ML20041A142
| ML20041A142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1982 |
| From: | Wuller G ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A143 | List: |
| References | |
| U-0416, U-416, NUDOCS 8202190159 | |
| Download: ML20041A142 (1) | |
Text
1 a
ILLINDIS POWER COMPANY
~
yyy L3 (gg_35y_g 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, DECATUR, ILLINOIS 62525 February 16, 1982 e-q)
Mr. James R. Miller, Chief 3
o; Standardization & Special Projects Branch WECEfyED Division of Licensing g
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 7g%pgg2 8 /pg4
! ]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 v3
Dear Mr. Miller:
g Clinton Power Station Unit 1 N
Docket No. 50-461 Enclosed is a copy of the report developed by Weston Geophysical for the CPS site specific spectra for a magnitude mb = 5.8 near-field earthquake.
It was requested by Mr. R. Jackson that this report be submitted to the NRC reviewers by February 10, 1982, to allow sufficient time for review before the February 25-26 ACRS Subcommittee meeting.
This report also includes a discussion of response spectra at the CPS site from far-field earthquakes.
Sincerely, l
~/
G. E. Wuller Supervisor-Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering HBP /lt enc.
cc:
J. H. Williams, NRC Clinton Proj ect Manager (w/att. )
R.
Jackson, NRC GSB (w/att.)
H. H. Livermore, NRC Resident Inspector (w/o att.)
G. Giese-Koch, NRC GSB (w/att.)
0\\
g6 8202190159 820216 h
PDR ADOCK 05000461 A
4 2
Weston Geophysical j;)
conaon mon x
February 17, 1982 WGC -411-13 Mr. P. K.
Agrawal Sargent & Lundy Inc., Engineers 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603
Dear Mr. Agrawal:
In accordance with your Purchase Order No. CD369, we hereby submit our report entitled " Site Specific Response Spectra, Clinton Power Station - Unit 1 of Illinois Power Company".
This report describes the site specific response spectra developed for the Clinton site from an mb 5.8 earthquake.
This report also includes a review of the adequacy of the Clinton design spectrum to withstand the ground motion from a hypothetical mb 7.2 earthquake at Vincennes, Indiana, the NRC defined closest approach of the New Madrid Seismic Zone to the Clinton site.
The site specific response spectra presented in this report are applicable to all structures founded on the concrete mat.
Preliminary results indicate that the site specific response spectra presented in this report are also applicable to Circulating Water Screen House.
The results of the site specific response spectra studies for the Circulating Water Screen House vill be documented in an ammendment to this report.
Please contact us if you have any questions or desire additional information.
Sincerely, WESTON GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION Edwa rd N.
Levine ENL:cag Post Office Box 550. Westboro, Massachusetts 01581. (617) 366-9191
I
- I I
I I
s11e s,ecre1c ses, osse seecres g
cL1,10s 20xea s1,110m - os1,1 OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY g
prepared for sARGeNT & LUNDY I
Revision 0 Febr ua ry 17, 1982 I
I 4%m I
u I
Weston Geophy_sica_l i
I I
1 l
TABLE OF CONTENTS l
Page LIST OF TABLES i
LIST OF FIGURES ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 General Background 1
1.2 Site Specific Response Spectra (SSRS) 2 1.2.1 Definition of Response Spectra 2
1.2.2 Site Specific Response Spectrum Methodology 2
2.0 SELECTION OF ACCELEROGRAMS 4
2.1 Magnitude Criteria 4
2.2 Distance Criteria 4
2.2.1 Closest Approach Distance 4
2.3 Clinton Site Profile 5
2.4 Discussion of the Suitability of 6
Individual Stations 2.4.1 Cholame No. 5 7
2.4.2 Wr ightwood 7
2.4.3 Cedar Springs Dam Pump House 7
2.4.4 San Bernardino 7
2.4.5 3838 Lankershim Blvd.
8 2.4.6 4867, 646 4, and 6430 Sunset Blvd.
8 2.4.7 Glendale-633 E Broadway 8
2.4.8 CIT Millikan Library 9
2.4.9 Jet Propulsion Laboratory 9
2.4.10 5,90 0 and 6,20 0 Wilshire Blvd.
9 2.4.11 Forgaria-Cornino 10 2.4.12 Ta rcento 10 2.4.13 Lake Hughes Ar ray Station 12 10 2.4.14 Mammoth Lakes Recording Stations 10 2.5 Selected Records 11 3.0 COMPUTATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA 12 3.1 Processing 12 3.2 Presentation of Spectra 13 3.3 Discussion of Spectra 13 I
3.4 Recommended Spectra 15 3.5 Influence of Site Conditions on SSRS 16 Weston Geophysical
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 4.0 RESPONSE SPECTRA AT THE CLINTON SITE FROM 17 l
DISTANT EARTHQUAKES 4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Comparison with Clinton Design Spectra 21
5.0 REFERENCES
23 TABLES FIGURES ATTACHMENT A I
I I
I Weston Geophysical
l LIST OF TABLES Tabl e No.
1 Weston Geophysical's Strong Motion Data Base -
6.4 ML, Epicentral Distance Less than 40km 2
Stations Considered and Rejected for Clinton Data Set 3
Accelerograms Selected for Clinton Site Spectra Spec tr a 4
Parameters of Response Spectra Data Sets for Clinton I
I I
I i
Weston Geophysical
I
~
~
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.
1 Weston Geophysical's Strong Motion Data Base 2
Geologic Sections H-h' and I I'
- Station Site 3
Typical Geologic Profile Showing Geophysical I
Properties - Station Site 4
Shear Wave velocity Column for Clinto-Site 5
Comparison of Shear W' ve Velocity Columns a
Cholame Shandon No. 5 vs Clinton Site 6
Comparison of Shear Wbve Velocity Columns 6074 Park Dr. Wrightwood vs Clinton Site 7
Comparison ~of Shear Wuve Velocity Columns Cedar Springs Dam Pump House vs Clinton Site 8
Comparison of Shear Wave Velocity Columns San Bernardino Hall of Records vs Clinton Site 9
Comparison of Shear Kave Velocity Columns I
3838 Lankershim Blvd. vs Clinten Site 10 Comparison of Shear Whve Velocity Columns 4867 Sunset Blvd. vs Clinton Site 11 Comparison of shear W' ve Velocity Columns a
Glendale vs Clinton Site 12 Comparison of Shear Whve Velocity Columns CIT Millikan Library, Pasadena vs Clinton Site I
13 Comparison of Shear Kave Velocity Columns Jet Propulsion Lab-Pasadena vs Clinton Site 14 Comparison of Shear Wave Velocity Columns 5900 & 6200 Wilshire Blvd. vs Clinton Site 15 Comparison o f Shear Wave Velocity Columns Forgaria-Cornino vs Clinton Sites 16 Comparison of Shear Kave Velocity Columns l
Tarcento vs Clinton Site llI l
ii Weston Geophysical
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
17 Strong Motion Records Chosen for Clinton 18 Composite of Individual Spectra for Clinton Data Set, Run III (5% Damping) 19 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (5% Damping) Run I 20 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (5% Damping) Run II 21 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (5% Damping) Run III I
22 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Perc3ntile (5% Damping) Run IV 23 Site Specific Response Spectra for 'linton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile I
(5% Damping) Run V 24 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (7% Damping) Run I 25 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power I
Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (7% Damping) Run II I
26 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (7% Damping) Run III 27 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clintc3 Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (7% Damping) Run IV 28 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, Median, Mean, and 84th Percentile (7% Damping) Ru n V 29 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, 84th Percentile (5% Damping) and Spectrum from Design Basis Time History (.179, 5%
Damping) Run III iii Weston Geophysical
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
l 30 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, 84th Percentile (5% Damping) and Spectrum from Design Basis Time History (.209, 5% Damping)
Run III f
31 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, 84th Percentile ('7% Damping) and Spectrum from Design Basis Time History (.17g, 7% Damping)
Run III 32 Site Specific Response Spectra for Clinton Power Plant, 84th percentile (7% Damping) and Spectrum from Design Basis Time History (.20g, 7% Damping )
Run III 33 Comparison of Clinton SSRS with LLL/ Tera 5.8 Soil and' Clinton Free Field Foundation Spectra 34 Response Spectra, Central United States 35 Spectra for mb = 7.2 at 177 km af ter Nuttli (19 81b) 36 Spectra for mb = 7.2 at 177 km af ter Nuttli &
He r rmann (1981) 37 Spectra for mb = 7.2 at 177 km after Tera (1980) 38 Probabalistic (1,000 Yea r ) Spectra - Peak Horizontal Component af ter Nuttli & Herrmann (1981) 39 Comparison of Clinton Free Field Foundation Spectra (5% Damping) and Spectra for mb = 7.2 at 177 km after Nuttli & Herrmann (1981) 40 Comparison of Design Basis Time History (.179 5%
Damping) and Spectra for mb = 7.2 at 177 km after Nuttli (19 81b)
I Weston Geophysical
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background On September 14, 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
(N RC) issued a memorandum concerning the results of its review of the seismic design criteria for Clinton Station Unit 1 of the Illinois Power Company.
The memorandum stated that the seismic design criteria as presented in the Clinton FSAR "do not meet current seismic design requirements because decon-volution was used to establish the response spectrum at the plant 's foundation".
In order to resolve the issue, the NRC memorandum presented I
six options and recommended option 1; this included a request that the applicant develop a set of site specific response spectra representing an earthquake magnitude of m 5.8 + 0.5 b
and a distance from the site that ranges up to a maximum of 25 kilometers.
The NRC requested that the response spectra be derived for the foundation level of the structures, by assuming that the foundation level is a free field surface.
At the request of Sargent & Lundy, Illinois Power Company 's Architect Engineer, Weston Geophysical conducted the appropriate studies and sensitivity analyses to develop site specific spectra for the above specified earthquake.
The results of these studies are presented in this report.
The NRC has defined Vincennes, Indiana as the closest approach of the New Madrid Seismic Zone to the Clinton site.
This report includes a review of the adequacy of the Clinton.
I I
emeee m.ce
l s
. design spectrum to withstand the ground motion from a hypothetical m =7.2 earthquake at Vincennes, Indiana (177 km b
from the Clinton site).
1.2 Site Specific Response Spectra (SSRSl_
j 1.2.1 Definition of Response ' Spectra Response spectra are obtained'by driving one-degree-of-freedom oscillators of various natural peri.ods (at prescribed damping ratios) with actual time histories of seismic ground motion.
The response values are calculated from i
the equation of motion of the oscillator:
5 +28ek +w X = -at' 2
where X is the relative displacement' of the oscillator; I
is the natural frequency of the oscillator; 8 is the -
e fraction of critical damping; a is the base (ground) t acceleration at time t.
The details of the solution to this equation are discussed in Nigam and Jennings (1968).
1.2.2 Site Specific Response Spectrum Methodology Once the earthquake to be modeled has been defined, the data base of strong motion accelerograms is searched for earthquakes in the appropriate magnitude range recorded within an appropriate distance range.
Figure 1 is a histogram of Weston Geophysical's data base for close-in records (epicentral distances less than 40 km) for local magnitudes (M ) ranging I
I
__,m
r j
A from 4.9 to 6.3.
The strong motion records from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (g=6.4) are numerous for this distance range -and are licted separately on Table 1.
An additional criterion for the selection of accelerograms is the similarity of the geologic characteristics (quantified,
where~possible, in terms of shear wave velocity as a function of depth) of the recording stations to those of the site.
Response spectra are computed for each record that satisfies the three criteria discussed above.
These spectra are combined th and the lognormal median, mean, and 84 percentile levels are calculated.
There are many advantages to the site specific response spec trum (SSRS) approach.
Since the SSRS are computed from real time histories of earthquakes of the desired magnitude, artificial scaling of the spectral shape or level is unnecessary.
The resulting spectral level is the actual level of real data.
Since the geologic characteristics of each recording station used are screened for similarity to the site in question, the selected data set is more site specific and consequently more appropriate than " standard" spectra that are site independent.
Finally, since many records from different locations are used, the variations in ground motion produced by crustal inhomogeneities along ray paths are incorporated in the SSRS.
I I
Weston Geophysical
. g '"
-4
- E 2.0 SELECTION OF ACCELEROGRAMS 2.1 Magnitude Criteria, As noted in, Section 1.1, the NRC defined the earthquake magnitude potential (option lb) as m 5.8+.5.
Since the b
magnitude search was conducted in terms of M (local g
magnitude), the desired body wave magnitude (mbLg) f r all the data sets was converted to M with the aid of the Chung g
and Berni:euter (1981) equation:
.I Mg = 0.57 + 0.92 mb This yields the following results:
mbLg 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.9 6.3 6.4 2.2 Distance Criteria In the NRC memorandum mentioned above, the acceptable distance range between the earthquake epicenters and/or causative fault and the recording stations was designated to be
"...less than 2 5 km. "
2.2.1 Closest Approach Distance In addition to epicentral distance and hypocentral distance (the distance to the actual focus of the earthquake), a closest approach distance is calculated for earthquakes associated with a known fault rupture.
There are two basic variations to the closest approach calculation.
One procedure projects the involved area of the f ault plane to the surface (assuming there I
Weston Geophysical is no observed surface rupture) and computes the shortest distance from the recording station to the surface projection.
'Ibe other calculation does not project the fault plane area to the surface, but computes the closest approach distance of the recording station to the actual fault at depth.
The rationale for performing these calculatio6s is that the energy release from earthquakes of large rupture length is not expected to behave like the energy from a point source at the calculated epicentral location.
Since seismic waves are generated at each point along the fault where there is movement, attenuation of strong motion generally depends on the distance to f ault movement.
Also, the radiation from a long rupture may be nonuniform so there is always some uncertainty in the use of a single type of distance calculation.
These closest ' approach distances have been calculated for many of the larger earthquakes such as the Parkfield and San Fernando events (Boore et al.,197 8, Joyner et al., 1981).
2.3 Clinton Site Profile All of the Category I structures at the Clinton site with the exception of the Circulating Water Screen House are founded on a common concrete mat placed on structural fill, as shown on Figure 2, the geologic sections through the Clinton Station site (FSAR Figure 2.5-372).
The shear wave velocity profile I
corresponding to the geologic profile at the Clinton site has been provided by Sargent & Lundy and is shown on Figure 3 (FSAR E
Weston Geophysical
I Figure 2.5-36 9, Ammendement 12, Janua ry, 198 2).
As shown on Figure 2, approximately 20 Leet of structural fill has been placed on the Illinoian till.
Using an estimated velocity value of 800 to 1,000 ft/sec for the approximately 20 feet of structural fill, the shear velocity profile at Clinton to be used in the selection of ground motion recording stations is shown on Figure 4.
Th e shear wave velocities of 2,100 f t/sec for the glacial till and 5,700 f t/sec for the bedrock and the depth of 200 feet to the bedrock were obtained from Figures 2 and 3.
2.4 Discussion of the Suitability of Individual Stations The foundation characteristics of the stations whose accelerograms satisfied both the magnitude and distance criteria (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) are compared to those of the Clinton site in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.13.
Shown on Figures 5 through 16 are the velocity profiles available for the accepted stations plotted along with the Clinton velocity profile (Section 2.3, Figure 4).
Table 2 lists those additional recording stations initially considered for the Clinton data set but subsequently rejected for the reasons stated.
In response to an NRC request for additional information, the strong motion recording stations in the Mammoth Lakes areas and their applicability to Clinton are briefly discussed in Section 2.4.14.
I Weston Geophysicci
I I 2.4.1 Cholame No. 5 Figure 5 compares the shear wave velocity-depth profile for this station with the Clinton site.
The velocities shown for this station are estimated from compressional velocity measurements reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (1977) and a description of the subsurface materials obtained from the logs of test borings.
As shown on Figure 5, the thickness and velocity of the near-surface layer and the velocity of the material below it are similar to Clinton.
2.4.2 Wrightwood The estimated shear velocity-depth profile of this station is compared with the Clinton site profile on Figure 6.
The velocity estimate is based on a description of the subsurface materials from the logs of test borings (S W AA, 1980).
Both locations have similar near-surface layering as shown on Figure 6.
2.4.3 Cedar Springs Dam Pump House The velocity profile for this station as shown on Figure 7 was estimated from a description of the subsurface materials reported by S W-AA (1980).
As indicated on Figure 7, there is a reasonable match in the characteristics of the near-surface materials.
2.4.4 San Bernardino The depth-velocity profile at this station as reported by Duke and Leeds, 1962, is shown on Figure 8, along with the Clinton site profile.
Both locations have similar profiles that exhibit a sharp velocity contrast at a depth of 20 feet.
Weston Geophysical 2.4.5 3838 Lankershim Blvd.
The velocity-depth profile at this station as reported by S W' A A (1980) is compared with the Clinton site profile on Figure 9.
Both locations contain low velocity materials near the surface overlying a layer with shear velocities near 2,000 ft/sec.
2.4.6 4867, 6464, and 6430 Sunset Blvd.
The velocity-depth profile at 4867 Sunset Boulevard as reported by SW-AA (1980) is compared with the Clinton site profile on Figure 10.
The layering at 4867 Sunset Blvd.
consists of a near-surface low velocity layer, an intermediate velocity layer of 2,000 f t/sec, and an additional velocity increase at a depth of 180 feet.
All of these characteristics' are similar to the Clinton site.
6464 and 6430 Sunset Boulevard are located to the west of 4867 Sunset but along the same local geologic trend and in the same relative position near the northern end of the Los Angeles Basin.
Accordingly, the profile for 4867 Sunset Boulevard is adopted for 6464 and 6430 Sunset and these stations are included in the Clinton data set.
2.4.7 Glendale-633 E Broadway Based on downhole velocity measurements (S W AA, 1980) shown on Figure 11, this site is considered to be acceptable because its shear wave velocity is in general conformance with the Weston Geophysical Clinton profile.
This station has a near-surface low velocity layer that increases to a shear velocity of 2,000 ft/sec at a depth of 40 to 60 feet.
2.4.8 CIT Millikan Library This site has 20 feet of low velocity overburden over dense sedimentary material with a shear wave velocity of 1,600 ft/sec, increasing to 2,000 f t/sec at a depth of 100 feet (see Figure 12, a downhole measurement by SW-AA, 1980).
The similarity of the shear wave velocity profiles make the Millikan Lab station acceptable for inclusion in the Clinton data set.
2.4.9 Jet Propulsion Laboratory The velocity profile by LeRoy Crandall and Associates (reported by SW AA, 1980) shows 30 feet of low velocity material overlying a dense layer with a shear velocity of 2,000 f t/sec.
Below 120 feet, the velocity increases to 3,00 0 f t/sec.
Since the profile is comparable to Clinton site profile (Figure 13), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory station is included in the data set.
2.4.10 5,500 and 6,200 Wilshire Blvd.
Velocity measurements adjacent to these sites (Figure 14) indicate 36 feet of low velocity material over a more dense material with a shear wave velocity of 2,300 f t/sec (Duke and l
Leeds, 1972).
Shale is present below a depth of 200 feet.
l These stations are therefore considered to be a good match to l
Clinton.
Weston Geophysical 2.4.11 Forgaria-Cornino The comparison of the crosshole shear wave velocities at Fo rgar i a-Cornino (CNE N, 1980) with the Clinton site is shown on Figure 15.
Both locations have low velocity materials near the surface.
At depth, the velocities at the Forgaria station gradually increase to 2,500 ft/sec and greater.
The similarity of profiles (Figure 15) allows for inclusion of Forgaria-Cornino in the Clinton data set.
2.4.12 Ta rcento As shown on the site profile (Figure 16), approximately 15 feet of low velocity material overlies sof t rock with a shear wave velocity of 2,600 to 3,000 f t/sec, as measured by crosshole (University of Trieste,197 8).
Since the Tarcento profile is very similar to the Clinton profile, this station has been included in the Clinton data set.
2.4.13 Lake Hughes Ar ray Station 12 This station is acceptable because it has a thin layer (5-10 f eet) of overburden over sedimentary rock.
The shear I
wave velocities of sedimentary rocks in California generally range from 2,000 to 3,500 f t/sec.
Although a profile of this station has not been prepared, the velocity contrast and layering thickness should be similar to Clinton.
2.4.14 Mammoth Lake s Recording Stations Strong motion data from the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes of May, 1980 were recorded by strong motion stations operated by Weston Geophysical
I the USGS and the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG).
Three earthquakes from this series of events fall within the desired M range of 5.4 to 6.4.
Four of the CDMG g
stations that recorded these three events were located within approximately 25 km of the epicenters.
None of these four stations appear to have site conditions comparable to Clinton.
The Long Valley Dam and Paradise Lodge stations are interpreted to be shallow, hard rock sites (CDMG, 1980 and Strand, 1967).
The Convict Creek and Mammoth High School stations are deep alluvial sites (CDMG, 1980).
The data tapes for these recordings are scheduled for release by CDMG in early April 1982.
'Ihe one recording within the desired magnitude range was obtained by USGS operated station FIS located adjacent to the CDMG station at Convict Creek, an area of deep alluvial material.
2.5 Selected Records Recordings from the above accepted stations within the proper magnitude and distance range, including closest approach distance for San Fernando recordings, are shown on Table 3.
'Ihe column marked "other distance" designates the closest approach distance as quoted in the Lawrence Livermore (1980) compilation of strong motion data.
A histogram showing the magnitude distribution of the selected records is shown on Figure 17.
Weston Geophysical 3.0 COMPUTATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA 3.1 Processing Several agencies currently distribute strong motion data.
Because there is no one central agency, the degree of processing performed on each strong motion accelerogram may differ.
In the data set selected for Clinton (Table 3) the time histories can be divided into the following categories:
EDS/NOAA (GN7 4 ) - corrected for ins trument response,
digitization error and baseline drift.
Friuli Sequence (record reference numbers begin with "I")
digitized and corrected for instrument sensitivity (g/10 ).
CIT (California Institute of '1bchnology) (remaining records) - corrected for instrument response, digitization errors and baseline drift.
Response spectra were computed from the corrected accelerograms using the computer program "SPECEQ".
The procedure and computer program (EQCOR) used to correct the uncorrected data (the Friuli and Oroville records) are described in detail by Trifunac (1970), and Trifunac and Lee (1973).
Since publication of these reports, several advances have been made in the correction process, specifically in the choices of the low frequency (long-period) filter values (Basili and Brady, 1978).
These state-of-the-art techniques were used to process the uncorrected accelerograms before generating their corresponding response spectra with SPECEQ.
Weston Geophysical
I 3,2 Presentation of Spectra Five separate response spectra have been computed from variations of the total available data set.
On Table 3, the various data sets are distinguished by the column marked
" cod e ".
'Ihe identification of the codes is listed at the bottom of the table.
The statistics of each data set such as the number of different earthquakes, recording stations, components and peak acceleration values are shown on Table 4.
Ihe composited individual spectra from each recording are shown on Figure 18.
th The log-normal median, mean, and 84 percentile spectra for all the data sets listed on Tables 3 and 4 are shown on Figures 19 through 23 for 5% damping and on Figures 24 through 28 for 7% damping.
The long period end of the spectra shown on Figures 19 through 28 is terminated just beyond one second.
At longer periods it is not possible to average all components; this is a result of band pass filtering in the accelerogram correction process whereby each corrected accelerogram has its own low-frequency (long-period) cutoff point.
3.3 Discussion of Spectra Five separate response spectra were computed to assess the sensitivity of the data sets with and without the Parkfield Record B034 and the records from San Fernando earthquake.
The Parkfield record, B0 3 4, is considered to have anomalously high acceleration values due to near field rupturing.
The San Weston Geophysicol
I Fernando records included in the Clinton data set have epicentral distances greater than 25 km but closest approach distances approximately equal to or less than 25 km.
Run I of the five response spectra consists of 11 California and Italian records (22 components) representing the strict criteria of epicentral distances less than 25 km.
Therefore, the San Fernando earthquake recordings are excluded.
Run 7 7 constitutes the same data set without the Parkfield earthquake recording.
Run III was constructed using the closest approach distance and therefore includes all of the 21 records (4 2 components) listed on Table 3.
Run IV consists of all the records in Run III, except that the Parkfield record is excluded.
Run V was performed to study the character of the San Fernando strong motion records, that constitute a substantial percentage of the data set.
Run V consists of the 10 San Fernando records (20 components) based on the closest approach distance criteria of approximately 25 km.
The statistics of these five spectra runs are presented on Table 4.
'Ihe combination of the 10 records (20 components) from the San Fernando earthquake (Run V) with the 11 other California and Italian records (22 components) that make up Run I, produce Run III.
The high frequency portion of Runs I and V are virtually the same; the low frequency portion of the Run V is I
higher than Run I due to inclusion of the higher magnitude (Q 6.4) and more distant San Fernando earthquake.
Run III, Weston Geophysical consisting of all 21 records (4 2 components) is therefore an I
adequate representation of the spectra from an mb 5.81 5 earthquake within a distance of 25 km from the Clinton site.
Exclusion of the Parkfield B034 record from the Clinton data sets for Runs I and III substantially decreases the spectral level as shown in Runs II and IV and on Table 4.
3.4 Recommended Spectra In accordance with other NRC site decisions, it is th recommended that the 84 percentile of the 21 strong motion records (4 2 components) comprising Run III (San Fernando data and Parkfield data included) be used to represent the ground motion at the Clinton site from an m 5.81 5 earthquake.
The b
recommended spectra is compared with the spectra from the Clinton design basis time history anchored (zero period) at
.179 and.20g for 5% damping on Figures 29 and 30, respectively and anchored at.179 and.209 for 7% damping on Figures 31 and 3 2, respectively.
As shown on Figures 30 and 32, the j
spectra from Clinton design basis tir!.c history anchored at.2g 1
everywhere envelopes the Clinton SSRS except at approximately 5 hertz (.2 sec period) where the two spectra are about equal.
'Ihe recommended spectra apply to all Categroy I structures founded on the common concrete mat.
Although the data set is 1
somewhat limited in terms of number of components, preliminary l
=
results indicate that the SSRS for the Circulating W' ter Screen a
House, founded directly on Illinoian till (Sargent & Lundy I
Weston Geophysical letter, February 5, 1982), is equal to or less than the SSRS for the structures founded on the concrete mat.
The results of these SSRS studies applicable to the Circulating Water Screen House will be documented in an ammendment to this report.
It is therefore advised that at the present time, the SSRS recommended in this report be applied to all Category I s tructures at the Clinton Station site.
3.5 Influence of Site Conditions on SSRS
'Ihe shear wave velocity profiles of the selected strong motion stations match the near-surface velocity contrast between the structural fill and the glacial till reasonably well.
Since the available information on strong motion recording stations is somewhat limited with regard to depth below ground surface, the match between the selected strong motion stations and the 200-foot velocity impedance at Clinton is not as well known as the contrast of the shallow layers.
However, based on geologic inference, it anticipated that a number of the stations have a velocity impedance sufficiently near the 200-foot dept h.
One dimensional soil amplification analysis predicts some small amplification in the 2 to 3 hertz range (.5 to.33 sec.
period); this frequency is controlled by the 2,100 f t/sec shear velocity of the glacial till that i s 18 0 ' thick if soil nonlinearity at expected strain levels for the SSE is ignored.
If the bedrock (high velocity impedance contrast) were deeper, I
I Weston Geophysical the frequency would shif t towards lower values and the amount of rnplification would be less.
If soil nonlinearity is taken into account, the natural frequency for the soil column beneath the main plant mat at Clinton is 1 to 1.4 hertz (1 to.7 sec.
period) (Sargent & Lundy letter, February 5, 1982).
th Th e 84 percentile site specific response spectra encompasses most of these uncertainties.
Figure 33 shows a comparison between the 84th percentile Clinton SSRS and the 84th percentile soil spectrum developed by LLL/ TERA Corporation for a 5.8 magnitude earthquake.
The strong motion recordings that were used to develop the LLL/ TERA spectra are mainly softer and thicker soil sites compared to Clinton.
The Clinton SSRS is generally 20-30% higher than the LLL/ TERA in the frequency range of 1 to 10 hertz, except at approximately 1.5 hertz.
'Ihe higher Clinton SSRS is consistent with the anticipated 20% increase in spectral amplification factors due to local soil amplification as predicted by one dimensit.nal analysis.
At frequencies lower than 2.5 hertz (.4 sec.
I period), th e "Clinton Free Field Foundation Spectra" is substantially higher than the Clinton SSRS.
4.0 RESPONSE SPECTRA AT THE CLINTON SITE FROM DISTANT EARTHQUAKES 4.1 Introduction According to the September 14, 1981 memorandum, the NRC considers Vincennes, Indiana to be the northern boundary of the New Madrid Seismic Zone; therefore, an m 7.2 earthquake is b
Weston Geophysscal postulated to occur at an epicentral distance of 177 km from the Clinton site.
Three spectra from a 200 km distant earthquake are presented on Figure Ib of the NRC memorandum.
We highest of these spectra is based on data included in Prof. Otto Nuttli's papers presented at the May 1981 St. Louis Conference on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (Nu t tli, 19 81a ) and the September 1981 Knoxville Conference on Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering in the eastern United States (Nu ttli, 19 81b).
The other two spectra were constructed from acceleration and velocity attenuation relationships developed by Tera (1980) using attenuation data from Gupta and Nuttli (1976) and from attenuation relationships developed by Herrmann (1981) subsequently republished in Nuttli and Herrmann (1981).
% e above references have been used to evaluate the ground response spectra at the Clinton site from an m 7.2 earthquake at the 177 km epicentral distance.
b In order to compete the Nuttli 1981a and 1981b spectra, western United States attenuation was used to obtain a western United States source spectrum at an epicentral distance of 10 km; this was then attenuated to the appropriate distance using eastern United States attenuation.
The strong motion data used to compute the western United States source spectrum were obtained from the San Fernando earthquake of 1971.
However, in converting from M (western U.S. ) for the San g
Fernando earthquake to m (e stern U.S. ), Nuttli bLg I
Weston Geophysical overestimated the conversion factor by.2 magnitude units, that translates to a factor of 1.59 in the resultant response spectra.
A letter from Prof. Nuttli confirming the overestimation and the resultant 37% decrease in spectral level described above is enclosed as Attachment A.
The spectra for an mb = 7.2 earthquake at epicentral distances of 50, 10 0, 20 0, 30 0, and 500 kms obtained from Figures 5 and 6 of Nuttli (1981b) are shown on Figure 34.
The estimated spectrum for the mb = 7.2 earthquake at an epicentral distance of 177 km, the NRC's defined closest approach of the New Madrid Zone to the Clinton site, is also shown on Figure 34.
'Ibe undamped spectrum was reduced by the correction factor of 1.59 and the resulting cpectra for 5% and 7% damping, shown on Figure 3 5, were constructed from Newmark and Rosenbluth's (1971) spectral amplification factors as used by Nuttli.
Attenuation formulas developed for acceleration and velocity by Herrmann in 1981 were included in the Nuttli and Herrmann paper presented at the October 1981 ASCE meeting in St. Lou i s.
The formulas are:
Lo910a =.55 + 0.50mbLg - 0.831og10r - 0.0019r b910r = -3.60 + 1.00mbLg - 0.831og10r - 0.001u Weston Geophysical
- 20 For a 7.2m earthquake at an epicentral distance of 177 km, gg 2
the calculated acceleration is 90.78 cm/sec
(.093g) and the calculated velocity is 3 5.6 cm/sec (13.6 in/sec).
The response spectra shown on Figure 36 were constructed using these calculated ground acceleration and velocity values together with spectra amplification factors as proposed in NUREG 0098 (1978).
The following attenuation relationships for ground acceleration and velocity developed by Tera (1980) after Gupta and Nuttli's 1976 studies are:
In a = ln 2.368 + 1.104mb-
.00l
-.738 in r
r in v = In.062 + 1.283m
-.00l
-.644 in b
r r
For a 7.2 m earthquake at an epicentral distance of 177 bLg 2
km, the calculated acceleration is 123.2 cm/sec
(.126g)
I and the calculated velocity is 19.05 cm/sec (7.5 in/sec).
Th e response spectra shown on Figure 37 were constructed using these calculated ground acceleration and velocity values and spectral amplification factors as proposed in NUREG 0098 (1978).
'Ihe response spectra shown on Figure 38 are based on the results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis presented in Nuttli and IIerrmann (1981).
A contour map of the peak acceleration value for the average of the two horizontal 2
components predicts a value of approximately 130 cm/sec for Weston Geophysico
I a 1000 year return period at the approximate location of the 2
Clinton site.
Since the value of 148.2 cm/sec (1.14 X 130 2
cm/sec ) for the peak horizontal component (1.14 times the average of the horizontal components) at Clinton is nearly 2
identical to the 150 cm/sec value for St. Louis as shown in Nuttli and Herrmann (1981), the values for velocity and displacement at St. Louis were adopted for Clinton in lieu of more specific data in the form of velocity and displacement contour maps for the Clinton site area.
The response spectra shown on Figure 38 were constructed using spectral amplifi-cation factors as proposed by NUREG 0098.
4.2 Comparison with Clinton Design Spectra In the long periods, the current Clinton design spectrum is adequate and exceeds all of the spectra for a mb = 7.2 earthquake at 177 km shown on Figures 35, 36, and 37.
Th e current Clinton design spectra also exceeds the spectra estimated from the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Figure 38.
Figure 39 is a comparison between the "Clinton Free Field Foundation Spectra" and the spectrum that has the highest spectral velocity values for Clinton, Nuttli's perferred attenuation relationshi.ps (Nuttli and Herrmann, 1981) (Figure 36).
At the higher frequencies (shorter periods), the spectrum from the Clinton design basis time history anchored at.179 substantially exceeds the spectra shown on Figures 35 Weston Geophysical
1
!I i 1 through 38.
Figure 40 is a comparison between the spectrum i
l from the Clinton design basis time history anchored at.179 and l
the spectrum that has highest spectral accelerations in the high frequencies (Figure 35).
i l
f i
i f
l l
}
1 i
1 i
i t
i
!lI I
i 1
l 1
j l
i j
i I
E j3 Weston Geophysical
5.0 REFERENCES
Basili, M. and Brady, A.
G., 1978, Low Frequency Filtering and the Selection of Limits for Accelerograms Corrections:
I Sixth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, September, 1978.
Boore, D.
M., Joyner, W.
B.,
- Oliver, A.
A.
(III), and Page, R.
D.,
1978, Estimation of Ground Motion Parameters:
Geological Survey Circular 797.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 198 0, Strong Motion Records from the Mammoth Lakes Earthquakes of May, 1980:
Preliminary Report 27.
Chung, D.
H.,
and Bernreuter, D.
L.,
1981, Regional Relationships Among Earthquake Magnitude Scales:
Review o f Geophysics and Space Physics, v.19, no. 4, p. 6 49-66 3.
Clinton Power Station Unit 1:
Final Safety Analysis Report,
Docket No. 50-461, Illinois Power Company.
CNEN, 1980, Indagini Geofische in Fori Di Sondag gio in Lacalita' CA' Dant E S.
Rocco Forgaria-(Udine), Pratica N.
1597, November.
Duke, C.
M., a nd Le ed s, D. J., 1962, Site Characteristics of Southern California Strong-Motion Earthquake Stations:
I Department of Engineering, Report No. 62-55, University of California, Lo s Ang ele s.
- Gupta, I.
and Nuttli, O.
W.,
1976, Spatial Attenuation of Intensities for Central U.
S.
Ea r thquakes : Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v.
66, no.
3, p. 743-751.
Herrmann, R.
B.,
1981, Progress in Modeling the Ground Shaking Hazard in Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineer ina - Eastern United States, v.
I, ed., J.
E. Beavers, Ann Arbor Press.
- Joyner, W.
B.,
Boore, D.
M.,
and Porcella, R.
L., 1981, Peak Horizontal Acceleration and Velocity from Strong-Motion Records Including Records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, Ea r thquak e:
United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-365, March.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, 198 0, Compilation, Assessmen t and Expansion of Strong Earthquakes Ground Motion Data Base, NUREG/CR-166 0, UC RL -15 2 2 7.
I Weston Geophysical
- 24 Newmar k, N. M. and Rosenblue th,
E., 1971, Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood
- Cliffs, N. J.
- Newmark, N.
M., and Hall, W. J., 1978, Developement of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants, N. M.
Newmark Consulting Engineering Services Report:
prepared for the USNRC, NUREG/CR-009 8.
Nigam, N.C.
and Jennings, P.C.,
1968, Digital Calculation of Response Spectra from Strong-Motion Earthquake Records:
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California.
Nuttli, O.
J. and Herrmann, R.
B.,
19 81, Consequences of the Earthquakes in the Mississippi Valley:
preprint 81-519, I
ASCE.
Nuttli, O.
W.,
1981a, Ground Motion Aspects of Earthquakes of the Midwest, presented at the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, May 19 81.
Nuttli, O.
W.,
1981b, Simililarities and Differences Between Western and Eastern United States Earthquakes, and their Consequences for Earthquake Engineering, in Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering - Eastern United States, v.
I, ed.
J.
E.
Beavers, Ann Arbor Press.
I Sa rgent & Lundy, 19 8 2, Letter to E.
Levine:
Report on Site Specific Response Spectra for mb=5.8 Earthquake, Februa ry 3, 19 6 2.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and Agbabian Associates, 1980, Geotechnical Data From Accelerograph Stations Investigated During the Period 1975-1979, Summary Report:
prepared for United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-164 3.
- Strand, R.
G.,
1967, Mariposa Sheet, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, CMDG.
Tera Corporation, 1980, Final Report Seismic Hazard Analysis:
Results, NUREG/CR-158 2.
- Trifunac, M.D.,
1970, Low Frequency Digitization Errors and a New Method for Zero Base-Line Correction of Strong-Motion Accelerograms:
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory,
EERL 70-0 7, California Institute of Technology, Pasedena,
I Weston Geophysical Trifunac, M.D. and Ine, V.W., 1973, Routine Computer Processing of Strong Motion Accelerograms:
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, EERL 73-03, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.
USNRC, 19 81, Memorandum to Illinois Power Company, dated September 14:
Clinton Power Station Unit 1 and 2 Vibratory Ground Motion for Design Bases.
United States Geological Survey, 1977, Western Hemisphere Strong Motion Accelerograph Station List-1976:
Ope n-File Report No.77-374, May.
University of Trieste, 1978, Studio di microzonizzaziono dell area di Tarcento, Bramibati - Faccioli.
I I
I I
g me e..ce
_.,e-a-. _ -. -
__h_....
..a-
.as 4
M A--..
-h-_
_m_.a_
m
.u-I I
l l
TABLES I
l l
l l
i l
I
(
Weston Geophysico!
ll l
1 t
Table 1 l
Weston Geophysical's Strong Motion Data Base - 6.4 M g Epicentral Distance Less Than 40km l
Ref. ID Distance /Tyne Station U300 29.8/EP Ferndale City Hall, Ferndale C041 3.2/CA Pacoima Dam, Pacoima C048 7.7/CA A 8244 Orion Blvd., LA 0056 26./CA Old Ridge Route, CWR Site, Castaic D057 23./CA Hollywood Storage Bldg., LA D058 23./CA Hollywood Storage Bldg. Parking Lot, LA D059 23./CA 1901 Avenue of the Stars, LA 0065 25./CA 3710 Wilshire, LA D068 22./CA A 7080 Hollywood, LA E072 27.5/CA 4680 Wilshire, LA iI E075 25./CA 3470 Wilshire, LA E081 29./CA Outlet Works, Santa Felicia Dam E083 25./CA 3407 W 6th Street, LA F088 18./CA e 633 E.
Broadway, Glendale F095 22.5/CA A 120 N.
Robertson, LA G106 19~/CA CIT Seismo. Lab. Pasadena G107 24./CA CIT Athenaeum, Pasadena G108 24./CA e Millikan Library, CIT, Pasadena G110 15.5/CA e
J.P.L.,
Pasadena G114 28./CA A Fire Station, Palmdale i
Hil5 13./CA 15250 Ventura, LA I128 22.5/CA A 435 N.
Oakhurst, Beverly Hillu 1131 22.5/CA A 450 N.
Roxbury, Beverly Hills 4
1134 23./CA 1800 Century Park East, LA I137 12./CA 15910 Ventura, LA J141 25./CA A Lake Hughes Array, Station 1 J142 24./CA O Lake Hughes Array, Station 4 i
J143 23./CA O Lake Hughes Array, Station 9 I
J144 21./CA e Lake Hughes Array, Station 12 J145 10.5/CA 15107 Van Owen, LA J148 25./CA 616 S.
Normandie, LA Ll66 16.5/CA e 3838 Lankershim, LA N188 38.9/EP 1880 Century Park East, LA I
N192 26./CA 2500 Wilshire, LA 0198 18./CA O Griffith Park Observatory, LA O207 26./CA O Fairmont Reservoir, CA P214 22.5/CA e 4867 Sunset, LA I
P217 25./CA 3345 Wilshire, LA 0233 13./CA 14724 ventura, LA 0236 22./CA A 1760 N. Orchid, LA 0239 24./CA A 9100 Wilshire, Beverly Hills R246 22.5/CA e 6464 Sunset, LA I
R248 22.5/CA e 6430 Sunset, LA R249 23./CA A 1900 Avenue of the Stars, LA S255 26./CA e 6200 Wilshire, LA S261 24./CA a 1177 Beverly Drive, LA I
S262 26./CA e 5900 Wilshire, LA S265 25./CA 3411 Wilshire, LA S266 25./CA 3550 Wilshire, LA Stations considared for Clinton Data Set e Acceptable A Not Acceptable, too Soft O Not Acceptable, too Hard EP: 'Jicentral Distance.
CA: Llosest approach.
Weston GeophysiCol
TABLE 2 STATIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FOR CLINTON DATA SET Station Name Reason CMDG-7 Shallow rock site - too stiff.
San Luis Obispo Velocity contrast too large and too shallow (60').
Melendy Ranch Station located along fault trace.
Subsurface conditions are highly variable.
Port Hueneme Thick near-surface low velocity layer.
Cal Tech Old Rock site.
Seismic Lab Oroville Medical Center Too stiff - shear wave velocities too high.
Dennis Johnson Ranch Near-surface velocity contrast is much higher than Clinton.
Oroville Seismic Lab Hard r0ck site.
Low velocity layer absent.
Oroville Airport Deep alluvium.
Long Beach Public Deep alluvium.
Utilities 8244 Orion Blvd.,
L.
A.
Thick layer of low velocity alluvial material.
i 7080 Hollywood, L.
A.
More than 30 meters of Alluvium.
120 N.
Robertson, L.A.
Thick alluvium.
Palmdale Fire Station Located in deep alluvial valley.
435 N.
Oakhurst More than 30m of alluvium in Beverly Hills station area.
450 N.
Roxbury More than 30m of alluvium in Beverly Hills station area.
Weston Geophiscal
l TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
STATIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FOR CLINTON DATA SET Station Name Reason Lake Hughes Array Alluvium greater than 55 feet.
i.
Station 1 Lake Hughes Array 20 feet of weathered rock overlying j
Station 4 hard rock - too stiff.
i Lake Hughes Array Weathered granite - too stiff.
)
Station 9 Griffith Park Observatory Hard rock site.
L.
A.
1 Fairmont Reservoir, L.
A.
Shallow rock site (17' of overburden) - too stiff.
1760 N.
- Orchid, L.
A.
More than 19m of alluvium.
j 9100 Wilshire Blvd.,
More than 30m of alluvium j
Beverly Hills in station area.
1900 Avenue of Stars, More than 30m of alluvium in L.
A.
station area.
1177 Beverly Drive, L.
A.
More than 30m of alluvium in j
station area.
.I L
1
l E
1 l
F I
l l
TABLE 3 Page 1 of 3 i
1 ACCELEROGRXtS SELECTED FOR CLINTON SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA I
Epic. Hypo.
Peak Other Depth Ref.
Dis..
Dist.
Acc.
Distance
- Code +
Date Time (UT) mb M.
(km)
I Location No.
(km)
(km)
(gals) Comp. Station (km)
I n
I, 111 JUN 281966 04:26:14 5.8 5.6 possible VII Parkfield, CA B034 9.3*
9.3*
347.8 N05*W Cholame #5 9.3 surf ace 425.7 NS5'E rupture i
j I.11 SEP 12 1970 14 :30:52 5.2 5.4 9.0 VII Ly t t e Cre ek W334 13.4 16.1 139.0 S65*E Wrightwood 15.0 l
III,IV 194.0 S25'W I,11 SEP 12 1970 14:30:52 5.2 5.4 9.0 V II Lytte Creek W336 23.8 25.4 55.9 564*E Cedar Springs 18.0 III.IV 69.4 S36*W Pucip House I,II SEP 12 19 70 14:30:52 5.2 5.4 9.0 VII Lytle Creek W338 22.9 24.6 113.0 NS San Bernardino 28.0
^
III,IV 57.5 EW Hall of Records I!!,IV FEB 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13.0
. XI San Fernando L166 30.8 33.4 164.2 N00*E 383d Lankershim 16.5 V
14 7.6 S90*W Blvd. (LA)
III,IV F EB 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13.0 XI San Fernando P 214 36.2 38.5 154.0 58 9 *W 4867 Sanset 22.5 V
15 6.0 S01*E Blvd. (LA) t I II,I V FES 0919 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13.0 XI San Fernando R246 35.7 38.0 115.0 NS 6464 Sunset 22.5 V
10 6.0 EW Blvd. (LA) i 111,IV FEB 0919 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13.0 XI San Fernando R248 35.7 38.0 184.0 NS 6430 Senset 22.5 V
174.0 EW Blvd. (LA) l III,IV FEB 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13 XI San Fernando F08 8 34.1 36.5 265.7 570*E 633 E. Broadway 18.0 V
209.0 S2C *W Clendale i
l l
I 3
O~
\\
l I
i O
nO l
D?e O
O_
s
' -~
~
_ ~. - -. - _ - -.. _ - _ _.
9 j
l
}
'/
i
/
1 l
^
l
~
l TA3tF.3 Page 2 of 3 ADDITIONAL ACCELEROGRMS SELECTED FvE ULInTON SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRAc Epic. Hypo. Peak Othet' e
Eepth Re f.
Dist.
Dist.
Acc.
Distance
- i Co de*
( k ")
I Location No.
(kr)
(km)
(gats)
Comp.
Station (km) o III,IV FEB 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 64 13 XI San Fernando G108 39.8 41.9 198.0 N00*E CIT 24.0 f
181.6 N90*E Millikan Lab 4
V l
III,IV FEB 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13 XI San Fernando G110 31.5 34.1 207.8 SS2*E Jet Prop. Lab 15.5
[
139.0 508*W Pasadena l
V
!!!,IV FEB 09 19 71._
14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13 XI San Fernando J144 23.3 26.7 346.2 N21*E Lake Hughs 21.0
[
277.9 N69'W Array 12 V
III,IV FD 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13 XI San Fernando S255 38.9 41.0 123.6
'N08'E 6203 W 16 hire, LA 26.0 12 8.0 N32*W v
III,IV FE3 09 19 71 14:00:42 6.2 6.4 13 XI San Fernando S262 39.0 41.1 68.3 N33*W 590. Wilshire, LA 26.0 f
j 93.6 N07*W
[
V c
t t
I,II, MAY 09 19 76 00:53:45 5.0 5.5 1.0 +
IX Friuli, Italy 1051 25.2 25.2 38.6 NS Forgaria L
35.6 EW I,II, SEP 11 1976 16:31:12 5.0 5.5 9.0 VIII-Friuli, It ly 1131
^15.3 18.2 93.0 NS Fo rga ria III,IV IX 102.3 EW I,II, SEP 11 1976 16:31:00 5.0 5.5 9.0 VII-IX Friuli, Italy 1133 1.5 11.7 158.0 NS Tarcento 79.1 FW III,IV I,II, SEP 11 1976 16:35:00 5.3 5.9 6.0 XI Friuli, Italy 1138 14.0 15.2 119.7 NS Forgaria 220.0 EW III,IV 1,11 SEP 15 1976 03:15:18 5.7 6.1 9.0 VIII-Friuli, Italy 1152 9.0 12.8 254.3 NS Forgaria I!!,IV IX 209.3 EW I
lE i
Cl l
O~
l 3
I' ooO I
U ar I
i e
n i
O_
m m
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M I
I i
t i
j I
l TABLE 3 ADDITIONAL ACCELEROGRMtS SELECTED FOR CLINTON SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA Page 3 of 3 i
i Epic. Hypo. Peak Other Dep th Ref.
Dist. Dist.
Acc.
Distance
- Code
Io Location No.
(km)
(km)
(g al s) Comp.
Station (k a)
I,11 SEP 15 1976 09:21:18 5.4 6.0 11.7 IX Friuli, Italy 1168 20.0 23.2 293.8 NS Forgaria III.IV 324.8 EW
}
I,II SEP 15 1976 09:21:18 5.4 6.0 11.7 IX Friuli, Italy 1172 19.0 22.3 128.8 NS Ta rc e n t o'
{
!!I,IV 103.7 EW
+Dataset Code is as follows:
j I-Mt = 5.4 to 6.4 Distance Restricted to 25 km and less, 1
II - En "I" above. Parkfield Excluded.
III - Mt = 5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km when closest approach distance used f or San Fernando records.
IV - Run "III" above, Pa rkf ield excluded.
V - tit = 5.4 to 6.4, all San Fernai.do record s (closest approach less ths.n 25 km. )
l
- Other distances quoted are those computed by taking the closest approach of the station to the generative f ault or the closest aporoach of the i
station to the surf ace projection of the generative fault. Calculations are from various authors tabulated in the Lawrence Livermore l
Laboratory, Se ptember,1980. compilation of s trong motion data (see re ferences).
I e
i I
i p
e O~
3 i
O o
O U
l 7
I M
i 5
O_
i I
M M
M M
i i
I a
I j
TABLE 4 I
j PARAMETERS OF RESPONSE SPECTRA DATA SETS FOR CLINTON l
I Average
- Hed ian*
Mean*
Peak Acc.*
Epic.
Peak Peak 84th ML Average Distance Acc.
Ac c.
Percentile No. of No. of
!;o. of Run Id Description of Run Range ML (Km)
(c m/ s ec2)
(cm/ s ec2 )
(cm/sec2)
Coraponent s Stations Earthquakes l
1 j
Di st a nce < 25 km 5.4 -6. 4 5.66 16.4 129.6 166.3 262.6 22 6
7 Parkfield included II Di s t a nc e < 25 km 5.4 -6. 4 5.67 17.1 116.2 14 2.9 2 21.0 20 5
6 Parkfield excluded III Closest approach 5.4-6.4 6.0 18.8 143.4 169.7 256.1 42 1$
8 Di s t a nc e < 25 km for San Fernando record s.
Parkfield included I
i IV Ru n "I!!", Pa rkf ield
- 5. 4 -6.4 6.0 19.3 136.5 158.7 236.2 40 14 7
l excluded I
j V
Closest Approach 6.4 21.5 160.4 172.8 235.8 20 10 1
j Distance Approx.< 25 km.
Only San Fernando record s i
l
- Closest approach distance used f or San Fernando events in Runs III, IV, V.
1
- tognonnal Dis tribut ion l
i f
i 4
~O i
3 o
1 OU i
3 o
l S
l 1
4
c I
l l
l i
l I
l l
l FIGURES I
s I
P l
m Weston Geophysical
M i
l l
i i
WESTON GEOPHYSICAL'S STRONG MOTION DATA BASE 34-( BASEFENT AND GROUND LEVEL FICORDS ONLY) 32-M: 4. 9 -6.3 L
33 EPICENTRAL DISTANCE: 0-40 KM MD VAH 28-A DVD CYGLI 26-2.s.
PG675 CYGL2
+
f 22-PC675 CYGL3 h' 20-1 V330 FC675 1064 CYGL4 V700 P C175 1063 U309 CYGL5 1
y IS-g 0700 PG175 1061 W339 1133 CYGL6 0-h E700 SELFF SJN74 1060 m39 1133 CYSM r 14-i m
i t
J700
- S B'.H C H';7 4 1059 W336 1132 8037 MDEVAH b
l 12-S 7700 SENHWE G N7 4 A017 W335 Il31 9036 MDEDV D 1177 3
10-0' 6700 53VHI 0059 A016 W334 1054 B035 1143 1172 8-5700 1159 S BCDS F059 A015 T292 1052 034 1142 1169 1156
?
6-S 4700 1157 SBCH 1059 A014 V317 IC51 B033 1139 1168 1153 MND72 4-3 1700 U307 0022 U313 A013 V316 A010 T287 1138 U295 1152 1038 U310*
u 2-0 10 40 tr97 1022 U301 U305 8023 T283 A018 0S875 U312 t299
[025 1150 1032 V315 2
4 i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
3 1
4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 62 6.3 6.4 l
Q Magnitude
- 6.4 M3 Converted to 6.3 Q via Nuttli,1979 5o 6
3 9
-.n..
e c 2
e n
O_
l n av.
';* N CTLAA-
" %[ m y sct l B&OsOLL gtgy 737'.o" BLOG l
g,,,
e'5Coms*4amlCL
- h, f//, $'*,
. *.1 CC kT &,:hWE NT COhTROL BLDG C?tT&'% WEN
.g y
/ 1/'/,//////[O'. ' g
_ F _^E' A.L _
4 g
g tu tsver o %
l
./s,
// ojj Etty r:2.oN no
.-..-._y
.....-.9 jf.
' '/
//,j '.
t tt w 702*.0* m intinc c at ge,[ g $ 9 g g ' A
- -f-
.- g e.sewe a e.umeg a
w e**.o*
eg h
- - - -- ne m e I
b\\
> *h.,.h.,o;k'tE 5
-m so N V g' m e o~. V e- < a sT ucTe=*L "LM 9
.c.
po uL N.%. g
- m. w c.w;I,.,.>
u e B
d
. x..C.- + m.<
t m
u_
g
- -. i T---*.,",.s,,3.,,J,p.,-,ef.A,...,s.
- * *p'
... - '. *g e..,,N.N.
,_I,e..
to.
,..* W A
- .I**
q-
>;q g
I'g
, ;4 d.$I.' ll.,.
Y..M.h.
IW h.'
h; gg,E"[';
5 i.
g
[4 '.' '-h,,
B
'l"-
[* ';;
I
-p Ti( L t ot a B O Q W
i d*-'
@l D'
J-650 1
'I
~:oc
//, f,' * #' ' NM ee ' 8',,. Y1-( w'
/,..
- r mwa
'q s-
$[
~~w we=
~ '* #(%, * ;[(.'.(*
- N *J,h *g.[gj k,
- e'...
W.
W h'
~ 5=S esE i he" eM
+.
- Q'*
i WL g g.g T p e,{
,,( p
- g 9 W
~'*4{
ML f
..4 n C,, _;,;,# _.7r L
,,, < q ML "L
WL I
PRE.ILLt%Olasis GL ACl&L TILL (M a n D)
CL WL v:x-e M
} "
J_
1 " ~g '
-.g'W
~l '.l d
l f
3
-. 5.i a 4 P-9 P.30 Pas p.33 P.rs
- = septs
- c. A C 't g w.
h 4S* E -
I
?
f BACKFILL H
h l
7.c d
a,,
- n. ;c r w. e-
/ca x rLev
// @V/,fj
../..isCe.sm.. p<...N...
o e
eucL Cecawtc au TL s e re J.
I GL ACIAL
- - -. T u < 3 T, n... (. _. --
, / /.
(Ltw 707'.6*-
Elev Fi2'-O' N WL I
/
g
--y Ax L O.' ' *,:.,M e *==="=y
' \\ \\, \\\\ \\ %
\\'
\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\
h \\
\\
th ? [ #GL ACi AL
\\\\
[ WL 20%f (S T J O
.\\ \\,\\ \\ \\,
Y-C.O Eki' # h. G [1;,-[.;,'gN '
m
\\\\\\'j';\\\\\\\\
\\
.3 g
l\\
(\\
TYPE B STRUCTUR AL FILL
\\
- s..f.,i s...,,.w.... W.b. ' J.e*.* 1.,..'. s M,.N,I $[..
lg.,*.c. ;- ' ! K
' '.T ss ss s sss.\\\\\\\\\\ s is s
g30 W
\\
I i.
p
&m M "'
+ 9,%
d wt p.; c :
i.id 4: ' ""5 ' ' s is.
- j.4..
- 4. sW
.p/.
y.g'i JMg (m 3.
.1
, c.,:, ;.g e.m
' _.p,....u v..
m.
E_
'.O ;e $ K Y Iii ! t*g' >= arc ' **':'
.g f ')
N ', '
fme.eC",'i.IC".. ~ NQ y
2.h: k'.'
kit;).D;, iNM+
5 L
[Q h
S*h((d
[4ff' A
g p::..
h.. d M.o. f-h I
. fq f* N L ACl&L Tl LM "L
?.v3.,q "L
%. ~.,n.m..
WL w%. y" : wx.4.w...:wn.s, WL
- n uw~
?a:
w W
s.
.,...w v
J w
,we.. a..
< a. s..
,m.
- r. c.s.;;,.,.
gm t.w1.,
< w %u
. 'r.
ae w q
g
, gg. g..
. ~,,
- g.yg.3_
p
, c.
m;4
.,4 3_.....
- 4.. ;9_;._7g.:
q,.
vs a.,,
spo i
h
M WL
, i' '._
.h f..h Jo'..ut 5 [J"d *.' *
.**.t 7
'._*,.'w.,,'ap?.. g l.,
_"_',[.'
j. ;% '.'.".,I " ;; J.7.. ! '
,--e 4 G"J.;;
.Qd. d, M~.
- s
..A g
yL
. %, t,,
mwa
h*
- d as a*
e.n.%r_me. ac.
ML LE PO51T p
.w-
-=
y yL CL
'l
--. ACUS T h % 4 uL i.-
i*L---
- ==
e
==w ut
,L 550~-*'
ML y
$P ut CL wL
".L P*E -ILLi%O am GL ac raL TIL L
.'/0
~ ~ ~ ' ' '
CL
(,, A a D)
~
D*h
, W
. - m-.. :w r it v_ a _ -. g --
- r
- 2
--_u-r
,90
- 4 p.pt 9 30 P.og P ts P-3r c.is p.31
- .s o r
~c se ero
~xus M
i
\\
s t ar V CT U A A t H'
g B A ', A F il L ggg Q..........- u....a l
p,"
, m...
- c. Aor e a v
- w. e -
C,,..........,,..u,,u
.pm/j 3
..........m.......,
a
..ae%
sum / ///; e.,............................
~~
66f
' *. /.....w.i s C.O*r S..:h A.ar..G.L..A ;i A.L..T..u.....
- = = * * - - = * - -
..eg l er ee.c. me as e.
pfp
{
/
(5TWF)
~~-
t
- S"".'.**..'.J.""J.".*2C".1:..'."''
6 b k'i.k.'
=.<=o..
>a.
'Z"'.t.:'".%;.;"'** " * * * * - " " * '
d,\\'?
ik't act A:i AL 20ht
b A., j 3ygg d*
""**'.*.=,"=".J..T. " '":' ".i.e.. *m../.- *r.. J "
~.
.- ~
.n a
s*
-r e.-
".,.1i..k
'. 3.
....a...
~
- m.,. m eg(
. ~.,f.,g#g w
..+
..e.
p+
7%
....e4.*
A.
A 1
- +? 6
... A a.#
8
- '~".'...*.'..",,.aa-
.y-M.
~-
4:. / ~
a*
pg i...
e mJ...'.a e t ea e<
.1
- p.'
2 en m
p.
Su >v g s
.s
..-***,.e.,=
s.
v
. e, W
ys
%: y 'W.: 'f "flQ *. ?.*l?: '\\'N..Q..'rk*.h.b.5 N,'s;*?Q'.W' 3
.m.
C.*. :r
,h*. p'7
' ;.*:'" *.*;.. ~ *
"';V.C... .**".";,'
'.. '. k.'L,l. M. s, ' y }',.
g<*,,,
g nlo-Z, u~
~
.%. ~
r.-
.... ' '.. ". ~ ' '
- ~ * ^
- g ;,.y;.;;- ;.J,,'.',,,".,;.-..o...
y,
..,.,.%o.
. 9 _$y L a.e, e......m
,,g ; ;:,,. L; ~
s
- 3 T
.~, ~qn -g -' ' w; v.,.
..-s
....*m.,,
e T.7a;r'%'*"'*"..,T ' '
C fl
'.;*, 7; T.**. **M*. " M.'." " "' * *' *
- r
[. h[* -h;;,h. "y
..e-g
- A.
E.
h2-
[
C ' Y E[" TV* ~~E 2 NE I
no b
=
'i a o -. :.:.. ;..:. :
.n....
~
$30 v~n ML 1
si n
- Ye f :7 e! t.
- u:
.+ i 4 t
- a 1.m Q
37 %kn. ki v l h ;* [ 14ts,
1
...1....-
murr : n *. ;.-
s.
- <i..
w ) '.,
k a
.co e
,, ;,.ms
-]
-- y.
a 4ts.r>
,4 un.
,, n
- p. se s v u *. s as s, = = w1 c s.
,y g,,,
9: s mi su.
t r* ; " t *
- en*
+
5
- - :.nn s - =. n.
P v
16 %
p' E
.v.per 4 m u r.w c. : m,
s t: t a u s int i > r r a w s.w n N!*,
- I l 4E C.
A%b AA.
A e * ' Ma * +
- f. eta
'.-5 L ; ,. !s 6
M>
t # 8 'l & l 4, h44 6 8 ['
M 414-(
S A,
- ees, SThuOTLt.Aw B ACK F IL L
=-ir,
==. ars e un mE ATHE RFD LD,E SS (STM)-700 g~
W r,.M
/ jj' ' ' 'j - /j ip t
,,., SCONS h Ah *
- /
/
/#,
CLApat
/
I CL
. U. <
..Tu ist.m.,
.y q.N_/, f..f..
g a ter Clinton Power Station, Final Safet u
wy ny*gy; 3;
a ysis Report, Figure 2.5-372
$ N'Q&V.~...~..:.p.yyW...W.s,,e
.s ap
..o....
m, m
m,..t. s,. we %nw e -.
v. ws..t.i oc
.cs,-
w
..-y's* m.<.$' @,,',, ' M 4.WL ( g@,a f-cl.+
t v L.'.NT g
u h'
.,.cJ
. :r.. u.
g~. n'
. g 4,. e 6
g.w n.f..:. 3
. e.. :;.T
- u.. %. p; ynn.psh ;;w e_.
t u.w
. ;.- : ~..m
.w.. m::
s..m s
,,..N 3 T..
,.N k'[n..
,'y; s.
n',.%,',7,.+.>-m. 'l
./*g*%N IK.
.m
~s t
..c.e,. <:.
g ;,,...;. A 2 g&m#.m. m.: w..
.w*3 s.m;8L9.c g
c.:.g.,.
~.2.
.m.w;_.n, c.,
no e,
h v t..w. M p (r. a..je*ARN 27( @-A.**.y,,a n -
4 J. i p% L 'NC L AN
- r. -
.c......va-,y.3x.,
q 2
$j.-
w.i f 6(ACIAL TIL L
.;v '
(2 b
.J J ca.u.h
,.4
-u s
m u
I 550
.;n_
GEOLOGIC SECTIONS H-H' and I I'-
STATION SITE
.a.J :. u -
- $O p.33 p.pt
?
- c.4 s rte A
Fi dre 2
_amme
At!EtIDt1EilT 12 JANUARY 1982 l
g >-
t z9UO e8o UNIT GR APHIC UN!T
$3{
o9 4J$
WElGHT COLUMN DESCRIPTION yy[
$$?
(pcf) 5e L
a w w
1>
G.
8$
y DRY WET LOESS, weat herr.,i, overlo'n by organic w 2: g Ho y
topsul hoJ 200o 0.37 900 lio iso 3gm wl ScoN S I N AN wgg x<
.e o,nereo,o bro.n, moist
_J g
ad" w'd y _., -
wi ScoNSIN AN N
i9 GL ACI A
- TILL, ZfE I
ogg un.eoinereo 5700 0.48 110 0 115 135 s50
$^d
~
o I
z 12 ZONE; local h
ALLUVI AL DEPOSITS YoQici S I
z_ U OYoo,'J,] r 6 N
!O fd '.Y o
ILLINotAN m"N (o
r zo !!3 ;O.
Icect a c*
ouTWASH AND
[g I [c,"c, [.'}
L ACUSTRINE g
'*ar DEPOSITS O.. c o;jlX z
c,Y I
w-a b g ;c.c.o. n. ',
g
.,_m c
3
)
L ACUST RINE 7500 0.46 2100 i35 i47 to (
DE POS I T i
)
( Yo r mo u t hio n) s PRE-ILLINot AN GL ACI AL TILL locally underlain by PRE-ILL'Not AN 65 L ACUSTRINE i
i DEPOSIT
)
5
-_ b. _.. ;
LIMESTONE
'~ =^ k--f-~
b 15 E-4E5-iT O
SHALE tr h. : tq-3 $
10,500 o.29 5700 155 160 m
~ ~
SI LT S To N E TYPICAL GEOLOGIC PROFILE SHOWING GEOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES - STATION SITE af ter Clinton Power Station, Final Safety taalySiS Report, Figure 2.5-369.
O'54".'?'",l,5l' 'Li." ' "
Figure 3 Weston Geophysical
_. ~,
VE LOCIT Y FT/SEC 500 KX)O 1500 2000 3000 4000.
5000 6000 t
i i
t i
t i
O 7/
I
/,
i 40
.lI 80-j I
120-i m
W 160-I I
l o.
W O
200 -
i 240-l SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMN for CLINTON SITE I
280-320 Figure 4 weston Geophysical
VE LOCITY FT/SEC 500 000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0
u' I
I I
i l
i-
- - 22 _ _ _ _
I 40-1 I
I I
I 80-l CHOL AME SHANDON NO.5
~~fil/
?
?
120-rw W
160-x 8
200 -
COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS CHOLAME SHANDON NO.5 VS CLINTON SITE 280-320 5
Figure 5 Weston Geophysical
VELOCITY FT/SEC 500 KDO 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 t
t I
i t
t l
9 l
A I
II-- - - --
40-WRIG HTWOOD 80-I 120-rw W
16 0 -
z u
200 -
COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS 6074 PARK DR. WRIGHTWOOD VS CLINTON SITE 280-320 l
l l
l Figure 6 l
Weston Geophysical
I mocim ruS2c g
s,m 23m yo 43m m,oo eo,oo 9
d WL l
lA_
E 40-l (CEDAR SPRINGS l I
80-I 120-I i_
I l
O 200 -
I COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOClTY COLUMNS CEDAR SPRINGS DAM PUMP HOUSE VS I
CLINTON SITE 280-I I
320 I
I
.-amu
VE LOCITY FT/SEC 500 000 15,00 2000 3000 4000 50,00 60,00 0
//
l SAN BERNARDINO HALL OF RECORDS g
40-g 1
I I
I 80-l I
i i
I I
I I20-1 l
160-
~
x l
l I
200-l SAN BERNARDINO HALL OF RECORDS t
COMPARISON OF 240-j SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS SAN BERNARDINO HALL OF RECORDS VS CLINTON SITE I
g I
I Figure 8 Weston Geophysico!
VE LOCITY FT/SEC 500 000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 O
/
k N\\\\
40-
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
I 80-3838 LANKERSHIM 8LVD.
I 120-l
'I l
I a
/
[
160-
/
I I
I i
8 I
i
's j
200 -
'g i
N) l
/
s COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS
~
3838 LANKERSHIM BLVD.
VS CLINTON SITE 280-i V
320 Fipre 9 Weston Geophysical
EE VELOCITY FT/SEC 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 t
i l
i i
f 1
9 N s/
I\\
40-
\\
~
N i
s
/
l l
80-l I
I I
i l
is 120-N 4867 SUNSET BLVD. )
,/
\\
)
W l
w s'
W 160-s 4
N h
I 2
I g
i I
200 -
i l
i I
COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS 4867 SUNSET BLVD.
VS CLINTON SITE 280-l 320 Figure 10 Weston Geophysical
VELOCIT Y FT/SEC 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 i
t I
i i
I t
f
~,
I
'-]/-I 40-s l sYs
~l
?
(l 80-
\\
i__ l
/l I
\\
l 12 0 -
N j SUBSURFACE MODEL4 DUKE et al 1971) 31 g
g/l w
\\
l W
N g
h 16 0 -
\\
gI DOWN HOLE (SW-A A,1979 )
N ls l
S i
I L
's 200-i
)
V ll N4 I
s COMPARISON OF 240_
's SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS l
l GLENDALE I
I vS I
1 CLINTON SITE l
l /-
280 -
il 1
ll 320 Figure 11
. I Weston Geophysical 1
l
VELOCIT Y FT/SEC 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 I
i i
i I
i i
I L-9n y,j_gSURFACE REFRACTION (EGUCH1, et al. REPORTED BY SW-h t j __.,
AA,1980) l l
40-I 1
I I
l 80-l 1
I L_ _._
l 120-I l
l P
l w
l W
'3
-DOW NHOLE ( SW - A A,1980 )
i S
16 0 -
I Ir I
i n.
l E
I 1
200-I l
I I
240-1 I
l COMPARISON OF 280 -
l SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS I
CIT MILLIK AN LIBRARY, PASADENA I
VS CLINTON SITE 320-l ll l
l l
l i
I Figure 12 I
l f
I i
1 f
I l
/
Weston Geophysical l
VELOCIT Y FT/SEC 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 t
i I
1 1
I t
1._l b I
s :4_ _,
L _ 9_ __ _
4 O-1 l
1 I
I l
I 80-I l
l 1
L._ _,
i 120-I I
l l
lNDOWNHOLE (LEROY CRAINDALL a l
g ASSOC. REPORT ED BY
[
l l
SW-A A,1980 )
w l
l 5
16o-l l
I DOWN HOLE - ---
[
( SW -A A,1980 ) l E
I I
I I
I 200-i g
Fi i
.I l
I I
COMPARISON OF l
l SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS 24 &
I i
JET PROPULSION LAB-PASADENA I
I VS l
l-q CLINTON SITE l
280 -
1 I
I I
i l
l 320 Figure 13 Weston Geophysical
VELOCITY FT/SEC y
1000 l p 2000 y
4000 50,00 60,00 0
ii L L_
bi
'il i I
'i 40-1-------
-i 1
I SURFACE l
RE FRACTION g
s (EGUCHI I
EST.Vs ( DUKE ond LEEDS 1972) et ol,1976)
I 80-I 1
I I
I I
i 120-l i'
er ww 160-1 8
200 -
I COMPARISON OF 24 0-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS
~
5900 86200 WILSHIRE BLVD.
VS CLINTON SITE 280-320 Figure 14 Weston Geophysical
VELOCITY FT/SEC y
000 I p 2000 y
4000 50,00 60,00 0-I n f
L.1__,
Ih I
i 40-
'~l-~~~~~~ ~1 1
I I
SURFACE REFRACTION s (EGUCHI I
EST.Vs ( DUKE and LEEDS 1972) et al,1976) 1 80-1 l
l l
1 I
l 120-i l
w kJ L
160 -
j 1
E 8
200 -
COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS 5900 8 6200 WILSHIRE BLVD.
VS CLINTON SITE 280-320 Figure 14 Weston Geophysicot
VELOCIT Y FT/SEC y
000 15,00 2000 3000 4000 50,00 60,00 0-f/
I...L I
',N,.
/
'i
,.s I
/
40-(s% %,
I
\\
80-
- ~____
')-FORGARIA CORNINO
,/
r
% ~._ _ %
i20-s
<.c>
I
_r
< ~ -
w W
160-c~ ~ %
I2 z
c ~\\
W Io
/(
200 -
/
%g~~~
COMPARISON OF 240-SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS FORGARIA-CORNINO l
VS CLINTON SITE 280-i i
i i
I 320 I
Figure 15 Weston Geophysical
VE LOCITY FT/SEC 500 000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 I
0
/ s
/
' ~ ~ -
/s N \\v TARCENTO
/
/
40-I i
80-1 120-I
-rww 160-1 W
Q.
o 200 -
i COMPARISON OF 24 0-I SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY COLUMNS TA RCENTO g
VS
- E CLINTON SITE 280-I 320 I
i Figure 16 Weston Geophysical
M M
M STRONG MOTION RECORDS CHOSEN FOR CLINTON M : 5.4-6.4 L
24-22-0 20-5 S262 E
18-S255 0
16-J144 m
4 I4 -
8 G110 N}
12-G108 x
g 10-F088 5
8-R248
~
R246 W338 1051
~
W336 1133 1172 L 66
~
VD34 Il31 8034 1138 1168 1152 5!4 5!S 5!6 5!7 5.8 5 '.9 6'0 6 '.1 6!2 6 '.3 6!4 3
k y
ML Magnitude ea 5m o_
i l
j j
,e j
,/
x.,
j q
j!y y 7
g,R /
,- l,[l N.
\\
I
/
t i '.
\\
't L,xi,r:
y 7'5
-m,;. z.gn.s (f. u =;
,1%
u g. J M/<
- f..
, 34 1 v y,r' 3
x
's l f yfk$.. Q' Q'se}?7
\\ A\\ 4
&'[jf.lrl'.,!!,lj'\\'\\^f'p,Q
$p,f fl j
l i
f-i. f ;k\\sa$g\\%
~
k 7q f t
x
'Jc_
\\
kN k\\
.'N' j
'N, '%+,{\\;
ds A
)
.js,o, y n
n. y r.
+
' v',[ / sjj/jf,I m \\( N
\\
'\\-[
/ fQ'My\\i'j@s /(x lg a,g // -
v ss x
's
\\ 's /
/
'\\
N
/
.fis',f.,g/,'/l
' N d [
,N, gs
/
'l
'\\ NN s 37 ;
\\\\ x,e,>Q's'N'
'3N j
./.'/ };[ /
v
'H.
g N
s
/
s N
Q ;>
'x ll 7--
x v
h pf-7 I] ]C I '
1 2
f, e
4 v% >
~,-,.,
COMPOSITE OF INDIVIDUAL SPECTRA FOR CLINTON DATA SET, RUN III (5% D/NPING) i i
1, Figure 18 Weston Geophysical
l N/s i
ie iis i x i 6 iii
~
N 84 PERCENTILE 0
~
9
~
M E AN s
MEDIAN >
-e ej
~
[i
/
s
/
- N/
\\i I
~
i/
N
'N
'NE I
~
,,i,,..
10-2 10-'
100 10' PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESP 0f1SE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLAf4T I
FEDIAN, FEAN, AND 84th PERCENTILE (5% DAFPING)
(I - ML = 5.4 to 6.4, Epicentral Distance Restricted to 25 km and Less.)
Figure 19 Weston GeophyssCal
.s, o*'
'O +>
G y o%
0, q.
G i
i
, i,,ii i
- i i
i i iii a
i i iiii D
'. E/
- N/
/
Ne
- 841h PERCENTILE I
utan M E DI AN 8
n !!
/ x/
- N/
\\E e-I 5/
y N
i 10-2 10
10o 10' I
PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESP 0llSE SPECTRA FOR CLIliT0ft POWER PLAf4T tEDI AN, IEAN, AtlD 84th PERCENTILE (5% DAFFIflG)
(II - ML = 5.4 to 6.4, Epicentral Distance Restricted to 25 km and Less. Parkfield Excluded)
I Figure 20 Weston Geophysical
I 9
'O %
&9 0,4 p-4
, s, n
I
,,,i,i i
i i i,ii i
i i iiii 84 th PERCENTI E I
N
/
\\
10, I
- /
/
/
\\ :-
/
b MEAN N #
?
~
\\
MEDIAN
\\,
I Ii
/
II
/
/
N/
Ni 5i
'N I
I I
I
\\/
N N
I I
PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESP 0llSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT I
MEDIAN, MEAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (5% DAMPING)
(III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
I when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records)
Figure 21 Weston Geophysical
I
/
9
+A
@o p
o 4
o i
, i i6 i i
i i
iiiii i
i iiii g
)
I 84 th PERCENT 1 E
'O>
"i
!/
\\/
\\ "2" 4
_~
\\
MEDIAN
\\
s l
N=c l
\\
/
5' 10
I
\\/
\\[
N
~
~.
~.
~
PERIOD (SEC) i SITE SPECIFIC RESP 0flSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT BEDI AN, PEAN, AND 84th PERCENTILE (5% DAFPING)
(IV - M =5.4 to 6.4, maximum Distance = 25 km
- 3 L
- 3 when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records, Parkfield Excluded)
Figure 22 Weston Geophysicci
./,
O*
'O +y y o%
0, q.
G i i i iii e
a i iiea i
gi ja e a iis 84th PERCENTILE MEAN 10, j
x MEDIAN 9*
~ \\
+
I!
'N //
\\
~'
a
,,. V
/ /
N N
d r
E 10-'
N l
Ic'-
I 7
--- l I'
10-2 10
10 10' PERIOD (SEC)
I SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT MEDIAN, MEAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (5% DAMPING) t.
(V - ML = 6.4, All San Fernando Records, Closest I
i Approach 9istance < 25 km)
,l
/
Figure 23 I
2 Weston Geophysical
?
t,
I 9
o +,
0, q
4 9
I I
n 84 PERCENTILE x
s
\\
MEAN s
MEDIAN 1
/
I IE/
N/
x/
\\
I'i
/
I I
! /
\\/
N/
\\
\\
I
~
x to io-i
- oo goi PERIOD (SEC) l SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINT0tl POWER PLANT MEDI AN, T1EAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING)
I (I - it = 5.4 to 6.4, Epicantral Distance Restricted to 25 km and Less.)
Figure 24 I
Weston Geophysical
I 0*
yo f
f O
/,
9 I
n 9*
th PERCENTILE I
N MEAN I
~
MEDIAN 3
/
I [!/
/
\\/
\\
' x I*:
I I
"i /
N/
\\
\\
I I
c ii i
10 r 10-
- goo lo' PERIOD (SEC) l SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT MEDI AN, MEAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING)
(II - ML = 5.4 to 6.4, Epicentral Distance Festricted to 25 km and Less. Parkfield Excluded)
Figure 25 I
Weston Geophysical
!I
.s, 9
'O %
$9 4
O; p
i l
.g,
.4 ii 4
> > 4 i s e
i iiisi 84th PERCENTIL
\\
I
((
\\/
N
^
r
\\
~
ME DI AN I
I I
a
/
Is
//
g j"!~
/'
N/
Ni d
w I
I I
I I
"I
\\/
'N N
I i
PERIOD (SEC)
I SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT MEDIAN, MEAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING)
(III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
I when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records)
Figure 26 Weston Geophysical
k O*
9 O
7 So p
%y 9
i N^
X 84 th PERCENTIL
/
g 1
E/
'N/
\\?^"
\\ r
\\
MEDIAN I
I
\\
l b
E f
/-
0 li94 N
/
x/
N/
\\
I
- i/
'x /
'N/
\\
s
\\
y 10 '
10 - '
100 ib' PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT MEDI AN, PEAN, AND 84th PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING)
(IV - M =5.4 to 6.4, maximum Distance = 25 km t
when closest approach disctance used for San Fernando Records, Parkfield Excluded)
Figure 27 Weston Geophysical
./,
o**
'o +y G
0, i
ie ie i i
i i i iie i
i iiii 84th PERCENTILE MEAN 10' g
MEDIAN n
E/
'N/
N/
ie
'N G
I i"
'N //
i! /
/'
'N/
i 10
i
!/
'X
'N
'N
}
PERIOD (SEC)
I SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT MEDIAN, MEAN, AND 84TH PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING)
E (y - ML = 6.4, All San Fernando Records, Closest 5
Approach Distance < 25 km)
Figure 28 Weston Geophysical
./,
o*'
'o +y
,s %
0, s.
I W
i iiii i
, i i ii.
i e
i iiii f-84 th PERCENTILE 10'
/
DESIGN BAS oN4 TIME HISTORY
/
n x
N
(.179,5% DAMPlNG)
/
l c
/
/
[
o
!'g i/
/\\
\\
i d
I E
N/
\\
\\
I
/
I I
10 r io.'
100 10' PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINT0il POWER PLANT l
84TH PERCENTILE (5% DAYPING) AND SPECTRUM FROM l
DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY (.179, 5% DAMPING) ll (III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
W when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records) ig Figure 29
,E Weston Geophysical l
4
./,
o
'o +p o%
o, s.
.,ie iii i
..,ii i
- iiii, 84th PERCENTILE 4
10' I
OY s4 a
(.209,5 % DAMPI ( i t
I
/
/
Iy
/
/
sif Y
IiE/
\\/
\\/
\\i i 5i x
I I
')
N
\\/
N I
l l
~
PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESP 0tlSE SPECTRA FOR CLINT0ti POWER PLAT 4T T
84 H PERCEtlTILE (5% DAMPIrlG) AtlD SPECTRUM FROM DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY (.209, 5% DAMPING)
(III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records)
Figure 30 Weston Geophysical
I
./,
9
'o +y f9 4
o, q.
i iii e
i i e iie i
a i i e iii
~
N
~
p 84 th PERCENTI E 10'
~
E/
N//
N/
??
\\
/
DESIGN BASIS /
\\
TIME HISTORY
(.179,7% DAMPlNG) e N
l I0 10 l
10
E
\\
\\
Ni N
I 10 2 g o-'
100 10' I
PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SgCIFIC RESP 0f!SE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON P0'4R PLANT 84 PERCENTILE (7% DAMPIflG) AND SPECTRUM FROM DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY (.17, 7% DAMi'ING) 9 I
(III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records)
Figure 31 Weston Geophysical
l
\\/
s i i.i i ie ii i
i i i iiei I
~
84 th PER NTIL Y[
r SSRS g
/
i E/
\\
\\/
E r
I DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY
(.2Og,7% DAMPING) /
I
/
/
l_-
j i
/
/
g iE/
9'N
\\/
i a
I G$
I
~
I io)
I PERIOD (SEC)
SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR CLINTON POWER PLANT 84TH PERCENTILE (7% DAMPING) AND SPECTRUM FROM I
DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY (.20g, 7% DAMPING)
(III - M =5.4 to 6.4, Maximum Distance = 25 km L
when closest approach distance used for San Fernando Records)
Figure 32 Weston Geophysical
i G
./,
o**
O +y G %
0, q
y I
p CLINTON SSRS 84th PERCENTILE
/
RUN 3IE x
5.8 SO L 9
~
[
84th PERCENTILE I
FOUNDATION SPECTRA CLINTON FREE FIELD 5% DAMPlNG I
//
/
/
j Ij"5
/r \\ f' N/
~
.f I
I "i/
\\
N/
\\
I i
/
PERIOD (SEC)
COMPARIS0N OF CLIrlT0fl SSRS WITH LLL/ TERA 5.8 S0ll AND CLIrlTON FREE FIELD FOUNDATION SPECTRA I
I Figure 33 I
Weston Geophysical
100C..
i, j i
,,ii,,,
~
O o
O N
s
/
'o
[9
/
sc
/
/_
N
'S
/
50 KM s
100 KM7// '
d&?/'U[y',,
o9 0 KM7-x o 100._
x'sA
'500 KN' /
s v-
~
' kN I
'x I
'Q's,/
h i77km N
fs
- g
[
,),h('{M
'qjawm x
U
//,/
i O
/
J
/
/
4 IA '<
go
,s' 0 [/ -ll/
\\
W
/
O/
RESPONSE SPECTR,
s s
s
,, p,xp, ',/ /
CENTRAL UNITED STATES :
s sss I'
s[
~
- W/
I
_ /
NO
/
\\
9 i is a i n l e1l i
t it in t
a t t ieei g
I 0.1 1
10 PERIOD (SEC)
Fig. 6 UnJ.nsped Hori: ental-Component Response Spectra for a Centrat int t ed St ates Farthquake of mb = 7.2 at various Epicent ral Distances.
As the lons-pe riod end of the agvec t rum is at tenuatcJ 1ess than t he short-period end, stront low-f requency ground shakis g can be expected at large cricent sat distances.
I af ter fluttii (1981b)
I 1
Figure 34 Weston Geophysical
./,
0
'O +7 G %
O, q.
4 i
x 10' i
/
/' 47 N/
i e i
+
I G
j i Ei/
/ /
N/
N
~
/
?
i i
10't v
N N
Y 10-2 lO-'
lO 10' PERIOD (SEC)
SPECTRA FOR mb = 7.2 at 177 km AFTER NUTTLI (1981 b) i Figure 35 Weston Geophysical
I y '904 0
9*
'D 4
,4 p-4 9
I
.,ii.i i
i i iiii e
i a iiiii 13.62 ilitgec
//
l l
l sp 9*
s a
e I
I I
Ei"
}
iI"i/
Nf6
'N/
\\i
\\
l
~
~
'I
/'N i
I
}/
\\/
'N/
N i
I PERIOD (SEC)
SPECTRA FOR mb = 7.2 AT 177 km AFTER NUTTLI &
I HERRMANN (1981)
I Figure 36 Weston Geophysical
I I
g%
e O
OY
- O
?
/f f
%h n
s5 g
,,i...
v....
/
\\
10' j#
- 7. 50 in/sec
\\~
I
/
e 7
,.,.y y
o\\o
?
I I!
/\\
s i, /
' y N/
'N ii
/N
/
I I
I ['
\\[
\\
N 10' I
i i
iia i
i i.
i i'
'i PERIOD (SEC)
SPECTRA FOR mb = 7.2 AT 177 KM AFTER TERA (1980)
I Figure 37 Weston Geophysical
y '96%
0,3
./,
0
'O 4'y 4
q.
,K
'Xi i
i i iii i
10'
^
V 7.09 in/sec 9
g\\*$
?3 A
'b,
\\
g b
IsII"E/
\\[/
'N/
'N
!I IOL i
1/'
N/
'N/
'N y
i 10-2 10
IO 10' PERIOD (SEC)
!E PROBABALISTIC (1,000 YEAR) SPECTRA - PEAK HORIZONTAL l 3 COMPONENT AFTER NUTTLI & HERRbWitt (1981)
Figure 38 Weston Geophysical l
+fo 0,
p.
9*
9
,iiiii i
i
, ii i
i i
iie ii
[
13.62 ihgec
/
i i/
/
r i
!==
N<,/p i
S
~
~
( 5 % DAMPING I!
x/)
i i,,!
'N/
'N x
Y 10-'
\\
I PERIOD (SEC) i C0tPARISON OF CLINTON FREE FIELD FOUNDATION SPECTRA (5% DAFPING) AND SPECTRA FOR mb = 7.2 at 177 km AFTER NUTTLI & HERRMANN (1981)
Figure 39
,i Weston Geophysical
I N/
s i
i
.iiis i
i
.. iii i
i i e iii I
W "iE/
/
/
ie g
DESIGN BASIS o\\o TIME HISTORY D o\\
4
~
~
( 17g,5% DAMP G)
I!
/
I f!
4' /
N N
5 10
,l
\\
\\
\\i l
PERIOD (SEC) iI COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS TIME HISTORY-(.179 5% DAMPING) AND SPECTRA FOR mb = 7.2 at 177 km AFTER NUTTLI (1981b)
Figure 40 Weston Geophysical
t ATTACHMENT A i
l i
I l
I Weston Geophysical
I' OTTO W. NUTTLt PROFESSOR OF GEOPHYSICS Fr?)
P.O. BOX B099. LACLEDE S T A.
s ST. LOUIS. MISSOUH1 63156
< m > AA//3/// 658-3124 February 9, 1982 I
Mr. Edward Levine Weston Geophysical Corp.
P.O. Box 550 Weston, MA 01581
Dear Mr. Levine:
I am writing this letter to explain the diff erences which appear in response spectra for a central United States earthquake of mb = 7.2 or Ms = 8.5 at an epicentral distance of 200 km.
he spectra were given by me in: 1) a talk " Ground Motion Aspects of Earthquakes of the Midwest" at the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Dynamics in St. Louis on April 26, 1981, 2) an article " Similarities and Diff erences betwecn Western and Eastern United States Earthquakes, and their Consequences for Earthquake Engineering" (Fig. 5) in Vol.1 of Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering - Eastern United States, edited by James E. Beavero, Ann Arbor Science Press,1981, and 3) preprint 81-519 I
entitled " Consequences of Earthquakes in the Mississippi Valley", October 1981 meeting of American Society of Civil Engineers.
Le spectra in the first two papers are larger than the spectrum in the third paper by a factor of 1.59 (log-1 0.2).
%e spectrum in the third paper, which represents my cost recent work, is the one that should be used. Let me explain the reason for the diff erence.
Le first two papers were based upon attenuation curves presented in Report 16 of the Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, State-of-I the-Art Scries for Assessing Earthquake IIazard in the United States, published in 1979.
nese curves were obtained from theoretical attenuation relations and sceling laws, which are appropriate, but anchored to the observational strong-I motion data of the 1971 San Fernando carthquake of ed = 6.2.
In the summer of 1981, when the third paper was being written, tuo inucpendent lines c.f evidence indicated that the eb = 6.2 value was anocalous for southern California carth-quakes of ML = 6.4 and M3 = 6.6 (the eb should have been 6.0).
He one was a I
study of the relation of Mt to mb Lg, done by Dr. Robert Herreann and myself, which will appear in the April 1982 issue of the BSSA.
The second was the use of central United States strong-motion data to construct independent attenuation curves, which are given in the third paper (1981 ASCE preprint 81-519). Both lines of c.1dence indicated that the mb value used to anchor the attenuation curves in Report 16 of the Waterways Experiment Station was 0.2 units too large.
1 l
pg. 2 Mr. Levine
)
February 9, 1982 When this was discovered I sent an errata sheet to Dr. Ellis Krinitzsky of the Waterways Experiment Station, which was distributed by WES on January 11, 1982 (copy enclosed).
To summarize and repeat, the spectrum given in preprint 81-519 of the October 1981 ASCE meeting is the proper one to use for the central United States.
I regret the problems caused by publication of the other two spectra, but such things unfortunately happen in research when observational data are used.
I believe we are making progress in developing realistic attenuation curves and spectra for the central United States.
Sincerely yours, (Al. N Otto W. Nutt11 enclosure I
I ce rG~aT.... W 2q r. F wc r cs.,ix c.
.?
R.. D..m
...' R 4 4.Q (_.,'7 T'"~~p,J.
t....
...U j C. S 3
- ~
L
__ ___... I <_
I f
i_
...N, _^
I 2:1 (L y
' j I
I i
e y-,--
1 t
l I
I f
f 8
lf, gh7 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 4
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS I
P. O. DOX 631 I
VICKSUURG. MISSISSIPPI 39100 e
1 m a m,a m a vo.
WESEV 11 January 1982 1
Errata Sheet l
No. 1 STATE-OF-Tile-ART FOR ASSESSING, EARTilQUAKE IIAZARDS IN Tile UNITED STATES _
Report 16 lg Tile RELATION OF SUSTAINED MAXIMUM CROUND g
ACCELERATION AND VELOCITY TO EARTilQUAKE l
INTENSITY AND MAGNITUDE 1
Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1 November 1979 1
1.
Pages 57 and 59, Figures 29 and 31: Within the figures, change ab' L
and the figure caption to Arithmetic average of the peaks of the two horizontal components of acceleration versus distance from fault rupture 2.
Pages 58 and 60, Figures 30 and 32:
Relabel the curves in these figures as M = 5.2, 5.7, 6.2, 6.7, and 7.2.
lI 3.
Page 66, Figure 37:
Change the figure caption to Arithmetic average of the peaks of the two horizontal component:; of acceleration versus distance f rom fault rupture 4.
Page 67, Figure 38: Relabel the curves in this figure as m = 4.2, 4.7, 5.2, 5.7, 6.2, 6.7, and 7.2.
b (Continued) i I
l lll i
J i
Errata Sheet No. 1 (Continued) for l
Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, Report 16, l
November 19/9 s
5.
Page S4, Table 4:
Replace this table as given below.
4 1
j Table 4 l
Relations Between Magnitudes for Western
(
United States Earthquakes l
f "b'
"L M
"S body-wave local Richter surface-wave l
5.0 5.4 5.4 4.6 i
5.5 5.9 5.9 6.1 l
6.0 6.4 7.4 7.4 6.4 6.8 8.2 8.2 j
6.8 7.2 8.7 8.7 P
1 i
1 t
5 i
4 I
i i
l
!II
--.