 !\, h d('?' W : h k.$ ,,
)'".'.* _
s . $ y v N \9 'M ,7 , , >(
, , , b $\* y / K'
~
N /".* N y , N>. . 44.A\'y' w.'h,:.tN@, . N * . ws _ .s#, / .::A* O N
/s
' f~,-f j < v , y:M*- . V ' W C C ^ W'o' y %--*.,_.y-- /x, , rys % w:x: **
z ;.- < , ,f A A 3/= 4sg ';'X l % .: Zi'
- 6 m y /, /s y Jm . , _' ,
,N /,1 --
_04 Ihw"
** 3 Cs , / = , e's . : N , i,Q X _ ,'/ - > .
Tf'r).//V x./x s s, y , , ' ' x - )<;. i. - 2 a N c. . g . .x . - NR98
- x. 'Pctl i "s- .
p'-V.- -F_',f' M / '/' ' W.- -v,
/ = ,. u, ' -s '
O .. 4 .) "> / . W,iv-79x y- =-%,,'M
~' ~
. /,
- i 'h
>s
. . < , N'c.w. k Wo.3,9
- . x s \ . .c,. , , ,
73,<; , ,;s ,,73 .- ,~>i , y y - .; "
-i x x i.>,
,0w
</ -.x D e.i.t.o .s ,7. r. - v, .e g N .-<w
, ,sr . ,, e
. .~
.N..x,/
x
. s .. .s- .
=
s s aw
, 3 . ,'a
- e.
y,VO /u v, ,w, h : , a .: ; u m,, _ x. , , ,w o -
>. , w v. ,, n ., amm a
.' / fi _
- s 'V V 5 's N' < ,W ' d e ,y
's. _ ' / >: /N _/ gs
-/. ,' .. , , yf \ p, x 4,sA ','t' N's NN s'3W yg W _/i N/_ y[ Y/ , ' , ' y's M ',K ,f fx _,^ _ I N 'y'sf ,
, pg ' lf . '-
. c
,1 -' c,, .
./
s
,',.9,,89,,q.~y.
,73 yg$'q .
N'.'t aI sp.N,/4.y-. +' 4 gg- - O , f' , 3 < - 3
\ S
'4,(\.
e , # /.> ' , s
>,f y * \.g.
nu>;m '
'/ *, ' / c / / [> q
> ,c -
u ,,. >.: ;... ,
- a. 2 . s;.::.v g i , a,
'. e 1x , u .4-1A/- .- w x c o ,s -
- Y , ' % ',,f "
' 1$ bW,w /_ ^' a / 'n
^
!. N O o ^ ' A ^ s ww
- 6 & 7. ~ e' ( .m
, e) / ii / .'s'- N , sf,X, s r f.- ,N , , . Nx jg
. y w .wx..v._/, . w,y j j ,Np pg /sww
) &'ik? M%jy> iM'.'bxMMML4'?Ri .6x A g. .wmwaa , ,
O
- 'y{,
s s' M'Ms /y'j-f e >'XN N' s ' @A /> ,7 /x' 3,xX AN x r,;,T / e
, L . )' .,, N M:' /, ,Je x \ 0 b , }.- ) i A,mM, PERIOD, sec ~
O - 2% Damping
- IV-79, all stations 6-13 km from f cult, Spectrum shown is 84 th- percentile O
C Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Instrumental Form of DBE Spectrum, Fig. Date: 28 MAY 1981 Compared to Other Instrumental Spectro RLM-Ol J
.Q ' FREQUENCY, CDs , se rt ac te e e ' s 9 8 '8 ' 2' el CD c2 ce es
~ t_ ,
,r _ .-_, u 4~p + .- 'acc
,mm4u
""* @y::,,:
hJ<e.;,-W y4 -, ,.,xyRQr , _,,,vM. ,*/ M, ~ / ,. M n ,fA-t 1,s ,( 4 -'7'
,f f, ,, s ;Q "*
O- /r t e- 'A qN '97.N / .. / ~ 1 N i 9E*i'/ / r~
~ '
, qN , N "
l ~fA' #.yt,.'r M ,>,M
.i ,
, N , ^ i , y'p'.iW /
- f , s y%5 f ?NN /, f',
4
% ~.s,( -9 0 i % '~. W / h. 'd h W X Y ,@ $ $ 9 k$
_ W.iV A%WXAAWMLAW)_ O = ' . ,n s<s : . / ^- s m. . _s-
. '/c 'w. .
'_ . _ _ x. x , , 'a
- f. a s"t ,N , ' 4 '1'\_ i "
/_. T , js i , i# 2 _A ,%. 4
- ///i j ~ / /t /\ T s 's N'\, eE '# y A_ 73 .I '-'~'Ai'
,, <<// // /S ,, y a sss 7(. /,.'s-
,3y g y . ,/*/.'/ % /, ?~. T _
w w _'s s'\ -1 m ,, p;/. ~ / X i
^; \ Y 9 A/ , / .* /, s . 3 ,/>'3,' / / X_ /x 3.NN'Q; y'f,/ / / , .^ :' [)%$. . 'f. M *'/,/ / 7%,%lN)%1 I'NM /'N Nb'RS', ?
O lMN
/\ NIEN _ i.
D'&V M W '! / v 6 M X'.A M ?'2'i "
~>t~/.;NR W,jNy
, X ,
- gQ';WJ'[')4%%'>'$
,'N / '. ' * .
h IV-79 .y1 {C
,g ;N '/. ,
] ; 7'r. / r x , , > e ; 1 , : i , . 2 7 ' s ,,th g
, l . ^,; O .M-/
~ - -
-M -_ O, ef ' a ',0.-;
._,.y , yr n y i $0wS cf .- , f .s/f , .s. ., x ,sm
- p;, g e f/f ,1 > ,< s'- , ,y' sxf ".s -
>N. ///, _, Del 10 '>? Nvyq **
lW A / s f \ K ' W.W / ,' / , .' .. J' ; y., .( /N A i s 'y5 '5 , QAs i /N -_a .',s Y .. _ ' _. ,p( ' W.,* g / \\ &. _ & % OQ %), D_ b N.f_>/,'
- I N'.s S,,. -
. $,'~ b s,, O '$Y : )+)<3$ k , k0) N. _ ,
. . ,- -e ,,
; /
s
*,t n/ i . f o > .A x ; _u - -
7' ~~ -u
. ,b- 1, ,. - '- _i! msw
/. - A s .- cem 1 /.- ,aA
- ,x'
/ ,
N).3 n g .'.///x A xv o N, Q , t7'. y e, .Nf 6/ : 'f/A
', sg ,/yA gr
-- / / / , ,N N 4 s,'m ,
.fr ,N . f +'fp',N _ / . /. s ,s ' ,' /s XiNNsjQ
.* ,Y,, ' / q * , i h h . h 'f ' ,,' N ,'yd$.Y/ /N /yINW1
, Y.W's
$ 'Lh% >hb'W j'E, sh'>kk/'>^k t' N Yh ,
' M b i J IN I M N '$iNx M M .' O'. k ' J @ i! ,
o sE i x v~a..n y - y .>p % x7,y.x>q , 4'o, u9wasv,o' s.4fME s h A, e
#x :YMAx' , ox '\2h,g
. on .os o. os c. .. : .e . e s . . e io 3 PERIOC, see O
-2% Domping
-IV-79, oil stations 6 - 13 km from fault, Spectrum shown is 84th- percenti'e O
O Witness: DR. ROBERT L. McNEILL Instrumental Form of Vertical DBE Spectrum, Fig. Date: 28 MAY 198i Compared to Other instrumental Spectra RLM-R O I i}}